JOURNAL NO. 90

Tuesday, September 23, 1986

 

Tuesday, September 23, 1986

CALL TO ORDER

At 10:02 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. Efrain B. Treñas, to wit:

God Almighty, we are about to finish writing the
Constitution. We are about to end a significant milestone in the history
of our people in their quest for a Constitution truly reflective of
their ideals and aspirations. To be sure, we have exerted our utmost
efforts to hear the voices of the people. And as many as these voices
are, many are also the views and ideas expressed by them. In the same
manner, the thoughts and perspectives of the Commissioners differ from
one another. These differences are particularly perceptible in issues of
tremendous impact on our people. But while disagreement is inevitable,
we know very well that we are united in one supreme goal, and this goal,
to express it quite simply, is to promote and protect the common good.

We submit to Your divine will. We surrender to Your
divine wisdom. Therefore, as we are about to reach our final
destination, we humbly pray that You give us the wisdom and the vision
to see what else we need to include in the new Constitution, to omit
whatever is unnecessary and should not be included therein. So that
after we shall have left these august halls — these halls which hear our
speeches and debates, these halls which feel our dreams and hopes — we
will be reassured and restrengthened in the knowledge that we have given
to our people the best Constitution possible.

Finally, I wish to thank You for returning to me health and vigor so that I may continue the task You have assigned to me.

This we pray through Your Son, Jesus Christ.

Amen.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GUESTS

At this juncture, the Chair acknowledged the
presence inside the Session Hall of students from St. Paul’s College and
the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila.

ROLL CALL

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

 

 

A.M.

 

 

Messrs. Regalado and Rosales were sick.

Mr. Laurel was absent.

READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
reading of the Journal of the previous session was dispensed with and
the said Journal was approved by the Body subject to the following
correction, at the instance of Mr. Azcuna:

On page 1393, before the paragraph submitting Section 11 to a vote, insert the text thereof, to wit:

THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN
NATION-BUILDING AND SHALL ENSURE THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW
OF WOMEN AND MEN.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. ROMULO INCIDENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

Mr. Romulo manifested that Messrs. Azcuna and Padilla, President, Muñoz Palma and Ms. Aquino coauthored Section 11.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

On motion of Mr. Rama, 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. 956 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Maria Camilla R. Pascual of 13 Gen. R.
Simon, Caloocan City, urging the Constitutional Commission to pick up
the best of what has been written since the 1935 Constitution, to use
the past as a reference not as something to be cursed or discarded, to
use the future as the objective and goal, and then to move fast towards
that goal

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 957 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Datu Melanio B. Limpuson, submitting
Resolution No. 04, series of 1986, adopted in a joint meeting of the
1411 CHDF Battalion Officers and Staff and the Subanon tribal and
religious leaders, earnestly requesting the division of Zamboanga into
three provinces

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Communication No. 958 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Rolando M. Borlaza of Magcaseville
Elementary School, Santo Cristo, San Pablo City, submitting, for
consideration of the Constitutional Commission, an article, entitled:
“The Meaningful Symbol of Our Flag”

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Communication No. 959 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Ms. Marie Kletke of the Fil-Am
Los Angeles Community, 904 N. Avalon Blvd., Wilmington, CA 90744,
expressing hope that the draft Constitution will include provisions
fostering the development of self-sufficient economic regions vested
with economic and political autonomy

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Communication No. 960 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from the Catholic Educational
Association of the Philippines (CEAP) signed by its president, Mr.
Rolando Dizon, expressing the view that the issue of the U.S. bases
should not be included in the Constitution but should be left to the
government to negotiate so as to protect the highest national interest.

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

Communications Nos. 961, 962, 963 and 964 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

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

1) Dr. Editha Lanete and fifty-one (51) physicians of U.P.-P.G.H., Manila

2) Mr. Ronald Masangkay and ninety-five (95) other students from De La Salle University

3) Ms. Flora Nisce Kagaoan

Minister of Health

Regional Health Office No. 4

IPHO, Morong District Hospital

Morong, Rizal

4) Ms. Marie R. Banaag, 42 Bolivia St.,

Better Living Subdivision, Bicutan, Parañaque,

M.M. and five hundred sixty-five

other concerned citizens

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

Communications Nos. 965, 966, 967 and 968 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communications seeking to include in the
Constitution the following: a) the promotion of Philippine sovereignty
over our natural resources, b) an anti-U.S. or any foreign intervention
on Philippine affairs, c) a no-U.S. military bases agreement, and d) an
anti-nuclear power plant, from:

1) Glenn M. Bayon

Infant Jesus Academy

Silang, Cavite

2) Christmas Panganiban

Infant Jesus Academy

Silang, Cavite

3) William V. Panganiban

Infant Jesus Academy

Silang, Cavite

4) Oliver B. Castro

Infant Jesus Academy

Silang, Cavite

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

COMMITTEE REPORT

Committee Report No. 40, on Petition No. 3, prepared by the Steering Committee, entitled:

AN URGENT PETITION TO REOPEN SECTIONS 5 AND 11 OF THE ARTICLE ON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER,

recommending that the same be given due course by the Commission.

Sponsors, Hon. Bengzon, Jr. and Davide, Jr.

TO THE CALENDAR OF UNASSIGNED BUSINESS

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 36 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 537 ON THE ARTICLE ON DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body resumed consideration, on Second Reading, of Proposed Resolution
No. 537 (Committee Report No. 36) on the Article on the Declaration of
Principles, entitled:

Resolution to incorporate in the Constitution an Article on the Declaration of Principles.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized the Chairman and
Members of the Committee on Preamble, National Territory and Declaration
of Principles.

The Chair stated that the parliamentary status would be the continuation of the period of amendments.

(At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Cirilo A. Rigos)

PROPOSED SECTION 18

Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the Committee has
decided to combine Sections 18 and 19 of the revised draft to be
denominated as Section 18 with the inclusion therein of the flagship
provision of the approved Article on Education, Science and Technology,
Culture and Sports so that the whole Section 18 would read:

THE STATE SHALL GIVE PRIORITY TO EDUCATION, SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS TO FOSTER PATRIOTISM AND
NATIONALISM, ACCELERATE SOCIAL PROGRESS AND PROMOTE TOTAL HUMAN
LIBERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Tingson stated that the Committee is aware of
the fact that the Articles on the Declaration of Principles should not
be encumbered with unnecessary details, for which reason, it decided to
combine Sections 18 and 19 of the revised draft into one provision.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla proposed that instead of “total human liberation and development”, it should simply be HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.

Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the proposed Section
18 contains the exact wording of the already approved Article on
Education. She requested that the said Section be accepted as worded.

Mr. Tingson added that the Committee was just
proposing the transposition of Section 1 of the Article on Education to
this portion of the Article on the Declaration of Principles. He then
sought some comments from Mr. Villacorta, Chairman of the Committee on
Human Resources.

REMARKS OF MR. VILLACORTA

Mr. Villacorta confirmed that the Committee on Human
Resources is agreeable to the proposal to transpose Section 1 of the
Article on Education to Section 18 of the Article on the Declaration of
Principles.

REQUEST FOR A VOTE

Mr. Tingson asked that the Committee’s proposal be
submitted to a vote with the understanding that said provision would be
reviewed by the Committee on Style and the Sponsorship Committee.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 18

Submitted to a vote and with 20 Members voting in favor and 2 against, the Body approved Section 18.

PROCEDURE ON AMENDMENTS BY TRANSPOSITION

Mr. Romulo recalled that during the previous
session, there were two suggested approaches on the procedure for
amendments by transposition but he could not recall which one was
adopted. Upon his request, Mr. Azcuna, who together with Mr. Maambong
made the suggestion, explained that the procedure merely called for the
reiteration of the flagship provision in another Article without
transferring it, however, the Sponsorship Committee could just delete
later the duplication and retain the one in the Article on Declaration
of Principles.

Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Romulo, there being no
objection, the Body adopted for Section 18 the procedure stated by Mr.
Azcuna.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 21

Mr. Tingson read the new formulation of Section 21, to wit:

THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO COMMUNICATE AND TO HAVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION SHALL ENJOY THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE.

He informed, however, that Section 21 was further
revised by incorporating the amendments of Mr. Davide and others. Upon
his request, Mrs. Rosario Braid read the Section,-as revised, to wit:

THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO COMMUNICATE AND TO HAVE
ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAT WILL ENHANCE PARTICIPATION SHALL ENJOY THE
PROTECTION OF THE STATE. THE COMMUNICATION MEDIA HAVE A SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROMOTE AND SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE
PEOPLE.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro observed that the provision just read
is already contained in Section 6 of the Article on the Bill of Rights
which reads:

“The right of the people to information on matters
of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records and to
documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or
decisions, as well as government research data used as basis for policy
development shall be afforded the citizen subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law.”

Mr. de Castro manifested his objection to the phrase
“access to information” without the qualifying phrase “subject to
limitations as provided by law”. He inquired whether the phrase “access
to information” would also refer to intelligence information gathered by
the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA).

Replying thereto, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the
Bill of Rights defines the limitations on access to information. She
explained that the provision complements the freedom to communicate with
the necessary resources; that this right could not be exercised unless
the people have adequate information; and that intelligence information
are included in the exceptions.

On whether information from the private sector could
be made available to everybody, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the
provisions on intellectual rights would protect technical information
although certain information should be given to all.

As to whether there would still be need for Section
21 in the light of Section 6 of the Article on ,the Bill of Rights which
substantially and categorically embodied the same provision, Mrs.
Rosario Braid stated that there are certain information which should be
made available to the people, among them business and agricultural
information.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro moved for the deletion of Section 21
on the grounds that 1) it is substantially the same as Section 6 of the
Article on the Declaration of Principles; 2) the admission that access
to information does not include intelligence information; and 3) the
provision does not contain the qualification “subject to conditions
provided by law”

Mrs. Rosario Braid stressed that access to
information has been one of the demands of many developing countries
especially when information resources are concentrated in the center
while the countryside is deprived of information. On Mr. de Castro’s
inquiry as to what kind of information should be disseminated, Mrs.
Rosario Braid stated that they could be information for the farmer, for
the entrepreneur, and for labor and industry.

Mr. de Castro asked for specificity. He observed
that “access to information” could mean the whole gamut of information
involving secret matters, for which Section 6 of the Bill of Rights
contains the phrase “subject to the provisions of law”.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla stated that “access to information”
should not mean open information on confidential matters in the National
Intelligence Coordinating Authority and those affecting national
security. He also stated that the Revised Penal Code penalizes discovery
of secrets through seizure of correspondence, revelation of secrets
with abuse of office, and revelation of industrial secrets (Article
290-292). He pointed out that the Bill of Rights already covers matters
of public concern but not private information resulting from research
covered by patents or copyrights.

REMARKS OF MS. TAN

Ms. Tan agreed with Mr. de Castro that Section 21
should be deleted because it is already provided in the Bill of Rights,
although the last sentence, which provides that the communication media
have a social responsibility to promote and safeguard the rights and
freedoms of the people, would be significant because it involves a moral
responsibility of the State.

Reacting thereto, Mr. de Castro added that
communication media are already so well-defined that nothing more should
be provided in the General Provisions, in reply to which, Mrs. Rosario
Braid pointed out that the social responsibility of the State to
communication media as provided for in the Article on the Declaration of
Principles is so general that it has to be specified in the General
Provisions.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MONSOD

At this juncture, Mr. Monsod read the proposed
Section on the role of communication and information in the General
Provisions, which provides that the State recognizes the vital role of
communication and information in the economic, cultural, societal and
political development of the nation, and in promoting peace and
international understanding. He affirmed that Section 21 of the Article
on Declaration of Principles should be deleted because the same is
contained not only in the General Provisions but also in the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MRS. QUESADA

Thereupon, Mrs. Quesada proposed to substitute
Section 21, which Mr. de Castro proposed to delete, with the provisions
found in the General Provisions.

Mrs. Rosario Braid read the pertinent provision
found in the General Provisions, as follows: “The State recognizes the
vital role of communication and information in national development. It
shall promote a comprehensive communication policy.”

She pointed out that there is no mention therein of
social responsibility, the promotion and safeguarding of the rights and
freedoms of the people as provided in the Article on Declaration of
Principles.

Mr. de Castro suggested inclusion of the phrase “social responsibility” in the General Provisions.

POINT OF ORDER OF MR. BENGZON

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon pointed out that the
revised Committee Report read by Mrs. Rosario Braid had not yet been
filed, and that what was distributed to the Members was Committee Report
No. 31 on Proposed Resolution No. 531 which did not contain what Mrs.
Rosario Braid read.

In reply, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that she was referring to the Committee Report, as amended, dated September 1, 1986.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 10:39 a. m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:43 a.m., the session was resumed.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Monsod proposed to amend Section 21, to read:

THE STATE HAS THE DUTY AND MEDIA THE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPECT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ACCURATE AND
TRUTHFUL INFORMATION.

He explained that his proposed amendment would
provide for social responsibility of the media which was not provided in
the Articles on National Economy and Patrimony; and the General
Provisions.

DELETION OF SECTION 21

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro moved that the Body first
vote on his proposal to delete Section 21 before considering Mr.
Monsod’s proposed amendment, to which the latter agreed.

Submitted to a vote, and with 17 Members voting in favor, and 10 against, the deletion of Section 21 was approved by the Body.

RESTATEMENT OF MR MONSOD’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Mr. Monsod restated his substitute amendment on
Section 21, which reads: THE STATE HAS THE DUTY AND MEDIA THE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPECT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ACCURATE AND
TRUTHFUL INFORMATION.

In reply to Mr. Bernas’ query on how the State could
implement its duty to protect the right of the people to accurate and
truthful information, Mr. Monsod explained that the government should
never again indulge in propaganda and management of news like what
happened in the Marcos regime.

On Mr. Bernas’ observation that such respect for the
right of the people to information could only be implemented by some
form of curtailment of the freedom of the press and the freedom of
speech, Mr. Monsod pointed out that, on the contrary, the government
should not manipulate the media and the information that people should
get.

On Mr. Bernas’ contention that the government has
also the right to project its own ideas, Mr. Monsod stated that what his
proposed amendment intends is for the government to refrain from
deliberately manipulating the news and to respect the right of the
people to accurate and truthful information.

He further explained that it is not actually muzzling the government so that it could not project the information it wants.

Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that social responsibility
actually implies that the government should take the necessary steps to
promote the welfare of mediamen through professional development
programs and incentives that could improve the capability and
credibility of media.

She suggested that the word “adequate” be added to
“accurate and truthful information”, so that the people would not be
deprived of adequate information.

In reply, Mr. Monsod pointed out that “adequate” is already included in the words “accurate” and “truthful”.

On Mr. Bernas’ question, Mr. Monsod underscored that his proposed amendment would not open the door to press censorship.

MRS. QUESADA’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mrs. Quesada proposed to delete the words “The State
has the right and”, so that the provision would read “Communication
media has the social responsibility to respect the right of the people
to truthful and accurate information.”

REMARKS OF MR. ROMULO

On the original formulation of Mr. Monsod’s proposed
amendment, Mr. Romulo opined that a duty or obligation to follow a
certain norm would not only be some kind of censorship but an imposition
of pressure on media to follow such norm no matter how noble and
desirable it may be.

REMARKS OF MR. BENGZON

Mr. Bengzon stated that even as amended by Mrs.
Quesada, Mr. Monsod’s amendment would not be necessary because the
people have the right to truthful information and media have the social
responsibility to provide such truthful information, therefore, the
provision would be a surplusage.

He then requested Mr. Monsod to withdraw his proposed amendment.

REMARKS OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

Mrs. Rosario Braid explained that media should not
only refer to urban media, such as newspapers and television, but also
to communication media in the rural areas so that the people could
participate in nation-building. She pointed out that such social
responsibility would include meeting the information needs of all
cultural groups in the country.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Monsod stated that he would be
willing to withdraw his proposed amendment if it is the understanding
that Section 6 of the Bill of Rights already covers media’s social
responsibility to respect the right of the people to accurate and
truthful information.

REMARKS OF MR. RAMA

Furthermore, Mr. Rama underscored that the freedom
of the press has been considered by constitutionalists to be the
centerpiece of the Bill of Rights because without it there can be no
democracy and progress. He opined that any qualification or modification
on such freedom would abridge its meaning and might be abused to the
prejudice of truth or national interest.

He stated that it would be dangerous to provide the
conditions for such freedom of the press, and that it should be as
simple as the provision in the Constitution of the United States, which
provides that “No law abridging the freedom of the press shall be
passed.”

On Mr. Monsod’s query on whether Section 6 of the
Bill of Rights contemplates the concept of social responsibility, Mrs.
Rosario Braid stated that it does not include the people’s right to
communicate but only provides for equal access to communication which is
actually freedom for the few.

REMARKS OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas pointed out, however, that there are only
two kinds of unprotected speech, namely, libel and obscenity, and
everything, including untruthful information, is protected by the
freedom of the press.

Mr. Bernas explained that the reason is precisely to
allow a clash of ideas so that truth will come out. He stated that for
any statement of untruth, the remedy is not prohibition but exposure or,
if there is any error, an unlimited debate. He noted that the proposed
amendment dangerously trenches on the freedom of debate. He stated that
it is not for the Body to tell the press to exercise social
responsibility because it is not in a position to say what social
responsibility is. He stressed that the very essence of democracy is
that the people are able to express themselves on matters that are
debatable and it is not for the Constitution to limit this liberty.

At this juncture, in reply to the Chair’s query on
whether there was still a pending motion to delete, Mr. Monsod replied
that there was nothing to delete since his proposal was not approved.

For the record, Mrs. Quesada stated that the first
sentence of Mrs. Rosario Braid’s original proposal would probably have a
bearing on the non-formal kind of communication through which people
would have access to knowledge and information that would enhance their
social and political participation.

In reply to Mr. Sarmiento’s query whether the
concern for people in rural areas to have access to communication is
already covered by the section referring to “comprehensive rural
development” and the section referring to “the obligation of the State
to promote a just and dynamic social order” which the Body approved
during the previous session, Mrs. Rosario Braid replied that what the
Committee wants to accentuate is the importance of adequate and accurate
communication as the nerve of government to mobilize and integrate the
community into one whole nation. She stated that the provision is a
mandate to the State and to every Filipino to help build a socially
responsible environment that is vigilant of the role of media and its
impact on society. She added this would mean the strengthening of
education, research and other support areas of communication.

Mr. Monsod stated that when he proposed his
amendment, he had in mind a very limited and modest objective but should
the Committee adopt Mrs. Rosario Braid’s interpretation, he would
rather withdraw his proposal.

Mrs. Rosario Braid then asked for a vote but Mr.
Rama stated that there was nothing to vote on because the proposed
amendment was withdrawn and the whole section was deleted.

Mr. Davide then inquired whether Mrs. Rosario Braid
had a substitute amendment, to which she replied in the affirmative. Mr.
Davide then pointed out that it would still be proper for the Body to
consider a substitute amendment because under Section 50 of the Rules,
an amendment to delete would not preclude another amendment to insert.

Thereupon, Mrs. Rosario Braid proposed her substitute amendment to Section 21, to wit:

SECTION 21. THE COMMUNICATION MEDIA HAVE A SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROMOTE AND SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE
PEOPLE.

Mr. de Castro pointed out that the proposal is exactly the same as that which he proposed to be deleted and which the Body did.

Mr. Bernas, likewise, stated that the proposal
precisely carried the idea in what was deleted, which proposal is a very
dangerous one as far as freedom of the press is concerned because it
cannot be operationalized unless media is told how they should exercise
social responsibility.

Thereupon, Mr. Rama asked the Chair for a formal
ruling that there is no need to vote on the proposal since it had
already been deleted upon Mr. de Castro’s motion.

However, Mrs. Rosario Braid requested for a suspension of session to allow the Committee to reformulate the provision.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:11 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

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

Upon resumption, Mrs. Rosario Braid presented her
reformulated proposal as follows: ALL CITIZENS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
SEEK, RECEIVE AND IMPART INFORMATION FOR EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION IN
NATION-BUILDING

Mr. Davide then proposed to add THE STATE SHALL ENHANCE THE RIGHT OF before “all”.

Mr. Bernas observed that the proposal could not be
operationalized except by some form of dictation from the State which
again trenches on the freedom of the press.

Mr. Nolledo stated that the matter could be left to
Congress, to which Mrs. Rosario Braid concurred. She added that Congress
would come up with the mandate that would strengthen the people’s right
to have access to information resources particularly in rural areas;
strengthen professional development programs for all kinds of media
communicators; encourage small media and nonformal media like
audiovisuals, provide incentives like tariffs on newsprint in favor of
community newspapers or on equipment for provincial radio stations; or
provide scholarships for rural journalists and community media workers.

Mr. Bernas observed that the proposal contains a
plethora of ideas and is therefore vague; it either says nothing or it
say everything, and as a law, it is unwise.

Mr. Nolledo agreed with Mrs. Rosario Braid’s
contention that the proposal could be implemented by Congress of which
one way is to require government offices to give periodic bulletins to
the people.

Mr. Padilla agreed with Mr. Bernas’ observation.
Additionally, he stated that the proposal is already covered by the
constitutional right of free speech and free press, which is the right
of expression without previous restraint or fear of subsequent
punishment. He pointed out that many court decisions affirm, guarantee,
and protect this constitutional right of free speech and of free press.
He stressed that there is no need for the proposed provision which may
only impair the exercise of these rights.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona, likewise, expressed reservation about
the use of the word “information” stating that it is too broad and needs
to be qualified. He noted that in spite of the Committee’s effort to
reformulate the provision with the phrase “to enhance participation”, it
would still be too broad and does not specify the information to be
included therein. On the matter of issuance of government bulletins, he
opined that there is a need for a constitutional provision even if such
bulletins do not partake of government propaganda.

REMARKS OF MR. FOZ

Mr. Foz stated that as originally formulated, the
provision should probably belong to the Bill of Rights although, with
the Davide amendment, it has become a principle which should be included
in the Declaration of Principles. He manifested surprise over the
objection to the Section which provides for the right of the people to
be informed, arguing that a well-informed citizenry could better perform
duties and obligations. He noted that there is no mention whatsoever of
prior censorship in the provision although it is very much involved
therein.

He noted that it is idealistic and beautiful to
speak of the marketplace of ideas insofar as communication and media are
concerned although media have failed in its exercise of freedom of the
press. He observed that in the Philippines, the American concept of
freedom of the press has been followed and such freedom is exercised by
publishers, editors and reporters whose actuations could only be subject
to laws on libel and obscenity but who have forgotten their social
responsibility. The latter term, he stated, has been objected to by some
Members, although the press, like other sectors, has social
responsibilities.

REMARKS OF MR. BENGZON

Mr. Bengzon stated that he shares the sentiments of
Mr. Bernas and clarified for the record that should the Section be
deleted, it would not mean that the Commission will not protect the
right of the people to be informed, that Congress cannot pass laws to
ensure this right, or prevent any government agency from issuing its
bulletin to give information to its employees. He maintained that all
these concepts are precisely enshrined in the first sentence of Section 6
of the Bill of Rights.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

Upon inquiry of Mr. de Castro whether “information”
would include intelligence information, Mr. Azcuna replied that
intelligence information would be excluded.

On whether “information” would also include police
intelligence reports or secret military plans on defense and security,
Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that Congress would come up with specific laws
defining what should be included in “information”. She pointed out that
there would be exceptions and that “information” would refer to that
which would enable the effective participation of the public.

Mr. de Castro observed that there is nothing in the
provision which states that Congress shall determine the exceptions, in
answer to which, Mrs. Rosario Braid informed that under the Bill of
Rights, intelligence information are exceptions to which the public
shall have access.

INQUIRY OF MR. DAVIDE

On Mr. Davide’s query, Mr. Azcuna affirmed that the
provision does not in any manner infringe, impede, obstruct or impair
press freedom, and that it speaks of the right of the citizens.

On whether the provision is not included in Section 6
of the Bill of Rights which refers to the right to information on
official documents, researches, acts or decisions and not to information
in general, Mr. Azcuna replied in the affirmative. He clarified that
the provision is broader inasmuch as it goes beyond “public concern”.

Mr. Azcuna affirmed, upon inquiry, that without the
provision, the meaning, import and significance of Section 6 may even be
minimized or cannot be expanded to include the very right sought to be
enhanced in the Declaration of Principles provision.

Mr. Azcuna also concurred with Mr. Davide that the
government can implement the provision by such acts as requiring more
telephone connections to the barangays, lowering tariffs on newsprints
to encourage more newspapers to compete in the news media, and giving
tax exemptions to media people.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona observed that during the period of
interpellations, mention was made that the provision does not contain
any reference to Congress, although it is implied that Congress could
intervene through the enactment of legislative measures. He reiterated
his reservation regarding government’s participation in the matter of
information dissemination inasmuch as it might infringe on the freedom
of the press and of speech enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

In response, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that
government participation shall be by way of providing tax exemptions or
lower tariffs on newsprints, installing rural telephones and providing
scholarships.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople observed that the provision consists of two
parts: (1) the right of the people to know what the government does or
intends to do; and (2) the social responsibility of the press subject to
standards of accountability like the other sectors. Mrs. Rosario Braid
affirmed that this is the intent of the provision.

Mr. Ople noted that stipulating social
responsibility for the press and media would exempt them from the
accountability of other institutions. He pointed out that Mr. Bernas’
question is very important as it asks whether Congress shall have a hand
in establishing the standards of social responsibility and
accountability of the press.

He informed that press freedom is defined in British
jurisdiction as freedom from government licensing although in Malaysia
and Singapore, the media are licensed so that one cannot publish without
a government permit. In the Philippines, he stated, anyone can publish
without registering with the government, except as a business in which
capacity a newspaper company registers only with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Bureau of Domestic Trade. He noted that
in the past regime, everyone with printing facilities was required by
the Media Advisory Council to register with the Office of Media Affairs.

He then inquired whether the provision would
authorize Congress to prescribe registration without which social
responsibility on the part of media may not be imposed.

In reply, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that, although,
the Committee struck out “social responsibility”, the fact that the
State shall enhance the rights of citizens to receive information also
places the onus of responsibility on the State to provide guidelines
which shall promote a more socially responsible media.

As to whether there would be legal guidelines for
the press and media, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that there shall be more
“positive sanctions”, not in terms of censorship but in encouraging the
improvement of professional development of all types of communicators.

On whether journalists would be held accountable
professionally by the Professional Regulation Commission, Mrs. Rosario
Braid replied that, hopefully, Congress would lead in professionalizing
media communicators.

Mr. Ople disagreed with the second part of the
provision which he opined would restrain freedom of the press, although,
he supported the first part which establishes the people’s right to
know.

VOTING ON SECTION 21

Upon the direction of the Chair, Mrs. Rosario .Braid read Section 21, as amended by Mr. Davide, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL ENHANCE THE RIGHT OF ALL CITIZENS TO
SEEK, RECEIVE AND IMPART INFORMATION FOR EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION IN
NATION-BUILDING.

Submitted to a vote, and with 15 Members voting in favor, 17 against and 1 abstention, the amendment was lost.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE OF MR. FOZ

With permission of the Chair, Mr. Foz who voted in
favor of Section 21 opposed the proposal that journalists submit
themselves to a Regulatory Board for examination and monitoring to
determine their professional qualifications.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 19

Mr. Nolledo informed that Section 19, formerly Section 22, had been reformulated by the Committee, to read:

THE STATE SHALL GUARANTEE AND PROMOTE THE AUTONOMY
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS TO ENSURE THEIR FULLEST DEVELOPMENT AS
SELF-RELIANT COMMUNITIES.

He stated that the Section is a substantial
reproduction of Section 10, Article II of the 1973 Constitution and
serves as an introductory or curtain provision to the local government
provisions in the new Constitution. He pointed out that there are two
basic guidelines, namely, 1) promotion of local autonomy; and 2)
promotion of self-reliance in community development.

INQUIRY OF MR. ALONTO

Mr. Alonto inquired why the phrase “autonomous
regions” in the original draft had been deleted in the reformulation, in
reply to which, Mr. Nolledo explained that the phrase was deleted for
symmetry inasmuch as “promoting the autonomy” and “autonomous region”
already indicate “autonomy”. He stated that in making the Section
meaningful, reference to autonomy is made to encompass all local
government units regardless of whether they compose an autonomous region
or not.

As to whether the “autonomous region” created by the
Constitution is only one form of local government unit, Mr. Nolledo
explained that an autonomous region consists of different local
government units and the moment the autonomous region is established,
the need for autonomy is deemed realized.

On whether the State could guarantee the promotion
of the autonomous region in order to ensure its fullest development as
self-reliant communities, Mr. Nolledo reiterated that the autonomous
region consists of local government units.

Mr. Nolledo then suggested the reinstatement of the
term “autonomous region”, to which Mr. Alonto agreed to avoid any doubt
on the section. Mr. Nolledo accepted the amendment, although Mr. Tingson
opined that it was just an answer to a question and not an amendment.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide stated that he would not object to
restoring “autonomous region” inasmuch as the Article on Local
Governments and Autonomous Regions already considers a local government
unit as an autonomous region.

Thereupon, he proposed an amendment to read “THE
STATE SHALL GUARANTEE THE AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS” observing
that “promote” and “to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
communities” are already embodied in the Article on Local Government.

The Committee accepted the amendment.

INQUIRY OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod stated that Section 2 of the Article on
Local Government states, as per Mr. Padilla’s amendment, that the
territorial and political sub-divisions shall enjoy local autonomy and
queried whether Section 19 manifests the same idea.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Nolledo affirmed that the idea
is the same, although not exactly as worded in Section 19 of the
Declaration of Principles. He stressed that local government units play a
vital role in national development and deleting the provision would do
violence to this principle.

Mr. Monsod manifested his intention to seek the
deletion of Section 19 which is covered by Section 2 of the Article on
Local Governments.

REMARKS OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide, proponent of Section 19, clarified that
he reworded the Section to avoid rewording Section 2 of the Article on
Local Governments. He stated that the word “promote” was omitted and
that “guarantee” would be a matter of principle. He reasoned that the
specific provision in the Article would carry out the intent of the
Declaration of Principles guaranteeing autonomy to local government
units.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 12:00 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 12:03 p.m., the session was resumed.

MODIFIED AMENDMENT

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Nolledo read the reformulation of Section 19, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL ENSURE THE AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

Mr. Nolledo emphasized that the term “local
governments” shall include the autonomous regions. Mr. Monsod, by way of
reaction, stated that he wanted to be sure that the Philippines is not
going into federalism, to which Mr. Nolledo agreed.

Submitted to a vote, and with 23 Members voting in favor and none against, Section 19 was approved by the Body.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 20

Thereafter, the Body proceeded to consider Section 23, renumbered as Section 20, on political dynasties.

REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo stated that the provision would widen
political opportunities by doing away with political monopoly and by
providing equal conditions under which the candidates run for public
office.

He observed that Filipinos seem to believe that
public office is inherited in view of the prevailing practice in many
parts of the country. He pointed out that the term “prohibit” does not
actually mean prohibition but only regulation and that the prohibition
against political dynasty is designed to avoid circumvention of the
provision limiting the reelection of public officers and to give a
chance to others to run for public office.

Hypothetically, Mr. Nolledo stated that a governor,
after two reelections, may ask a close relative to run for election to
the same position. He stated that as the incumbent, he must have built
fortunes and private armies to ensure his perpetuation in office through
a close relative upon whom he may exercise moral as well as effective
influence, thereby negating the laudable purpose of prohibiting
reelection. In this case, he stressed that the built-in advantage
enjoyed by the governor would not widen political participation in an
election.

REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD

Reacting thereto, Mr. Monsod stated that Mr.
Nolledo’s remarks sounded like a replay of the debate during the
discussion of the Article on Local Governments relating to the same
concept at which time the Body voted down a similar proposal on
prohibition of political dynasties.

He noted that the assumption seems to be that the
Members of the Commission are preempting the people’s right and
underestimating their capacity to choose officials through a
pre-screening mechanism which after all makes a public office not
accessible to all because of the prohibition for certain people from
running for public office. He added that with the new COMELEC to do the
job of cleaning up the election process, the people should be given full
choice which is the essence of suffrage.

In reply to Mr. Nolledo’s query whether allowing the
incumbent governor who has had two reelections to perpetuate his family
in office would not amount to a denial of equal conditions to all
candidates for the same public office, Mr. Monsod stated that it would
not and suggested that the law should allow everybody who wants to run
for public office. He stated that the people should be trusted to make
the right choice.

MOTION OF MR. MONSOD

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod moved to delete Section 20 on
the grounds 1) that it had already been argued and debated on fully in
the Article on Local Governments and on which the Body had already made a
decision, and 2) the law should not curtail the right of the people to a
free choice on who their political leader should be.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Nolledo stated that the issue
at that time was whether to authorize Congress to include in the Local
Government Code a provision against political dynasty, whereas the
current issue is whether to put such a provision as a declaration of
principle. He also opined that there was no quorum at that time and,
therefore, he would like to give another opportunity to other Members of
the Commission to consider the proposal.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query, Mr. Nolledo agreed
that the so-called dynasties are the effects rather than the causes of
an imperfect social and economic system, especially in the countryside
where only few families rotate power among themselves, the reason being
that they are the only ones who have the means to sustain political
campaigns.

On the suggestion that, such being the case, the
Commission should concentrate on the causes, rather than on the effects,
for which reason it had drafted an Article on Social Justice with a
very comprehensive land reform policy which, if properly implemented in
the future, would recast society in the countryside so that opportunity
to run for election would be better distributed, Mr. Nolledo stated that
the recasting of the society would take a long time and, if the
situation were allowed to continue, the people would be voting for
elitist candidates who will deprive the poor, who are more competent and
intelligent, of participation in the democratic process.

Mr. Ople contended that, notwithstanding the
constraints of lopsided social and political systems, there are in fact
many people who, although disadvantaged from birth by accident of being
born to the poorest families, wrested public offices in clean and free
elections from so-called dynasties. He stated that there are no more
dynasties in his province, although there are other provinces where one
finds the word “dynasty” misapplied to distinguished families. He
observed that Philippine society had not been immobile; in fact, people
who are disadvantaged by accident of birth have indeed risen through
their own efforts to become successful competitors of entrenched
political dynasties in their provinces and cities.

On whether the proponent would agree that the
Commission has already established numerous provisions that would
militate against the perpetuation of dynasties and that the proposed
Constitution directly attacks the causes of the problem instead of
addressing them as effects, Mr. Nolledo stated that while reelection is
prohibited, the person who is no longer qualified to be reelected would
let his son continue and perpetuate the family as one office. He said
that this is what the proposal wants to remedy.

On whether he would agree that the right of Suffrage
should not be abridged and that the right to vote and to be voted upon
actually derives from the same concept, Mr. Nolledo agreed that the law
should not infringe upon the right of suffrage, however, the State
should regulate the right of some people to run in order to equalize the
opportunities between rich and poor candidates.

INQUIRY OF MR. JAMIR

At this juncture, Mr. Jamir adverted to Mr.
Nolledo’s statement that there was no quorum during the debate on the
Article on Local Governments. He inquired whether Mr. Nolledo was
speaking from the Record or from the Journal of the Commission, to which
Mr. Nolledo replied that based on his count, at that time, only a very
few Members were present when the discussion was held.

Mr. Jamir opined that it is dangerous to talk of
lack of quorum when the records show that the question of quorum was
never raised, in reply to which, Mr. Nolledo agreed that it is a
fundamental principle that when no one raises the question of quorum,
the presumption is that a quorum exist. He stated, however, that he
conducted a physical count of the Members at the time although he did
not raise the issue to avoid controversy.

PRIVILEGED MOTION OF MR. DAVIDE

Thereupon, Mr. Davide moved to strike off the Record
all statements on the alleged lack of quorum on the ground that it had
no basis since nobody raised the question of quorum at the time. He
stated, for the record, that at the time the so-called lack of quorum
took place, it was the Chairman of the Committee on Local Governments
himself who was presiding and who would, therefore, be estopped from
questioning the matter of quorum at that time.

Mr. Nolledo stated that he would interpose no objection to the motion.

Mr. Bengzon seconded the motion.

Mr. Nolledo stated that his statement was not
intended to question the presence of a quorum at that time but only to
reinforce his stand that more Members should be given a chance to listen
to his arguments in favor of the resolution.

Thereafter, submitted to a vote and there being no objection, Mr. Davide’s motion was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona stated that he found the reasons
advanced by Mr. Nolledo regarding the need to equalize conditions and
elections valid.

In view thereof, he proposed to change the word
“prohibit” to REGULATE and to add the phrase AS PROVIDED BY LAW at the
end of the sentence.

Mr. Monsod, however, reminded the Body of his pending motion to delete Section 20.

REMARKS OF MR. SARMIENTO

In support of the provision, Mr. Sarmiento stated
that political dynasties are the Waterloo of young and promising but
poor candidates in the provinces and, therefore, the inclusion of the
provision against political dynasties would widen the opportunity of
competent, young and promising but poor candidates to occupy important
positions in government. He noted that, while it may be true that there
were government officials who had ascended to power despite the accident
of birth, they are the exceptions rather than the rule. He stated that,
generally, public officials come from powerful clans with vast economic
fortunes. He stressed that considering that the social and economic
inequalities would continue to obtain for decades, there is wisdom in
including in the Constitution the provision against political dynasties.

REMARKS OF MRS. QUESADA

In support of the provision, Mrs. Quesada stated
that the provision would translate into reality the principle behind the
participation of the sectoral representatives so that they would have a
chance, after three years of having reserved seats, to compete with the
political parties and, that the presence of political dynasties would
limit the opportunities of the sectoral representatives to compete.

INQUIRY OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

In reply to Mrs. Rosario Braid’s queries, Mr.
Nolledo affirmed that the provision would lead to the development of a
pluralistic society and would encourage the development of a new
political culture.

REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod stated that the Members of the Commission
had been extolling people power and saying that the people have a new
consciousness but do not seem to have trust that the very same people
can make the right choice. He observed that the provision on political
dynasty is based on the assumption that there would be violations of the
Electoral Code and that people in power would use their offices to have
their sons elected. He maintained that the Commission should not assume
that certain sections of the Constitution would be violated and try to
compensate it with other sections in anticipation of such violations. He
also noted that the provision would add a disqualification for those
who may aspire for public office, in effect, amending the provisions of
the Constitution which enumerate the qualifications and
disqualifications of candidates for public office.

Mr. Monsod then reiterated his motion to delete the section.

REMARKS OF MR. COLAYCO

Mr. Colayco stated that one of the worst effects of
political dynasties is that it breeds graft and corruption. He cited as
an example a town mayor in Metro Manila who had been in power for 20
years, as a result of which his children were involved in graft, in that
one took care of the discos, another received monthly pension from the
so-called motels, and still another took care of the gambling casinos
and market collections. The irony of it, he stated, was that the Chief
of Police looked the other way, because he was given a share of the
loot. Mr. Colayco, likewise, mentioned that at the beginning, the people
thought that this mayor was acting in good faith but later they found
him following the footsteps of his predecessor without being bothered by
public criticisms. He further stated that even in the Visayas, there is
an influential politician who maintains a strong private army that not
even the Armed Forces dared do something about it and whose wife and
children are all in power.

INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo inquired on the definition of “dynasty”
and to what degree of consanguinity or affinity is meant by it, in reply
to which Mr. Nolledo stated that the provision is recommendatory in
character in the sense that it would be up to Congress to determine the
relationship, although, he opined that it should be within the third
degree of consanguinity or affinity.

On whether a nephew could be faulted if he happens
to have an uncle who is a public officer, Mr. Nolledo stated that to
meet Mr. Rodrigo’s objection, he would recommend that it should be
within the second degree, but he pointed out that in deciding the
relationship, Congress would conduct public hearings before a regulatory
law may be enacted.

Mr. Rodrigo stated that he could not see from the
provision that the matter would be left to Congress, to which Mr.
Nolledo replied that Mr. Guingona precisely recommended the retention of
the phrase “as may be provided by law”.

On whether in-laws should also be included in the
prohibition, Mr. Nolledo replied in the affirmative, stating that close
family ties exist in Philippine society, to which Mr. Rodrigo argued
that those are exceptions, the general rule being that in-laws do not
get along well together.

Mr. Nolledo reiterated that it is up to Congress to determine the relationship to which the prohibition would apply.

On the assumption that Congress would decide that it
would cover up to the third degree of consanguinity, Mr. Nolledo stated
that he would not blame Congress for such a decision, considering the
close family ties that exist in Philippine society.

On whether it would not be unfair for a nephew

to be disqualified for something beyond his control,

Mr. Nolledo stressed that the provision is not prohibitory but regulatory, the purpose being to cut the

nexus after reelection. He stated that after the
built-in advantages, like warlordism and Graft and corruption, are
removed, it is possible for the nephew to run for election.

On the argument that the incumbent has the advantage
in terms of money, Mr. Rodrigo pointed out that there are many cases of
local officials who are not rich, in reply to which, Mr. Nolledo
maintained that a public official who has been in office for two terms
would likely become rich and have a private Army. He stressed that
political dynasty is a social malady. He also took exception to Mr.
Monsod’s statement that the people are against the provision by pointing
out that in practically all forums where he appeared, the people
overwhelmingly support the rule against political dynasty.

INQUIRIES OF MR. NATIVIDAD

On whether relatives running for a position
different from that of the incumbent public official are included in the
prohibition, Mr. Nolledo stated that it is precisely the reason why he
would limit it to a situation where the rule against reelection after
two reelections might be circumvented.

Mr. Natividad made the observation that a person who
runs for office in furtherance of a dynasty would surely be defeated
because the issue against him is that he is part of a dynasty. He
suggested, that the people should be allowed to decide, to which Mr.
Nolledo replied that the situation given by Mr. Natividad is an
exceptional case.

Mr. Natividad contended that because one is an
incumbent does not mean that he is politically strong, considering that
there would be more issues that could be raised against him. He
reiterated that it is the people, not the Commission, who should decide.

INQUIRY OF MRS. QUESADA

On Mrs. Quesada’s inquiry whether Congress would be
precluded from banning political dynasties should the provision be
deleted, the Chair stated that it would not.

NOMINAL VOTING ON MR. MONSOD’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT BY DELETION

Upon request of Mr. Nolledo, the Chair directed the
Secretary General to call the Roll for nominal voting. Thereafter, a
second Roll Call was made.

On Mr. Monsod’s inquiry whether Members would be
allowed to look for the other Members inside the buildings Mrs. Quesada
stated that this had been done before when Mr. Regalado was awakened
from his rest and asked to come to the Session Hall. However, Mr. Monsod
pointed out that Mr. Regalado was not allowed to cast his vote since he
came after the Body had voted.

Mr. de Castro confirmed that Mr. Regalado was not
allowed to cast a vote, to which Mrs. Quesada replied that he was
nevertheless called to the Session Hall.

Mr. Nolledo stated that that was only a technicality which should not hamper the proceedings.

Mr. de Castro appealed to the Members to state only the truth and first reflect on whether or not what they are saying is true.

Mr. Nolledo stated that the truth was that they
actually voted and it was only the place that seemed to be objectionable
which, he opined, is a highly technical objection.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor:

Alonto	Lerum	De los Reyes
Bengzon	Maambong	Rigos
Calderon	Monsod	Rodrigo
De Castro	Natividad	Sumulong
Concepcion	Ople	Treñas
Jamir	Padilla

Against:

Aquino	Garcia	Sarmiento
Azcuna	Gascon	Suarez
Bernas	Guingona	Tadeo
Rosario Braid	Nieva	Tan
Colayco	Nolledo	Tingson
Foz	Quesada	Villacorta

Abstention:

Davide

With 17 Member, voting in favor, 18 Members voting against and one abstention, the proposed amendment by deletion was lost.

RESERVATION OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod made a reservation to ask for another voting on the ground that the previous voting was improperly conducted.

OBJECTION OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento objected to Mr. Monsod’s motion for another voting, maintaining that the voting was in order.

Mr. Monsod pointed out that although the Rules allow
two Roll Calls, what happened was that there were more than two calls
Mr. Sarmiento, however, insisted that Mr. Foz and the others were inside
the Session Hall.

Mr. Monsod stated that there were three Members who
were allowed to vote after the second call, an observation which Mr. de
Castro confirmed.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE VOTING

Mr. Monsod moved for a reconsideration of the voting.

Mr. Sarmiento reserved the right to oppose the motion.

Thereafter, there being no further objection, the motion to reconsider was approved by the Body.

REMARKS OF MR. GASCON

Mr. Gascon pointed out that Mr. Monsod could not
present a motion for reconsideration because he did not vote with the
majority, to which, Mr. Monsod replied that the ground for his motion to
reconsider the voting was that there had been a violation of the Rules
in the sense that three Members were allowed to cast their votes after
the second Roll Call.

Mr. Gascon opined that the motion should not be a
motion for another voting, to which Mr. de Castro replied that it would
amount to the same thing.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session until two-thirty in the afternoon.

It was 12:48 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 2:59 p.m., the session was resumed.

OBJECTION OF MR. SARMIENTO TO MR. MONSOD’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION TO DELETE

Upon resumption of session, on Mr. Monsod’s motion
to reconsider the voting on the motion to delete Section 23, on which
the Chair ruled that it was made without any objection, Mr. Sarmiento
stated that the ruling was inaccurate because he registered an objection
to the motion before the session was suspended.

He explained that the motion for reconsideration of
the voting was out of order because the voting was done properly. He
cited the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives and Jefferson’s
Manual which provide that “Members appearing after the second call but
before the result is announced, may vote or announce a pair” and the
Rules of the Batasang Pambansa which states that no Member shall be
allowed to vote after the second call and the result of the voting had
been announced. He pointed out that three Members actually voted after
the second call but before the results were announced.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod explained that his motion was based on
the fact that the voting did not appear to be regular because there were
Members who rushed into the Session Hall and were undecided whether to
vote “yes” or “no” until another Member told them what was the voting
on. He further stated that the votes of two Members were actually not
heard on the record.

MANIFESTATION OF MS. AQUINO

Ms. Aquino stated that when the voting was taking
place, she was in the lounge taking lunch but was aware of the
proceedings in the Session Hall, and had to rush back to the Session
Hall to cast her vote. She said that she would not have voted more
intelligently when she felt starved.

Mr. Monsod explained that he was not saying that Ms.
Aquino was not aware of the proceedings but that, because of the
circumstances under which the voting was done, there was doubt on what
the vote was. He pointed out that there were Members who voted even
after the second roll call, and a third roll call had to be made for
them to cast their votes, which practice was irregular.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Considering that Mr. Monsod was asking for a
reconsideration of the voting because of uncertainties, Mr. Maambong
pointed out that the proper motion should be a motion for recapitulation
of the result of the voting as provided in Section 1, Rule 15 of the
Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, which states that “either
before the announcement of the result or after such announcement, the
Speaker may order the vote recapitulated. A motion that the vote be
recapitulated is not privileged. A member may not change his vote on
recapitulation if the result has been announced, but errors in the
record of such votes may be corrected.”

MANIFESTATION OF MR. VILLACORTA

Reacting to Mr. Monsod’s observation, Mr.
Villacorta, however, explained that there is nothing wrong if Members
temporarily leave for personal reasons and rush back to the Session Hall
later.

He stated that before leaving the Session Hall, he
had already decided to vote in favor of the Committee proposal, and that
it would be unparliamentary to impute ill motives or ignorance to one’s
vote.

Mr. Monsod clarified that he was not referring to Mr. Villacorta as the one who was undecided on his vote.

REMARKS OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide stated that he abstained from voting. He
maintained, however, that the motion for reconsideration of the voting
was in order, considering that the votes of two Members were not
registered when their names were called.

RULING OF THE CHAIR

The Chair ruled that the motion for reconsideration
was in order and that the motion of Mr. Monsod would be submitted to a
vote.

Mrs. Quesada opined that voting on the motion would not resolve the matter.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 3:13 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:27 p.m., the session was resumed.

WITHDRAWAL OF MR. MONSOD’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Sarmiento contended
that even if there would be a recapitulation of the result of the
voting, no Member may be allowed to change his vote.

At this juncture, Mr. Monsod withdrew his motion for reconsideration of the voting in order not to exacerbate the matter.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed to reword Section 23 to read:
THE STATE SHALL ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES TO PUBLIC SERVICE
AND PROHIBIT POLITICAL DYNASTIES.

He explained that he changed the word “office” to
SERVICE to mean elective and appointive positions because “political
dynasties” does not apply to elective positions alone. He pointed out
that, in fact, it applies more to appointive positions because it is
easier to get political appointments from an elected official who is a
relative than to have a political dynasty on the basis of an expensive
election.

Mr. Davide also explained that he substituted
“broaden” with ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO because what is important is equal
access to opportunities whereas “broaden” may be construed to mean that
the State is mandated to create as many offices to accommodate as many
people as possible.

Mr. Tingson accepted the amendment.

MR. RODRIGO’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Rodrigo then proposed to delete “and prohibit political dynasties”.

Mr. Abubakar manifested his support for the proposal.

Mr. Davide asked for a vote, to which Mr. Tingson agreed.

Thereupon, Mr. Nolledo registered his objection to the proposal.

Mr. Rodrigo stated that his amendment to the amendment was not accepted nor rejected but left to the decision of the Body.

Mr. Guingona pointed out that deletion of the phrase
would mean that the other Members would no longer be able to introduce
further amendments on political dynasties.

POINT OF ORDER OF MR. NOLLEDO

At this juncture, Mr. Nolledo raised a point of
order on the ground that the Body had previously decided to retain the
phrase sought to be deleted. He pointed out that the intention of the
Committee is to prohibit political dynasties and this intention must be
correlated with the provision itself, which means that Mr. Rodrigo’s
proposal was out of order.

Mr. Rodrigo maintained that his proposal is in order
because what was previously voted down was the deletion of the whole
section whereas his proposal merely seeks the deletion of a portion of
the reworded proposal.

Mr. Nolledo, however, contended that the very
substance of the provision is found in the phrase “prohibit political
dynasties” and it was in that sense that the Body voted in favor of
retaining the provision.

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong pointed out that the point
of order raised by Mr. Nolledo is covered by Section 50 of the Rules
which states that “a motion to strike out being lost shall not preclude
an amendment or motion to strike out and insert” for which reason the
Committee and the Chair allowed Mr. Davide to introduce his amendment,
otherwise the proposal of Mr. Davide would also have been out of order.
He opined that Mr. Rodrigo’s proposal to amend Mr. Davide’s amendment is
valid.

However, Mr. Nolledo maintained that Mr. Rodrigo’s
proposal is to delete the very substance of the provision which, in
effect, is a restatement of the original motion which was defeated.

Mr. Rodrigo disagreed because the original substance
of the provision, even before the amendment, is to broaden
opportunities to public office.

Mr. Nolledo stated that it was not the substance.

Mr. Rodrigo explained that the matter of political
dynasty is just a collatilla and in the reformulated amendment by
substitution the substance is to broaden opportunities to public office.
He stressed that he sought the deletion of the phrase “and prohibit
political dynasties” in order not to restrict opportunities for public
office. He added that the phrase is even incompatible and inconsistent
with the very substance of Mr. Davide’s proposed amendment.

At this juncture, Mrs. Quesada requested Mr.
Maambong to explain the parliamentary situation, to which the latter
replied that the Committee had an original formulation which was sought
to be deleted but the motion was lost which, in effect, means that the
original Committee formulation remains and is now subject to further
amendments.

On Mrs. Quesada’s query whether the basic concepts
contained in the proposed provision would be changed, Mr. Maambong
replied that the concept could be changed and the whole provision would
be open to amendment because the motion to delete was lost.

Thereupon, Mrs. Quesada stated that the Body should
respond to the people’s call during the public hearings to never allow
political dynasties in the country again.

Thereafter, Mr. Guingona queried whether the Members
would be precluded from proposing further amendments if Mr. Rodrigo’s
proposal would be approved, to which Mr. Rodrigo replied that if the
proposal would be substantially the same as the portion deleted then it
could not be considered anymore.

The Chair agreed with Mr. Rodrigo’s opinion.

Adverting to Mr. Rodrigo’s statement that the
prohibition on political dynasties is only correlative to the first
part, Mr. Nolledo stated that when he was asked by Mr. Ople whether it
is the intention of the Committee to prohibit political dynasties to
broaden opportunities to public office, be replied in the affirmative.
He stressed that he vigorously objected to Mr. Ople’s view that by
prohibiting political dynasties, the opportunities to public office
would likewise be limited.

Ms. Tan opined that the Body originally voted on the issue of prohibiting political dynasties.

Mr. de Castro opined that the issue is no longer
political dynasties but the proper application of Section 50 of the
Rules. He requested the Chair to apply the said rule.

At this juncture, Mr. Abubakar stressed that the
voice of the people is the voice of God and that the Body should not
suppress that voice but give substance and reality to what the people
want. He then manifested his concurrence with Mr. Rodrigo’s proposal.

Mr. Sarmiento stated that Mr. Monsod originally
proposed to delete the entire provision which was voted down by the Body
and then Mr. Rodrigo proposed to delete what the Body had already
approved in principle which, he opined, is out of order. He added that
Section 50 contemplates a motion to delete and insert but Mr. Rodrigo’s
motion is only for deletion. He stated that this is also a violation of
the Rules.

Mr. de Castro opined that Section 50 of the Rules is
applicable to the situation. He then manifested his concurrence with
Mr. Maambong’s explanation.

Mr. Sarmiento stated that considering the first
sentence of Section 50, which reads “A motion to strike out and insert
is indivisible”, the whole section must be read in toto and not by
parts.

At this juncture, Mr. Davide stated his rejection of
Mr. Rodrigo’s amendment to his proposed amendment. He added that his
proposal is only to change certain words in view of which Section 50
would not apply.

Mr. de Castro pointed out that Section 50 is
composed of two sentences; the first refers to deletions while the
second refers to insertions.

Mr. Rodrigo stated that the Body should vote whether or not to approve his amendment to Mr. Davide’s proposal by substitution.

Thereupon, Mr. Davide explained that his proposal is
merely to change the words “broaden” and “office” which cannot be
technically considered as an amendment by substitution.

Mr. Nolledo agreed with Mr. Suarez’ observation that
the former raised a point of order against Mr. Rodrigo’s proposal
because its substance was already voted upon by the Body and this should
bar any other motion to delete the same substance of the provision.

Mr. Nolledo also affirmed Mr. Suarez’ observation
that the substance of the provision consists of two principles: 1) the
broadening of opportunities for public office; and 2) the prohibition
against political dynasties. Mr. Nolledo added that before Mr. Monsod’s
proposal to delete the entire provision, all the discussions centered
around the issue of whether or not political dynasties would be
prohibited. He opined that for this reason, Section 50 would not be
applicable because what is sought to be deleted is the substance of the
provision which had already been approved by the Body.

At this juncture, Mr. Rodrigo stated that Mr. Davide
proposed a whole sentence which, he opined, is an amendment by
substitution in view of which he proposed to amend Mr. Davide’s
amendment. He stressed that this had not yet been voted upon by the
Body. He clarified that what was voted upon was the deletion of the
entire Section which would, in effect, delete the very important
principle that “The State shall broaden opportunities to public office”.
He stated that he would presume that those who voted against the
deletion of the entire Section had in mind this important principle. He
underscored that he is not moving for the deletion of the entire Section
but only that specific portion which has been reworded by Mr. Davide.

He also noted that Mr. Davide had not accepted his amendment and that the Body should vote on his amendment to the amendment.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla restated the parliamentary situation by
clarifying that Mr. Davide had proposed an amendment and Mr. Rodrigo had
submitted his amendment to the amendment which Mr. Davide did not
accept. He observed that the Body had to vote on Mr. Rodrigo’s amendment
to the amendment in accordance with Section 48 of the Rules, to wit:
“When a motion or proposition is under consideration, a motion to amend
and a motion to amend that amendment shall be in order”.

(At this juncture, the Presiding Officer designated Mr. Maambong as Acting Floor Leader.)

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong inquired whether the Committee accepted
the amendment of Mr. Davide to delete the word “broaden” and, in lieu
thereof, to substitute the phrase ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO; and also to
delete the word “office” and replace it with SERVICE so that the whole
section, as amended, would read: “The State shall ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO
opportunities to public SERVICE and prohibit political dynasties”. The
Committee reiterated its acceptance of the proposed amendment.

Mr. Maambong then observed that Mr. Nolledo bad
raised a point of order under Section 50 of the Rules and unless the
same is acted upon, the Body could not vote on the pending motion of Mr.
Rodrigo.

Thereupon, he requested a ruling from the Chair on the point of order of Mr. Nolledo.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 4:03 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:06 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Maambong invited attention to Mr. Nolledo’s point of order.

Thereupon, the Chair ruled that the point of order was not well taken in view of Section 50 of the Rules.

Mr. Nolledo appealed from the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Maambong informed that an appeal from the ruling put of the Chair is not debatable and can be immediately put to a vote.

At this juncture, Mr. de Castro inquired on the
basis of Mr. Nolledo’s appeal, to which Mr. Nolledo replied that it was
based on his arguments against Mr. Rodrigo’s motion.

VOTING ON THE RULING OF THE CHAIR

Submitted to a vote, and with 18 Members voting in favor and 14 against, the ruling of the Chair was upheld by the Body.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT

Thereafter, Mr. Maambong informed that the Body was
ready to vote on Mr. Rodrigo’s amendment to the amendment. As amended by
Mr. Davide, Section 20 would read “The State shall ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS
TO opportunities to public SERVICE and prohibit political dynasties” and
that Mr. Rodrigo’s amendment would seek to delete the phrase “and
prohibit political dynasties”.

REMARKS OF MR. COLAYCO

Mr. Colayco observed that the Body is departing from
the past practice that when a proponent does not accept an amendment to
his amendment, the Body votes on the main amendment first. He stated
that in the event Mr. Rodrigo’s amendment to the amendment is voted upon
favorably, it would be a reconsideration of the first vote taken on the
main section and that it would resurrect the same issue.

He noted that the first issue was that the Body
rejected the motion to delete the Section prohibiting political
dynasties and hence the Section was approved. Accepting Mr. Rodrigo’s
amendment to the amendment, he opined, would amount to entertaining a
motion for reconsideration. He stated that should the Body vote in favor
of this motion for reconsideration, it would go back to the original
situation and that another Member can then introduce an amendment to
amend the vote which struck out the Section which the Body agreed, by an
18-17 vote, to retain.

Further, he observed that Mr. Rodrigo’s motion is inconsistent with the first vote which approved the retention of the Section.

The Chair called attention to Section 48 of the
Rules which states that “When a motion or proposition is under
consideration, a motion to amend and a motion to amend that amendment
shall be in order.”

Mr. Colayco, in reply, stated that the basic issue
is whether Mr. Rodrigo’s amendment is not inconsistent with the first
position taken and voted upon affirmatively by the Body.

Mr. Rodrigo interposed to state that the matter was
already decided by the Body which was the subject of Mr. Nolledo’s point
of order, which in turn, the Body had also voted upon.

Mr. Maambong clarified that Mr. Rodrigo’s proposed
amendment is to delete the words “and prohibit political dynasties” and
voting “yes” would be for the deletion of the phrase.

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong reminded that in case
of nominal voting, 1/5 of the Members should request for nominal
voting, but he asked that the 1/5 requirement be waived.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

Upon inquiry of Mr. de Castro, the Chair affirmed
that any Member can ask for nominal voting. The Chair also affirmed that
voting “yes” would mean deleting the phrase “and prohibit political
dynasties” and “no” would mean that the phrase shall remain.

NOMINAL VOTING ON MR. RODRIGO’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Upon request of Mr. Gascon, there being no
objection, the Secretary-General called the Roll for nominal voting
after which a second Roll Call was made.

EXPLANATION OF VOTES

By Mr. Gascon:

Mr. Gascon in voting No stated that there should be a
categorical statement on the prohibition against political dynasties
and that he personally believes that Mr. Rodrigo’s motion is a motion
for reconsideration on a matter which had been decided upon.

By Mr. Suarez:

Mr. Suarez voted No stating that the Members should have integrity in their decisions.

By Mr. Tadeo:

In voting No, Mr. Tadeo observed that there should
be a prohibition against political dynasties so as to broaden
opportunities for public office. He stated that he could not perceive
rhyme or reason in the Body’s action inasmuch as the matter had already
been decided.

By Ms. Tan:

Ms. Tan voted No because the Body was being fooled.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor:

Abubakar	Maambong	Lerum
Bengzon	Monsod	Romulo
Calderon	Natividad	Sumulong
De Castro	Ople	Tingson
Concepcion	Padilla	Treñas
Jamir	Rigos	Uka

Against:

Aquino	Davide	Quesada
Azcuna	Foz	De los Reyes
Bacani	Garcia	Sarmiento
Bennagen	Gascon	Suarez
Bernas	Guingona	Tadeo
Rosario Braid	Nieva	Tan
Colayco	Nolledo	Villacorta

Abstention:

None

With 18 Members voting in favor, 21 against and no abstention, the proposed amendment of Mr. Rodrigo was lost.

MR. GUINGONA’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Guingona proposed to add the phrase AS MAY

BE PROVIDED BY LAW inasmuch as “political dynasties” would be defined by law.

Mr. Davide rejected the amendment to his amendment
on the ground that it would not be appropriate to state “as may be
provided by law” in the Declaration of Principles and that Congress, in
the exercise of its plenary powers, can provide for the necessary
guidelines in the implementation of the rules against political
dynasties.

Upon inquiry of Mr. Guingona, Mr. Nolledo stated
that he would have no objection to it inasmuch as the definition of
“political dynasties” would be left to Congress.

MODIFICATION BY MR. DAVIDE

Thereupon, Mr. Davide proposed AS MAY BE DEFINED BY
LAW in lieu of “as may be provided by law” which Mr. Guingona and the
Committee accepted.

Mr. Gascon inquired whether it should be “TO PUBLIC
SERVICE” or “FOR PUBLIC SERVICE”, to which Mr. Davide replied that the
word “TO” is better although “FOR” can be used.

Mr. Davide stated that it should be left to the
Committee on Style. He then proposed to place a comma (,) after
“service” since the definition by law would refer to “political
dynasties”.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

Mr. Suarez pointed out that there might be some
points of inconsistency because the first part says that the State
should give equal access to opportunities in order that the people can
render public service although the last part would prohibit political
dynasties in the manner prescribed by law.

As to whether this is a limitation on equal access
to opportunities, Mr. Davide stated that on the contrary, eliminating
political dynasties would ensure that there will be greater
opportunities to public service. He noted that what should be considered
would be the common good for the greater number of people who shall be
benefited. Prohibiting political dynasties, he averred, would open the
opportunities of public service to more people inasmuch as it would not
be a monopoly of the few.

On whether this is to prohibit incumbents and their
relatives from aspiring for the same position so that everyone shall
have an equal access to the opportunity to vie for this position, Mr.
Davide replied that it is his perception. He stressed that the law may
not allow relatives to aspire for the same office and that it may also
provide that during an elective official’s incumbency, his relatives
would not be allowed to run for a position or be appointed to any
position within the same political unit.

He pointed out, however, that the relative may not be prevented from running in another province.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 20

Mr. Nolledo restated the formulation of Section 20, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES
FOR PUBLIC SERVICE, AND PROHIBIT POLITICAL DYNASTIES AS MAY BE DEFINED
BY LAW.

Submitted to a vote, and with 25 Members voting in favor, one against and one abstention, Section 20 was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. TINGSON

Thereafter, Mr. Tingson proposed the deletion of Section 24 which was renumbered as Section 21.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona expressed support for the proposal
notwithstanding the fact that he favored the extension of asylum to
foreigners who are persecuted in their countries in defense of human
rights and the liberation of their country. He pointed out that,
although the right of asylum is among those enumerated in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the grant of asylum should not be contained
in the fundamental law but could well be the subject of statutory law
which could determine when and to what extent such right may be
exercised, taking into consideration various factors, among which is the
economic condition of the country.

Mr. Guingona stressed that the Members should
concern themselves more with Filipinos who are suffering from poverty,
although this should not be taken as closing the doors completely to the
possible entry of deserving refugees. He suggested, however, that the
law should go slow on the grant of asylum Without prejudice to being
less selective in granting asylum as the country’s economic recovery
progresses.

On the problems attendant to the grant of asylum,
Mr. Guingona stated that unless adequate safeguards are provided, it is
possible that undesirable aliens would enter the country including those
who might engage in espionage. He also noted that refugees are extended
rights under the Refugee Convention of 1951, the Protocol of 1967 as
well as the Declaration of Territorial Asylum which entitle them to
“quasi-consular” functions to be discharged by the asylum state.

He stated that Congress would have to set quotas in
order to forestall the massive influx of refugees when situations like
the take-over of Vietnam by the Communists occur. Moreover, he contended
that the provision could make matters worse with the stipulation that
refugees granted asylum shall not be extradited because it is possible
that those claiming refugee status would also be guilty of acts of
sedition, murder, or other nonpolitical offenses. He also stated that
should there be an extradition treaty, the Philippines would be bound by
its terms, otherwise violation of the basic principle pacta sunt
servanda could lead to a renunciation or abrogation of the treaty by the
offended state.

REMARKS OF MR. GARCIA

Mr. Garcia objected to the deletion of the provision
on the ground that it had already been adopted by the Committee on Bill
of Rights and that it was sought to be placed under the Declaration of
Principles which had been accepted by the Committee on Preamble,
National Territory and Declaration of Principles. He pointed out that
the only Committee amendment was the deletion of the last phrase stating
that they shall not be extradited.

He also stated that the provision is actually
contained in Item No. 1 of Article XIV of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights which provides that everyone has the right to seek and
enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution which is, in fact, a
peaceful and humanitarian act.

With respect to the Declaration on Territorial
Asylum, Mr. Garcia stated that the granting of political asylum is
governed by certain articles in this Declaration, among which is Article
I which provides, to wit:

“That asylum granted by a State in the exercise of
its sovereignty to persons entitled to invoke Article XIV of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including persons struggling
against colonialism, shall be respected by all other States.

“The right to, seek and to enjoy asylum may not be
invoked by any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for
considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime,
or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments
drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes.”

Mr. Garcia stated that it shall rest with the State
granting asylum to evaluate the grounds for its grant. He then
reiterated his protest against the deletion of the provision which, he
stressed, had been simply transposed to the Article on the Declaration
of Principles.

REMARKS OF MR. TINGSON

Mr. Tingson explained that Section 24 was originally
authored by Messrs. Nolledo and Garcia, both of whom refused to
articulate the said section. He stated that he just took it for granted
that both of them were no longer interested in the provision, thus his
proposal to delete the section. He pointed out that, as Members of the
Committee, they have the privilege of presenting the provision.

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong stated that whatever
questions may be propounded by the Members would be answered by both
Messrs. Garcia and Nolledo.

REMARKS OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas recalled that during the deliberations on
the Article on the Bill of Rights, it was Mr. Nolledo who proposed this
provision to which he had opposed but which the Body approved on the
understanding that it would be transferred to the Article on the
Declaration of Principles. He maintained that the Body could not reopen
the discussion on the matter of asylum without suspending the Rules
because, in effect, the motion to delete is a motion for reconsideration
which came two months late.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Nolledo stated that the
provision was adequately discussed before the Commission and was, in
fact, amended by Mr. Ople when he added the phrase “as may be provided
by law” on the ground that it should be Congress that should decide the
conditions under which the right of asylum may be granted.

Thereupon, on request of Mr. Maambong to verify the
records of the proceedings, Mr. Bernas suggested that the Body go back
to the records and find out what had been approved.

SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 24

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong moved to suspend
consideration of Section 24, renumbered as Section 21, in view of Mr.
Bernas’ manifestation.

Mr. Ople seconded the motion, noting that his name
was mentioned as one of those who amended the original provision. He
recalled that he took part in the general debate and in the
interpellations but he could not recall being present during the period
of amendments.

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

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 25

Mr. Tingson stated Section 25 which had been renumbered as Section 22, to wit:

THE CIVILIAN AUTHORITY IS AT ALL TIMES SUPREME OVER THE MILITARY.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed an amendment to insert a comma (,) after the words “is” and “times”.

Mr. Tingson accepted the amendment on behalf of the Committee.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 25

Submitted to a vote, and with 31 Members voting in
favor and none against, Section 25 (renumbered Section 22) was approved
by the Body.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 26 AMENDMENT OF MR. DE CASTRO

On Section 26, which had been renumbered as Section
23, Mr. de Castro proposed the deletion of the whole section on the
grounds 1) that the provision was recommended to him by the Armed Forces
of the Philippines not knowing that it was taken from the Declaration
of Independence on July 4, 1776 of the original 13 States of the United
States; and 2) that the provision which speaks of the right of the
people to change their government may be used by a small minority to
harass or rise against the government.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople manifested his intention, in association
with Messrs. Guingona, Maambong, Natividad and de los Reyes, to delete
the whole section and to propose an amendment by substitution in
reconciliation with Mr. Azcuna’s amendment.

APPROVAL OF MR. DE CASTRO’S AMENDMENT

Submitted to a vote, and with 25 Members voting in
favor, none against and 4 abstentions, Mr. de Castro’s amendment to
delete Section 26 (renumbered Section 23) was approved by the Body.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Maambong, the session was suspended
in order to give time to the proponents of Resolution No. 457 to come
up with a new formulation.

It was 4:51 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:26 p.m., the session was resumed.

Mr. Maambong stated that Section 26, renumbered as
Section 23, was originally proposed under Resolution No. 457 authored by
Messrs. Ople, de los Reyes, Natividad and himself and that Mr. de
Castro had another formulation which appeared in the Committee Report
but which was deleted upon his motion. Mr. Maambong pointed out that
there is a new formulation authored by Messrs. Ople, Guingona, de los
Reyes, Natividad and himself and another formulation authored by Mr.
Azcuna. He then inquired from the Committee if the proponents have
already agreed on a common formulation.

In reply, Mr. Tingson asked for the recognition of
Mr. Ople who, in turn, yielded the floor to Mr. Azcuna for’ the
presentation of the agreed formulation.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. AZCUNA AND OTHERS

Mr. Azcuna read the agreed formulation of Section 23, to wit:

WHEN GOVERNMENT SYSTEMATICALLY VIOLATES THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS, IT FORFEITS ITS AUTHORITY, AND THE PEOPLE MAY
TAKE STEPS TO REDRESS THIS FUNDAMENTAL WRONG AND ASSERT THEIR RIGHT TO A
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT THROUGH NON-VIOLENT MEANS.

Mr. Azcuna manifested for the record that the new
formulation as agreed upon was coauthored by Messrs. Ople, Guingona, de
los Reyes, Natividad and Maambong.

Upon inquiry of Mr. Maambong, Mr. Azcuna stated that
copies of the new formulation were distributed to the Members for their
comments.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 5:29 p m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:30 p.m., the session was resumed.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query, Mr. Ople
explained that it is the people who will determine the existence of a
systematic violation of the Constitution and the laws or series of
usurpations and abuses that become unbearable.

On whether a small group of people like the Marcos
loyalists can determine such violation of the Constitution and the laws,
Mr. Ople opined that under the present situation when the interim
Constitution is in force, there could be no ground for a tiny minority
with certain political motives to invoke the provision to justify a
revolt against the existing government. He underscored that the level of
violations of the law should be unbearable. He also opined that a group
of labor unions would not be a threat to the existence of a government.

On the steps that the people may take in the event
of violations of laws contemplated by the provision, Mr. Ople explained
that the people had been vested the powers of initiative, referendum and
recall under the Article on the Legislative; and the power to summon a
national Constitutional Convention or by themselves act as a Constituent
Assembly, as provided for in the Article on Constitutional Amendments,
and they may use such powers to redress a fundamental wrong as when the
Constitution is systematically violated. He stated, however, that the
Constitution cannot allow the use of arms in correcting a fundamental
wrong, but provides for nonviolent and moral means which are based on
spiritual values.

INQUIRY OF MR. RIGOS

In reply to Mr. Rigos’ query on whether the use of
violence would be justified to redress government abuses with the use of
the military, Mr. Ople underscored that basically the state under the
Constitution abhors lawless violence and, therefore, the use of the
Armed Forces beyond the Constitution and the law forfeits the authority
of the government under the same Constitution. He stated, however, that
the proposal would not encourage the use of violence even at the point
of desperation over severe tyrannical rule, but only nonviolent and
moral means to defend and assert the people’s right to a democratic
government.

He affirmed that if violence is the only means left, it has to be morally justified based on the Constitutional provision.

MR. GARCIA’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Garcia pointed out that the proposed amendment
would not be necessary because the Preamble of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights already provides that “if man is not to be compelled to
have recourse as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and
oppression, human rights should be protected by the rule of law”. He
also stated that it is inherent in people to choose viable means to
correct serious abuses because even armed revolutions are justifiable if
they are successful and through such means people are able to govern
under a new set of just laws. He opined that the formulation of the
proposal was restrictive.

On whether he would be amenable to the deletion of
the words “through nonviolent means” so that the phrase would read
ASSERT THE RIGHT TO A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, Mr. Garcia believes that
the entire proposal would not be necessary because of the fundamental
principle in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that peaceful
means should be adopted and if only human rights would be respected,
people do not have to resort to rebellion or armed struggle. He
reiterated that such inherent right of the people, as contained in
Populorum Progrressio, need not be provided.

Mr. Ople, stated that if an inherent right is the
basic premise of all written Constitutions, then there would be no harm
in explicitating it in the Article on the Declaration of Principles,
considering that in the contemporary experience, it is a practical and
workable approach to the ultimate defense of the democratic rights of
the people under a climate of unbearable tyranny.

On Mr. Garcia’s contention that the Preamble of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights already provides that, as a last
resort, the people may choose such viable means and objectives to put an
end to a long-standing tyranny, Mr. Ople stressed that the proposal
would serve as a warning to future tyrants that the systematic and
continuous disregard of the Constitution and the laws will bring about a
confrontation with the people, who seek to redress abuses through
peaceful means, other than through the power of initiative, referendum
and recall.

Mr. Garcia then proposed the alternative
formulation: “The State with its institutions belongs to the people.
Whenever a government fails to serve the people, they may exercise their
inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish it.” He explained that it
would be better not to explicitate the means so that the choice of the
people on the mode of changing the government would not be limited.

Mr. Ople insisted on the original proposal as formulated by Messrs. Azcuna, de los Reyes and himself.

MR. SARMIENTO’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Sarmiento opined that although the people have
the inherent right to change the government, it is necessary to
explicitate the same in the Constitution. He observed, however, that the
words “through nonviolent means” in the proposed amendment might
preclude other modes of changing an existing despotic government as used
in the Philippine Revolution of 1896, and in the wars against America
and Japan. He also adverted to the Constitution of Turkey and El
Salvador which both assert the right of the people to resist a political
power, and the right to insurrection. He added that even Apolinario
Mabini advocated the use of force when necessary, as in the revolution
against the Americans whom he considered as tyrants, which advocacy of
violence as a last resort was also upheld by St. Thomas Aquinas, John of
Salisbury and Francis Suarez.

He then proposed to delete the words “through nonviolent means”.

REMINDER OF MR. MAAMBONG

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong reminded the Members
that the Body was in the period of amendments, and that the five-minute
rule should be observed. He added that only two Members would be allowed
to speak in favor of an amendment and another two to speak against,
subject to the time limit.

INQUIRY OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla inquired whether the proposed amendment
was inspired by the February revolution, which some claim was a
political miracle. He said that in case of violation of the Constitution
and the law, the proper remedy is judicial. Mr. Ople replied that in
the event of a systematic violation of the Constitution and the laws,
recourse to the courts would be futile or no longer available.

On Mr. Padilla’s query whether the redress of
grievances should not start with the right to peaceful assembly, Mr.
Ople agreed that it should be so in the narrower context of redress of
grievances but stated that “redress” in the proposal is used in its
generic meaning.

On whether the right to a democratic government
could also be expressed through periodic elections, Mr. Ople replied
that it could in normal times but the situation the provision
contemplates is one wherein the people are already alienated from the
government to the point of desperation and therefore the ability to
conduct a free and honest election may have been greatly impaired.

On whether the people could also resort to rebellion
to assert their inherent right to change a government that does not
serve their needs, Mr. Ople replied that the provision only sanctions
nonviolent means to attain that end and any employment of force would be
considered in excess of the constitutional authority.

Mr. Padilla stated that the U.S. Declaration of
Independence also recognizes the right of the sovereign people to change
a tyrannical government but the U.S. Constitution does not contain a
provision similar to the one being proposed. He opined that there is no
need for including the section in the Constitution.

POINT OF ORDER

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon raised a point of order
on the ground that the Body has passed the period of interpellations.
He stated that the Rules allows the proponent five minutes to explain

his proposal and two speakers for, and two speakers
against. Noting that Mr. Padilla was articulating his objection to the
proposal, Mr. Bengzon pointed out that Messrs. Garcia and de Castro had
already spoken against it.

Mr. Ople pointed out that Mr. de Castro did not speak against.

Thereupon, Mr. Davide commented that even in the
period of amendments any proponent thereof could still be interpellated
but the rules stipulate a limit on the number of those who could speak
against a particular amendment. He stressed that there is no rule which
limits the number of those who could interpellate a proponent of an
amendment.

Mr. Bengzon maintained that all interpellations
should be made during the period of interpellations and debate, while in
the period of amendments a proponent could articulate on his proposal,
with two speakers for and two against, subject to the five-minute rule.

Mr. Davide contended, however, that for the period
of amendments, there is no rule which limits the number of Members who
could interpellate the proponent of an amendment. He added that the
Rules merely limits to two the speakers who could speak against a
particular amendment.

Mr. Maambong concurred with Mr. Davide’s opinion. He
added, however, that Mr. Bengzon’s observation is also correct because
there are many Members who stand not to propose an amendment but to
speak for or against it. He suggested that for a Member to be entitled
to the five-minute rule, he should stand to propose an amendment.

Mr. Bengzon suggested enforcement of the Rules with respect to amendments.

REMARKS OF MR. DAVIDE

Thereupon, Mr. Davide stated that instead of
proposing an amendment, he would speak against the section for the
following reasons: (1) it is unnecessary and superfluous because it is
already covered by Section 1 of the Article; and (2) it is restrictive
because when the provision states “when the government systematically
violates the Constitution and the laws, it forfeits its authority and
the people may take steps to redress this fundamental wrong”, the people
could only change such government if the violations are systematic and
only through violent means when, in fact, the people could redress their
grievances through the Judiciary without necessarily replacing the
government.

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong stated that four
Members had already spoken against the proposal so that only Members who
are going to speak in favor should thereafter be allowed. He then asked
that Mr. Guingona be recognized to speak in favor of the proposal.

POINT OF ORDER

Thereupon, Mr. Davide raised a point of order on the ground that it was not yet the turno en contra.

Mr. Maambong asked that Mr. Davide withdraw his objection in a spirit of liberality.

Mr. Ople opined that the other Members who are in favor of the proposal should be allowed to speak.

Thereafter, Mr. Davide withdrew his point of order.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Thereupon, Mr. Guingona expressed support for the
proposal in its entirety to include the phrase “through nonviolent
means” in order to emphasize that the people should opt for nonviolent
means and to resort only to an armed struggle as a final alternative. He
stated that although he agrees that the people have the inherent right
to take up arms against the government, this should not be written in
the Constitution because violent revolution connotes an act committed
beyond the framework of the law. He adverted to Mr. Concepcion’s remark
that the Constitution is a document that enshrines the rule of law.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Thereafter, Mr. Maambong manifested that no other
Members have registered to speak in favor of the proposal. He then
requested that the Chair allow those who may want to present amendments
to ask some questions first.

In reply to Mr. Bennagen’s query whether the
proposal only contemplates change of government and not political
structure, Mr. Ople stated that the section contemplates a situation
where there is total and complete breakdown of all government
structures, in which case, the people could rise up and change the
government through nonviolent means.

On whether “nonviolent means” seeks to
constitutionalize a philosophy of pacifism, Mr. Ople explained that
pacifism is passive noninvolvement or evasion of a crisis, hence, the
proposal is not a commitment to pacifism because it would involve a very
aggressive and vigorous activity on the part of the people.

In reply to Mr. Abubakar’s query whether “through
nonviolent means” could be deleted, Mr. Ople stated that he was under
mandate by several other Members to preserve the phrase.

On whether it would be better to delete the whole
provision and leave to the people what steps they would take to replace a
tyrannical government, Mr. Ople stated that he would make a brief reply
to the query after the interpellations. Also, upon inquiry, he stated
that he subscribes to the idea that the voice of the people is the voice
of God.

Mr. Abubakar opined that since Mr. Ople subscribes
to this idea, the whole provision could be deleted. Mr. Ople stated,
however, that the provision is the ultimate test of the general
principle laid down in Section 1 of the Article.

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong read the Section as follows:

SEC. 23. WHEN GOVERNMENT SYSTEMATICALLY VIOLATES THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS, IT FORFEITS AUTHORITY, AND THE PEOPLE MAY
TAKE STEPS TO REDRESS THIS FUNDAMENTAL WRONG AND ASSERT THE RIGHT TO A
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT THROUGH NONVIOLENT MEANS.

Mr. de Castro manifested agreement with Mr. Davide’s opinion to delete the entire section.

VOTING ON MR. OPLE’S AMENDMENT

Submitted to a vote, and with 11 Members voting in favor and 22 against, the proposed amendment of Mr. Ople was lost.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 23

Thereupon, the Body proceeded to the consideration
of Section 23 on the separation of Church and State. Mr. Maambong
informed that consideration of Section 21 on the grant of asylum had
been deferred.

Mr. Tingson informed that only Mr. Bacani has a proposed amendment on Section 23.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. BACANI

Mr. Bacani proposed an additional sentence, to wit:

WHILE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE BE
MAINTAINED, THE STATE SEEKS THE COLLABORATION OF THE CHURCHES AND
RELIGIOUS BODIES TO PROMOTE THE TOTAL WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS AND
ACKNOWLEDGES THE RIGHT OF CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES TO COMMENT ON
GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND ACTUATIONS.

Mr. Bacani stated the reasons, to wit: 1) it is
necessary that the Church and State should be independent of each other;
2) it is necessary that Church and State should collaborate towards
total upliftment of the well-being of the citizens. He informed that his
study of some 135 Constitutions revealed that 8 have explicit
provisions on the separation of Church and State while 2 have something
substantially similar to it. He noted that 7 of the 8 Constitutions
belong to communist countries. He maintained that the statement on
separation of Church and State should be balanced by a corresponding
truth that the State seeks or welcomes the collaboration of the churches
and religious bodies to promote the citizens’ well-being.

MR. RODRIGO’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Rodrigo proposed to amend Mr. Bacani’s amendment, to wit:

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE SHALL BE
MAINTAINED. THE STATE, HOWEVER, WELCOMES THE HELP AND COLLABORATION OF
CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES TO PROMOTE THE WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS.

He stated that the rest of the sentence can be deleted.

Mr. Maambong requested Mr. Bacani to concretize his
proposed amendment inasmuch as the Members of the Committee did not
understand it well. Upon Mr. Maambong’s inquiry, Mr. Bacani affirmed
that his amendment would be after the word “inviolable”.

Mr. Bacani then stated that he would like to retain
the proposed amendment of Mr. Rodrigo. As amended, the provision would
then read: “The separation of Church and State shall be maintained. THE
STATE HOWEVER WELCOMES THE HELP AND COLLABORATION OF CHURCHES AND
RELIGIOUS BODIES TO PROMOTE THE WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS.”

Mr. Azcuna, speaking on behalf of the Committee, did not accept the amendment.

Upon inquiry of Mr. Maambong, Mr. Bacani stated that
he would insist on the amendment, at least on the proposal of Mr.
Rodrigo. He observed that none of the eight constitutions clearly
provides that the separation of Church and State is inviolable.

REMARKS OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas opposed the amendment. He noted that
there are already two provisions touching on the separation of Church
and State in the Constitution, namely: 1) the provision in the Bill of
Rights on the non-establishment of a State religion; and 2) the
provision lifted from the 1973 Constitution being proposed by the
Committee. Both provisions, he stated, have a long history of
jurisprudence. He stated that the relation between the Church and State
is a dynamic and changing relationship and that such changes have taken
place not only because of the State’s self-understanding of itself but
also because of the churches’ understanding of themselves. He noted that
this is a delicate relationship which involves balancing the values of
“separation” and “religious liberty”.

The Constitution, he observed, contains two concepts
— the freedom of religion and the non-establishment of State religion
which are not exactly the same, but are distinct rights which sometimes
oppose each other. He stated that there are times when insistence of the
separation of Church and State may trench on freedom of religion and
that the delicate task of balancing could be best done in the context of
concrete cases.

The amendment, he observed, would be an invitation
to the entanglement of religion with the State and opined that the
cooperation between the two should grow dynamically without
encouragement from anybody inasmuch as there is always the danger that
the State shall try to impose itself on the Church. He noted that
instead of opening such possibility, the Constitutional provision should
be left as it is. He remarked that “collaboration” may in fact be
interference. He urged that the Body remain silent on the matter and
leave the development of the relation between the Church and State
through case law, where positions are argued in the light of actual
circumstances. He stated that the lesser is said about the relationship,
the safer it would be for the nation.

REMARKS OF MR. TINGSON

Mr. Tingson stated that Filipino forefathers
provided the following under Title 3, (Religion), Article V, of the
Malolos Constitution:

“The State recognizes the freedoms and equality of religious worship as well as the separation of the Church and the State.”

He observed that from that time, when all the
civilized world found a compelling reason to enshrine in its laws the
principle of separation of Church and State, the people’s understanding
of this principle has improved so much so that even in the face of a
widespread awakening of the churches to political and socioeconomic
realities, the Church and State have not taken over each others
prerogatives, except in countries where these realities are much too
harsh so as to engender a revolutionary atmosphere.

He noted that by and large, democracies of the free
world have adhered to this time-honored principle, which principle
should be reinstated in the basic law as its absence could invite dire
possibilities in the future.

Mr. Tingson observed that even John F. Kennedy,
President of the United States during the early 1960’s, reminded the
Americans that the principle of the separation of Church and State
exists and remains inviolable. He noted, however, that the number of
years spent in observing this would not guarantee its inviolability.

Furthermore, he stated that religion is a pervasive
and overwhelming fact of national existence and while the notion to
regulate religious observance is not entertained, religion should not
unduly influence the formulation and implementation of state policies.

It is a historical fallacy, he said, to attribute to
the churches an intrinsic desire to override government in its
functions and that the historical action has been one of evolution, from
the former state of fusion to one of present-day separation. He stated
that he would like to believe that old societies found it beneficial and
necessary to fuse the functions governing observances and rituals, and
that many of the latter prophets were secular and religious leaders of
the Israelites.

Much later, he stated, it was conceived that an
individual might be free in his worship, or even in the absence of it.
Conquests, he noted, brought within national boundaries a divergence of
religious views and that it was reasoned that a government might allow
free exercise of religious beliefs on condition that it retains the
basic attributes of its existence and effectiveness. The spirit of
democracy, he stated, has won for religion and government a new
perception to treat each other with understanding and tolerance.

He stated that the separation of Church and State
has long been established and enjoys a respected place in the country’s
heritage. He recalled that in the Constitutional Convention of 1971,
there were debates on this principle. He noted that for religion to
flourish in society, it should observe this principle inasmuch as the
space provided for it in the sphere of spiritual influence is wide and
broad enough that it need not aspire to control the political sphere to
fulfill itself.

The overriding concern, he stressed is that the
Church or the State can destroy itself by interfering with the business
of the other. He underscored the need for government to referee
conflicting aspirations and to guide and give direction.

He noted that the principle does not necessarily
mean enmity between the Church and the State although it is best that
the principle separating them is recognized.

SUGGESTION OF MR. RIGOS

Mr. Rigos suggested that the Body vote on the
sentence recommended by the Committee and later on vote on the proposed
amendment.

Mr. Maambong observed that even the first sentence
has been amended from “The separation of church and state shall be
inviolable” to “The separation of Church and State shall be MAINTAINED”.

REMARKS OF MS. AQUINO

Ms. Aquino opposed the amendment to the Committee
formulation. She noted that as articulated by Mr. Bernas, the religion
clauses in the Constitution are constantly in tension over the
interpretation of this provision. She also observed that if there is a
problem which arises from the religion clauses, there is a requirement
of the best possible efforts to accommodate according to settled usage
in law and jurisprudence. She stated that freedom of religion does not
mean license to disregard the command of the sovereign State and neither
does disestablishment mean total abstention of the State from the
regular mode of support or even donation to some of the church
institutions.

She observed that jurisprudence in the U.S. and
Western countries shows that the States have staked their existence on
the faith that the separation of Church and State is good both for them
and that jurisprudence is zealously guarding against the fusion of
secular establishments with sectarian institutions.

REMARKS OF MR. BACANI

Mr. Bacani observed that two points have been made:
1) the necessity to uphold the “separation of Church and State” as
affirmed by the amendment; and 2) the need to maintain a balance. The
purpose of the amendment, he clarified, is not to negate that separation
but to redress an imbalance. He noted that during martial law, the
Church had to be critical of the regime and that the principle was
invoked against the prophetic ministry of the Church.

He recalled that President Marcos, in the Iglesia ni
Kristo compound, accused churchmen of violating the principle, when
they were only exercising their prophetic function.

He stated that Mr. Bernas himself, in a letter to
Mr. Tingson, who was a Delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention,
said that “according to Wilfred Parson, the phrase does not have any
meaning at all”.

He stressed that the intention is not to deny or
eliminate the Constitutional provision but that the Church would welcome
cooperation and collaboration. He stated that he agreed to delete the
rest of his amendment inasmuch as it includes the right of the churches
to exercise prophetic criticism which is another form of cooperation. He
stated that Mr. Nolledo would explain the background of the 1973
provision and how Mr. Marcos favored it because of his displeasure with
the Catholic hierarchy.

INQUIRY OF MR. RIGOS

Mr. Rigos inquired whether the word “inviolable” had been changed to MAINTAINED.

Mr. Bacani stated that he would be willing to accept “inviolable”.

Mr. Maambong stated that the proposed amendment is
an amendment by substitution inasmuch as the original formulation had
been changed. The amendment of Mr. Bacani, he noted, is to change
“inviolable” to MAINTAINED and thereafter to add the sentence proposed
by Mr. Rodrigo.

REMARKS OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas clarified that he does not oppose the
separation of Church and State and that the statement “The separation of
Church and State is inviolable” is a harmless statement which he would
be willing to tolerate. He stated that the jurisprudence on Church and
State shows the arguments are based not on the statement of separation
of Church and State but on the establishment clause of Section 8 of the
Bill of Rights. He stressed that what he is against is the explicit
invitations for cooperation because it could entangle the Church and
State and may serve as an opening for fanatics to try to dictate their
will on the State. He noted that during the past regime there were
concrete problems and there were attempts to use the doctrine of
separation of Church and State.

REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo spoke in support of Mr. Bacani’s
proposal on condition that the word “collaboration” be changed to
COOPERATION. He noted that the latter term would really lead to an
entanglement as contemplated by Mr. Bernas. He confirmed the statement
of Mr. Bacani that the provision was inserted through the intervention
of Mr. Marcos who was alarmed by the opposition to his regime by certain
sectors of religion, basically the Roman Catholic Church and certain
Protestant ministers. He opined that the use of “cooperation” would
attune the provision to realities. He informed that, as Mr. Bernas
observed in his position paper submitted to the 1971 Constitutional
Convention, the prohibition against the establishment of religion should
not be based on complete separation of Church and State, a modern
slogan which could be misleading.

Mr. Rodrigo accepted the change of the word
“collaboration” to COOPERATION and to delete the words “help and”, so
that the amendment would read:

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE SHALL BE
INVIOLABLE. THE STATE, HOWEVER, WELCOMES THE COOPERATION OF CHURCHES AND
RELIGIOUS BODIES TO PROMOTE THE WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS.

Ms. Aquino refused to accept the amendment and
insisted on the formulation that the separation of Church and State
shall be inviolable.

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong restated the first sentence, to wit:

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE.

At this juncture, Mr. Davide stated that this
sentence should not be taken as part of Mr. Bacani’s amendment because
it is the original wording of the Committee Report which may still be
subject to amendments. He then suggested that the Body vote on the
second sentence.

Mr. Maambong agreed that the voting be limited to the second sentence, to wit:

THE STATE, HOWEVER, WELCOMES THE COOPERATION OF THE CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS BODIES TO PROMOTE THE WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS.

At this juncture, Mr. Abubakar proposed to include
the word “mosque”. In reply, Mr. Bacani stated that “religious bodies”
was precisely used in order to include the Muslims and other religious
groups. Mr. Abubakar insisted, however, on the inclusion of the word
“mosque” as a separate institutional structure of worship for the
Muslims, in reply to which Mr. Bacani explained that “church” does not
mean place of worship but an institution or group of people.

POINT OF ORDER

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon raised a point of order on the ground that the Body should first act on the pending motion.

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong stated that Mr. Abubakar had
earlier indicated that he was against the amendment. He then requested
the Chair to take note of Mr. Abubakar’s statements so that they may be
considered during the voting, to which Mr. Abubakar replied that he was
not against the amendment but was merely insisting on the inclusion of
the word “mosque”.

VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT

Thereafter, submitted to a vote, and with 6 Members voting in favor, 26 against and 2 abstentions, the amendment was lost.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 27

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong stated Section 27, which had been renumbered as Section 24, to wit:

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE.

Submitted to a vote, and with 36 Members voting in favor and none against, Section 27 was approved by the Body.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. TINGSON

Mr. Tingson manifested that the Body had finished
with the original draft of the Committee Report, however, there would be
five more amendments for additional paragraphs.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

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

It was 7:07 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 September 24, 1986