VOL. IV, September 19, 1986
R.C.C. NO. 87
Friday, September 19, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:59 a.m., the President, the
Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, opened the session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to
order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise
to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National
Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please
remain standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable Jaime S.
Tadeo.
Everybody remained standing for the
Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. TADEO: Diyos ng kasaysayan, Diyos ng
mga dukha at inaapi,
Tunghayan Mo kami sa araw na ito.
Nagsusumikap magbalangkas ng isang Saligang-Batas
Na dapat kumatawan sa adhikain ng sambayanang Pilipino.
Tinig ng bayan ay tinig Mo, laluna’t
tinig ng
nakararaming gutom at uhaw para sa katarungan
at kalayaan.
Sana’y dinggin naman ang sigaw ng bayan,
Sa halip na pakinggan ang mga bulong ng mga
dayuha’t mapang-api.
Ikaw, Panginoon,
At ang bayan ang dapat naming tanging
Kilalaning Panginoon sa aming ginagawa.
Sana’y maging tapat kami sa bayan sa halip na maging
sunud-sunuran sa ibang panginoon.
Ikaw ay nagsasabing gagamitin ang
karunungan ng
mga mangmang upang mapahiya ang mayayabang
na pantas.
Hinihiling namin sa Iyo,
Sa darating na araw ng paghatol at pag-uusig.
Punuan Mo ang aming pagkukulang
At patawarin ang aming pagtalikod sa Iyo at sa bayan.
Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will
call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Present* | Natividad | Present* |
| Alonto | Present* | Nieva | Present* |
| Aquino | Present* | Nolledo | Present |
| Azcuna | Present* | Ople | Present* |
| Bacani | Present | Padilla | Present |
| Bengzon | Present | Quesada | Present* |
| Bennagen | Present | Rama | Present |
| Bernas | Present* | Regalado | Present |
| Rosario Braid | Present | Reyes de los | Present |
| Calderon | Present | Rigos | Present |
| Castro de | Present | Rodrigo | Present |
| Colayco | Present | Romulo | Present |
| Concepcion | Present* | Rosales | Present* |
| Davide | present | Sarmiento | Present* |
| Foz | Present* | Suarez | Present |
| Garcia | Present* | Sumulong | Present |
| Gascon | Present | Tadeo | Present |
| Guingona | Present | Tan | Present |
| Jamir | Present | Tingson | Present |
| Laurel | Absent | Treñas | Present* |
| Lerum | Present | Uka | Present |
| Maambong | Present* | Villacorta | Present* |
| Monsod | Present | Villegas | Present |
The President is present.
The roll call shows 29 Members responded
to the call.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the
presence of a quorum.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader
is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: I move that we dispense
with the reading of the Journal of yesterday’s session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move
that we approve the Journal of yesterday’s session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none: the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move
that we proceed to the Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the
Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the
following Communications, the President making the corresponding
references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from H. George Feliciano and Lydia
Feliciano and Tito dela Cruz and Delia dela Cruz, convenor couples of
the Citizens Alliance For The Constitutional Protection of The Unborn,
submitting a compilation of position papers and summary of arguments
favoring the inclusion in the Constitution of a provision obliging the
State to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.
(Communication No. 928 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory and Declaration of Principles.
Communication from the National Council
of Churches in the Philippines, signed by its General Secretary, La
Verne D. Mercado, objecting strongly to the inclusion in the
Constitution of a provision that would mandatorily allow the teaching of
religion in the public elementary and high schools within regular class
hours.
(Communication No. 929 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Ms. Rosario A. Magnaye of
Looc, Romblon, suggesting to the Constitutional Commission the
development of Pilipino and English as the two national languages of the
Philippines.
(Communication No. 930 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Mr. Frank Y. Arcellana,
President, N.O. Nukes, Phil. Social Science Center Building, Mariano
Marcos Avenue, Quezon City, and fifty thousand seven hundred eleven
(50,711 ) other signatories with their respective addresses, calling for
nuclear-free provisions in the Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines.
(Communication No. 931 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is
recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 537
(Article on the Declaration of Principles)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. RAMA: I move that we take up this
morning the Article on the Declaration of Principles. We are still in
the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The honorable chairman and members of the
Committee on the Declaration of Principles will please occupy the front
table.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that
Commissioner Rigos be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is
recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, Section 9 on
page 3 of the committee report, lines 1 to 3, states:
The State shall equally protect the life
of the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.
There have been some lengthy debates on
this subject and we need not repeat the arguments today. However, I
propose to delete the words “from the moment of conception” and add the
word “CHILD” after “unborn” so that the sentence will read: “The State
shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn
CHILD.”
THE PRESIDENT: Is the committee ready to
respond?
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, the member
of our committee who is the chief articulator of this particular section
is Commissioner Villegas. May I ask that he be recognized to answer
questions along this particular section.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is
recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, the
position of the committee is that the phrase “from the moment of
conception” is completely indispensable in order to protect the life of
the unborn from its very beginning. We are sorry to say that we cannot
accept the amendment.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, as already
articulated in this hall, a good number of the Commissioners are very
unhappy about the words “from the moment of conception.” Anyway, we
believe that giving protection to the life of the unborn is sufficient
enough to be in the Constitution. In order not to prolong the discussion
on the subject, I request that we vote on this resolution.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I
interpellate Commissioner Rigos?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is
recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
Does the Commissioner agree with me that
from the time of conception, there is already life?
REV. RIGOS: Even before the time of
conception there is life.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the Commissioner
will qualify his answer if I ask the second question. Is the life human?
REV. RIGOS: It is human.
MR. NOLLEDO: Not before conception,
because the sperm has life by itself. The egg has life also and the
moment they unite, there is already life.
REV. RIGOS: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Then that life is human?
REV. RIGOS: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Does it have personality?
REV. RIGOS: That is the debatable point.
It depends now on one’s authority. There are those who wait until two
months before they speak of the personality of the child, and we do not
have the time to debate on that in this Commission
MR. NOLLEDO: As a lawyer, I would like to
tell the Commissioner that there is a presumptive personality because
under Articles 40 and 41 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, for all
purposes favorable to the fetus, it is considered born, and, therefore,
one can make a donation to him or to her, and it can also succeed. Does
the Commissioner agree with me?
REV. RIGOS: Yes, that is the debatable
portion of the article here.
MR. NOLLEDO: If from the time of
conception it has life and it is human, and if there is any move to put
an end to that life, would we consider that murder aside from being
called abortion because the fetus is helpless?
REV. RIGOS: Even under the Penal Code,
that would be murder, intentional or unintentional.
MR. NOLLEDO: In the Penal Code, it is
called abortion, but from the layman’s point of view, it is murder.
Would the Commissioner agree with me?
REV. RIGOS: I agree with the
Commissioner.
MR. NOLLEDO: Therefore, would the
Commissioner agree with me that the words “from the time of conception”
should not be deleted in order to protect the human being inside the
womb of the mother?
REV. RIGOS: If we just say “the life of
the unborn,” it is up to Congress to define whether it should begin from
the time of conception or two weeks or eight weeks after that. But here
we are trying to be very specific by saying “from the moment of
conception.”
MR. NOLLEDO: Shall we deny ourselves the
opportunity to protect life even at that stage because if we will leave
it to Congress, then Congress might adopt some legal aspects derived
from the ruling of the Supreme Court that the life becomes viable only
after, say, four months? Why do we not decide in this Commission now?
REV. RIGOS: I would not preempt the
wisdom of the Congress composed of the Representatives elected by the
people.
MR. NOLLEDO: Therefore, if we leave it to
Congress, we consider also the possibility that Congress may reinstate
the words “from the time of conception.”
REV. RIGOS: Congress probably would
listen to the sentiments of their constituents.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
Madam President, on behalf of the
committee, considering that the amendment covers a transcendental
question and although we have a quorum, can we not suspend the voting on
this question until after the other Members of the Commission shall
have come? This is with due respect to Commissioner Rigos, if he will be
kind enough to agree with the suspension of the voting.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I agree with
the suggestion of Commissioner Nolledo.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I be clarified on certain
points made by Commissioner Rigos. Did I get him correctly as having
said that life begins even before the moment of conception?
REV. RIGOS: Yes. I said that.
MR. DAVIDE: So what really is the
Commissioner’s contemplation on the commencement or the beginning of
human life?
REV. RIGOS: It is too specific. It does
not give way to the opinions of other authorities.
MR. DAVIDE: But the Commissioner believes
that at the moment of conception there is human life.
REV. RIGOS: I will leave that to Congress
to define, but in Congress they have more time to consider other views.
MR. DAVIDE: The Commissioner said that
life begins even before the first moment of conception and now he is
saying that he is not so sure whether at the first moment of conception
there is life.
REV. RIGOS: I said that there is life
even before conception.
MR. DAVIDE: That is exactly the point. If
the Commissioner believes that life begins even before the first moment
of conception, why would he propose that we delete the words “moment of
conception”?
REV. RIGOS: The view that there is life
even before conception is one of the various views, and there is life at
the moment of conception; other authorities would wait until two weeks;
others would wait until eight weeks.
MR. DAVIDE: May we be favored with an
authority regarding the existence of life even before the first moment
of conception?
REV. RIGOS: Dr. Gloria Enriquez, head of
the Zoology Department of the University of the Philippines and whom I
consulted on this matter, told me so when I interviewed her during my
research on this subject.
MR. DAVIDE: But anytime before the first
moment of conception, there is no fertilization yet, there is no meeting
of the sperm and the ovum.
REV RIGOS: But the sperm and the egg are
supposed to be alive. That is what Dr. Enriquez believes by life even
before conception.
MR. DAVIDE: We are talking about
fertilization. We cannot speak of life independently of the ovum and
independently of the sperm.
REV. RIGOS: We are talking of the unborn
here.
MR. DAVIDE: Precisely. So, insofar as the
unborn is concerned, life begins at the first moment of conception.
Therefore, there is no need to delete. There is no need to leave it to
Congress because that is a matter settled in medicine.
REV. RIGOS: No.
MR. DAVIDE: That life begins at the
moment of conception?
REV. RIGOS: As Commissioner Quesada
related here a few days ago, there are cases in the life of the mother
that should be considered in the question of abortion.
MR. DAVIDE: Those are totally different.
We are talking about the right of the mother, not the right of the
unborn child from the first moment of conception. So, if the
Commissioner’s proposal is precisely to provide possible protection to
the mother, that is an entirely different matter. The section provides
for protection to the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
the moment of conception.
REV. RIGOS: Yes, we think that the word
“unborn” is sufficient for the purpose of writing a Constitution,
without specifying “from the moment of conception.”
MR. DAVIDE: I would not subscribe to that
particular view because according to the Commissioner’s own admission,
he would leave it to Congress to define when life begins. So, Congress
can define life to begin from six months after fertilization; and that
would really be very, very dangerous. It is now determined by science
that life begins from the moment of conception. There can be no doubt
about it. So, we should not give any doubt to Congress. too.
Thank you, Madam President. (Applause)
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, since
there was the suggestion that we postpone the voting on this move to
delete, can we take up other amendments that have been suggested on
Section 9?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla seeks
to be recognized, I suppose, on this point.
MR. PADILLA: On the unborn, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I would like to ask
Commissioner Rigos a question.
After the word “unborn,” instead of
deleting the phrase “from the moment of conception,” will the
Commissioner agree if we delete the words “the moment of,” so it will
read: “. . . protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn
from conception”? On the question of what is the precise moment of
conception or days before or after, maybe we could keep the committee
report by deleting the words “the moment of” and just say “the life of
the unborn from conception.”
REV. RIGOS: Commissioner Aquino, my
adviser on this subject, has just arrived; I have to consult her on
whether or not we can accept that.
MR. PADILLA: I wonder whether
Commissioners Villegas and Bacani would consider my suggestion, although
there is a need to delete “the moment of,” that we say: “the life of
the unborn from conception.”
MR. VILLEGAS: We have discussed this
already, and we will accept that amendment.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is
recognized.
MR. TINGSON: According to the records I
have here, Commissioner Bernas likewise presented an amendment on
Section 9 which is also to delete the phrase “from the moment of
conception.” We would like to have a clarification from Commissioner
Bernas.
FR. BERNAS: The amendment I had is to
substitute the phrase “from the moment of conception” with “FROM ITS
BEGINNING.”
MR. RAMA: I see.
FR. BERNAS: That is from the language of
God and human’s best. But I would accept also the Padilla amendment.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I would reiterate the motion
of Commissioner Rigos for the deletion of the phrase “from the moment of
conception,” meaning, the wording should be “the life of the unborn.”
There is enough law and jurisprudence to protect a fetus. In fact, even
in Articles 40 and 41 of the Civil Code, a fetus is considered born for
all purposes favorable to it, subject to the conditions in Article 41. I
would like to address this problem with objectivity and prudence and I
sincerely hope that we do not exploit our imagined fears on the
possibility of a statutory fiat for abortion. The issue of abortion is
at best diversionary. Culturally, we are not predisposed to legalizing
abortion such that the imagined fear is, I would say, off-marked.
MR. VILLEGAS: Let me just summarize very
briefly the arguments why we have to say “from conception.” I think
there are enough Commissioners here, therefore, we can already vote,
Madam President.
Precisely, we are basing the argument on
pure objectivity because natural scientists who are the most objective
in studying positive sciences have come to the conclusion that life
begins at conception. Human life begins at conception. I quoted
yesterday the authoritative findings of this conference in Washington on
abortion where they decided — and the ratio was 19:1 — that human life
begins at conception. This included the five percent who remained in
doubt. This is where we should use the moral principle already
articulated by Bishop Bacani. When there is doubt even by a very small
percentage, the moral principle is “Do not kill,” because the awesome
risk of taking the life of a human being is there. And so, whether we
are in the majority among the 19 or whether we are in the five or one
percent, the conclusion is: We have to protect human life from
conception.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I have no
quarrel with the fact that a fertilized ovum or a zygote has life, but
my question is: Would the deletion of the phrase “from the moment of
conception” legalize abortion? We do not, one bit, intend to give
statutory fiat to the legalization of abortion by deleting “the moment
of conception.”
I would think that we are overreacting to
possible natural fears, but as Commissioners, should we abide by that
kind of a fear in drafting this Constitution?
MR. VILLEGAS: Let me just answer that.
The fears are based empirically on observation of human beings not only
in the United States but even here who precisely are willing to cite
American jurisprudence to allow the killing at two months or at three
months. There are enough individuals who are actually articulating the
jurisprudence now existing in the United States. So the fears are not
unfounded; they are based on empirical observations of specific
individuals who are moving towards the American disaster.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, this will be
my last intervention and we would rest our case according to the
decision of the Commission.
The drift of the argument of Commissioner
Villegas is that when we delete “the moment of conception,” we are
sanctioning murder or killing. This is not at all justified under the
premises presented in the interpellations and in this intervention now,
and I would have to take exception to that kind of a suggestion.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is
recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
In addition to the statements of
Commissioner Villegas, I think Commissioner Villegas is fully justified
in making that implication. That implication is a possibility although
Commissioner Aquino said that abortion is sufficiently punished under
the Revised Penal Code. We must admit that the Revised Penal Code is a
mere statutory enactment and can be repealed at any time while we are
raising the issue against abortion to the constitutional level. If we
can protect the unerring adult by abolishing that penalty, how much more
of an innocent child in the womb of the mother, the cherished gift and
loving gift from God.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is
recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: This is just a minor
intervention for the retention of the phrase “from conception.” Let me
just put this in the context of the present Constitution which has
really been for the defense and the enhancement of life. In fact, the
clinching argument for us in the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of
Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights, for the
abolition of capital punishment was formulated very beautifully by
Commissioner Bernas when he said: “It is not proven that the taking away
of life saves life.” Therefore, he said: “Why should we insist on
imposing the death penalty?” There was a doubt one way or the other that
we favored life, but our provisions are for the enhancement of the
quality of life. Hence, let us be consistent, let us be prolife. Should
there be the slightest iota of doubt, then let us still affirm life.
Second, the drift of this Constitution has been for the underprivileged,
for the defenseless and certainly, nobody is as defenseless as the
fetus in the womb of his mother.
And so, this is the first time I beg this
Commission to make an affirmation for life for this is one of the more
beautiful things that will come out in this Constitutional Commission.
Commissioner Ople spoke of setting a moral tone by means of this
Constitution and I think this is a privileged moment for that.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: So that I can vote
intelligently on this issue, may I address one question to Commissioner
Bacani?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may
proceed.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you.
According to the latest statistics, we
have 20,000 abortions in Metro Manila a year; 500,000 abortions
committed every year in the Philippines; 15,000,000 abortions committed
around the world. In the midst of these abortions, we have two
positions: One position is that the right of the unborn begins from the
moment of conception. This is supported by Gaudi’um et Spes, Mater
et Magistra, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines,
the Sacred Congregation for a Doctrine of Faith and Aposto’cae Sedis
issued by Pius IX. But we have also this position which is advanced by
another member of the church, Fr. Dancel of the Society of Jesus. He
said:
There can be no mind before the
organism is ready to carry one and no spirit before the mind is capable
of receiving it. I feel certain that there is no human soul, hence, no
human person during the first few weeks of pregnancy as long as the
embryo remains in the vegetative stage of its development.
So may we be clarified on this point,
Commissioner Bacani. What is the official church position? There seems
to be two contrasting church positions on this point.
BISHOP BACANI: Even in the Catholic
Church, there would be one out of a thousand who does not agree. But let
me cite to the body an article from two textbooks. One of them a
liberal one, written by Philip Keane, is entitled: Sexual Morality: A
Catholic Perspective. This is considered a liberal Catholic textbook.
Let me read also from another textbook used here in the Philippines,
written by Fr. Henry Peschke, S.V.D. It is good the body brought that
out, because one of the papers given us pointed out that there is no
Catholic consensus on this.
There is certainly a consensus that
abortion is wrong and that life should be protected from the moment of
conception but that the argument really revolves on the moment of
ensoulment, as they say. Let me read a paragraph from this article
entitled “The Enduring Consensus” by Philip Keane.
Perhaps one of the most significant
facts about current Roman Catholic moral theology is that it has
consistently insisted on the moral evil of abortion, in spite of the
pluralism that has entered into so many other aspects of moral theology.
The tradition of the right to life has been sacred in Western thought
for centuries. Catholic moralists do not seem at all ready to abandon
this tradition in the area of abortion. They are not ready on any
widespread basis to concede that the evil in abortion is an ontic but
not a moral evil. Hence, the Church’s stand on abortion remains a
basically unified one. . .And then from Fr. Peschke:
On the background of these biblical
doctrines and also influenced by the inheritance from Judaism, the young
Christian Church formulated its judgment on abortion. From the earliest
times it was one of decided rejection. The condemnation developed in
sharp opposition to the attitude of the Greco-Roman world, in which
abortion and infanticide were not viewed as serious moral offenses.Throughout the centuries Christianity
continued to consider abortion as a crime. Grave sanctions were issued
by the Church against Christians who would dare to commit this sin
already in the first centuries. Vatican II once more takes a severe
stand against it. It writes: “From the moment of its conception life
must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide
are unspeakable crimes.” The intrinsic reasons for the abjectness of
abortion are the same as those which militate against the crime of
murder and the killing of an innocent in general.
So that is just to assure the Members of
this Commission of the unity in this tradition.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Madam
President, and I also thank the Commissioner.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, may I be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is
recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: In making a decision as to
which life takes priority, the life of the mother or the life of the
unborn, what criteria are contemplated by the committee on which to base
the decision?
MR. VILLEGAS: We have articulated this
moral principle called the principle of double effect. Whenever there is
need, for example, to perform a surgical operation on the mother
because of a disease or some organic malfunctioning, then the direct
intention is to save the mother. And if indirectly the child’s life has
to be sacrificed, that would not be abortion, that would not be killing.
So, in those situations which we said are becoming rarer and rarer
because of the tremendous advance of medical science, the mother’s life
is safe.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is only insofar as the
physiology is concerned. Does it take into account also the
psychological status of the mother, the socioeconomic circumstances that
surround the state of the mother?
MR. VILLEGAS: As we have said during the
interpellations, there are thousands of other ways of helping the mother
economically, psychologically, culturally. Precisely, it is the
responsibility of society, private individuals, religious and charitable
organizations and the State to apply all of those positive means to
help the mother psychologically, socially, culturally, but definitely,
not to opt for undoing a wrong by another wrong. We can never right a
wrong by another wrong.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is
recognized.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner
Suarez be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is
recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
May I take up some interesting legal
points with Commissioner Nolledo in order that all of us can be properly
guided. I take it that the Commissioner concedes that this provision
will affect not only our criminal laws but also our civil laws governing
the rights of children. Is my understanding correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: I did not say it will
affect; it will confirm our civil law and criminal law on the matter.
Abortion is now criminally punished under the Revised Penal Code and
that under Article 40 in relation to Article 41 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, to that child who is not yet born, there is accorded a
presumptive personality, subject to being born under the conditions
required by law, basically the separation from the maternal womb while
alive.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the
clarification.
May I concentrate first on the criminal
law implications of this provision. The Commissioner is right in calling
attention to the fact that under the Revised Penal Code, there are
already provisions governing abortion, and if I remember it correctly,
there is a crime known as intentional abortion and unintentional
abortion, plus abortion attended with some violence, et cetera.
If we are going to approve this
particular provision from the criminal standpoint, then the offense of
abortion after the moment of conception would be considered a crime of a
higher category like murder. Would the Commissioner not agree with me?
MR. NOLLEDO: Not necessarily, although we
categorize that as murder, because the child cannot defend himself.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes. There is a crime known
as infanticide which contemplates a situation where the mother could
kill her own child. There is a specific provision in the Revised Penal
Code governing that kind of crime. In this particular case, if we
approve this constitutional provision, how would we classify this
incident where a mother commits an intentional abortion which is
tantamount to killing the unborn child after the moment of conception?
Would we consider that infanticide or murder?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is called abortion,
subject to a mitigating circumstance which will lower the penalty if the
mother killed the fetus in order to hide her dishonor. In the case of
infanticide, if my memory serves me right, the child is already born,
and that the child has less than three days of life.
MR. SUAREZ: So what we are saying is:
This constitutional provision would not materially affect, alter or
revoke the provisions governing abortion under the Revised Penal Code.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner is
absolutely right. In that case, Congress may increase or decrease the
penalty depending on the circumstances. But if we adopt this provision,
Congress cannot abolish the laws against abortion.
MR. SUAREZ: So, in the same manner, all
of the accomplices, like the attending physician, the midwife, the
pharmacist who may have given these abortives would be affected. Their
respective criminal liabilities would not at all be affected by this
constitutional provision because their crimes are already covered by the
present provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner is correct.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
May we go now to the civil aspects, since
the Commissioner mentioned Articles 40 and 41. I take it that the
Commissioner and I are agreed that it is birth which gives legal
personality to the fetus or unborn child or conceived child or whatever
we call it. Is that proposition acceptable to the Commissioner?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is expressly
provided in Article 40 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
MR. SUAREZ: When we speak of birth, we
mean that that child must get out of the womb of the mother and breathe
some oxygen from this world. Is that the correct interpretation in
layman’s language?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner is right.
That is upon the cutting of the umbilical cord.
MR. SUAREZ: Right. And so, if we are
going to respect the rights of the unborn child from the time of
conception, that is going to affect not only our codal provisions
governing this birth or personality but also hereditary and successional
rights. Is my conclusion correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Even if we do not adopt
this, the Civil Code provision already gives right to an unborn child.
If we adopt this, we talk only of protection against possible ending of
the life of the child. The civil aspects would not be affected in any
way.
MR. SUAREZ: Would I be, therefore,
correct in assuming that this constitutional provision, notwithstanding
the codal provisions governing legitimacy, successional rights,
hereditary rights, would not be affected materially or substantially?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner is
absolutely right.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the
clarification.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you for the questions.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is
recognized.
MS. QUESADA: This is still on the future
practical implications should this particular provision be approved by
this body. What would now be the implication in the practice of certain
contraceptive methods, like the use of IUD, which according to the
report of Commissioner Villegas, is an abortifacient? Will this now be
banned?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner will notice
that when we talk of protection to life, we do not talk of preventive
pregnancy. Preventive pregnancy can still be covered under what we call
“population control policy.” But the moment there is life, I think it is
our duty to God and country to protect that life.
MS. QUESADA: The presentation of
Commissioner Villegas and contained in the documents or materials which
have been given to us, shows that some of these methods are
abortifacient in nature because there is already the fertilization of
the ovum. It is the implantation of the fertilized ovum that is
prevented by the use of the intrauterine device.
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Villegas will
answer the Commissioner’s question.
MR. VILLEGAS: This was the subject of
interpellations of Commissioner Regalado and we made a distinction, if
it can be scientifically proved that some contraceptives are
abortifacients, and that they actually kill the fertilized ovum. Then,
definitely those types of contraceptives will be declared
unconstitutional, once we have this specific provision.
MS. QUESADA: Would this mean that the law
will run after the producers of these contraceptive devices?
MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly, yes.
MS. QUESADA: And this covers also those
who import these particular methods?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely.
MS. QUESADA: And would this mean that the
practitioners — the family planning program implementors, the Ministry
of Health, the Population Commission, private practitioners, et cetera —
will now be held liable for the use of such abortifacient contraceptive
methods?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, if they are
accomplices to the use of these abortifacients.
MS. QUESADA: Would this mean that the law
will also run after the “arbularyos” and the sellers of herbs in
downtown Quiapo market, and the stallowners around Quiapo Church who
acknowledgedly are selling herbs which contribute to abortion? Would
these be the implications of the decision that we shall make here?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely, yes.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, apropos of
the interpellations of Commissioner Quesada, may I ask a follow-up
question?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may
proceed.
MR. BENGZON: In connection with these
questions asked by Commissioners Quesada and Villegas, which would lead
to possible liability and prosecution of those persons that she
mentioned, I assume that such possible liabilities and prosecution would
only come to play if it is proven that such acts were deliberately done
and if such methods were used deliberately to abort a fertilized ovum.
Then, those liabilities would possibly attach. Am I correct?
Therefore, if such methods are used by
these persons involved such as the health workers, social workers, et
cetera, without their knowing that there was in fact a fertilized ovum
already existing in the womb, then there is no liability at all that
would attach. Am I correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: There would not be, but of
course, the informal campaign should be there for us to be aware.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that
Commissioner Maambong be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I just
want to ask a follow-up question. I do not mind saying that I am in
favor of this protection which had been articulated by Commissioner
Villegas, but as lawyers, we have to put our feet on the ground. When we
go to court to present a case against a perpetrator of an alleged
abortion, there are certain things we have to present before the judge,
and one of these is proof that the woman is in fact pregnant.
I will not ask this question of
Commissioner Nolledo because this is not a legal question; it is
actually medical. Under the present medical advances, at what point of
conception — I am talking of weeks or months — can a doctor or a
hospital certify that the woman is in fact pregnant? There are varying
answers to this. Some say that medical science has advanced to such an
extent that a doctor can actually provide a medical certification that
the woman is pregnant from the moment of conception or from two weeks.
Some say it is two months; then there are some who say about the frog
test, I have nothing against this text. I think that is not a very
correct indication of pregnancy. What is the present medical science on
this, Madam President?
MR. VILLEGAS: Manuals on pregnancy
precisely state that normally, the woman realizes that she is pregnant
when she misses her period. By that time, the human life in her womb
shall have been present for approximately two weeks.
MR. MAAMBONG: All right, just one more
point on this. Suppose a woman has gone to the hospital and let us
assume, for purposes of argument, that she has in fact been pregnant for
two weeks. At the present stage of our medical science when she gets
examined after fertilization of two weeks, can a doctor in a hospital or
a hospital anywhere in Manila or in the Philippines certify that a
woman is already pregnant two weeks after fertilization?
MR. VILLEGAS: It would depend on the
expertise of the doctor and the possible equipment that she or he has.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is precisely my point.
Let us suppose that we go to the Makati
Medical Center, which is the best equipped in the Philippines, and let
us suppose that they have the best equipment. Can Makati Medical Center
present truthfully a certification that a woman has been pregnant two
weeks after fertilization?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. Given the present
status of medicine, that certification can be given, of course, with
statistical probability that is always contained in such a
certification.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am not questioning the
Commissioner’s answer. But is this answer documented by facts? I ask so,
because as of the moment, I am of the impression that under the
so-called “frog test,” “rabbit test” or whatever it is, it has to be at
least two months from fertilization before a doctor or a hospital can
issue that certification.
MR. VILLEGAS: This statement about the
woman being pregnant from the time she misses her period and the human
life in her womb being approximately two-weeks old has been made by
medical experts and that is where the scientific evidence can be found.
But I think the details of when certification can be made precisely are
details that should be left to Congress to determine if and when it is
questioned.
MR. MAAMBONG: I can understand that.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, may I
intervene.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is
recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you, Madam President.
Essentially, the problem presented by
Commissioner Maambong really involves legal evidence. It all boils down
as whether the evidence presented by the government, taking into account
the evidence presented by the counsel for the defense, will be accepted
by the court or not. Commissioner Villegas has tried to prove that his
conclusions are supported by available scientific data. But whether
there has been really life when the attempted or alleged abortifacient
or whatever method is used to abort a child is present, that involves a
question of evidence.
MR. MAAMBONG: I can agree with that. That
is precisely why I premised my question on the fact that as lawyers, we
have to put our feet on the ground.
MR. COLAYCO: Yes, that is true.
MR. MAAMBONG: When we go to court, the
court will always ask: “All right, you are charging somebody with
abortion. Where is your certification to the effect that the woman was
pregnant?” It is just like in physical injuries. To my layman’s
thinking, I understand that the pregnancy of a woman can be proven only
from two months. That is why I am asking Commissioner Villegas if we
have medical facilities to show that a woman can be proven pregnant two
weeks after pregnancy. If that is so, then we can now have that medical
certificate and present it to the court.
That is the only point.
MR. COLAYCO: But let us not forget that
the principle which is established in this section is nothing but a
principle.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. COLAYCO: That is all.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am satisfied with the
Commissioner’s answer.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that
Commissioner Aquino be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I am
apprehensive that when this provision is adopted, the exploration of
knowledge on an issue that is so complex will be brought to a stop even
before it has begun. The provision has been a source of conflicting
opinions. An important issue such as this and which elicits diverse and
complex responses should be more productively addressed by legislation,
which has a better chance of concretely addressing our hidden fears and
possibly providing a more manageable consensus on the issue.
Madam President, I would submit that this
issue belongs properly to the domain of legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready now for a
vote?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think we are ready to
vote, Madam President.
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is
recognized.
MR. GASCON: Before we vote, I would like
to be clarified on the parliamentary situation. Commissioner Rigos made a
motion to delete.
THE PRESIDENT: We are going to vote on
Commissioner Rigos’ amendment.
MR. GASCON: So, it will not be on
Commissioner Padilla’s amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla’s
amendment to the amendment.
MR. VILLEGAS: The motion to delete will
be the first, then later on we can take Commissioner Rigos’ amendment.
MR. RAMA: It is Commissioner Rigos’
amendment to his anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment of
Commissioner Rigos is to delete the phrase “from the moment of
conception.”
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words,
Commissioner Rigos’ amendment is on line 2 of page 3, which reads: “The
State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the
unborn CHILD.” Did I state it correctly, Commissioner Rigos?
REV. RIGOS: Yes, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, it will
be clear that if we vote “yes,” it is for the deletion of the phrase
“from the moment of conception.” If we vote “no,” it is for the
retention. Madam President, may I ask for a nominal voting.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us settle first
Commissioner Rigos’ motion to delete the phrase “from the moment of
conception ” without prejudice to Commissioner Padilla’s amendment.
MR. PADILLA: My proposal, Madam
President, is just to delete the words “the moment of.”
MR. VILLEGAS: That is accepted, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Which one, Commissioner
Rigos’ amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, Commissioner Padilla’s
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but we have here the
amendment of Commissioner Rigos which we have to dispose of, first,
unless Commissioner Rigos is withdrawing his amendment.
REV. RIGOS: I am not withdrawing my
proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: It is very clear.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, just a
parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Will we follow the
procedure that we had yesterday, that if the motion to delete is
carried, that is without prejudice to the filing of another amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, to whatever remains.
MR. REGALADO: Embodying the proposal of
Commissioner Padilla?
THE PRESIDENT: That is right, because the
committee report will remain as is, so it can be subject to another
amendment.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready now or shall
we have more introductions?
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, if it is
retained, will the amendment of Commissioner Padilla still be
acceptable?
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right. The body is
ready to vote, Madam President.
NOMINAL VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: All right, what is to be
voted upon is the deletion of the phrase “from the moment of
conception,” on lines 2 and 3 of page 3, Section 9, and there is a
request for nominal voting. So, if the vote is “yes,” it is to delete
“from the moment of conception.” If the vote is “no,” then that means to
say that the phrase “from the moment of conception” remains.
Will the Secretary-General please call
the roll?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Maambong | No | |
| Alonto | Monsod | No | |
| Aquino | Yes | Natividad | No |
| Azcuna | No | Nieva | No |
| Bacani | No | Nolledo | No |
| Bengzon | No | Ople | |
| Bennagen | Yes | Padilla | No |
| Bernas | No | Quesada | Yes |
| Rosario Braid | No | Rama | No |
| Calderon | No | Regalado | No |
| Castro de | No | Reyes de los | No |
| Colayco | No | Rigos | Yes |
| Concepcion | No | Rodrigo | No |
| Davide | No | Romulo | No |
| Foz | Rosales | ||
| Garcia | Yes | Sarmiento | No |
| Gascon | No | Suarez | Yes |
| Guingona | No | Sumulong | No |
| Jamir | No | Tadeo | Yes |
| Laurel | Tan | No | |
| Lerum | No | Tingson |
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I am voting
yes because I believe that this would better be taken care of by
legislature later on.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Treñas | Villegas | No | |
| Uka | No | Munoz Palma | No (Applause) |
| Villacorta |
THE PRESIDENT: There should be no
clapping or booing, please.
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will
conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Ople | ||
| Alonto | Treñas | ||
| Foz | Villacorta | ||
| Laurel |
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosales has
just entered.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading.
| Rosales | No |
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 8 votes
in favor and 32 against; so, the proposed Rigos amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that
Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, my proposal
is just to delete the words “the moment of,” so the phrase will read:
“the life of the unborn from conception.” I think this was accepted by
the committee.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, the amendment is
accepted by the committee.
THE PRESIDENT: This amendment has been
further enhanced by Commissioner Bernas’ amendment which added the words
“from conception”?
MR. VILLEGAS: “From conception,” Madam
President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote on
the amendment which has been accepted by the committee? The proposed
amendment reads: “The State shall equally protect the life of the mother
and the life of the unborn from conception.”
As many as are in favor of the amendment,
please raise their hand. (Several Members raised left hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (Four Members raised their hand.)
The results show 33 votes in favor, 3
against and 4 abstentions; the sentence, as read with that amendment of
Commissioner Padilla, is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may we take a
vote on the provisions of the whole section, as amended.
THE PRESIDENT: We will first read Section
9. Is there any other amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I have a proposed amendment
to the first paragraph of Section 9. It is a very minor amendment to add
the words “AND MARRIED” after “family.” So the first sentence will then
read: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family AND MARRIED life and
shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution.”
THE PRESIDENT: What does the committee
say?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, the
committee regrets that it cannot accept the amendment, precisely on the
premise that family life is premised on married life.
MR. DAVIDE: So, when the committee
therefore used the words “family life,” it is deemed to include married
life.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: That is the consensus in the
committee.
MR. DAVIDE: With that explanation and
clear intention, I am not insisting on my proposed amendment.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other
amendment? Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Since there was the
question whether or not family life includes married life, does it also
include instances where there is no marriage but there is family life?
Is that also the understanding in the committee? There are cases of
family life without necessarily having to get married.
MS. AQUINO: It is included.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner
Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I just want
to add the words “AND PRIMARY” after the word “natural” on line 3, page 3
of Section 9. This would harmonize with the section on Education that
was introduced by Commissioner Aquino. So it will read: “The natural AND
PRIMARY right and duty of parents.”
MS. AQUINO: The committee accepts the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: How will it read?
MS. AQUINO: Section 9, lines 3 to 6 on
page 3, will now read: “The natural AND PRIMARY right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the
development of moral character shall receive the aid and support of the
government.”
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is
recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: May I ask if Commissioner
Monsod will entertain an amendment.
MR. MONSOD: May we hear it first.
MR. COLAYCO: I suggest to put “PRIMARY”
before the word “duty” on line 3, so it will read: “The natural right
and PRIMARY duty.” The word “natural” is necessarily primary.
MR. MONSOD: We use the word “PRIMARY” to
denote the superior right of the parents as against the State.
MR. COLAYCO: I will not insist; I was
just thinking.
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is
recognized.
MR. GASCON: I have another amendment to
the same sentence. On line 5, delete the words “aid and,” so it will
read: “. . . development of moral character shall receive the support of
the government.” I feel that the words “aid and” are already covered by
the word “support.”
THE PRESIDENT: What does the committee
say?
MR. TINGSON: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is
recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I want to
ask a question regarding the interpretation of Commissioner Aquino on
what Commissioner Bennagen meant when he mentioned “no marriage at all”
or “no civil marriage.” What does the Commissioner mean? Are they the
same?
MR. BENNAGEN: No. I contemplate on the
possibility of consenting adults plus children living a family life.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but together they
have a mutual and a stable compact.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: I see. I was wondering if
it was something, at least, less than that, then the State shall
strengthen that type of living-in situation. That is not the idea.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we
vote on the whole Section 9.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the chairman please
read Section 9, as amended.
MR. TINGSON: Section 9, as amended,
reads: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution. IT
SHALL ACCORD EQUAL PROTECTION TO life of the mother and the life of the
unborn from conception. The natural AND PRIMARY right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the
development of moral character shall receive the support of the
government.”
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Before we vote, I just want
a clarification on the last phrase “development of moral character.” I
would like to know from the committee if this is well considered,
considering that with the insertion of the phrase “development of moral
character,” it would appear that the right and duty of parents is
limited to development of moral character and I do not think that is the
intention. I just want a one-sentence explanation on this.
MR. TINGSON: It is not limited to that,
but the committee felt that that is of primary importance; that it
deserves to be mentioned because the morality of a young man covers,
more or less, the whole plethora of his personality.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask this because this
phrase “and the development of moral character” does not appear in the
1973 Constitution. However, I will not insist on my clarification, with
the assurance that the words “development of moral character” do not
limit the duty and right of parents.
MR. TINGSON: The phrase does not appear
in the 1973 Constitution but we want to make our Constitution better
than the 1973 Constitution.
MR. MAAMBONG: Does this not really limit
the right and duty of parents only to the development of moral
character?
MR. TINGSON: No.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: May we request Commissioner
Tingson to read again the second sentence of this section. It seems to
be a little different from that in the copies we have.
MR. TINGSON: There was a little mistake
there a while ago. The second sentence reads: “It shall equally protect
the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”
MR. REGALADO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready now?
SR. TAN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is
recognized.
SR. TAN: May I just ask the committee how
the State will give the family aid for moral character?
MR. TINGSON: We already deleted that upon
the amendment suggested by Commissioner Gascon. The word “aid” is
eliminated; it will now be “shall receive the support of the
government.”
SR. TAN: May I know how the government
shall support the moral character of a family in Tondo?
MR. TINGSON: I will ask Commissioner
Aquino to say something on that.
MS. AQUINO: The forms and modalities of
state support are varied. It may take the form of welfare services and
social services in the fields of education. It may take the form of
scholarships and other incentives to enforce the spiritual and moral
formation of the citizens.
SR. TAN: In other words, this is an
emphasis on the support for moral development, but it does not mean that
it would not help physically or materially because nothing is said
about material help. One cannot preach about God to a hungry stomach.
That is what I mean.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, over and
above the other provisions of the article on state support, material
support is already included. The committee is of the sense that a
complete development of moral character also partakes of the need and
requisite for material support from the State. It is not excluded.
SR. TAN: Thank you for that explanation.
MR. RAMA: The body is ready to vote,
Madam President.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is
recognized.
MR. TINGSON: This may not be very, very
important but I just want to ask Commissioner Villegas or our committee.
I am, of course, disturbed by the fact that in the United States and
other places, there is sympathy towards defining a family as including
an effeminate man living with another man. We just want to make sure
that when we speak of “family,” we are speaking of the normal
conservative definition of family, and that is, a man and a woman
married together. I know we understand that, but I, personally, would
like to say that for the record.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, both the
natural law, the age-old traditions in the Philippines and religious
values affirm that normal family life relationship, not conservative, is
between a man and a woman.
MR. RAMA: We are ready to vote, Madam
President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Section 9 has been read by
the chairman.
As many as are in favor of Section 9, as
amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 34 votes in favor, none
against and 4 abstentions; Section 9, as amended, is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, we approved
Section 3 piecemeal last night. We have not voted on it as a whole
section, so I move that we vote on Section 3 as a whole section, as
amended.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is
recognized.
MR. TINGSON: The formulation that the
committee remembered last night was: “THE STATE SHALL PURSUE AN
INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY. WHEN ENTERING INTO A TREATY, THE PARAMOUNT
CONSIDERATION SHALL BE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY,
NATIONAL INTEREST AND THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.”
THE PRESIDENT: Is there the word “and”
between “SOVEREIGNTY” and “TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY”?
MR. TINGSON: There is no “and,” Madam
President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Before we vote on the
proposed amendment, may I ask Commissioner Bacani who fathered this
amendment one clarificatory question.
THE PRESIDENT: Which one? We are on
Section 3.
MR. SARMIENTO: This section to be voted
upon by the body, Madam President. I understand it was fathered by
Commissioners Romulo and Bacani.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I will share the
paternity.
MR. SARMIENTO: Last night, Madam
President, Commissioner Romulo stated that a military bases agreement or
any treaty concerning military bases would be excluded from the concept
of treaty. But after that was clarified, Commissioner Bacani informed
this Representation that it was his intent that the concept of treaty
covers agreements or treaties governing military bases.
So, may I be clarified on this point.
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Bacani talked to
me this morning and he now agrees that it is a general provision. He
was confused yesterday.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, when I
introduced this formulation, together with Commissioner Romulo, what I
intended was that it should be as general as possible. The sentence
says: “WHEN ENTERING INTO EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS, TREATIES AND OTHER
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS, THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION SHALL BE NATIONAL
SOVEREIGNTY, THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION.”
That should be a general statement and nothing should be excluded from
it, I believe.
MR. SARMIENTO: We are now confused, Madam
President, because the position of Commissioner Romulo is that treaties
governing military bases could be excluded from the concept of treaty
under that section. But here comes Commissioner Bacani saying that it
should be understood to mean a general provision, a concept governing
all treaties, without exceptions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Romulo
see any contradiction between his statement and that of Commissioner
Bacani’s, as stated, so that this can be explained or clarified?
MR. ROMULO: My intention was to exclude
foreign bases from treaties; I should say treaties regarding foreign
bases. As I explained yesterday, the Transitory Provisions formulated by
us excludes the concept of foreign bases other than the RP-US Military
Bases Agreement.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, all I am
trying to say is that when we do enter into treaties and other
international agreements, the paramount consideration shall be what is
mentioned here. On the other hand, whether or not the body intends to
exclude the foreign bases from this treaty is another question. Whether
they are included or excluded, if treaties are made with any other
nation, then these conditions should be of paramount interest. I think
that is the sense of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other
question?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: This is not on behalf of the
committee. This is just a personal observation.
May I inquire from Commissioner Romulo
the intent of the provision as interpreted by him? Am I correct in
understanding that the interpretation of his provision, dovetailed with
the provision that has been approved for the Transitory Provisions, is
that any and all treaty arrangements on foreign bases will not be
allowed anymore?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, except for. . .
MS. AQUINO: Except that which pertains to
the RP-US Military Bases Agreement in the Transitory Provisions. In
effect, does it not mean that we are reserving only for the Americans
the use of the national territory for any kind of foreign bases?
MR. ROMULO: Only if the Chief Executive
decides to enter into a new treaty. That is up to the Chief Executive
and the Congress.
MS. AQUINO: Assuming that the Chief
Executive decides, we cannot allow anymore any other kind of foreign
bases, for example, as cited by Commissioner Azcuna, the possibility of a
joint ASEAN foreign base in the Philippines or in Indonesia or in
Malaysia. Would that be the effect?
MR. ROMULO: That is our thought because
we hope to dismantle the U.S. bases as soon as possible and thereafter
we do not want any other bases here.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: We are ready to vote, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is
recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: In the contemplation of the
committee, how are the criteria for paramountcy of national
sovereignty, integrity, national interest and right to
self-determination determined? May I ask the proponents.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg the Commissioner’s
pardon?
MR. BENNAGEN: I would like to ask the
proponents how the paramountcy of national sovereignty, territorial
integrity, national interest and right to self-determination be
determined in deciding on an international treaty.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is
recognized.
MR. ROMULO: We believe that the Chief
Executive and Congress in entering into these agreements shall try as
realistically as possible always to uphold our interests, our rights on a
truly mutual, beneficial and reciprocal basis; and that with regard to
territorial integrity, of course, no part of our territory will be
compromised. And above all, our national interest, which should be
perceived by the Executive and Congress, shall prevail.
MR. BENNAGEN: Would this include also
consultation with a broad sector of the Philippine population?
MR. ROMULO: I suppose so, because
Congress will have to be involved, and so is the Executive as in
relation to our section on social justice regarding consultation with
the people.
MR. BENNAGEN: Will it include referenda
and plebiscites?
MR. ROMULO: I think I will leave that to
the proper authorities — that would either be Congress or the President.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: We are ready to vote, Madam
President.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, just a
clarification before we vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is
recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Yesterday I do recall that
when we talked about the Transitory Provisions, the treaty is transient,
which means that it will end. Whatever principle we put there will
actually not be operational until after it shall have been implemented.
Therefore, when we talk about a principle placed in the Declaration of
Principles, it should be something that shall guide us in our future
decisions. Therefore, when we say we exclude the matter of foreign bases
in this particular executive agreement or treaty that the State will
get into, then we will not be governed by any principle in such future
transactions, because we are, in effect, saying that there will be no
change in the present situation. So, the interpretation was just given
by Commissioner Romulo. He clarified that we are giving a special place
for the foreign bases when, in fact, international agreements would
consider a vital issue as allowing bases in the future.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I am also one of those who
helped draft that and perhaps we can settle it by saying that the
subject of the US military bases is covered by the Transitory
Provisions, not only because it is transient, but because it can also be
a contingent event.
With respect to the principle, the
principle of foreign policy in Section 3 says that all treaties shall be
governed by the principles of national sovereignty. But Commissioner
Romulo also read into the record that in the first place, treaties on
any foreign base other than those in the Transitory Provisions are not
contemplated as within the area that can be entered into. Therefore,
that is the reconciliation between the opinion of Commissioner Bacani
and Commissioner Romulo. In the first place, we will not enter into any
treaty on foreign bases except in the contingent and transitory
possibility after 1991 which is covered by the Transitory Provisions. In
all other treaties which are allowed, then those principles of
sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and
self-determination will apply.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is
recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: I would like to propose an
amendment that will reconcile all the views. Instead of “WHEN ENTERING
INTO A TREATY,” we just say: “IN OUR RELATIONS WITH OTHER STATES, THE
PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION SHALL BE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY . . .” It ties up
also with foreign policy. It is the broad field of international
relations.
MR. ROMULO: We accept, Madam President.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I will just
ask one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is
recognized.
MR. GASCON: When we say “IN OUR RELATIONS
WITH OTHER STATES” as a basic principle, considering all of these
bases, will this also relate to our attitude as we enter into the period
1991 which is stipulated in the Transitory Provisions?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Madam President. It will
include all our relations with other States.
MR. GASCON: Including that which is
already stipulated in the Transitory Provisions?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. GASCON: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the body is
ready to vote on the provision, as amended.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I will ask
our committee member, Commissioner Azcuna, to please read the amended
section.
MR. AZCUNA: Section 3 will now read as
follows: “THE STATE SHALL PURSUE AN INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY. IN OUR
RELATIONS WITH OTHER STATES, THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION SHALL BE
NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, NATIONAL INTEREST, AND THE
RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.”
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: With respect to the second
paragraph, instead of saying “IN OUR RELATIONS,” since we are using the
third person, it should be “IN ITS RELATIONS.”
MR. AZCUNA: We accept, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of
Section 3, as read, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 33 votes in favor, 1
against and 3 abstentions; Section 3 is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that
Commissioner Monsod be recognized to present an amendment to Section 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I would like to present an
amendment to Section 4.
At this juncture, the President
relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Regalado E. Maambong.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
just approved the section protecting the unborn. A few weeks ago, we
approved the section protecting life by abolishing the death penalty,
subject only to certain exceptions. Our amendment to Section 4 is a
continuation of our affirmation and commitment to life for all our
people from the scourge of nuclear weapons. Yesterday, we also voted to
give some options on the questions of the bases. It is even more
important now to affirm the sense and commitment of this Commission with
respect to nuclear weapons. We are happy to say that this is probably
one of those proposals of the committee and the body where we have, I
believe, unanimity, where we can all get together because we all share
that same concern.
I would like to propose that the section
be reformulated to read as follows: “THE PHILIPPINES SHALL, CONSISTENT
WITH CONSIDERATIONS SOLELY OF NATIONAL INTEREST, PURSUE A POLICY OF
FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN ITS TERRITORY.”
This was codrafted by Commissioner
Azcuna, who is the prime author and may I read the names of the
coauthors: Commissioners Rigos, Romulo, Colayco, Rama, Regalado,
Tingson, Davide, Villegas, Gascon, Bernas, Concepcion, Sumulong, Bacani,
Sarmiento, Calderon, Muñoz Palma, Tadeo, Ople, Natividad, Nieva,
Rosales, Maambong, Tan, Quesada, Bengzon, Treñas, Foz, Uka, de los
Reyes, Guingona, Rodrigo, Jamir, Suarez, Rosario Braid, Nolledo, Aquino,
de Castro and myself.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
chairman of the committee is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Inasmuch as our committee is
involved in the formulation of this amendment and that practically
everyone is a coauthor of this amendment, our committee joyfully accepts
the amendment.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: This is not on behalf of the
committee but may I request a clarification on how the committee would
operationalize the term “SOLELY” on the basis of national interest?
MR. MONSOD: The formulation as it is
merely asserts that the national interest is paramount. Therefore, the
principle or the policy that Commissioner Azcuna defined in his
sponsorship and the nonabsolutist character are adopted by this
proposal. “National interest” is defined by the executive and the
legislative and this means that we are making a declaration that this is
a policy of the State and that it must be consistent with the national
interest. If there are by-products or other interests that may be
served, then those are incidental and secondary. Unless the national
interest is served first, then there shall not be any modifications or
exceptions.
MS. AQUINO: I appreciate some kind of an
inconsistency between cognition and the formulation of that provision
because when one says “SOLELY” in the national interest, it is as if to
say that it is the exclusive ground upon which we will adopt this kind
of a policy; whereas, the Commissioner is also articulating that it
seems to approximate the idea that it is the primary concern. I would
suggest that we delete “SOLELY.” I would say there is a cognitive
dissonance.
MR. MONSOD: Let me ask the committee
because it has accepted the proposal. The intent is that unless the
national interest is served and when deciding it, one should not think
of other considerations other than the national interest. If, however,
there are other benefits that may arise — for example, it is an ASEAN
agreement — then that is something that comes as a by-product. As far as
we are concerned, what is important is that the decision is based
solely on our national interest.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Before we proceed with the details of this formulation, the Chair would
like to know from the committee if it has in fact accepted the proposal.
MR. TINGSON: I am speaking for the
majority members of the committee. We are accepting the amendment.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: I am one of the cosponsors
of this proposed amendment and this amendment is in consonance with a
statement that I made that we are all in favor of this anti-nuclear
stand, but it should be declared as a policy rather than one that would
be immediately implementable.
With respect to the question of the
honorable Commissioner Aquino, as pointed out by Commissioner Monsod,
the national interest could still be the sole consideration even if
other interests are observed because the other interests are secondary.
In other words, they are incidental. For example, if the interest of the
ASEAN or some other country is affected because of our agreement with
these entities or countries, still the primary, fundamental and
exclusive consideration will be the national interest which includes the
national security and the consideration of the very existence of the
State.
MR. GARCIA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: As a member of the committee,
we would like to welcome the overwhelming support which the Members of
the Commission have given to the nuclear weapons provision in Section 4.
At the same time, I understand that this definitely means that we are
against the presence of nuclear weapons in our country, and also the
entry and transit of nuclear-armed and nuclear-capable vessels and
aircrafts in the country and the dumping of nuclear wastes, all of which
present very clear and present danger to the survival of our people.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just wanted to respond to
that, because in the formulation of this amendment which represents a
reconciliation of wide and divergent views, we precisely focused
ourselves only on nuclear weapons, and we adopted the Azcuna
explanations with respect, for example, to ships docking. We did not
include the uses of nuclear medicine or nuclear plants for that matter.
This is purely nuclear weapons.
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: I would just like to clarify
that we will not be agreeable to reading into the minutes of these
proceedings an amplification beyond the intent and the letter of the
amendment.
MR. GARCIA: Precisely, Mr. Presiding
Officer, if we do not allow nuclear weapons in the country, we must have
a mechanism of verification so that we can be sure that within the
national territory, as defined in our Article on National Territory, no
nuclear weapons are present.
MR. MONSOD: I agree, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
MR. GARCIA: I think it is up to the
government, therefore, to determine a system of verification that no
nuclear-armed vessels or aircraft with nuclear weapons in their
possession be allowed in Philippine territory. I think that is clear.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, I think I agree to the
verification, but I would like Commissioner Azcuna to explain the
various circumstances that do not come within the strict definition and
intent of this article, as he explained in his sponsorship speech. Since
this adopts his sponsorship speech, I think that should be the ruling
interpretation of this amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair would like to address a query to Commissioner Garcia. Is
Commissioner Garcia objecting to the wordings?
MR. GARCIA: No, Mr. Presiding Officer. In
fact, I welcome the overwhelming support which has been manifested by
the Members of the Commission as to the importance of the nuclear
weapons issue, and I am simply clarifying it. It is rather important
that in the future there should be methods of verification to be
determined by the government to make sure that these weapons truly are
not present, because it is the policy of some of the superpowers neither
to confirm nor to deny the existence of these nuclear weapons.
In fact it is interesting to note — if
the Members want to listen to some highlights regarding this point — how
some of our former leaders have answered this question. For example,
when President Marcos himself was asked about this issue of nuclear
weapons, he said: “As far as we are concerned, we have not been
consulted and, therefore, as far as we are concerned there are no
nuclear weapons.” The answer of General Ver to this question is more
interesting. He said: “We have an agreement with the U.S. that they will
report to us any entry of nuclear weapons into Clark or Subic, but
sometimes, they do not do it.”
In other words, it is up to our
Philippine government to exercise that authority to make sure that no
nuclear weapons are, in fact, present.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair is clarified. There is no disagreement between Commissioner
Garcia and the formulation of Commissioner Monsod.
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Let me defer to Commissioner
de Castro first and then I shall speak later.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Just a moment. Before the Chair recognizes Commissioner de Castro or
Commissioner Azcuna, Commissioner Gascon has been standing there for
quite some time.
Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: I will defer until this
interpellation, Mr. Presiding Officer. I would like to seek some
clarification in view of the points raised by Commissioner Aquino.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you. Just one
question to the honorable proponent.
Does “NATIONAL INTEREST” include national
defense and security?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
Commissioner Gascon now prepared to say his piece?
MR. GASCON: Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Please proceed.
MR. GASCON: In view of the statements
made by Commissioner Aquino that the word “SOLELY” seems to imply that
it shall be the only consideration when we refer to the issue of nuclear
weapons, I would like to add further — as I expressed when I signed
that resolution — that in fact, we are against nuclear weapons, not
simply for national interest but because of our commitment to world
peace.
I would like to support Commissioner
Aquino’s request, if the major proponent does not mind, to delete the
word “SOLELY” and instead just use the words “CONSIDERATIONS OF NATIONAL
INTEREST” which would be a little more open.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I am
amenable to that amendment, but the amendment is now under the
jurisdiction of the committee, so I would like to ask the committee if
they are also amenable.
MR. TINGSON: The committee similarly
accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Could Commissioner Gascon hold on to his amendment? The Chair wishes to
recognize Commissioner Tan first.
SR. TAN: Mr. Presiding Officer, I welcome
this resolution, and as far as I can hear, there is no big
contradiction between Commissioner Garcia and Commissioner Monsod. But I
think we should not be naive about just placing such a resolution
without making it clear, at least, on the record that this includes
freighters, boats or whatever that carry nuclear weapons, and it would
also include using our seas as a dumping ground for nuclear waste.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
wanted to defer to Commissioner Azcuna on the various interpretations
here because he has covered it very exhaustively in his sponsorship
speech.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Could we take care of the Gentleman on the floor first?
Does Commissioner Ople seek to be
recognized?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, I
was awaiting for my turn. Thank you very much.
Since the committee has now acquired
jurisdiction over the Azcuna-Monsod amendment, will the committee yield
to a question or two? Does this amendment also contemplate a mandate to
the Philippine government to insist that the pursuit of a policy on
nuclear weapons be a controlling guideline if there is a new negotiation
with the United States concerning the military bases? Is it a mandate
to the Philippine government and a limitation as well so that if it is
deemed in the national interest by the government to enter into new
negotiations, that the section will be a controlling guideline to our
own negotiators on behalf of the Philippine government?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. OPLE: Does it also mean that if there
are such negotiations, a process of verification can be established as
part of the treaty?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. OPLE: Mention has been made of the
ASEAN and the possibility that in the future, the Philippines can host
bases of a regional character. Is that interpretation correct, Mr.
Presiding Officer?
MR. AZCUNA: That was a possibility in the
light of the previous wording where we mentioned “treaty.” We were
precisely clarifying that. But the interpretation that has been
distilled from the amendment yesterday is not to allow even ASEAN
military bases in our territory within the context of the present
wording of what we have approved. The idea really is that there will be
no further foreign military bases allowed, except those that have been
allowed. In other words, something like — to use Commissioner Bacani’s
words — a “necessary evil.” We do not want anymore necessary evils
around. That is why we put it in the Transitory Provisions; we hope that
it will not last forever. And we do not intend to have any other
foreign military bases in our country.
MR. OPLE: If there is a Zone of Peace,
Freedom and Neutrality — of course, this is contingent on a
reconciliation of the Indo-Chinese states and the countries that compose
the ASEAN — and since the neutrality that is contemplated here is a
neutrality guaranteed by the combined military forces of the countries
that have signed a protocol on this zone, will this interpretation now
foreclose the possibility of the Philippines as a signatory to a future
neutrality treaty from, let us say, enforcing a covenant among these
nations that may call for stationing joint facilities in any part of the
region?
MR. DE CASTRO: May I answer that?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, please.
MR. DE CASTRO: I have not seen any
concept of neutrality in any of the provisions we have approved so far,
as well as the proposition on Section 4. The concept of neutrality is
never intended nor can one see it in this Section 3 and the proposed
Section 4.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, it
is very obvious that there is no neutrality provision in any of these
sections under discussion.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. OPLE: I am merely raising some
hypothetical questions in the light of the declaration of the countries
composing the ASEAN. Someday they may want to achieve a Zone of Peace,
Freedom and Neutrality in this part of the world.
So, this is not related, Mr. Presiding
Officer, to Section 3 or even directly to Section 4. I just wanted to
put that on record so that future researchers shall not fault us for
this oversight, that the ASEAN is not a military pact. All the
governments making up the ASEAN, individually and collectively, have
stated that ASEAN is not a military pact and will not be. In the words
of Mochtar Kusumaatmadza, the foreign minister of Indonesia, ASEAN will
never rise to the level of a military pact in the future. I am not
saying that we should believe these words of our government in the ASEAN
but although bilateral security ties do obtain within the ASEAN, all
the governments making up the ASEAN have said time and again that they
do not want to have a military pact and they do not anticipate the ASEAN
rising someday to the level of a military organization. That is all I
wanted to put on record, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I will attempt to clarify
this on behalf of the committee. Consistent with the intent of Section
3, the possibility of the Philippines being a signatory to any kind of a
collective security arrangement in the ASEAN region is not prohibited.
However, conformably with the interpretation of Commissioner Romulo of
the approved provision, we cannot allow foreign military facilities or
any foreign enclave within the national territory.
MR. OPLE: Thank you for that
clarification.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: As I see it, in the
provision that we intend to put in the Transitory Provisions, we are
allowing under the terms of a treaty the renegotiation of the RP-US
agreement on foreign military bases. In the event that our President,
who is given the option to renegotiate the US military bases, will not
accept or will not take that option of renewing the military bases
treaty with the United States, it will appear in our Constitution that
there will be no more foreign military bases to be accepted in the
Philippines. That is my interpretation of our provision to be placed in
the Transitory Provisions, and the interpretation of Commissioner Aquino
on our future relations with other states, where we may sign a treaty
concerning collective security, is correct and is based on national
sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and the right to
self-determination.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: The proposal, as substitute
for Section 4, has the phrase “CONSISTENT WITH CONSIDERATIONS SOLELY OF
NATIONAL INTEREST.”
MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
word “SOLELY” has been deleted.
MR. PADILLA: Can we not just simplify
this by saying “CONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL INTEREST”?
MR. DE CASTRO: Correct, we accept.
MR. TINGSON: We accept that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Before Commissioner Padilla proceeds, Commissioner Monsod has a pending
suggestion — that for the benefit of the whole body, Commissioner Azcuna
should be made to explain the concept here. But before Commissioner
Azcuna does so, the Chair would like to be cleared now on the
formulation. Is Commissioner Monsod listening?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair has this formulation: “THE PHILIPPINES SHALL, CONSISTENT WITH
NATIONAL INTEREST, PURSUE A POLICY OF FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN
ITS TERRITORY.” Is that the correct formulation?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
believe the amendment of Commissioner Padilla is: “CONSISTENT WITH THE
NATIONAL INTEREST.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): All
right. So, it will read: “THE PHILIPPINES SHALL, CONSISTENT WITH THE
NATIONAL INTEREST, PURSUE A POLICY OF FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN
ITS TERRITORY.”
With the indulgence of Commissioner
Padilla, may the Chair now call on Commissioner Azcuna to add something
to what we already said, probably in a form of a definitive statement,
before the other Members can comment so that we can proceed with this
section.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
In my sponsorship speech, I pointed out
that this is a policy, albeit a basic policy because it is stated in the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies in the Constitution.
Consequently, what we are seeking here is primarily a statement of an
orientation, a basic direction in the Constitution, that as a matter of
policy, we are against nuclear weapons in our territory. As practiced by
other states, that means prohibition not only of possessing,
controlling and manufacturing nuclear weapons, but also of nuclear tests
in our territory, as well as the use of our territory as a dumping
ground for radioactive wastes. This is embraced in the policy against
nuclear weapons in one’s territory. As practiced both in Latin America,
under the Treaty of Tlatelolco, as well as by the South Pacific
countries that endorsed the Treaty of Rarotonga, passage of ships,
whether nuclear-powered or nuclear-arms-bearing, is left to the
determination of every state on a case-to-case basis. It is not per se a
violation of a nuclear weapons free zone to allow a ship that is
nuclear-powered or bearing nuclear weapons to pass or enter one’s
territory. However, it has to be done in the light of a policy.
There is a policy against the presence of
nuclear weapons and, therefore, the exceptions to that policy would
have to be strictly construed or justified. What we are saying with the
formulation now is that it can be justified only on the basis or on the
crucible of the national interest. If it is consistent with the national
interest, then really there is the possibility of deviating from that
policy but the policy is there. The basic direction is there. There can
be deviations now and then because we said that this is not a 100
percent rule; this is not absolute. But deviations must be justified on
the basis and the crucible or test of national interest.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Thank you.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Before the Chair recognizes anybody else, the Chair would like to state
the parliamentary situation.
We are now in the consideration of the
amendment by substitution to Section 4. I would suppose that the concept
has been discussed thoroughly, and if the proponent will allow, could
we now go to the consideration of the amendment by substitution? Is that
right?
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I propose a very simple
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Please proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: The first is to delete the
word “SHALL” after “PHILIPPINES” and to substitute “PURSUE” with
“PURSUES,” and before that, add the words “ADOPTS AND.” So, the entire
proposal will read: “THE PHILIPPINES, CONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL
INTEREST, ADOPTS AND PURSUES A POLICY OF FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN
ITS TERRITORY.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say?
MR. TINGSON: We feel it is an
improvement, so we accept it.
MR. AZCUNA: We accept.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide which has been accepted will
now read: “THE PHILIPPINES, CONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL INTEREST,
ADOPTS AND PURSUES A POLICY OF FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN ITS
TERRITORY.
Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
just would like more clarification from Commissioner Azcuna, if he will
yield to further questions.
MR. AZCUNA: Gladly, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
MR. VILLACORTA: When Commissioner Azcuna
was speaking about the policy of banning nuclear-capable and
nuclear-bearing ships, it was not very clear to many of us here just
exactly what the provision, if approved, would entail. Would the general
policy be against or in favor of the passage of these ships?
MR. AZCUNA: The policy would be against.
MR. VILLACORTA: Against the passage?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. VILLACORTA: And entry into the
Philippine territory, not only of nuclear-weapons bearing ships but also
ships that have nuclear capability or are nuclear-capable. They may not
possess nuclear weapons but they are capable of possessing and using
nuclear weapons. Is that right, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. AZCUNA: If they are merely
nuclear-capable but they are not carrying nuclear weapons, they are not
barred, as in Japan where the Japanese require U.S. ships to leave first
their nuclear weapons elsewhere before entering Japanese waters. That
is allowed in the practice, so we would not ban that. What we are saying
is, we are banning the ships carrying weapons from entering our
territory and, therefore, what they have to do is deposit the weapons
elsewhere before entering our territory. Every ship is capable of
carrying a nuclear weapon, even a tugboat.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
beg to disagree. Not every ship is capable of bearing nuclear weapons.
And it is not just a matter of bearing it; it is a matter of having the
necessary safeguards and technology to bear these weapons because, for
example, the passenger ships would not have that capability of . . .
MR. AZCUNA: Yes. Even a tugboat can
really carry a nuclear weapon, if one will read some literature on this.
And so, if we ban the ship simply because it is capable of carrying
nuclear weapons, no ship will probably be able to enter our territory.
MR. VILLACORTA: This is one of the
controversies in Japan with respect to American ships entering the
territory of Japan. The Japanese government is in a fix in terms of
handling the situation because it was not anticipated by the Japanese
government. The Japanese government has a standing policy — although it
is not constitutional but it is an executive policy — which follows the
three nonnuclear principles: no possession, no entry, and no use of
nuclear weapons. But many military analysts fear that a lot of
nuclear-capable American ships enter Japanese territory and somehow, if I
may use or coin another phrase, through the use of military necromancy
or maneuvers, the ships are able to transfer nuclear weapons from one
ship to another and the Japanese government is unable to do anything
about it. The government of New Zealand is more categorical in banning
nuclear-capable ships.
So why cannot the committee in accepting
the Monsod amendment put that in the interpretation and contemplation of
that amendment? Nuclear-capable ships and nuclear-capable planes should
certainly be banned from entry.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes. As we explained, the
matter of passage of ships carrying weapons is enforced on a
case-to-case basis although the policy is there — that is, we are
against it. If nuclear-capable ships, respecting our policy, leave their
weapons in Guam and come to Philippine waters, asking our permission to
enter, we believe that such ships having respected our policy should
not be barred under that policy. Precisely, it shows recognition of our
policy that they have left their weapons elsewhere. If they use
subterfuge or they enter under the guise of not carrying weapons but in
fact are carrying them, then that is something else. That would be
covered by the ban. But if there is a sincere compliance with the policy
of not bringing nuclear weapons into our territory and, although it is
capable of doing so, but respecting our policy, it did not do so, then
we should appreciate that consideration.
MR. VILLACORTA: Just two more questions,
Mr. Presiding Officer.
Why would nuclear-capable ships enter
Philippine territory in the first place?
MR. AZCUNA: Without carrying nuclear
weapons? There are many reasons: they could be in distress; they could
be coming in for repairs. There are many reasons why a ship enters a
port.
MR. VILLACORTA: Has the committee looked
into the technology of this? Would nuclear-capable ships be able to dump
nuclear wastes into Philippine waters?
The Commissioner might want me to repeat
my question.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, please.
MR. VILLACORTA: Would nuclear-capable
vessels be capable of dumping nuclear wastes into Philippine waters?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, they are capable of
dumping nuclear wastes. Again, I imagine even an ordinary ship capable
of dumping nuclear wastes. These nuclear wastes are put in barrels
marked with radioactive markers and dumped into the sea; sometimes,
freight ships are used to do this.
MR. VILLACORTA: In other words, allowing
nuclear-capable ships to enter Philippine territory increases the
chances of nuclear-waste dumping into our territory. Am I right, Mr.
Presiding Officer?
MR. AZCUNA: We do not want to fall into
the policy of ab posse ad esse, Mr. Presiding Officer, that
simply because something is possible, therefore, it will happen.
Although everything is possible, we are not prohibiting the possibility;
we are prohibiting the actuality.
MR. VILLACORTA: Anything is possible but
certain circumstances increase the possibility. Am I right, Mr.
Presiding Officer?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes. However, what are
prohibited are not the possibilities, even the degrees thereof, but the
actual occurrences or the actual dumpings. The policy is against these,
not the entry of ships capable of dumping, but do not do so.
MR. VILLACORTA: Last question. Does the
Commissioner think that we have the necessary technology to detect the
possession of nuclear weapons by entering ships and planes?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
It is our feeling that the precise technology, if we do not possess it
now, is something we can develop within the next few years. And also,
there are other institutions that can help us; there are international
institutions that are engaged in this and are willing to help developing
countries. For instance, in the South Pacific, as well as in the Latin
American treaties, they mentioned the International Atomic Energy
Commission which provides technical help and verification. So, there are
available means.
MR. VILLACORTA: Assuming that we have the
technology or we can borrow technology for detecting nuclear weapons
from other countries or international agencies, will the military bases
agreement that the majority here would want to continue allow
surveillance or ocular inspection to be able to detect the presence of
nuclear weapons within the bases, as well as within the ships that are
entering the territory of the Philippines?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer,
if they agree to a provision that there will be no nuclear weapons in
the bases concomitant with such a provision in the verification clause.
In fact, this is not new. The Philippine panel in the 1976 negotiations
already demanded the absence of nuclear weapons in the US bases, so this
is not a new posture. We have already asserted such a demand way back
in 1976, and in those negotiations, part of that demand was for a
verification procedure.
MR. VILLACORTA: The Commissioner raised
two points. First of all, such a demand was made. However, he has not
informed us whether or not the demand was accepted.
MR. AZCUNA: It was not, but it can be
renewed.
MR. VILLACORTA: So it was not accepted.
MR. AZCUNA: It was not.
MR. VILLACORTA: Secondly, the
Commissioner has said that it will depend on whether or not the American
authorities will agree to a nonnuclear provision in the military bases
agreement. But since there is no such provision and the military bases
agreement is valid until 1991, then the Commissioner is saying that the
constitutional provision against nuclear weapons, if this is approved,
will not be implementable until after 1991, assuming that after 1991 a
nonnuclear provision will be accepted.
MR. AZCUNA: What would happen is, if we
approve this Constitution carrying the proposed Section 4, stating a
policy against nuclear weapons, and then we have also a provision in the
Transitory Provision saying that after 1991 there has to be a new
treaty, then we have an interregnum between the approval of the
Constitution in 1991. The Gentleman asks, “What happens then? Will the
nuclear weapons, if there are any, in these US bases be tolerated or
not?”
I would say that we have to take into
account the fact that there is a provision for review of the terms of
the agreement even before 1991. What the Philippine government can then
do is ask for a review of the existing terms in the light of a
constitutional policy against nuclear weapons, and ask that even before
1991, the demand made in 1976 should be pressed again. That same demand
that no nuclear weapons be stationed in these bases can be made this
time with the additional reinforcement of the constitutional policy as
mandated.
MR. VILLACORTA: What happens if the
Americans do not agree, whether we are talking of 1988 or 1991?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, prior to 1991.
MR. VILLACORTA: Prior to 1991 or in 1991.
MR. AZCUNA: I believe a review is due in
1988.
MR. VILLACORTA: But the assumption is
that the Americans will agree. Suppose they will refuse to accept that
demand, what will happen? Will this constitutional provision be an empty
provision?
MR. AZCUNA: No. The policy will still be
there. It admits of exceptions, as we said; then it will just be an
exception because in that particular case, we have treaty commitments.
MR. VILLACORTA: In other words, the
implementation of this constitutional provision is subject really to its
acceptance by the American authorities and its incorporation in the
present military bases agreement, or the future military bases
agreement, assuming that its extension is part of the renegotiation.
MR. AZCUNA: No, Mr. Presiding Officer.
What we are saying is, we have existing agreements and we are not
violating these existing agreements, whether we like them or not. We
want to honor them. So, we have a new policy. This is something like
what the Gentleman said: rebus sic stantibus — change of
circumstances.
When these treaties were entered into,
there was yet no policy against nuclear weapons; however, within the
lifetime of the treaty, a policy against nuclear weapons emerges. We can
therefore go to them and say, “Look, there is a basic change in the
situation; we have a constitutionally mandated policy against nuclear
weapons and, therefore, we want to align these treaty provisions now
with this new policy.” What happens if they do not agree? We have many
options. One, we can go to the World Court and sue them by saying that
the rebus sic stantibus doctrine applies, or we can say, “We
treat this as an exception to the policy.” The policy is there but it
cannot be 100 percent. We have to be pragmatic. So, there are many
choices left, but we cannot presume that they will not agree.
MR. VILLACORTA: Is the United States one
of those nations that signed this agreement recognizing the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, and the United States
also signed the protocol to the Treaty of Tlatelolco, together with the
Soviet Union.
MR. VILLACORTA: Knowing the composition
of the International Court of Justice and the precedence of cases
decided by it, what are the chances of a Third World country that is
weak and small like the Philippines, vis-a-vis the United States?
MR. AZCUNA: Nicaragua has just won a case
against the United States, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. VILLACORTA: Which case is this?
MR. AZCUNA: The case against the placing
of mines in the Nicaraguan harbor, and the United States lost.
MR. VILLACORTA: That was a case of mines.
This particular case is a clear incidence of blatant violation of
international law. We are talking about a case in which the Philippines
would want to unilaterally abrogate or withdraw from an international
treaty because of a constitutional provision that was approved. I do not
think the Honorable Azcuna is listening to my question, Mr. Presiding
Officer, and, therefore, would be unable to answer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): I
think Commissioner Azcuna is listening to the question.
MR. AZCUNA: I am sorry; I was listening.
MR. VILLACORTA: My question is: If a case
would be brought to the ICJ by the Philippines involving an issue in
which the United States would not want to incorporate a nonnuclear
provision in a renegotiated military bases agreement, what are the
chances of the ICJ judging in favor of the Philippines, because
precedence in the ICJ shows that the International Court always gives
precedence to the principle of pasta sunt servanda over the principle of
rebus sic stantibus?
MR. AZCUNA: In international law, the
doctrine of precedence does not apply.
MR. VILLACORTA: I know, but we are
talking about the actual cases decided and the actual record of the ICJ.
The point that I am driving at, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that, as far
as the trend of decisions in the ICJ is concerned, we shall be at the
losing end and the fact that we still have to elevate to the
International Court of Justice a question of whether a constitutional
provision, our own Constitution, has to be implemented in our own
territory does not speak very well of the kind of sovereignty that we
have.
MR. NOLLEDO: Point of information, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Nolledo is recognized on a point of information.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think that question could
be more intelligently answered if — correct me if I am wrong —
Commissioner Azcuna were a professor of public international law. Under
the charter of the International Court of Justice, before a case is
taken cognizance by the International Court of Justice, both parties
must agree to submit to its jurisdiction. Moreover, both parties must
also agree that anyone who loses must abide by the decision of the
International Court of Justice. So, if the United States government, in
the question of Commissioner Villacorta, will not agree to submit the
question to the International Court of Justice, it would be very
difficult to bring the case before this international court. And even if
the United States government agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of
the International Court of Justice but does not agree to abide by its
decision, then it would be meaningless to present the case to the
International Court of Justice.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Thank you very much, Commissioner Nolledo.
Is Commissioner Villacorta through?
MR. VILLACORTA: I would just like to hear
the full answer of Commissioner Azcuna.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Azcuna.
MR. AZCUNA: What we are saying is that,
let us not presume that the United States will not agree. As I pointed
out in my sponsorship speech, Spain has agreed to a provision that no
nuclear weapon shall be stationed in Spanish soil. Secondly, if they do
not agree, we have peaceful, legal means of pressing our point — one of
this is through the International Court of Justice. I believe we are
both signatories to the optional jurisdiction clause of the World Court
and, therefore, there is no need to bother whether or not the World
Court has jurisdiction over both parties. They are both signatories to
the jurisdiction of the World Court.
The only question left is, what are the
chances that the World Court will sustain us, considering that we are a
developing country? I just mentioned the fact that a developing country
recently won against the United States in the World Court. Secondly, the
Gentleman said that the track record of the World Court is that they
decide in favor of pacta sunt servanda as against rebus sic stantibus.
It is because rebus sic stantibus is the exception to the rule; pacta
sunt servanda is the rule. The rule is that treaties should be honored.
As an exception, if there is sudden basic change in the situation, then
we can ask that the treaty obligation be lifted because of that. There
have been cases where the World Court sustained rebus sic stantibus. So
our chances should be judged in the light of the fact that we are asking
for an exception from the rule. The rule in international law and
international relations is pacta sunt servanda and, therefore, we have
to justify the exception. That does not mean we do not have a good
chance.
There is the need to invoke our
Constitution in the World Court because in the international forum, just
because a provision in one’s constitution is against a treaty
obligation, he cannot use that necessarily as a defense against
fulfilling a treaty obligation. In an international court, the local
laws, including one’s own constitution, are not sufficient reasons for
reneging on an international obligation. That is different if we do it
in our own courts. If the litigation is in the Supreme Court of the
Philippines, then the Supreme Court of the Philippines has to put the
Philippine Constitution on top of everything else. But the International
Court of Justice is not bound by the Philippine Constitution. It will
take that into account.
MR. VILLACORTA: Precisely. The
Constitution is part of our municipal law. Am I right?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. VILLACORTA: And the Gentleman has
just said that the International Court usually gives secondary
importance to the municipal law, and more importance to our treaty
obligations.
MR. AZCUNA: I did not say secondary
importance. What are to be applied in international law are treaties and
international customs. That is the rule applicable in international
relations.
MR. VILLACORTA: In other words,
Commissioner Azcuna agrees with me that we do not have a good chance
should such a litigation . . .
MR. AZCUNA: I do not necessarily mean
that because, first, I think we have a good chance of convincing the
United States not to station nuclear weapons here. If they agreed in
Spain, why will they not agree here? Besides, they have many other bases
in this region; these are not their only bases. They have bases in
Japan and in Guam. So, they may agree. Let us not presume that they will
not agree. Secondly, if they do not, I am sure there are possibilities
of negotiations, as well as possibilities of World Court action.
MR. VILLACORTA: Just to briefly reply to
that, the United States is fighting and will always be fighting tooth
and nail to keep its bases here.
MR. AZCUNA: But we are talking of nuclear
weapons in the bases.
MR. VILLACORTA: Of what use are these
bases which are the biggest outside U.S. territory if they do not have
nuclear weapons? But I do not want to prolong this interpellation. Just
for purposes of record, am I correct in summarizing the intention of the
committee that if this constitutional provision banning nuclear weapons
were to be approved, first, the Philippine government would demand from
the United States the right to have or to undertake ocular inspection
of the military and naval bases, as well as of all ships and other
vessels that come into Philippine territory; second, aside from
demanding or insisting on this right, the Philippine government would
also demand that the non-nuclear provision, as well as the monitoring of
nuclear weapons within the bases and of American planes and vessels
entering Philippine territory, will be incorporated in the renegotiated
military bases agreement, assuming that it is, if any?
MR. AZCUNA: These are details we can
leave to the President and to the foreign relations-conducting bodies of
our country.
MR. VILLACORTA: I do not think such a
fundamental question should be left to the President and the government.
We would like to know if these two points are the contemplations of the
committee, because we have to decide intelligently whether we should
vote or . . .
MR. AZCUNA: We will leave it open. It is
within their powers to do so, but we do not want to dictate to them the
precise way of conducting foreign relations and implementing the policy.
MR. VILLACORTA: This is not just the
style of foreign relations that we are talking about. We are talking
about two basic issues: first, the demand that the Philippine government
should have the right to inspect military bases.
MR. AZCUNA: That is implementation of the
policy.
MR. VILLACORTA: And in spite of the
contemplation of the committee, as well as the proponents, this will be
the way it will be implemented. Is that right?
MR. AZCUNA: This is one of the ways by
which it will be implemented. We do not want to tell the President, “You
have to do this way, rather than that,” because we are not implementors
of the policies.
MR. VILLACORTA: But what is the use of a
constitutional provision banning nuclear weapons if we shall not insist
in effect?
MR. AZCUNA: Definitely, it is within
their powers to take that as a way of implementing the policy. What we
are saying is, we are not mandating them to one particular way of
implementing this policy.
MR. VILLACORTA: But it is one of the ways
that we are mandating.
MR. AZCUNA: Definitely.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner
Bennagen be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
There are several Gentlemen on the floor, but I saw that Commissioner
Bennagen has been standing there for almost 45 minutes already.
Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
I would like to propose an amendment to
the accepted amendment of Commissioner Davide by adding after the word
“interest” the phrase “GOAL OF GLOBAL PEACE AND HUMAN SURVIVAL” so that
the formulation will read: “The Philippines, consistent with the
national interest, THE GOALS OF GLOBAL PEACE AND HUMAN SURVIVAL, adopts
and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say?
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer,
inasmuch as it is almost lunch time, we would like to have this
amendment and perhaps we can think it over, then at two-thirty this
afternoon, we shall resume.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I believe that as a proponent
of this, together with about 36 or 38 others, we should also be
consulted on this one, even if it has been accepted by the committee. It
was our interpretation that the national interest would include our
pursuit of world peace because that is in our national interest and the
question of human survival is also in our national interest.
I was just wondering whether it is still
necessary to do that, because then we would be tempted to make a
complete enumeration of what are in the national interest. So, maybe we
can discuss this but I just wanted to say that this formulation was very
difficult to get at because there were many people with different
ideas. And so, I would appeal to the committee not to play around with
it too much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair finds the suggestion of Commissioner Monsod well taken, but that
would be entirely an internal arrangement between the committee and the
proponents.
Before the Floor Leader asks for
suspension, the Chair would like to ask the members to please submit
their committee amendments to this formulation so that we can go faster
this afternoon. We just like to clear the deck by calling back
Commissioner Bennagen.
Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
I make a plea for the inclusion of the
proposed amendment because the way I sense it, the discussion has so far
limited the significance of nuclear weapons to simply national and
regional considerations.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Yes, there was already a statement of the chairman that they will
entertain the amendment, but the Chair would like to entertain a motion
to suspend right now because it is already 12:35 p.m. Could the
Gentleman suspend consideration of the proposed amendment this afternoon
so that we will not starve?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Will the Floor Leader please restate the motion?
MR. BENNAGEN: I understand, of course,
that I will be given the opportunity to explain the motion.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Yes.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: I move that we suspend the
session until two-thirty this afternoon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is suspended.
It was 12:36 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:59 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is resumed.
May we know from the Floor Leader what is
the parliamentary situation?
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are
in the period of amendments. The proponent at the windup of the session
this morning was Commissioner Bennagen. So, may I ask that Commissioner
Bennagen be recognized again?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair understands that we are on Section 4. There is a proposed
amendment by Commissioner Monsod. Will the chairman of the committee
indicate if the committee is ready?
MR. TINGSON: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
We did meet at lunchtime and the general feeling and opinion of the
committee was for the Chair to give due course to the amendment of
Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): If
the chairman is ready, could he indicate the present formulation of
Section 4 so that Commissioner Bennagen can properly present his
amendment thereto?
MR. TINGSON: We would appreciate it if
the proponent, Commissioner Monsod himself, will state it.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Let
us just put the record straight by putting in the formulation as
amended by Commissioner Davide, which amendment, I understand, was
accepted by the committee. Is that right?
MR. MONSOD: And also by Commissioner
Padilla.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Will Commissioner Monsod please restate the formulation.
MR. MONSOD: The restated formulation is:
“THE PHILIPPINES, CONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL INTEREST, ADOPTS AND
PURSUES A POLICY OF FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN ITS TERRITORY.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Thank you, Commissioner Monsod.
Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
My amendment is to be added after the
comma (,) after the word “interest” so that the formulation will read as
follows: “THE PHILIPPINES, CONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL INTEREST, THE
GOALS OF GLOBAL PEACE AND HUMAN SURVIVAL, ADOPTS AND PURSUES A POLICY OF
FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN ITS TERRITORY.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
the proposed amendment to the amendment of Commissioner Monsod’s
proposal understood by the committee? The Chair would like to know the
reaction of the committee.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
did precisely discuss the matter this noon and we are sorry that we
cannot accept the amendment of Commissioner Bennagen.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I know the reason?
MR. AZCUNA: The reason is that it is
already embraced in the concept of national interest. It is in the
national interest to have global peace; survival, of course, is subsumed
under the national interest.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I explain, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
committee does not accept the amendment. Is Commissioner Bennagen
insisting on the amendment?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
But before I do that, I want to put it to a vote. Before voting, may I
explain?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Please proceed.
MR. BENNAGEN: My feeling is that the
phrase “national interest” does not necessarily mean that we take in its
operational terms the concern for global peace and human survival. The
issue of nuclear weapons is necessarily a global issue. We all know that
there is a growing concern for nuclear disarmament because we are
increasingly becoming aware of the impact of this on global peace and
human survival. For instance, one of the noted scientists who have been
studying the possible effects of nuclear war in relation to nuclear
winter has said, and to put the statement in context, let me read from
an article in Discovery, a news magazine for science, dated
January 1985:
At an international conference in
October 1983 in Washington D.C., (speaking for an American group headed
by a certain researcher) it was said that a dark sunblocking cloud might
enshroud much of the globe after as little as one percent of the
superpower’s nuclear armaments were fired. Temperatures could plummet
even in summer to below freezing for man. This is called “nuclear
winter.” The effect of this is called “nuclear winter.” And last summer,
a subcommittee of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress held
hearings on nuclear winter and the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration began planning a major national research
effort on nuclear winter. A catastrophe of such proportions has never
occurred in the human experience, though it may have a precedent. Some
scientists think that 65,000,000 years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous
Period, dust thrown up by the impact of a large asteroid cooled the
earth, then the dinosaurs became extinct. This time it could be man.If the prophets of nuclear winter are
right, a nation that launched a major nuclear attack would be destroying
itself even if not a single missile were fired in return and the other
nations of the world, neutrals and belligerents alike, would perish as
well.In nuclear winter, the superpowers
would finally have their strange slogan doomsday machine — one that
would automatically destroy civilization. No fallout shelter could
provide ultimate sanctuary: We are real bastards bestowing that
illusion.
In effect, I am saying that while the
issue of nuclear weapons is of immediate concern to us, it must
necessarily partake of a global concern because as the scenarios of a
nuclear winter point out, whatever happens in the northern hemisphere
even if it does not happen in the southern hemisphere will necessarily
affect us. If we put this amendment into the proposed section, it will
mandate us as a nation to take a more active role in the global movement
toward the attainment of global peace and ultimately human survival.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Thank you, Commissioner Bennagen.
May the Chair now address the committee.
Is there any change in the thinking of the committee after the
explanation of the amendment of Commissioner Bennagen?
MR. TINGSON: We would rather submit it to
the body for further discussion and vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): May
we ask the Floor Leader if we are ready to put this matter to a vote?
MR. RAMA: There are no more speakers
unless Commissioner Davide wishes to take the floor.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
would just like to ask some clarifications from the proponent.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
the question of Commissioner Davide on the same proposed amendment of
Commissioner Bennagen?
MR. DAVIDE: The same point, so I could
intelligently vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Bennagen may respond if he so desires.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
Yesterday, we adopted the following as a
new principle: “THE PHILIPPINES RENOUNCES WAR AS AN INSTRUMENT OF
NATIONAL POLICY, ADOPTS THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW AS PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND AND ADHERES TO THE
POLICY OF PEACE, EQUALITY, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, COOPERATION AND AMITY WITH
ALL NATIONS.”
I would like to find out from
Commissioner Bennagen if “global peace” is different from the “peace”
mentioned in the principle I have just quoted, or is it already included
there.
MR. BENNAGEN: Maybe so, in terms of a
general statement on peace, meaning the general principle.
MR. DAVIDE: So, it is included in that
principle.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, but I feel that it is
necessary to underscore the connection of nuclear weapons with global
peace.
MR. DAVIDE: My only question is, is that
included?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: There is a proposed Section 5
of this Article on Declaration of Principles. It states: “THE STATE
VALUES THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON, et cetera.” Is human survival
not included in the principle of the State to value the dignity of the
human person?
MR. BENNAGEN: During the interpellation
on this section, the discussion centered mostly on human rights. I am
not sure whether it was the contemplation of the committee that this
Section 5 also includes human survival as threatened by nuclear war.
MR. DAVIDE: No, because human rights is
covered by the second clause which says “guarantees full respect for
human rights.” The first is: “values the dignity of the human person.”
It therefore includes human survival. It is even beyond just human
survival because it is the dignity of the human person itself. So I
would say that while I agree with the proposal of Commissioner Bennagen,
I believe that these are already included in the different other
principles enunciated in the Declaration of Principles. We should read
the entire article or take the context of the entire article and
dovetail one with the other.
Thank you.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Would Commissioner
Bennagen yield to one question?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Bennagen may respond if he so desires.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
BISHOP BACANI: I am also in sympathy with
the thought of what the Gentleman is saying. But on the other hand, I
find that it might weaken the thrust of what we were trying to say,
because we were trying to emphasize the importance of national interest.
That is why in a previous section, we even pointed out that it will be
the national interest — considerations of territoriality, sovereignty
and independence — which shall be paramount in our foreign relations.
And now, of course, even though that is
true, if we keep on adding things like these, they might dilute the
strength and the force of what we were trying to say here. Originally,
it was consistent solely with the national interest to underline the
importance of our national interest; and now it has been put down. I am
afraid we are weakening it that way.
MR. BENNAGEN: On the contrary, it
strengthens the concern for national interest as part of the global
concern for peace and disarmament. As I pointed out and as shown by
increasing studies, the impact of nuclear war is indeed of direct global
concern; and that it is important always to remember that the concern
for national interest in relation to nuclear weapons must necessarily
take as its operational context, global peace and human survival.
There is a growing search for a new
paradigm, the essence of which is caught in the metaphor “global
village” so that we can no longer simply isolate ourselves, particularly
within the context of a nuclear war, from the other parts of the globe
in search for peace.
BISHOP BACANI: On the other hand, it
seems that that is precisely the context within which we assert our
national interest.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. My view is that it is
not clear in the proposed section.
BISHOP BACANI: But as pointed out by
Commissioner Davide, the other preceding sections seem to have brought
that context in already.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think in everyday life,
when an ordinary reader reads this section, he would take that section
as internally consistent and will not necessarily look into the other
sections for linkages. Since this is of paramount concern, I feel that
the concern for global peace and human survival in relation to nuclear
weapons should already be self-contained in that section.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: The issue has been amply
debated. We are ready to vote on that amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Does Commissioner Monsod have something to say?
MR. MONSOD: I just wanted to concur with
the committee’s view that it is not necessary to have that amendment,
and I would like to request the Chair or the Floor Leader to define the
vote.
MR. RAMA: We will first state the
amendment to the amendment so we can proceed to vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): In
order to aid the committee, probably the Chair can help. The amendment
to the amendment introduced by Commissioner Monsod is an insertion by
Commissioner Bennagen of the phrase “THE GOALS OF GLOBAL PEACE AND HUMAN
SURVIVAL” after the word “interest.”
As many as are in favor of the amendment,
please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Before the Chair announces the results of
the votes, in accordance with parliamentary practice, the Presiding
Officer reserves his right to vote after the announcement of the
results, and he may so vote if it is necessary to resolve the issue,
otherwise the Presiding Officer will not vote.
The results show 9 votes in favor and 18
against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move
that we vote on Section 4 as a whole section, as amended.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
there any objection to the motion?
MR. GARCIA: Mr. Presiding Officer,
clarificatory question.
MR. NOLLEDO: Before we vote on the
proposed amendment, I would like to propound important questions to
Commissioner Azcuna, the main proponent of the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
it on the same Section 4?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): But
I thought we have already decided the issue.
MR. NOLLEDO: Earlier I reserved with
Commissioner Rama my right to interpellate. It seems that that
reservation was not recorded.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): All
right then, but the Chair will have to ask the permission of the
committee. Is it all right with the committee?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, we are willing.
MR. RAMA: The reservation of Commissioner
Nolledo is recorded.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Please proceed.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
I would like to know if this proposal is
self-implementing.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes. This is a directive for
action and there is no further need of a statute to implement it.
MR. NOLLEDO: But, of course, this does
not preclude Congress from providing a law to implement this provision.
MR. AZCUNA: No, it does not. Congress may
provide a law to implement it.
MR. NOLLEDO: In the meantime that there
is no congressional action on the matter, can the executive department
implement this provision by providing a mechanism by which the goal
contemplated in the proposal may be attained?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, it can.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think Commissioner Azcuna
stated in his answer to the questions of Commissioner Villacorta that in
the event that this provision is approved and the Constitution takes
effect, we can ask the United States government to remove any nuclear
weapon in the American bases should there be such weapon in said bases.
Am I right?
MR. AZCUNA: That is right.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the Gentleman is
aware that even under the so-called RP-US Bases Agreement, we still have
territorial jurisdiction over the landholdings covered by the bases.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, that is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: We will recall that a long
time ago, the Attorney-General of the United States, Mr. Brownel, made
an opinion that these landholdings belong to the United States, but the
reason of Mr. Brownel were demolished by Claro M. Recto. And so, the
moment this provision is effective, can the Philippine government demand
the right of ocular inspection?
MR. AZCUNA: What I said was that there
would be a request through channels and within the context of the
agreement for a revision because this was already demanded in 1976 but
was rejected.
MR. NOLLEDO: Can this be done through
diplomatic channels?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: And other methods which are
peaceful in nature under the UN Charter can be resorted to.
MR. AZCUNA: That is right.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
asked those questions preparatory to a very important question.
If a foreign vessel is permitted by our
government to come to Philippine waters, and the Philippine government
is not aware that there are nuclear weapons in that foreign vessel, am I
right if I say that the foreign vessel is considered an extension of
the territory of the foreign government that owns the vessel?
MR. AZCUNA: If it is a warship, but not
if it is a private vessel.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is right. Let
us take the case of a warship like the Seventh Fleet, which comes to
Philippine waters with the consent of the Philippine government. Then
later it was discovered that there are nuclear weapons therein. The
Philippine government insists that the Seventh Fleet leave for having
violated the Philippine Constitution. Can the Seventh Fleet now invoke
international law by saying that it is not bound by our constitutional
prohibition because the Fleet is an extension of the territory of the
United States?
MR. AZCUNA: Under international law, a
warship belonging to another State is considered a floating portion of
that State. What the local State can do, if it does not want its
presence, is to ask the warship to float elsewhere. But the local State
cannot acquire jurisdiction over it.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Thank you.
MR. GARCIA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
ask the committee a clarificatory question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you very much, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
My question is related to Section 2 which
states:
The Filipino people commit themselves
to peace, equality and freedom. They renounce war as an instrument of
national policy . . .
and also in the light of this present
section where we maintain our freedom from nuclear weapons. I understand
that we therefore also accept the principle of nuclear disarmament as
something that we could promote in the region and in the world.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes. As I said in my
sponsorship speech, this policy would be a first step towards pursuing a
policy of trying to promote disarmament on both sides, not just by one
State but by all States possessing nuclear arms. This would enable them
to have a way by which they can disarm gradually from region to region,
until the whole world, hopefully, will be nuclear-free.
So, if we adopt such a policy for our
territory, it is implicit that we should encourage promoting a similar
policy in the region and throughout the whole world.
MR. GARCIA: So, in a sense, it truly
encompasses the thought that lay behind the proposal of Commissioner
Bennagen, which was to work towards global peace, human survival and
nuclear disarmament.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes. That is why I said it is
subsumed under that.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you very much, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Last query. In the context of
that last interpellation, would a policy of banning nuclear weapons
include a ban on, for example, nuclear communication notes, like C3-I or
other derivatives that would direct the warheads to their targets?
MR. AZCUNA: Under the treaties which I
have mentioned, the means of delivery of nuclear weapons is not included
under the term “nuclear devices” or nuclear weapons or parts or devices
thereof. Airplanes, for example, or missiles themselves are not
considered parts of these prohibited articles, unless they cannot be
separated from the nuclear weapons. Those are the terminologies used in
nuclear weapons-free zones.
MS. AQUINO: Would that interpretation
hold, notwithstanding the reply of the Gentleman to the query of
Commissioner Garcia?
MR. AZCUNA: What I meant by nuclear
disarmament is the nuclear weapons themselves. Of course, in order to
effectively promote that, this is not to say that we should not also try
to eliminate or reduce the delivery system. But the nuclear
weapons-free zone concept per se applies only to the nuclear weapons and
their devices. As I said, because this is a start, we have to start
somewhere. We cannot do everything at once. If we succeed in this start,
then maybe the next step will be the delivery system. But we have to
start somewhere and we should start modestly in order to succeed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, it is
time to vote on this provision.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Before we do so, the Chair would like to appeal to the Members, and the
committee as well, that in future considerations of sections, we should
terminate all our conceptual discussions before the voting for purposes
of orderly procedure. What is happening now is that we are discussing
Section 4 which has already been practically approved by the body.
MS. AQUINO: That was the Bennagen
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What is the pleasure now of the Floor Leader?
MR. RAMA: I move that we vote on Section
4, as a whole section, as amended.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
committee is requested to state for the record the complete Section 4
as amended by Commissioners Monsod and Davide.
MR. TINGSON: Section 4, as amended,
reads: “The Philippines, CONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL INTEREST, ADOPTS
AND PURSUES A POLICY OF FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN ITS TERRITORY.”
MR. AZCUNA: This is in substitution of
the existing wording under Section 4.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Shall we now put it to a vote?
As many as are in favor of Section 4, as
amended and as restated by the committee, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The Chair makes the same reservation of
its vote.
The results show 26 votes in favor and
none against; Section 4, as amended, is approved.
Commissioner Rama is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would
like to present an amendment on Section 5 to complete the sentence.
Section 5 reads: “The State values the dignity of the human person,
guarantees full respect for human rights and undertakes to uplift the
social, economic and political condition.” It does not state whose
“social, economic and political condition” it seeks to uplift.
So I would like to insert the word
“CITIZEN’S” before the phrase “social, economic and political condition”
on line 9. The amended Section 5 would then read: “The State values the
dignity of the human person, guarantees full respect for human rights
and undertakes to uplift the CITIZEN’S social, economic and political
condition.”
May I ask if the committee accepts that
amendment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say?
MR. TINGSON: We accept the Rama
amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Will the committee clarify that it accepts the amendment of Commissioner
Rama to the extent that there will be an insertion on line 9, after the
word “the” of the word “CITIZEN’S.”
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I give an anterior
amendment before we vote on that, if Commissioner Rama will permit.
Instead of saying “The State values the
dignity of the human person,” I propose to say, “The state values the
dignity of EVERY human person.” On the second half of the statement, I
suggest: “guarantees full respect for human rights AT ANY STAGE OF THIS
PERSON’S DEVELOPMENT.”
MS. AQUINO: So, how would Section 5 read
now?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Will the proponent state his amendment one by one.
BISHOP BACANI: “The state values the
dignity of EVERY human person, guarantees full respect for human rights
AT ANY STAGE OF THIS PERSON’S DEVELOPMENT . . .”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): I
suggest that the committee take this up one by one. Let us take up the
word “EVERY” in substitution of the word “the” on line 7 of Section 5.
What does the committee say?
BISHOP BACANI: This will not simply be
general but will apply to each and every case.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Yes. The Chair is now asking the committee.
MS. AQUINO: The committee accepts the
insertion of “EVERY” before “human person.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Let
us go to the second part of the amendment on line 9, after the word
“rights.”
BISHOP BACANI: Shall we vote on the first
amendment that was accepted by the committee?
MR. TINGSON: We already accepted it, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): If
the amendment has already been accepted, we can have a voting on this
particular line later on, if that is all right with Commissioner Bacani.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): We
shall now proceed with the second part of the proposed amendment. On
line 8, after the word “rights,” there is the proposal to insert the
phrase “AT ANY STAGE OF THIS PERSON’S DEVELOPMENT.” What does the
committee say?
MS. AQUINO: Query from the committee: How
would we operationalize that kind of a concept?
BISHOP BACANI: The law will define a
person to make sure that at each stage these rights will be respected.
For example, just for something more definite, the question of
euthanasia will later be resolved by such a thing as this.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
committee believes that without going into such diversions, that is
already fully covered by the draft as presented by the committee, and we
therefore regret that we cannot accept the proposal of Commissioner
Bacani.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
committee does not accept that second amendment?
MS. AQUINO: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, we
cannot accept the amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: May I suggest, therefore,
Mr. Presiding Officer, that we vote on that first amendment and then may
I suggest that we vote on the other.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Yes, the suggestion is well-taken, but before that, I would like to know
if there are any other proponents for this section aside from
Commissioner Davide.
MR. RAMA: Commissioners Monsod and Davide
have amendments to Section 5.
MR. MONSOD: No, I will just defer to
Commissioner Nieva because I think we have the same question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): If
it is all right with Commissioner Nieva, Commissioner Bacani and
Commissioner Davide, can the Chair now suspend the session for a few
minutes so that all of them can converge before the committee and
probably iron out these various amendments?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is suspended.
It was 3:33 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:39 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
proponents of the amendment to Section 5, as well as the committee, have
agreed that Section 5 should be devoted solely to human rights, human
dignity and should not be cluttered with other rights in order to stress
the value and the need of human rights. I ask that Commissioner Aquino
be recognized to state the provision as agreed upon.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I agreed with the
committee to withdraw my amendment on condition that I would get a
response to a question which I would like to pose now.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
Commissioner Bacani withdrawing his amendment?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, the second one, but
depending on the answer to this question.
We say that the State guarantees full
respect for human rights. Does this mean, for the record, full respect
for human rights at any stage of this person’s development, from the
time he becomes a person to the time he leaves this earth?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much and I
withdraw my amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): May
I address the committee? This new formulation which we are about to
hear has been brought about after conference of the various proponents;
namely, Commissioners Davide, Bacani, Monsod and Nieva. Is that the
correct understanding of the Chair?
MR. TINGSON: That is correct, Mr.
Presiding Officer, and we did propose that among ourselves during our
lunchtime deliberation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Will the committee now state the formulation of Section 5?
MR. TINGSON: The formulation is: “The
State values the dignity of EVERY human person AND guarantees full
respect for human rights.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
that it?
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask
that we take a vote on that simple provision.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): We
will now put it to a vote.
As many as are in favor of Section 5, as
reformulated, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The Chair makes the same reservation of
its vote.
The results show 28 votes in favor and
none against; Section 5, as amended, is approved.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I should
like to amend Section 6 which states that the prime duty of the
government is to serve and protect the people. I would like to amend
this to read: “The prime duty of the government is to serve, protect and
FREE the people FROM MASS POVERTY.” I should like to believe that this
Section 6 was inspired by a resolution which I filed, Resolution No.
302, pointing out and calling attention to the fact that there exists in
the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions an anachronism, a very simplistic and
mistaken provision which states:
The defense of the State is a prime
duty of the Government and the people, and in the fulfillment of this
duty all citizens may be required by law to render personal military or
civil service.
I called attention to the fact that this
is one of the provisions giving exaggerated importance to the defense of
the State and which has a twisted idea of what is the primary duty of
the citizen. I made a research on this provision existing in the 1973
and 1935 Constitutions and I found out that it was lifted from the
Spanish Republican Government Constitution. There is no other
constitution that contains this provision. As a matter of fact, I have
studied about 86 constitutions and none of these constitutions —
although we have some provisions for military service — considered it
the prime duty of the government to defend the State. Some merely stated
that there is sometimes a moral duty of the citizen to defend the State
and, therefore, to be pressed into military service.
It is a very unique provision because it
has remained unexamined for half a century since 1935. I thought it to
be obvious that in a democracy, the first duty of the government is to
serve the people, and given the nation’s oldest problem of mass poverty
which is the oldest, most brutalizing, most dehumanizing problem of this
country, it should be the prime duty of the government to address this
problem.
I was thinking that this should be
included in this Section 6. It has made mention of mass poverty because
this is the problem that has brutalized and dehumanized the Filipinos
for centuries. I say that this provision in the 1973 and 1935
Constitutions fractures the most basic of democratic tenets, which is,
the State and the government exist for the people, and not the people
for them.
The Spanish Republican Government at
least had a reason to insist on its order of priority — that the first
responsibility of the government and the people is to shoulder arm and
defend the State. At that time, making war was the favorite sport in the
western world and, worse for the Spaniards, their colonies all over the
world were being coveted and invaded by other world powers. Thus, they
had to stress the principle that it was the primary obligation of the
government, home and colonial government and the people in them, to
defend the State and their colonies through compulsory military or civil
service.
In carelessly adopting this theory in our
constitutions, we embraced the anachronism that adds insult to injury.
The sounder assessment of where lies the primary responsibility of the
government should take into account what the government is for, what is
the worst problem of the nation that needs priority attention. Since
time immemorial, the oldest, most enduring and brutalizing problem of
the country has been mass poverty, the subhuman living conditions of the
Filipino people, and except for brief periods, the denial of the people
of their basic freedoms. Alongside this abiding mass poverty, all
sufferings of the Filipinos, including human rights atrocities, fall
into insignificance.
The first and most urgent responsibility
of the government in the face of this lurid reality is to defend the
fundamental rights of the people to a decent level of living and to
their basic freedom. To provide the people, so to speak, with both
rights and freedom so that they may live in dignity is the most
necessary duty of the government worthy of its name. To enunciate that
its prime duty is to defend the State and thus compel every citizen to
be a soldier is to make the building of a larger armed forces as the
government’s overriding obligation. In that sense, it gives the military
a primordial position in the political hierarchy, a role wider and more
important than a democratic constitution would allow it.
The lopsided view of the primary duty of
the citizen has its dangers. Mr. Marcos and many dictators, particularly
in Spain and Spanish territories, took villainous advantage of such
declared constitutional principle. To justify their military regimes,
Mr. Marcos and the military juntas in South America invoked the
constitutional precept that the first duty of the government is to
defend the State and beef up the military. The trouble is, dictators,
including Mr. Marcos, confuse themselves with the State. Under martial
law, that constitutional declaration was used for the arrogation of
absolute powers by Mr. Marcos with communist threat and attendant civil
disorder used as a bugaboo to regiment the citizenry.
A refinement of that principle was the
bloating of the national defense budget which postponed the economic
redemption of our people, and the writing of the National Service Law
that made it mandatory for all students and youth to render military
service. In effect, this constitutional provision enabled Mr. Marcos to
make the Philippines a colony of its own government through the use of
his armed forces.
In the contemporary setting, the
principle that the government and the people have an obligation to
defend the State should be consigned to a lower rating in the order of
priorities. In fact, there is no absolute need to define such duty in
the Constitution for self-defense is already part of the universal law
of self-preservation, understood as inherent in any government or
entity. Even animals understand this universal law of self-preservation,
although unwritten, and instinctively and automatically exercise such
right when the situation calls for it.
So, may I therefore request that the
committee accept this amendment which says: “THE PRIME DUTY OF THE
GOVERNMENT IS TO SERVE, PROTECT AND FREE THE PEOPLE FROM MASS POVERTY.”
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: In deference to our
hardworking Floor Leader who has also given us a very moving rationale
for his amendment, we would like to accept this amendment. However, we
would like our Floor Leader to note that his amendment goes better with
Section 7 than with Section 6. Mr. Presiding Officer, Section 6 speaks
of the collective duty of the people and the government to come to each
other’s aid in times of war or emergency; whereas, Section 7 speaks of
the duty, of the prime concern of the State for promotion and
establishment of a sociopolitical and economic system; we speak there of
security for the people, benefits of full employment, high standard of
living.
We will be very glad to accept the
amendment of the Floor Leader. Please put it in Section 7.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I agree with the proposition
that the State exists for the individual and not the individual for the
State. But I regret that I cannot agree with our Floor Leader in
including as the duty of government or of the State to save our people
from mass poverty. That is an ideal. But it will run contrary to our
principle of private free enterprise for agricultural productivity, for
industrial development, and other progressive methods of producing
wealth for our people. In other words, it is an ideal for all our people
not to remain poor. But it is not the duty of the State or of the
government to save our people from, say, poverty. That must be the free
private economic efforts of the people, rather than a duty of the State.
With regard to the second sentence, “The
people and the government shall defend the State . . .,” I was going to
suggest to the committee that the sentence should read as follows: “THE
GOVERNMENT MAY CALL UPON THE PEOPLE TO DEFEND THE STATE, AND IN THE
FULFILLMENT THEREOF, ALL CITIZENS MAY BE REQUIRED BY LAW TO RENDER
PERSONAL MILITARY OR CIVIL SERVICE.”
I am also advocating the deletion of the
phrase “with due regard to objections of conscience” on lines 13 and 14.
I hope the committee will consider the merits of my observations.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Thank you.
May the Chair inquire from the committee
how many proponents of amendments are there.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
There is a pending query of the Chair to the committee as to how many
more will bring up and present their amendments.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer,
Commissioner Davide has also an amendment here.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): So
we have Commissioners Padilla, Davide, Rama and Monsod.
The Chair declares a suspension so that
the proponents can approach the committee and resolve their amendments.
It was 3:56 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:05 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is resumed.
May the Chair know from the committee if
there is already an approved formulation, together with the contribution
of the others?
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
withdraw my amendment because it will be inserted in Section 7.
May I ask that Commissioner Padilla be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
amendment of Commissioner Rama is hereby withdrawn.
Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I suggest that the second
sentence should read as follows: “THE GOVERNMENT MAY CALL UPON THE
PEOPLE TO DEFEND THE STATE, AND IN THE FULFILLMENT THEREOF, ALL CITIZENS
MAY BE REQUIRED BY LAW TO RENDER PERSONAL MILITARY OR CIVIL SERVICE.”
I also propose the elimination of the
phrase “with due regard to objections of conscience.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
Before the committee reacts, the Chair would like to ask the committee
if that formulation of Vice-President Padilla is already included in the
formulation being worked out by them.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: We will admit the first part
of the amendment, which will now read, as amended: “THE GOVERNMENT MAY
CALL UPON THE PEOPLE TO DEFEND THE STATE, AND IN THE FULFILLMENT
THEREOF, ALL CITIZENS MAY BE REQUIRED BY LAW TO RENDER PERSONAL MILITARY
OR CIVIL SERVICE.” But on the deletion of the phrase “with due regard
to objections of conscience,” we would rather submit it to the body for a
vote.
MR. PADILLA: I have no objection to that,
Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Could the committee please read the formulation from the first sentence
up to the last? Then, we will start from there.
MS. AQUINO: Section 6, as amended, would
now read: “The prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the
people. THE GOVERNMENT MAY CALL UPON THE PEOPLE TO DEFEND THE STATE, AND
IN THE FULFILLMENT THEREOF, ALL CITIZENS MAY BE REQUIRED BY LAW WITH
DUE REGARD TO OBJECTIONS OF CONSCIENCE, TO RENDER PERSONAL MILITARY OR
CIVIL SERVICE.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair suggests that we start with that formulation.
Is that all right with Commissioner
Padilla?
MR. PADILLA: That is all right, Mr.
Presiding officer, with the suggestion that afterwards, we vote on the
deletion of the phrase “with due regard to objections of conscience.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): May
the Chair ask the honorable Vice-President if he is agreeable to the
second sentence formulation, except the phrase “with due regard to
objections of conscience”?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, because that is exactly
my proposal.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair recognizes Commissioner de Castro.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
I agree with the new formulation as read
by the committee, but I object, like Commissioner Padilla, to the phrase
“with due regard to objections of conscience. “
Mr. Presiding Officer, we are here
talking of the defense of the State. If the defense of the State shall
fail, all others in our Constitution will be of no use. There will be no
use for the Preamble, the legislative, the judiciary and everything
therein, if we fail in the defense of the State. That is why I would
like to have that phrase “with due regard to objections of conscience”
deleted so that every citizen shall have that prime duty to defend his
State, to defend his dignity, to defend his person, to defend his honor.
If we will allow that, anybody who does
not like to go and fight for the State can say, “That is against my
conscience.” What then will happen to the defense of our country? What
then will happen to this whole Constitution?
Mr. Presiding Officer, I move for the
deletion of the phrase “with due regard to objections of conscience.”
After all, if a man right from his birth really cannot even kill a fly,
the processing officer or the armed forces will understand this. He may
be assigned to other positions in the armed forces which will not
involve combat. But even if he is assigned as a kitchen police or as a
supply officer which is noncombatant, still the possibility in war is
that he will fight because when his command post or his headquarters are
raided by the enemy, whether he is a kitchen police, a supply sergeant
or a supply officer, perforce he will have to take up arms and defend at
least his position.
So I move that the phrase “with due
regard to objections of conscience” be deleted. I join Commissioner
Padilla on this.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner de Castro has the same problem as Vice-President Padilla.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): In
due time, it will be put to a vote. In the meantime, I understand the
proponent of this phrase “with due regard to objections of conscience”
is Commissioner Garcia. So with the indulgence of Commissioner Rigos who
has been standing there for a long time, shall we call on Commissioner
Garcia first?
MR. GARCIA: Thank you very much, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
Very briefly, I would like to summarize
the arguments which our committee has proposed — that it is important to
retain the phrase “with due regard to objections of conscience.” First
of all, there are many ways of defending one’s country. It is not only
by taking up arms that one can defend one’s country. By helping the
wounded and the sick and by providing many other services, one can also
defend one’s country. Secondly, we are precisely formulating the phrase
“with due regard.” This is not the only factor which must be considered,
but it must be regarded. When one refuses to bear arms because of
conscientious objection or religious belief, this must be considered
with due regard and should not be the only factor. Thirdly, I think this
has been explained very well by Commissioner Azcuna when he said that
it is precisely direct combat duty and it is not prohibiting one from
helping out in state services. Fourthly, and this is my other point,
these will be exceptions which have to be verified on a case-to-case
basis. This will not be a general rule laid down. And lastly, if we have
an army of people who, in their conscience, refuse to serve with arms,
we will have a very ineffective army.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Regalado will
speak on the same subject.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): We
will call on Commissioner Rigos later. Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, it
seems that the bone of contention here is with respect to the phrase
“with due regard to objections of conscience.” In the first place, even
from the standpoint of syntax there is a little error here, because it
says, “with due regard to objections of conscience, to render personal
military or civil service.” There may be some conscientious objectors to
military service, but I cannot conceive of how “objections of
conscience” can be raised with respect to civil service which would
thereby be affected in the present position of this phrase because it
appears to be a modifier of both.
I was wondering, in line with what was
followed in the 1935 Constitution where the phenomenon of conscientious
objectors was not yet in the concept of military service, whether we can
draw a happy compromise here by deleting the phrase “with due regard to
objections of conscience” and replacing it with the phrase, UNDER
CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. So the second sentence will read “The
government MAY CALL UPON THE PEOPLE TO defend the State and in the
fulfillment THEREOF, all citizens the may be required, UNDER CONDITIONS
PROVIDED BY LAW, to render personal military or civil service.”
In other words, we do not preempt
Congress from providing for various situations like age, nature of the
duty and duration of military service. That actually also took place
under the 1935 Constitution. Pursuant to the constitutional provision
that the defense of the State is the prime duty of the government and in
the performance of this duty, all citizens may be required by law to
render military or civil service, we passed Commonwealth Act No. 1, the
National Defense Act. That was the implementing mechanism for that
provision in the 1935 Constitution. I think we can also place this here,
with the same purpose, by adding the phrase “UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED
BY LAW” which may also copy precisely the provisions of the National
Defense Act or expand it a little. Or, Congress, in its collective
wisdom, may also consider the possibility of considering the issue of
conscientious objectors, how to determine the basis of conscientious
objections, not only on religious grounds but also on ethical or moral
principles — how to weed out the bogus objections from the genuine
convictions. In other words, we give Congress that little flexibility as
the 1935 Constitution also did resulting in Commonwealth Act No. 1. I
am hoping that thereby the objections of the committee and the purposes
of Commissioners Padilla and de Castro may be laid to rest to awake the
ultimate determination by Congress of this particular situation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer, my
question will become academic if the Chair will entertain the Regalado
statement as an amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): We
have a parliamentary problem here, Commissioner Rigos, because
Commissioner Regalado never proposed an amendment, not that I heard.
MR. REGALADO: No, Mr. Presiding Officer. I
already made in advance my statement as to what I intend to insert. Of
course, in parliamentary practice, a simple motion to delete, as was
done by Commissioner Padilla, takes precedence over a motion to insert.
But I made up my position already so that in the event the motion to
delete is granted, I am hoping that the committee and the Commission
will now consider my amendment to insert that phrase.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): I
hope that is clearly understood by the committee.
REV. RIGOS: In that case, Mr. Presiding
Officer, may I ask the committee: Just in case the Commissioner decides
to delete the phrase “with due regard to objections of conscience,” is
it not possible that the law itself, in requiring the citizens to defend
the State, give due regard to the objections of conscience?
MS. AQUINO: Yes. In fact, jurisprudence
is clear on the matter. It is well-established that we give due regard
to conscientious objections in military conscription.
REV. RIGOS: So that even if the committee
deletes this phrase “with due regard to objections of conscience,” the
law or Congress can still put that back?
MS. AQUINO: The committee’s intention is
to make that explicit in this provision, Mr. Presiding Officer.
REV. RIGOS: I thank the Commissioner.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized on the same point.
MR. DE CASTRO: I consulted Commissioner
Padilla and we agree to the insertion of “UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY
LAW” which should be at the end of the second sentence: “The government
MAY CALL UPON THE PEOPLE TO defend the State and in the fulfillment
THEREOF, all citizens may be required, UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW,
to render personal military or civil service.” We admit the insertion
by Commissioner Regalado of the phrase “UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY
LAW,” Mr. Presiding Officer. So the only point of disagreement is on the
phrase “with due regard to objections of conscience” which can be put
to the floor for voting.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I just ask the
committee. When it speaks of “PERSONAL MILITARY SERVICE,” does it
necessarily speak of combatant service?
MR. TINGSON: Those are noncombatant
services.
BISHOP BACANI: In other words, there can
be noncombatant military service?
MR. TINGSON: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: Let me just explain, Mr.
Presiding Officer, why I support the retention of this phrase.
There can be cases where people really
believe that their country is engaged in an unjust war of aggression. In
that case, which will perhaps more commonly occur than simple objection
based on religious belief, then there should be a provision in our
Constitution making allowance for that.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer,
just one remark to the Honorable Bacani.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: We are speaking here of
the defense of the State. We are not talking here of an aggressive war
or an act of aggression.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much. I did
not notice that.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: This is a very minor
amendment but since I mentioned it during my interpellation, I would
like to suggest on the last line, line 14, page 2 that the word “civil”
be changed to “CIVIC” in order not to confuse this with the civil
service as used in the Article on the Civil Service Commission.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair asks the committee to comment on this minor amendment — change of
“civil” to “CIVIC.”
MR. TINGSON: We accept the amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am a member of the
committee. May I ask a question to the proponent of the amendment who
wishes to change “civil” to “CIVIC.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Yes, that is the proposed amendment as accepted by the committee. Does
Commissioner de Castro have any objection?
MR. DE CASTRO: I object because there is a
lot of difference between “civil service” and “civic service.” The
Honorable Guingona mentioned the word “civil” for “civil service” as
used in the Article on the Civil Service Commission. The service of the
people in the government is not the meaning of this “civil service.”
When we talk of “civil service” here, we
talk of those people putting out fires. In the course of war, there can
be fires caused by bombs. The term refers to those who will pick up the
dead and bring them to the rear for care; those who are serving as
janitors in the hospitals or in the medical stations of the armed
forces; those who are actually not performing the duty of using the gun.
But when we talk of “civic service,” I
really do not know what he means by that. That is why I would like to
ask the proponent what he means by “civic service.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
With the indulgence of the Gentlemen on the floor, I think the
Constitutional Commission Members understand very well the
Commissioner’s point. So the Chair would like to say that we will put
this later to a vote.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer, in
view of the expression of the sense of the committee by Commissioner de
Castro who is a member of the committee, I am withdrawing my proposed
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
amendment to change “civil” to “CIVIC” is withdrawn.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I propose a compromise to
meet fall objections and to include all suggestions, which consists
merely of two brief sentences: “THE GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO SERVE AND
PROTECT THE PEOPLE. IT IS ITS DUTY TO DEFEND THE STATE, AND IN THE
FULFILLMENT THEREOF ALL CITIZENS MAY BE REQUIRED, UNDER CONDITIONS
PROVIDED BY LAW, TO RENDER PERSONAL MILITARY OR CIVIL SERVICE.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Did
the committee get that?
From the standpoint of the Chair, all the
issues have been joined. There have been suggestions, so the Chair
suggests a suspension for one or two minutes so that we can reformulate
this. In the meantime, will the committee please indicate all those
proponents who contributed to the formulation which is now acceptable to
the committee?
MS. AQUINO: We have accepted the
amendment of Commissioner Padilla on the recasting of the second
sentence. But we will have to vote on the deletion of the phrase “with
due regard to objections of conscience” as suggested by Commissioners de
Castro, Padilla and Regalado.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair suspends the session.
It was 4:27 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4.32 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Aquino
be recognized to restate the new formulation
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Before that, the Chair would like to indicate that there is only one
problem here in Section 6 — the amendment of Vice-President Padilla and
Commissioner de Castro to delete “with due regard to objections of
conscience.” With the indulgence of the Floor Leader, perhaps we can
resolve this issue first by putting this to a vote, after which other
amendments may come in and we can reformulate the whole section, if
necessary.
The Chair would like to ask first the
chairman of the committee or any member to restate the reformulated
Section 6, together with the portion which is sought to be deleted.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: The reformulated Section 6
according to the adoption of the amendment of Commissioner Padilla,
without the amendment yet of Commissioner Davide, will read as follows:
“The prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the people.
The government MAY CALL UPON THE PEOPLE TO defend the State and in the
fulfillment THEREOF, all citizens may be required by law, with due
regard to objections of conscience, to render personal military or civil
service. “
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
That is the reformulated section which is acceptable to the committee.
The Chair should now put to a vote the
amendment of Vice-President Padilla, together with that of Commissioner
de Castro, to delete the phrase “with due regard to objections of
conscience” found on lines 13 to 14, page 2, Section 6.
As many as are in favor of the amendment,
please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)
The results show 22 votes in favor, 5
against and 1 abstention; the amendment to delete is approved.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
committee requests that Commissioner Regalado be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
now propose my amendment to insert a comma (,) and the phrase “UNDER
CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW” between “required” and “by” so that the
second sentence will read: “The government MAY CALL UPON THE PEOPLE TO
defend the State and in the fulfillment THEREOF, all citizens may be
required, UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW, to render personal military
or civil service.”
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
accept the amendment.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we
request that Commissioner Davide be recognized for his recasting of the
whole section with the approved deletions and insertions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.
Before Commissioner Davide proceeds, may
the Chair inquire from Commissioner Davide whether or not his
formulation will drastically affect the whole structure of Section 6?
MR. DAVIDE: It will not necessarily
affect the whole structure but it will harmonize. It is a harmonization
within.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Anyway, this is the request of the committee. So will Commissioner
Davide please state his reformulation.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
reformulated Section 6, with the amendments of Commissioners Davide,
Padilla and Regalado, now reads as follows: “THE GOVERNMENTS EXIST TO
PROTECT AND SERVE THE PEOPLE. IT IS ITS PRIME DUTY TO DEFEND THE STATE,
AND IN THE FULFILLMENT THEREOF, ALL CITIZENS MAY BE REQUIRED, UNDER
CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW, TO RENDER PERSONAL MILITARY OR CIVIL
SERVICE.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
that reformulation acceptable to the committee?
MR. TINGSON: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
This is a happy compromise and reformulation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
From the standpoint of the Chair, I really do not know whether or not
the Members got the formulation correctly since it is already a variance
of the wordings of Section 6. Mr. Floor Leader, may we now put this to a
vote?
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there
are no objections, so I think the body is ready to vote.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, does
the Chair want us to read it again?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
That would be fine.
MR. TINGSON: “THE GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO
PROTECT AND SERVE THE PEOPLE. IT IS ITS PRIME DUTY . . .”
MR. RAMA: No, please take out the word
“prime” because that is precisely what I have been objecting to.
MR. TINGSON: Let me continue: “IT IS ITS
DUTY TO DEFEND THE STATE, AND IN THE FULFILLMENT THEREOF, ALL CITIZENS
MAY BE REQUIRED, UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW, TO RENDER PERSONAL
MILITARY OR CIVIL SERVICE.”
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: The proponent of this
reformulation is Commissioner Davide and he accepted my suggestion of
putting the defense of the State as the prime duty of government.
MR. DAVIDE: I will offer a compromise —
“IT IS A PRIME DUTY” not ‘THE PRIME DUTY.”
MR. DE CASTRO: I say that the prime duty
of government is the defense of the State, otherwise the whole gamut of
the Constitution will be lost. All these matters — the duty to protect
the people, to make the people economically viable, to lift their
standard of living — will be out if the prime duty to defend the State
will not be there. That is my reason for putting the word “prime, ” Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
also had several provisions, like “highest priority, ” which is also a
duty of the State. So I am proposing a very beautiful and happy
compromise. Instead of saying “THE PRIME DUTY,” we only say, “IT IS A
PRIME DUTY OF THE STATE.”
MR. DE CASTRO: The same with me. I do not
like to forget the fact that the prime duty of government is the
defense of the State.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
honorable Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I believe that the first
sentence of Section 6, which stresses the duty of government to serve
and protect the people, should stay because that is the primary purpose
of government — to serve the people. So I prefer to keep Section 6 as
already accepted by the committee and in a way approved by the body with
the deletion of the phrase “with due regard to objections of
conscience.” In my opinion, Mr. Presiding Officer, the idea of service
to and protection of the people is important as was originally drafted
by the committee. In return, the government may call upon the people to
defend the State and require citizens to render personal military or
civil service; We have no objection in saying “UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED
BY LAW.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Mr.
Vice-President, in the reformulation, the first sentence states: “THE
GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO PROTECT AND SERVE THE PEOPLE.” Is the Commissioner
agreeable to that?
MR. PADILLA: I was precisely stressing
the prior importance of service to the people.
MS. AQUINO: So the Commissioner is
agreeable to that reformulation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What the Chair is indicating is that the Vice-President’s concern is
reflected in the reformulation: “THE GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO PROTECT AND
SERVE THE PEOPLE.”
MR. PADILLA: I may have no objection if
it says: “TO SERVE AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE,” not “TO PROTECT AND SERVE
THE PEOPLE.”
MR. DE CASTRO: So it is the reverse: “TO
SERVE AND PROTECT.”
MR. AZCUNA: So service first.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): All
right. On the floor now is the reformulation accepted by the committee.
There is an amendment by Vice-President Padilla. What does the
committee say?
MR. TINGSON: We accept, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Will the Honorable Padilla
accept a very small insertion to “THE GOVERNMENT EXISTS”?
MR. PADILLA: That is not my suggestion.
That is the suggestion of Commissioner Davide. I prefer the retention of
the first sentence as originally formulated in the committee report.
MR. DE CASTRO: Can we say: “THE PRIME
DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO SERVE AND PROTECT ITS PEOPLE”?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE CASTRO: I thank Commissioner
Davide.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say?
MR. RAMA: May I suggest, Mr. Presiding
Officer, that we vote first on the first sentence.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Yes, that is exactly what we are trying to do, Mr. Floor Leader.
The suggestion of the honorable
Vice-President is to return to the original committee formulation of the
first sentence of Section 6 which reads: “The prime duty of the
government is to serve and protect the people.” What does the committee
say?
MR. TINGSON: Let us vote on that, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: May I suggest that the voting
be on whether one adopts alternative 1 or alternative 2. Alternative 1
is the original committee formula which reads: “The prime duty of the
government is to serve and protect the people.” Alternative 2 is the
Davide amendment: “THE GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO PROTECT AND SERVE THE
PEOPLE.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
With due respect to the committee, that would be very difficult for the
Chair. The Chair has to present one formulation. It cannot present two
alternative formulations.
MR. TINGSON: But, Mr. Presiding Officer,
Commissioner Davide may want to accept that amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, for
the sake of unity, I will withdraw my proposal.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Just a moment. That needs clarification. When Commissioner Davide says
“withdraw my proposal,” is he withdrawing the first sentence and the
second sentence as well?
MR. DAVIDE: Only the first sentence, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What would that be as far as the committee is concerned? Are we
reverting to the first sentence?
MR. TINGSON: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
So the whole thing, Mr. Presiding
Officer, will now read as follows: “THE PRIME DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS
TO SERVE AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE. IT IS ITS DUTY TO DEFEND THE STATE AND
IN THE FULFILLMENT THEREOF, ALL CITIZENS MAY BE REQUIRED, UNDER
CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW, TO RENDER PERSONAL MILITARY OR CIVIL
SERVICE.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): All
right. Just a very minor query to the committee. Regarding the word
“MAY BE,” is it two words or one word? The committee’s formulation is
one word. The Chair thinks it should be two words.
MR. TINGSON: Two words, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): So
two words.
Mr. Floor Leader, are we ready to put
this to a vote?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
honorable Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: If we retain the first
sentence of the committee report, the second sentence as proposed by
Commissioner Davide does not seem to be correct. There is no more
harmonization. I believe the second sentence, as amended and approved,
has a better harmony.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair declares a suspension of the session.
It was 4:48 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:53 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, we now
have a formulation agreed upon by everybody.
May I ask that Commissioner Aquino read
the formulation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Aquino of the committee is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer,
Section 6, in view of the Padilla amendment, now reads: “THE PRIME DUTY
OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO SERVE AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE. THE GOVERNMENT MAY
CALL UPON THE PEOPLE TO DEFEND THE STATE, AND IN THE FULFILLMENT
THEREOF, ALL CITIZENS MAY BE REQUIRED, UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW,
TO RENDER PERSONAL MILITARY OR CIVIL SERVICE.”
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may
I introduce a very minor amendment to the phrase “MAY CALL UPON THE
PEOPLE.” Add the word “ALL” between the words “the” and “people,” so it
will now read: “THE GOVERNMENT MAY CALL UPON ALL THE PEOPLE.” This is
already the defense of the State. All the people — young or old, men or
women — may be called to the defense of the State.
MR. RAMA: What about the lame, the
deformed, the blind and the minors? If we call all the people, it will
include everybody — the lame, the blind, the disabled.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, anybody.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say?
MS. AQUINO: The committee believes that
the sense of Commissioner de Castro is already covered by line 12, when
the word “CITIZENS” is qualified by the phrase “ALL CITIZENS MAY BE
REQUIRED, UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW.”
MR. DE CASTRO: All right. I did not get
that. I am sorry. So it refers to all the people, whether they are as
old as the honorable Chief Justice or myself.
MR. RAMA: We are now ready to vote, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Will the committee read again the second sentence so that the body can
properly appraise it before it will be submitted to a vote?
MS. AQUINO: It reads: “THE GOVERNMENT MAY
CALL UPON THE PEOPLE TO DEFEND THE STATE, AND IN THE FULFILLMENT
THEREOF, ALL CITIZENS MAY BE REQUIRED, UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW,
TO RENDER PERSONAL MILITARY OR CIVIL SERVICE.”
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer, just
a question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: In the phrase “CALL UPON
THE PEOPLE,” does “people” refer to citizens only or to citizens and
even resident aliens?
MS. AQUINO: To citizens only.
MR. GUINGONA: I thank the Commissioner.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair is now awaiting the Floor Leader to restate his motion.
MR. RAMA: I move that we vote on the
provision as read by Commissioner Aquino.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
there any objection?
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I have no objection, but I
am sure there has to be a stylistic change in that sentence and we may
bring this to the attention of the Style Committee.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
manifestation is noted. The chairman of the Style Committee will please
take note. Will Commissioner Rama please restate his motion?
MR. RAMA: I reiterate my motion that we
take a vote on this provision, Section 6.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; Section 6,
as amended, is approved.
MR. GARCIA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
would like to register my abstention for the reason that “DUE REGARD OF
CONSCIENCE” was deleted.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Secretary-General will please take note of the abstention of
Commissioner Garcia.
MR. NOLLEDO: I also abstain, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Air
Floor Leader, there are two abstentions, Commissioners Garcia and
Nolledo.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have a
formulation for Section 7 which has been accepted by the committee
Section 7 reads: “The prime concern of the State is the promotion and
establishment of a socio-political and economic system that will ensure
the independence of the nation . . .”
The amendment is on line 15 which is to
change “prime” to “PRIMARY” because ‘prime” has already been used in the
previous section. On line 17, between “the” and “independence,” insert
“PROSPERITY AND.” I believe that a nation cannot be independent if it is
not prosperous. On the same line, delete “aims” and in lieu thereof
insert the phrase “TO THIS END, IT SHALL ENDEAVOR TO FREE THE PEOPLE
FROM MASS POVERTY” and a comma (,). The reason for the insertion of the
words “FREE THE PEOPLE FROM MASS POVERTY” is that mass poverty is the
oldest, most enduring and most painful problem of the country for
centuries. We must address this problem of mass poverty so that we will
not be framing a constitution in a vacuum.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): For
this purpose, is the Commissioner deleting the word “aims” after “and”
and the word “to” before “secure”?
MR. RAMA: I am deleting those words.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say?
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, in
view of the earlier commitment of the committee, we are accepting the
Rama amendment with minor committee amendments, such that the first
sentence would read: “IT SHALL BE THE prime concern of the State TO
ESTABLISH, PROMOTE, AND MAINTAIN a socio-political and economic system
that will ensure the independence AND PROSPERITY of the nation.”
The second sentence would now read: “TO
THIS END, IT SHALL ENDEAVOR TO FREE THE PEOPLE FROM MASS POVERTY, secure
for the people the benefits of full employment, a RISING standard of
living, equality in economic opportunities, security in old age, and
other basic human rights.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the proponent say?
MR. RAMA: I accept the amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Before we put that to a vote, Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I do not know whether or
not this is the time to make it. I would like to propose an amendment by
substitution which reads as follows: “THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF THE STATE
IS THE ESTABLISHMENT AND PROMOTION OF A DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER THAT WILL
PROMOTE THE DIGNITY OF EACH PERSON AND THE COMMON GOOD OF ALL.”
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Before the committee reacts to that, I understand there are other
proponents. Probably, the Chair could again suspend the session for one
or two minutes so that we can consolidate all these amendments.
The session is suspended.
It was 5:02 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:38 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, we have
already a reformulation agreed upon by everybody. May I ask the chairman
to read it.
MR. TINGSON: The new formulation of the
Bacani-Rama amendments is as follows: “THE PRIME CONCERN OF THE STATE IS
TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN A DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER THAT WILL FREE THE PEOPLE
FROM POVERTY, PROTECT THE DIGNITY OF EVERY PERSON AND ENHANCE THE
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL.”
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Can we just replace the word
“WILL” with “CAN”?
MR. TINGSON: “THAT CAN FREE THE PEOPLE” —
we accept.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
amendment has been accepted by the chairman.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
there any more intervention?
The honorable Vice-President is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: What were the verbs used?
“BUILD AND SUSTAIN”?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Yes, “BUILD AND SUSTAIN A DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER THAN CAN FREE THE PEOPLE
FROM POVERTY . . . “
MR. PADILLA: I am afraid that it is very
difficult, if not impossible, to build and even sustain. Why do we not
just say: “THE CONCERN OF THE STATE IS FOR A SOCIAL ORDER THAT WILL
ENDEAVOR TO MAINTAIN THE DIGNITY OF MAN . . . AND ALLEVIATE POVERTY . .
.”
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
this is an aspiration and a declaration. So we would like to have a
vision.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, the vision is for the
so-called “DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER.” But before that, there are two verbs
used: “TO BUILD” and “TO SUSTAIN.” Who is going to build and sustain? Is
it the State?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The State and the
people.
MR. PADILLA: And all these should be the
effort of private initiative and free enterprise under an atmosphere of
freedom, equality, equal opportunity. But I think we might be imposing
when we say that the State or the government has the duty, although it
mentions the word “CONCERN” which is of a lighter category. We may be
giving the impression that the State or the government is the cure-all
for all our evils and problems.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
I do not think that that is the intent. It would make the government a
facilitator, the creator of the climate, which will build and sustain a
new social order. And this does not preclude the people from working
together with the State.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. PADILLA: I think the people must
primarily build and sustain, with the least restraints, interference and
control by the State. That is why we are always stressing free
enterprise. The progress and prosperity that I have been always aiming
at is not really the duty of the State. It is rather the result of the
efforts, initiative and sacrifices of the people under a regime of
justice and freedom.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I do not think there
is disagreement, Mr. Presiding Officer. It is just that we have to give
the responsibility of an orchestrator to one, and that is the State. The
State will orchestrate, create the climate and build where private
enterprise and people can cooperate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
With the indulgence of the Vice-President, Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
Mr. MONSOD: I was just wondering whether
we could just replace the words “BUILD AND SUSTAIN” with “PROMOTE,” so
it will read: “. . . STATE SHALL PROMOTE A DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER . . .”
This suggests that it is not only the State that will do it but that
other sectors and elements will be helping along.
MR. TINGSON: In the light of the remarks
of the Vice-President, the committee would like to accept that amendment
which reads as follows: “THE PRIME CONCERN OF THE STATE IS TO PROMOTE A
DYNAMIC ORDER.”
Would that be acceptable to the
Vice-President?
MR. PADILLA: At least that would be an
improvement.
MS. NIEVA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Nieva is recognized.
MS. NIEVA: We were discussing the words
“SOCIAL ORDER.” I know we are allergic to more words, but aside from
“DYNAMIC,” would it be possible to add “JUST” — “A JUST SOCIAL ORDER”?
“DYNAMIC” is different, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say?
MR. TINGSON: We would like to ask
Commissioner Bacani since that was his amendment — “DYNAMIC SOCIAL
ORDER.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: The idea of social order
precisely implies justice, balance and harmony.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
the word “JUST” accepted by the committee?
MR. TINGSON: No, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): So
it is not accepted by the committee.
MR. TINGSON: Just “DYNAMIC,” Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MS. NIEVA: Is there no social order that
is unjust?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
object to the use of the word “POVERTY.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Just a moment, Commissioner de los Reyes, we are still trying to resolve
the addition of the word “JUST.” Commissioner Bacani is about to
respond.
BISHOP BACANI: If it is not just, it is
not yet a social order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
Commissioner Nieva insisting on her amendment?
MS. NIEVA: If it is understood that the
“just” aspect is very much emphasized, then I will not insist Mr.
Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
amendment is considered withdrawn then.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: I have a very minor
observation here. On Section 6, we say “THE PRIME DUTY”; on Section 7,
we say “THE PRIME CONCERN.” I do not know what Section 8 will come up
with.
I think there is a little rhythm of the
use of “PRIME” in the two sections. How about taking away that word and
say “THE CONCERN OF THE STATE,” so as not to let the two “primes,” the
two “premiers,” go together?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
There is a proposed amendment by Commissioner de Castro to delete the
word “PRIME.” What does the committee say?
MR. TINGSON: We accept, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
MR. RAMA: The original formulation was
“primary” — it is a little different from “PRIME” in spelling. “The
primary concern” was the original formulation.
MR. DE CASTRO: When I asked the honorable
Floor Leader what is the difference between “PRIME” and “primary,” he
told me they are the same. So how about deleting the word “PRIME” and
say “THE CONCERN OF THE STATE” for aesthetic purposes?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What is the response of the committee?
The Chair declares a suspension of the
session.
It was 5:48 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:49 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: There is a new formulation. May
I ask that Commissioner Aquino or Commissioner Tingson be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
have additional suggestions from Commissioners Nieva and Rigos. So
Section 7 will read as follows: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A DYNAMIC AND
JUST SOCIAL ORDER THAT CAN FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY, PROTECT THE
DIGNITY OF EVERY PERSON AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL.”
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: My concern is the repetition
of the word “DIGNITY.” The preceding section already states: “The State
values the dignity of every human person…”
MR. TINGSON: Would the Commissioner like
to propose another word?
MR. DAVIDE: It is not a proposal of
another word but its deletion because this is included in a preceding
section which was a Bacani amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What would the Commissioner propose to delete?
MR. DAVIDE: I propose to delete the
phrase “protect the dignity of every person” because in the preceding
section, we already have the principle that the State shall value the
dignity of every human person.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say to the proposed deletion of the phrase
“protect the dignity of every person”?
MR. TINGSON: We accept, Mr. Presiding
Officer. We end with the phrase “AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR
ALL.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Will the committee now read the new formulation?
MR. TINGSON: The new formulation will now
read: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A DYNAMIC AND JUST SOCIAL ORDER THAT CAN
FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL.”
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
honorable Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I regret to express my
opposition to a section or every section starting with “The State
shall.” I think even the original draft or report of the committee about
the concern of the State says “a just socio-political and economic
system . . .” I prefer the word “just” to “DYNAMIC.” I am already
getting antagonistic to every proposal where the section starts with:
“The State shall.” We have many provisions which start with “The State
shall establish and maintain”; “The State shall promote”; “The State
shall” and so forth.
So we will be making this Constitution as
primarily imposing on the State its duties and obligations. I think we
should be careful in not reiterating too much the obligations and duties
of the State when we start with the phrase “The State shall.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Does the honorable Vice-President have any specific suggestion to aid
the committee, instead of using the words “The State shall”?
MR. PADILLA: That will require a little
more careful study, Mr. Presiding Officer.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is suspended.
It was 5:54 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:55 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is resumed.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
committee would like to stick to its suggestion that we vote on this
proposal now, which has been the formulation arrived at by different
Commissioners. May I repeat, Mr. Presiding Officer: “THE STATE SHALL
PROMOTE A DYNAMIC AND JUST SOCIAL ORDER THAT CAN FREE THE PEOPLE FROM
POVERTY AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL.”
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move for a vote on that
provision.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I regret that I have to
object to the amendment, particularly the use of the phrase “THAT CAN
FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY.” It sounds like a demagogue to me.
Moreover, it is not inspiring to have in the Article on the Declaration
of Principles and State Policies the word “POVERTY.” I think the
original recommendation of the committee is good enough, with some
changes. For example, we can say, “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A DYNAMIC AND
JUST SOCIAL ORDER THAT AIMS TO SECURE FOR THE PEOPLE THE BENEFITS OF
FULL EMPLOYMENT, A RISING STANDARD OF LIVING, EQUALITY IN ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES AND BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE,” without using the word
“POVERTY.” I think the words “FULL EMPLOYMENT, RISING STANDARD OF
LIVING, EQUALITY IN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES,” are more elegant than the
word “POVERTY” in a declaration of principles.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Will Commissioner de los Reyes suggest an alternative to help the
committee, aside from the word “POVERTY”?
MR. DE LOS REYES: My suggestion, Mr.
Presiding Officer, is to retain substantially the original report of the
committee, with some changes as already agreed upon. So my amendment
would read as follows: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A DYNAMIC AND JUST
SOCIAL ORDER THAT SECURES FOR THE PEOPLE THE BENEFITS OF FULL
EMPLOYMENT, A RISING STANDARD OF LIVING, EQUALITY IN ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES AND BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE.”
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, the word
“POVERTY” has to be included because we are in the business of trying
to solve the national problems. The number one national problem is
poverty. We cannot avoid, if we are to present a solution, to also state
the problem. Mr. de los Reyes, of course, does not understand probably
this problem because he is quite wealthy. But how can we solve the
problem of the nation if we do not define it? The largest, oldest, most
enduring and most brutalizing problem of the country is mass poverty. So
we have to aim and state the solution, we must define the problem. So I
ask that we take a vote on the amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: In answer to the claim
of Commissioner Rama that I am quite wealthy, that is farthest from the
truth. People from my province will attest to the fact that I am not
wealthy, although I am not poor either. But the point is this: While I
understand that we have poverty problem in our country, I do not see any
good reason for its inclusion in the Article on the Declaration of
Principles which should be an inspiring article in the Constitution.
Imagine starting with the word “POVERTY” in the Declaration of
Principles! That is my reason, Mr. Presiding Officer.
So I am amenable to a voting on my
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Let
us clarify the issue. The point of Commissioner de los Reyes is to
retain the words “BENEFITS OF FULL EMPLOYMENT, A RISING STANDARD OF
LIVING, EQUALITY IN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE.”
Is that the correct statement of the issue, Commissioner de los Reyes?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Substantially, yes, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say?
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, to
avoid more confusion, we are sorry we cannot accept that. We would like
the body to vote on this latest formulation that we presented.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
Commissioner de los Reyes insisting on his amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): We
will put it to a vote.
As many as are in favor of restoring the
phrase “BENEFITS OF FULL EMPLOYMENT, RISING STANDARD OF LIVING, EQUALITY
IN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE,” please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)
The results show 13 votes in favor, 9
against and 1 abstention; the amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes is
approved.
The committee is now asked to reformulate
the present formulation to insert the words mentioned by Commissioner
de los Reyes.
MR. RAMA: At any rate, the words “to free
the people from poverty” are still there.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
There was no mention of the motion to delete “POVERTY.” What was
presented before the body was the insertion of certain words. So it is
now up to the committee to reformulate all these things.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I am a little confused
because if we have a section that says “free from poverty” and in the
next breath it says “promote full employment,” that does not sound like a
good sequence. I was under the impression that the manifestation of
Commissioner de los Reyes was to delete the reference to poverty and say
it in a positive manner.
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is correct. That
was my intention.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
That is precisely the reason why the Chair, before the voting, clarified
the situation — whether or not the intention of Commissioner de los
Reyes was to retain the words mentioned by the Chair, and Commissioner
de los Reyes agreed.
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is correct.
However, even before that, I already mentioned — and I was arguing on
the premise — that it is not good for an Article on the Declaration of
Principles to start with the word “POVERTY.” That is engaging in
hairsplitting technicalities.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): To
resolve this issue, shall we throw it back to the committee so that the
formulation will not be in conflict with each other?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair suspends the session.
It was 6:04 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:08 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, because
of the lateness of the hour, I move that we adjourn until tomorrow at
nine o’clock in the morning.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Before the Chair acts on the motion, is it understood that the committee
will sleep on this problem of Section 7 with all the formulations
presented? Is the understanding of the Chair correct, Mr. Chairman?
MR. TINGSON: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: In view of the fact that the
dinner of Commissioner Foz is at seven o’clock, maybe after the
adjournment, we can sit down with the committee and resolve some of
these problems.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Yes. Probably, the committee can take it up.
There is a motion to adjourn. Is there
any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is
adjourned until tomorrow at nine o’clock in the morning.
It was 6:09 p.m.
*Appeared
after the roll call.