JOURNAL NO. 93

Friday, September 26, 1986

CALL TO ORDER

At 9:57 a.m., the President of the Constitutional Commission, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, called the session to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PRAYER

The National Anthem was sung followed by a prayer led by Mr. Ahmad Domocao Alonto, to wit:

AL FATIHAH —

Bismillaahir — Rahmaanir — Rahfim. — In the name of Allah, Most Benevolent, Ever-Merciful.

‘Al-Hamdu Li’llaahi Rabbi’l — ‘Aalamiin; — All Praise be to Allah, Lord of all the Worlds;

‘Ar-Rahmaanir — Rahiim; — Most Beneficent Ever-Merciful;

Maaliki Yawmid-Diin! — King of the Day of Judgment,

‘Iyyaaka na’-budu wa ‘iyyaaka nasta’iin. — You alone we worship; and to You alone we turn for help.

‘Ihdinas-Siraatal-Mustaqiim — Guide us to the straight path,

Siraatal-laziina ‘an- ‘amta ‘alay-him — The path of those whom Thou hast favoured.

Gayril-magzuubi ‘alay-him wa laz-zaaalliiin. — Not
(the path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray. (Q.
1: 1-7).

On this homestretch of framing the Fundamental Law
of this country, we ask of Thee, O God, to guide us as Thou have been
guiding us from the start, and grant that we be able to complete the
task before the date that we have voluntarily imposed upon ourselves to
finish drafting this Constitution.

We ask of Thee, O God, to continue strengthening us
along the course of this task and grant that this Constitution could
effect a change in attitude and dynamism to the people of this country,
for we are aware, O God, of the verity — “INNA ‘LAAHA LAA YU GHAIRU MABI
QAUMIN HATTA YUGHAIRU MABI ANFUSIHIM.” “Verily, God do not change the
condition of a people unless the same people has changed what is in
themselves.”

We ask of Thee, O God, that this Constitution that
we are drafting can, by it, establish in this, country, “UMMATTUN
YADU’UNA ILA’L KHAYR WA YA’MURUUNA BIL MA’RUUF WA YANHA’UNA ANI’L
MUNKAR” . . . “A nation that invites to goodness, enjoins what is right
and forbids what is evil.” (Q. 3: 104).

Finally, we thank Thee, O God Almighty, for giving
us a leader whom Thou has blessed with genuine sincerity of faith,
complete dedication to the well-being of the people and true love for
freedom, justice and democracy.

AMIIN, YA RABBUL ALAMIIN.

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

ROLL CALL

 

 

With 33 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.

The following Members appeared after the Roll Call:

 

A.M.

 

Mr. Rosales was sick.

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

Mr. Laurel was absent.

READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

On motion of Mr. Calderon, there being no objection,
the reading of the Journal of the previous session was dispensed with
and the said Journal was approved by the Body with the amendment at the
instance of Mr. Padilla, to insert on page 1453, after the alternative
formulation of Mr. Suarez, his proposed amendment, to wit:

THE STATE ENCOURAGES MARRIAGE AS A BASIC SOCIAL
INSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE FILIPINO FAMILY. THE LAW SHALL
CONTINUE TO PROTECT THE FAMILY RIGHTS OF THE SPOUSES AND THEIR CHILDREN.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

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

REFERRAL TO COMMITTEES OF COMMUNICATIONS

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

Communication No. 1012 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mrs. Rosario A. Magnaye of Looc,
Romblon, submitting, for consideration by the Constitutional Commission,
the following suggestions: 1) give vacant lands owned by the government
to deserving tenants; 2) encourage the landowners to donate some
parcels of land to citizens worthy of their trust; and 3) give every
citizen the incentive and the freedom to buy or sell land by mutual
agreement between vendor and vendee, among others

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Communication No. 1013 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Mr. Bayani Molina of 161 Scout
Limbaga Ext., Kamuning, Quezon City, giving, among others the advantages
of a constitutional right to bear arms and submitting his suggestions
on how this constitutional right may be implemented

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

Communication No. 1014 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Florencio D. Montalbo of 39 Notre
Dame, Cubao, Quezon City, expressing apprehension over the approval of a
constitutional proposal which in effect shall perpetuate the post-audit
procedure of auditing government accounts

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Communication No. 1015 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Position paper submitted by the Small Land-owners
Association of Antique, San Jose, Antique, signed by two hundred three
members, seeking the repeal of Presidential Decree No. 27, known as the
Agrarian Reform Law, so that all lands covered by certificates of land
transfer containing an area of more than seven but not exceeding one
hundred hectares be returned to the original owners

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Communication No. 1016 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Ernesto B. Martiñez of 55 Panorama
St., Rimview Park Village, Concepcion, Marikina, Metro Manila, seeking
inclusion in the Constitution of a provision providing only one color,
one design, etc. for paper monies or currencies from two-peso to
one-hundred peso bills

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Communication No. 1017 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Mr. Delfin Manlapaz of 1707 E.
Rodriguez, Sr. Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City, reiterating his suggestion for
the creation of a citizen-owned Reservoir of National Credit wherein
everyone, natural-born or naturalized, regardless of sex, age, or social
standing, is credited with a prorated initial bank deposit

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

DESIGNATION OF MR. RODRIGO AS PRESIDING OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 2(a), Rule I of the Rules, on
motion of Mr. Rama, duly seconded and there being no objection, the Body
designated the Honorable Francisco A. Rodrigo to perform the duties of
the Chair.

Thereafter, upon request of Mr. Rama, the Chair recognized Mr. Calderon for a question of privilege.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF MR. CALDERON

Thereupon, Mr. Calderon took the floor on a question
of privilege relative to the nine-day visit of President Corazon C.
Aquino to the United States which, he said, was highly successful.

Mr. Calderon disclosed that the President had
delivered an average of two speeches a day, not counting her informal
talks with hundreds of businessmen like the group of top level officials
of banking institutions and business conglomerates whom she met for
breakfast in her hotel at New York City enroute to San Francisco on her
way home. He stated that in more than half of her eighteen formal
speeches, she mentioned the Constitutional Commission and, specifically,
in a speech before the women leaders of America in Washington, D.C., on
the same day, she delivered her classic address before the U.S.
Congress. President Aquino mentioned that “a Constitutional Commission,
headed by a distinguished woman jurist, Cecilia Muñoz Palma, will soon
finish the draft of a new Constitution which will be submitted to the
Filipino for approval.”

It is plain, Mr. Calderon said, that not only the
eyes of the Filipino people, but also of the world, are upon the
Constitutional Commission, for the Filipinos do not live in an island
entirely alone by themselves but in a world where, while fashioning a
life of their own, they must learn to live with others.

On the basic theme of President Aquino’s eighteen
speeches, he stated that she dwelt on recurrent issues like her
government’s policy to encourage private initiative, bringing to the
fore her belief that the private sector is the stimulus of growth.

He quoted from her speeches delivered on September
23, 1986 before the Stanford Research Institute and the Pacific Basin
Economic Council and before the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce
and the New York Economics Club stating that she battled for an open
economy and repeatedly appealed to American businessmen to invest in the
Philippines to assist in its economic growth.

Quoting from her speech before the Advisory
Committee of the creditor banks in New York City, he stated that
President Aquino believes and relies on a balanced agricultural and
industrial growth.

In her speech during a luncheon tendered in her
honor jointly by Harvard University President, Dr. Derek Bok and
Radcliffe College President, Martina Horner, he stated that she adverted
to the funeral of Ninoy Aquino, expressing abhorrence of the use of
violence.

Quoting from her speech before the Joint Session of
the U.S. Congress, he underscored President Aquino’s commitment to God
and to the Filipino people.

He stated that in her speeches and during
interviews, President Aquino never mentioned the U.S. Military Bases
issue, making it clear that she is keeping her options on the Agreement
open until 1991.

Finally, Mr. Calderon stressed the congruence in the
hopes and aspirations of President Aquino and that of the
Constitutional Commission.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Maambong stated that the parliamentary status would be the continuation of the period of interpellations.

Thereupon, Mr. Tadeo was recognized for his interpellation.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. TADEO

In reply to Mr. Tadeo’s query on the feasibility of
accommodating the war veterans and government retirees in the
acquisition of public lands and the development of natural resources in
relation to Sections 4 and 6 of the Article on Social Justice which
provides for the grant of lands to landless farmers and farm workers
considering the scarcity of land, Mr. de Castro stated that the war
veterans fought for the country, some were maimed and many died, and it
is their simple wish that they own a share of the public lands which the
government distributes as part of its program of social justice.

Adverting to Republic Act No. 1363 approved by
Congress on June 18, 1955, he stated that it granted war veterans, their
widows and orphans, the preference to acquire public lands but that the
said law was repealed twenty-five years later. He stressed that the
thousands of war veterans should not be denied such right and that the
State should be mandated to protect them.

lands and the development of natural resources” does
not contemplate that all of them would apply for such preference and
that there is no basis to fear the diminution of the rights of small
farmers, which rights, with respect to landholdings they cultivate and
landholdings privately owned, shall be protected. He stressed that all
Filipinos could apply for lands under the same conditions although
veterans should be given preference. The farmers, he added, as
contemplated in Mr. Tadeo’s statement, are those tilling privately-owned
lands.

Mr. Tadeo warned of the possible problems that may
arise inasmuch as there are three or four million landless agricultural
workers as well as some 650,000 kaingineros who would need land. He
observed that retirees receive retirement pays, in any case. He
underscored that the farmers are also heroes inasmuch as they feed the
nation.

While not denying this observation, Mr. Nolledo
pointed out that the provision carries the balancing of interest
doctrine which the Supreme Court expounded on in many cases. He noted
that preference would not be given to war veterans by abandoning the
rights of farmers. The state, he maintained, is duty bound to observe
this doctrine. He observed that following Mr. Tadeo’s theory would lead
to some sort of discrimination and underscored that there will always be
lands available to the farmers whose rights will be duly respected.

Mr. Tadeo stressed the great contribution of the
farmers whose products generate foreign currency earnings used to
purchase raw materials and machineries needed by the country.
Nevertheless, he pointed out that farmers do not have benefits such as
retirement pay although they are as much heroes as the war veterans.

Section 4, Mr. Tadeo opined, should not be included
in the Article inasmuch as the natural resources which can be cultivated
are too limited. He noted that Section 10 mentions urban land reform
and queried as to where these people would be brought.

REMARKS OF MR. NATIVIDAD

Mr. Natividad assured Mr. Tadeo that the farmers’
rights shall be respected but maintained that the war veterans’ rights
cannot be overlooked. He stressed that the country owes the war veterans
a debt of gratitude as they fought in defense of the country and that
without them the Constitutional Commission would not be existing and the
country would not be free today. He informed that war veterans receive
very little in terms of benefits and that many, just like the farmers,
suffer from tuberculosis because of their exposure to the elements in
the mountains and lack of food during the war.

He noted that even the United States has forgotten
them and that the United States Recession Act of 1946 maintained that
the war in the Philippines was fought for the Philippines by the
Filipinos for which reason the Philippines, not the United States,
should take care of the Filipino war veterans. The United States, he
said, promised P50 a month in pay of which only P18 was paid and that
the war veterans were not given hospitalization benefits, death and
burial benefits, educational benefits, service connected hospitalization
benefits and old-age pension.

The Constitution, he underscored, is for all
Filipinos — the farmers, the war veterans, the employees, the students,
the teachers. He called for equal treatment and care for all just like a
parent would equally care for all his children.

In reply, Mr. Tadeo manifested his support for the
aspirations of the war veterans and government retirees although he
maintained that the provision should be viewed in the proper
perspective. He stated that the government should do something about the
low pensions of the veterans and that the problem should be met head
on.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. TADEO

(Continuation)

In reply to Mr. Tadeo’s inquiry on the 20-year
lifespan provided in Section 7, Mr. Nolledo informed that the Section
has been amended to wit: “Congress shall by law and within a specified
period, provide for review of the performance and management of
government ministries, bureaus, agencies or corporations for the purpose
of determining their retention, reorganization or dissolution.” He
explained that this means Congress shall provide for the period of
review of their performance to determine whether they shall be retained,
reorganized or dissolved. He informed that the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions and the Freedom Constitution do not contain such a
provision.

Mr. Tadeo lauded the revision of the original
provision stating that the existence of such ministries, bureaus,
agencies and corporations should be based on the needs of the times
instead of a definite lifespan.

Replying thereto, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the
spirit of the provision is to encourage ministries, bureaus, agencies
and corporations to relate their programs to changes. She noted that the
Reorganization Committee Report showed that several ministries and
about 30 corporations or bureaus were found no longer relevant to the
needs of the times and were requested to be reexamined by the
appropriate agencies.

On Section 8, Mr. Tadeo inquired whether the
provision would mean making the Philippines attractive to foreigners so
that they can take advantage of natural spots, to which Mrs. Rosario
Braid answered that the intent is to encourage the preservation of
indigenous communities without indulging in extravagance in developing
them to meet the needs of foreign tourists.

On the possibility that constitutionalizing tourism
may lead to legitimizing vice and prostitution, Mrs. Rosario Braid
underscored that tourism is an important industry which should not be
left out.

In answer to Mr. Tadeo’s request for an explanation
of Section 15 which states “The State may not be sued without its
consent”, Mr. Maambong stated that the nonsuability of the State is a
universal doctrine adopted by all countries of the world. He noted that
it is against public policy to allow suit against the State without its
consent, otherwise, the government would not be able do anything except
to defend itself in litigations. However, he mentioned the exceptions,
namely, when a law allows the State to be sued and when the State
voluntarily enters into a contract in which case there is implied
consent to be sued.

Mr. Nolledo stated that this principle is based on
the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kawananakoa vs. Polybank
decided by a Federal Supreme Court, in which ruling Justice Holmes
opined: “A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal
conception or absolute theory but on the logical and practical ground
that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the
law on which the right depends”. He noted that the exceptions to this
principle may be given expressly by law — whether general or special or
implied — as when the State enters into a contract with an individual,
the State then goes to the level of the individual or when the State
sues the individual, in which case the latter may file a counterclaim
against the State. Mr. Nolledo informed further that when government
takes a private property of an individual for public use without ‘he
legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the Supreme Court
opined: “The aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the
government without thereby vitiating the doctrine of governmental
immunity from suit without its consent”. The Supreme Court, Mr. Nolledo
Stated, also said that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit
cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a
citizen”

In relation to Sections 17, 19 and 21, to wit:

SECTION 17. The Armed Forces of the Philippines, the
main force for the defense and security of the State, belong to the
Filipino people.

Its tasks are to preserve the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the nation, to participate in national
development and reconstruction, to insure public security, and to serve
the interest of the people;

SECTION 19. It shall be the duty of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines to remain loyal at all times and in all places to
the people;

SECTION 21. The military as impartial guardian . . .

Mr. Tadeo recounted some experiences with the
military. He informed that in Piat, Solana, Cagayan, 34 farmers in the
Massey-Ferguson project, involved in the cultivation of corn and
sorghum, were driven away by the military who were supporting the
political warlord. He stated that these farmers told him that they were
forced to sign away their land because of military pressure. He noted
that the farmers, through toil and taxes, have fed the soldiers and paid
for their salaries.

In Mindanao, Mr. Tadeo observed that when the
National Development Corporation was set up, the farmers were driven
away by the military and that in Samar, the farmers’ livestock were
confiscated also by the military. He opined that the Armed Forces of the
Philippines which was expected to serve the interest of the Filipino
people had failed to do so and instead had served foreign interest.

As to how this situation can be rectified, Mr. de
Castro stated that the Body had created a Commission on Human Rights
which shall investigate abuses such as those recounted by Mr. Tadeo. He
acknowledged that there are abuses committed by the military owing to
the present situation in which the P12 daily subsistence allowance is
barely enough to purchase a soldier’s food requirements. He noted that
the soldiers have not been given the proper care. Mr. de Castro pointed
out that the Constitution should set the right direction for the Armed
Forces of the Philippines and thereby prevent the recurrence of abuses.

Mr. Tadeo, in reply, noted that agrarian land reform
can be properly implemented with the help of the AFP whose services to
the Filipino people could wipe out the insurgency and achieve progress
for the country.

Mr. de Castro pointed out that not all members of
the AFP are bad and that they have helped the farmers construct barrio
roads and artesian wells. He stated that the Commission on Human Rights
should rid the AFP of scalawags. He then sought Mr. Tadeo’s help to make
the AFP, through the Constitution, truly serve the Filipino people’s
interest.

REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo remarked that the government must show
its gratitude to the war veterans and government retirees who had served
the government with dignity and honor and whose toils had been
pitifully remunerated by measly pensions and gratuities.

He expressed the hope that the members of the AFP
and the farmers, under this new dispensation, would cooperate with each
other in the realization of more meaningful and authentic agrarian land
reform program.

Thereafter, he recited a poem which he wrote in his
birthplace, Barrio Inawagan, Puerto Princesa City when he was 12 years
old, at a time when the soldiers enjoyed a wide reservoir of goodwill
and love among the people. He stated that he was dedicating the poem
entitled Ako’y Isang Kawal to all war veterans especially those who are
in the Commission, namely, Messrs. Padilla, de Castro, Regalado, Ople,
Jamir and Natividad.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. MONSOD

On Section 4, in reply to Mr. Monsod’s query whether
“war veterans” would refer only to the veterans of the Revolution of
1896, World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, or
whether it would include those who are fighting insurgency, Mr. de
Castro expressed willingness to clarify the intent during the period of
amendments.

On the observation that Section 7 could lead to the
proliferation rather than the reduction of agencies in the government,
Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the intention is not to duplicate the
function of the Commission on Audit of appraising performance but to
encourage bureaus and organizations to constantly reexamine their goals
and programs against the criteria which are considered relevant to the
changing needs of the time, the emphasis being that organizations have
to constantly renew themselves since they tend to become obsolete after a
period of time.

Mr. Monsod observed that the provision would seem to
constitutionalize the Presidential Commission on Government
Reorganization, the danger being that it could be used by Congress to
exercise political leverage on certain ministries in violation of the
principle of separation of powers. He opined that the provision would
also open the door to amendments or modifications which would impair the
civil service, in view of which, he urged the Committee to take a
second look at the provision.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Nolledo opined that there
would not be any violation because although it is the Constitution which
sets forth the principle of separation of powers, it may qualify such
principle considering that Congress, being the repository of
governmental authority, should be given the power to determine whether
or not government offices faithfully discharge their assigned duties
under the Constitution and the laws. Considering that the power to
reorganize governmental entities is executive in nature, Mr. Nolledo
stated that Congress should merely lay down the guidelines and delegate
the power to reorganize also to executive officers. He stated that this
provision would qualify the provisions on civil service considering
that, while appointment to public office is a privilege, such privilege
may be limited by law.

Mr. Monsod underscored that one of the more
important features of a stable government is continuity and that
election is the remedy if the people are dissatisfied with the way the
Executive is running the government. He stated that he would want to
avoid a situation where Congress would interfere with the Executive
Department by using this provision to diminish the balance of powers, to
which Mr. Nolledo replied that continuity would not be impaired by the
provision. He agreed that after each periodic election, the victors who
come into power continuously discharge their duties but government
offices remain as they are with no reviewing authority over them, in
view of which, there should be some higher power that should determine
whether or not these government offices should be maintained because
reliance on mere political outpourings during the elections would not
solve the problem of government offices that have become obsolete after a
lapse of time.

As to how he voted on the section which set up a
Metro Manila Commission for common services, Mr. Nolledo stated that Mr.
Ople’s amendment which he had accepted merely establishes a
coordinating agency substantially different from the Metro Manila
Commission, to which Mr. Monsod replied that Mr. Nolledo’s argument
about election promises not being followed is wrong because what is
sought to be set up is different from the Metro Manila Commission which
would be effectively abolished.

On Section 8, on the contention that it is not
necessary to constitutionalize tourism and that adoption of the
provision would be a violation of the Declaration of Principles which
provides that the State shall protect and advance the right of the
people and their posterity to a balanced and healthful ecology, Mrs.
Rosario Braid stated that the provision was formulated before the Body
approved the related section on the Declaration of Principles. She
expressed willingness to consider amendments at the proper time,
pointing out, however, that the Committee would like to keep the
provision subject to amendments. Mr. Monsod replied that if the
Commission were to operationalize everything in the Declaration of
Principles, it would have a pretty long Constitution.

On Section 9, in reply to Mr. Monsod’s apprehension
that, as formulated, it is possible that the government may set up a
central censorship body, Mrs. Rosario Braid denied that such is the
intent of the provision. She, however, expressed willingness to consider
amendments at the proper time.

On Section 10(2), as to how the State would protect
the public from misleading, harmful, deceptive and colonial advertising,
labelling and other forms of misrepresentation, Mrs. Rosario Braid
stated that Mr. Gascon would be defending his favor its provision when
he comes. However, to the query as to who would be the judge of the
nature of advertising, Mr. Nolledo stated that there is an existing body
which lays down the standards on advertisements and which provides for
sanctions on violations. He advanced the view that the purpose of Mr.
Gascon’s proposal is to provide authority for Congress to create a
similar body but with more powers.

On whether this would not amount to censorship, Mrs.
Rosario Braid stated that there are at least two major bodies, the
Philippine Association of National Advertisers’ and the Philippine Board
of Advertising, which are self-regulatory and which have set the
criterion of common good, although there is need to further
operationalize them in accordance with the concepts contained in this
provision.

Additionally, Mr. Nolledo stressed that there would
be no such censorship, the only purpose being to inform the public that
the police power of the State can protect them from misleading, harmful
and deceptive information and other forms of misrepresentation. He
further stated that the instances given by Mr. Monsod could be well
covered by the prohibition against colonial advertising, the purpose of
Mr. Gascon being that the Filipinos should develop their own identity.

On whether the provision would prohibit jingles and
commercials in English and commercials which show white faces who talk
of the virtues of products in their part of the world, Mr. Nolledo
stated that it would be taken care of by the appropriate body that
Congress may establish to determine whether or not said advertisements
constitute colonial advertising.

Additionally, Mr. Foz stated that a frontal response
to colonial advertising may be effected by requiring that advertising
materials sponsored by multinationals use local talents and materials in
order to avoid the propagation of American or alien cultures and
values. Mr. Monsod noted that a constitutional provision in this regard
may open a broad range of censorship that would even be
counterproductive to Filipino culture.

Moreover, Mr. Foz stated that the Bureau of Domestic
Trade, one of the bureaus in the Ministry Of Trade and Industry, is
empowered by law to handle cases of misleading, harmful or deceptive
advertising, labelling and other forms of misrepresentation for the
protection of the public. Mr. Monsod maintained that such contention
could be dealt with at the proper time, however, his question was on the
definition of colonial advertising.

Mrs. Rosario Braid invited attention to the fact
that the Philippine Board of Advertising has no legal sanction against
erring members and, therefore, this provision would make it more
socially responsible. She then cited for the record a study which showed
that 76 percent of products advertised are of foreign brands but may be
locally manufactured and that 6 of the top 10 advertisers in radio and 9
out of the top 10 advertisers in television are multinational
subsidiaries, thus most of them use multinational advertising agencies.

On Section 11(2), Mr. Foz stated that the provision
contemplates majority ownership and control by Filipinos. He expressed
willingness to consider amendments at the proper time.

On the meaning of the phrase “one form of commercial
mass media in a single market”, Mr. Foz explained that two possible
models could be adopted in this regard, namely, 1) limiting the
ownership of one person or one family or one corporation to only one
category or type of media; and 2) allowing the individual corporation or
family to own other forms of mass media in the other categories but
outside the market area.

In reply to Mr. Monsod’s specific example, Mr. Foz
stated that the provision would divide mass media into only two, namely,
print and broadcast which includes radio and television.

In this connection, Mr. Foz stated that a
corporation could not own a newspaper and a TV station at the same time
in one market area, in reply to which Mr. Monsod observed that the
Committee is going a little bit too far in terms of trying to curtail
Filipino enterprises.

Mr. Monsod pointed out that there is competition not
only within the domestic market but also in the international market.
He stated that he could not understand the Committee position that one
can only be in newspapers and not in radio.

In reply thereto, Mr. Foz stressed that a
combination of a newspaper, a television and a radio is a powerful
weapon combination for some form of economic or political control. He
explained that the idea is to pave the way for diversification of
ownership in the countryside rather than have a concentration of mass
media establishments in Metro Manila

On whether this provision would be an incentive for
people to go out and establish newspapers and reach out television and
radio in the rural areas, Mr. Foz stated that the Committee does not
call it an incentive but a push that would make people who are
interested in putting up media establishments go out of Metro Manila so
that the people out there would get the benefit of free dissemination of
information and ideas.

Mr. Monsod pointed out that if people are not given
the benefit of skills, they would be discouraged from going out to the
rural areas but they may be able to do it if media can avail of the best
talents and expertise if they are feeding into an integrated approach.
He stated that there are 5 television stations, over a hundred radio
stations and 22 newspapers.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Foz stressed that there is a
link between print and broadcast media although the facilities are quite
different. He pointed out that in the dissemination of news, for
instance, it is a standard practice for television and radio stations to
maintain their own separate news staff.

On the third paragraph which was said to be
mandatory, Mr. Monsod inquired if this is not already amply covered by
the provision in the Article on National Economy and Patrimony on the
encouragement of broader participation by the people in all enterprises,
in reply to which Mr. Foz explained that although there is such general
provision in the Article on National Economy and Patrimony, the
Committee felt that there should be a related provision on mass media as
a special kind of business or enterprise.

Mr. Monsod maintained that although the use of
public domain is important, it was precisely the reason why there is an
omnibus provision in the Article on National Economy and Patrimony that
would apply not only to mass media but also to all kinds of enterprises
that would have public interest in them.

INQUIRY OF MR. COLAYCO

On Mr. Colayco’s inquiry on the interpretation of
the second paragraph of Section 11, Mr. Foz affirmed that television and
radio are classified as one and newspapers and magazines as another
form.

Mr. Foz disagreed with Mr. Colayco’s observation
that the wording of one of the prohibitions against owning more than one
form could be literally interpreted to mean that one can own more than
one newspaper.

Mrs. Rosario Braid, however, added that it can be allowed as long as it will not be in a single market.

Mr. Foz agreed with Mr. Colayco’s interpretation
that if television and radio are classified into one form and newspapers
and magazines into another form, the prohibition is against owning more
than one form such that a person cannot own a TV station and a
newspaper.

On whether a person could own more than one of the
same form in the same market, Mr. Foz stated that it would be covered by
the prohibition.

Mr. Colayco argued that the formulation of the
provision which reads “No one individual can own more than one form of
commercial mass media in a single market” would allow a person to own
more than one of the same form, in reply to which Mr. Foz adverted to
the original idea behind the provision which is to prevent monopoly.

On whether he would consider owning two newspapers
in Metro Manila a monopoly considering the more than twenty newspapers
therein, Mr. Foz believed that in a strict sense it would not be a
monopoly although ownership or control of two newspapers packs a wallop
in influencing public opinion. He stated that while there are more than
twenty newspapers in Metro Manila, they do not enjoy the same rating.
However, he opined that ownership of two small newspapers would fall
under the prohibition if they are circulated in the same market.

Additionally, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the
provision would encourage cooperative ownership and would discourage
replays on highly centralized relay stations, thus, it would encourage
focal programming which are more relevant to the needs of other parts of
the country. She disclosed that the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa
Pilipinas is in favor of this provision.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. MONSOD

(Continuation)

Commenting on Mrs. Rosario Braid’s reply that the
provision would prohibit relay station 6, Mr. Monsod pointed out that
under the provision, it is not prohibited because relay stations in the
rural areas are part of the enlargement of a single market.

Mrs. Rosario Braid clarified that the intent is to
encourage local broadcasting to cater to local based market, to which
Mr. Monsod disagreed by stating that relay stations would still come
within the single market. He opined that this may be a good idea if the
intent is to encourage national integration which, he noted, is implied
to be against the intent of the provision.

On the definition of monopoly, in the light of the
understanding that ownership of two newspapers out of twenty-two could
not be considered a monopoly, Mr. Foz stated that the basic idea is to
diversify ownership and that it would be alright to have even fifty
newspapers in Metro Manila provided they are owned separately. He
pointed out that a newspaper does not only carry news but also opinions.

Mr. Monsod agreed that there should not be ownership
of two newspapers but in the case of radio stations, unlike a
newspaper, it does not cater to an identical market because the coverage
is wider in scope than newspapers. He then inquired as to how a single
market is defined in this respect.

Replying thereto, Mr. Foz stated that it is not
prohibited to have a newspaper and a radio station provided that both
operate in different areas, to which Mr. Monsod replied that from the
technical point of view, that would not be possible considering that
radio travels by airwaves.

Mr. Foz pointed out that radio depends on its
strength so that if it is given only so much power, it could not operate
nationwide.

Mr. Monsod pointed out that in answer to his earlier
query, it was said that the provision would not preclude a company from
owning two radio stations that cater to two different areas, which Mr.
Foz confirmed by stating that the consideration should be the market
area.

Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that only a few radio
stations operate nationwide and most are operating on a power of only
ten kilowatts, the area of which is limited.

In the case of Malaya which publishes three dailies,
namely, Malaya, Midday and Masa, Mr. Monsod inquired whether this would
be prohibited, to which Mrs. Rosario Braid replied that it would depend
on the reader market.

Mr. Monsod stated that he is more confused with the
reply that if the same publishing company publishes one newspaper in
English and another in Tagalog, they would be serving different markets.
He inquired whether this is the Committee’s definition of single
market.

In reply, Mr. Foz stated that although Malaya has
three publications, Ang Pahayagang Malaya is the main publication and
the other two are just sister publications. He stated that this is
considered an exception because one is published in Tagalog while the
other is published for the afternoon news.

Mr. Monsod pointed out that the constitutional
provision does not reflect the possibility of an exception, to which Mr.
Foz stated that this provision is not a self-executing provision so
that it would still need an implementing law which should contain the
details including the exceptions.

On the observation that this would be less in
contravention of the intent of the Committee prohibiting a company from
owning one radio station and one newspaper, Mr. Foz stated that that is a
general rule whereas the case of Malaya may be an exception.

On whether the publication of a regular copy and an
evening edition would be covered by the prohibition, Mr. Foz stated that
it would likewise be an exception.

INQUIRY OF MR. COLAYCO

At this juncture, in reply Mr. Colayco’s inquiry on
the Committee’s concept of the word “market”, Mr. Foz stated that
“market” refers to a geographic unit so that a person who owns a
newspaper in Davao could not own another newspaper anywhere in Mindanao.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. MONSOD

(Continuation)

Mr. Monsod manifested that he would present some
amendments to the provision in the light of the answers of the Committee
which seem to allow exceptions in one situation but not in another. He
Pointed out that on the basis of the definition of single market in
terms of geographical area, the case of Malaya should come within the
prohibition. He stated that he could not understand the justification
for the exception in relation to the absolute prohibition on a radio and
a newspaper combination, to which Mr. Foz replied that in such case the
combination is one of different media.

Mr. Monsod observed that the answer to Mr. Colayco’s
query was to the effect that owning a newspaper and a radio station is
prohibited in the same manner that owning more than two newspapers is
prohibited, yet it was stated that a sister publication serving the same
geographic area would be considered an exception.

In reply, Mr. Foz clarified that the exception
depends on many factors. He stated, however, that it would be foolhardy
for a proprietor to publish a number of newspapers in the same area.

INQUIRY OF MR. COLAYCO

In reply to Mr. Colayco’s inquiry on the definition
of market, Mr. Foz stated that market is defined in the geographical
sense and not on the basis of extent of newspaper circulation. He
affirmed that Luzon may be considered a single market.

Mr. Colayco observed that the Committee does not
seem to have a definite concept or idea of the word “market” to guide
amendments.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. MONSOD

(Continuation)

Mr. Monsod noted that the Committee seems to define
geographic area as an area that could be reached by a particular form of
media so that in the case of radio, it involves station power and
signals. He stated that since the entire country is accessible to
newspapers, following the definition, it could be considered a single
market.

In reply, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that provincial
newspapers would be excepted because they are limited to particular
provinces.

On whether the Manila Bulletin would be prohibited
from setting up a newspaper in Mindanao, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that
they would not be prohibited.

Mr. Monsod pointed out that the Manila Bulletin,
which reaches the entire country, if it is allowed to set up a newspaper
in Mindanao, would have two newspapers in a single market, to which Mr.
Foz replied that the Manila Bulletin. is based in Metro Manila with
nationwide circulation.

Mrs. Rosario Braid opined that the term “market” should be redefined to include potential readership.

Mr. Monsod noted that the Committee seems to imply
that this is again an exception because if the Manila Bulletin could
reach Camiguin and is not prevented from setting up a newspaper in
Mindanao which could also reach Camiguin, in effect, it would have two
newspapers reaching Camiguin. He inquired if this would come under the
prohibition.

In reply, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the Manila
Bulletin is allowed to publish a national newspaper and to set up a
newspaper that could reach only a particular region or different market.

Mr. Monsod observed that the Committee’s definition
of “market” is not based purely on geographic area since it also
stratifies the market in terms of language or dialect and in terms of
whether it involves a morning or afternoon edition.

Mr. Monsod stated that the Committee’s original
objective was to prevent monopoly of the news but if this kind of
stratification is allowed in the definition of a single market, then it
is possible for a national newspaper to have morning and afternoon
edition in different dialects.

Replying thereto, Mr. Foz stated that it would be
improbable because it runs against common economic sense, to which Mr.
Monsod replied that what is being drafted is not a provision on
economics but a provision on communications, hence, the economic
argument would not be relevant.

INQUIRY OF MRS. NIEVA

At this juncture, Mrs. Nieva sought clarification on
the exceptions, stating that the Committee would have no objection to
Mr. Monsod’s proposed stratification.

Mr. Monsod explained that he was merely pointing out
that the classification and stratification of the Committee are not
justified, otherwise, it could be argued that the radio listeners should
also be stratified. He stated that he only wanted to be informed of the
criteria used by the Committee to interpret “single market”, because
while he is against monopolies, he wants to make sure that the
provisions of the Constitution are not discriminatory on the basis of
artificial or nonsubstantial criteria.

Additionally, he pointed out that Section 14 of the
proposal is already covered by the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony and, therefore, it is not necessary to restate it, in reply to
which Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the Committee would welcome
amendments at the proper time.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. DAVIDE

At this juncture, Mr. Davide, who was designated
Acting Floor Leader, announced that Mrs. Quesada, Messrs. Uka, Colayco,
Rigos and Ople have registered turns to interpellate the Sponsors.

INTERPELLATION OF MRS. QUESADA

On Section 3, in reply to Mrs. Quesada’s query on
whether appointment or assignment in any foreign State includes a United
Nations assignment, Mr. Maambong opined that any person who serves in
the United Nations, as long as he does not take an oath of allegiance to
any other country, is not covered by the prohibition in Section 3. He
opined that the oath of allegiance seems to be the operative act under
Section 1(3) of Commonwealth Act No. 63 which provides that a Filipino
who takes an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution and laws of a
foreign country loses his Philippine citizenship.

On whether the provisions would prevent
“moonlighting”, Mr. Maambong stated that the term “moonlighting” has no
clear legal significance under the law but the rule against it was
somewhat relaxed by the Office of the President in view of the financial
condition of government employees. He added that there is no
Constitutional violation if a government employee works in a private
establishment after his working hours; what is prohibited is the holding
of two government positions at the same time. He further explained that
the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” has been added by the
Committee in anticipation of the constitution of the Supreme Court as a
Presidential Electoral Tribunal or the designation of some Members of
Congress as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal or the House
Electoral Tribunal.

On whether Section 9 contemplates a privately
initiated or established body that would come up with a comprehensive
communication policy or whether it would be a State-initiated
communication policy, Mrs. Rosario Braid explained that it would be
State-initiated in the sense that the government may bring together
representatives from various sectors to formulate communication policies
in accordance with guidelines which need not be mandated by the State,
although the State may provide the climate for these policies. She added
that the State could also provide the climate conducive to the
development of professional media communicators such as by granting
incentives in the form of tariffs and tax incentives to fledgling
newspaper publications or by providing scholarships for those who work
in non-commercial media.

On whether the Committee has envisioned the creation
of a multi-sectoral body to implement the provisions of Section 10,
Mrs. Rosario Braid replied in the affirmative. She added that this may
be similar to the Philippine Press Institute, Press Foundation for Asia
or the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP) which are
self-regulatory agencies that police their own ranks in accordance with
their own code of ethics.

Reacting thereto, Mrs. Quesada agreed that it is a
laudable concept considering that Filipinos are being exposed to
deceptive and misleading advertising.

Mrs. Rosario Braid pointed out that the provision is
likewise related to consumers whom the State should encourage to be
more vigilant in demanding for better programs, products and
advertising. She agreed that Section 10 is also related to Section 16
which seeks to protect consumers, but the latter section pertains to
commodities, products and services other than advertising.

On the rationale of Section 11 which also deals with
telecommunications which is already covered by a provision in the
Article on National Economy and Patrimony, Mr. Nolledo replied that the
Committee feels that since telecommunications involves national
security, it should as much as possible be in the hands of Filipinos. He
added that the Committee had actually adopted the original proposal of
the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony to give two-thirds
of the ownership of the capital of public utilities to Filipinos.
However, he recalled that the Body adopted the 60:40 ratio which the
Committee feels should be increased. He then appealed to the Members to
support the proposal.

Mrs. Quesada pointed out that one of the arguments
against more Filipino equity in the ownership of public utilities like
telecommunications is that Filipinos do not have the manpower, resources
and materials to control and operate such utilities. She then inquired
whether Filipinos in the telecommunications sector agree to such view,
to which Mr. Nolledo replied that according to Mr. Morales, who is the
head of the association of telecommunications companies controlled by
Filipinos, they have the capacity and expertise to operate such
utilities, besides, they have tie-ups with foreign companies without
adversely affecting the equity recommended by the Committee.

On whether with the adoption of Section 13, there
would be a change in population policy, Mr. Bacani explained that it
would still be the responsibility of the State to formulate population
policies most conducive to general welfare with the parents retaining
the natural right to determine the number of their children.

On whether this means that the previous policy
adopting sterilization methods which had been popularized would have to
be reviewed, Mr. Bacani replied in the affirmative adding that it could
even be rejected if found to be contrary to the general welfare.

On the meaning of “general welfare”, Mr. Bacani stated that it is the common good.

As to what would happen to the assistance programs
on population control approved by international bodies such as the
USAID, Mr. Bacani opined that the agreements pertinent thereto would
have to be reviewed.

On whether there would be any liability on the part
of the providers of health or family planning services, Mr. Bacani
answered in the affirmative, stating that their activities shall be
monitored to prevent violations of the consciences of the people and
their right to health. He cited the policy of the Population Commission
which, he confirmed, implies a possible shift of the constitutional
mandate towards said policy.

Reacting thereto, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that a
recommendation to link the Population Board with the U.P. Population
Institute and other institutes to review all kinds of assistance given
to the Philippine Government had been made.

Additionally, Mr. Bacani stated that the thrust of
the 1973 Constitution was on population control but this thrust no
longer exists in the draft Constitution. He affirmed that there should
be a policy directed towards the upliftment of the welfare of the people
instead of merely controlling population growth.

Mrs. Rosario Braid added that the various factors
beyond family planning must be studied to ensure the country’s stable
population growth.

Adverting to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s
remark that the higher education of Singaporean women contributed to
fewer children, Mrs. Quesada opined that the natural consequence of
improved women education is their desire to have less children in which
case a strong population program may not be required to achieve the goal
of population control.

Mr. Bacani stated that the constitutional mandate
shall no longer focus on population control but on population welfare
policies.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Davide, the Chair suspended the session until 2:30 p.m.

It was 12:32 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:02 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Francisco A. Rodrigo presiding.

REMARKS OF MR. UKA

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Uka manifested his
objection to the proposal to delete Section 2 of the General Provisions
on the ground that the present name of the country does not truly
reflect the ideals, history, traditions and aspirations of the people.

He pointed out that the name “Philippines” was given
by Ferdinand Magellan, the first land-grabber of the country, a
Portuguese adventurer who served under King Philip II of Spain. He added
that in order to perpetuate the memory of King Philip II, Magellan
claimed the country in Philip’s name, hence, the county’s name was
imposed by a foreigner and not the Filipinos’ choice.

Mr. Uka stressed that although some have argued that
the name “Philippines” has already acquired popularity among other
nations and is already a historical fact, something that is originally
immoral cannot be corrected by the passage of time. He posed the query
why the country should be named after colonizers; or the country’s
streets, barrios; towns and cities named after Spanish conquerors. He
stressed that the nation should not honor its conquerors because it has
enough heroes to be proud of.

Additionally, he pointed out that during the Spanish
occupation, the term “Filipino” only applied to full-blooded Spaniards
born in the country while the natives were called “Indios” or “Indians”,
the Muslims were called “Moros” because of their affinity or similarity
to the Moors who occupied Spain for 800 years. He added that the people
only adopted the name “Filipinos” after the Spaniards left the country
because of their defeat during the Spanish-American War. He opined that
if the country would retain its present name, it would only perpetuate
colonial mentality among the people, since they would forever carry the
stigma of a conquered or colonized people.

INQUIRY OF MR. RAMA

In reply to Mr. Rama’s query as to what name could
be substituted for “Philippines”, Mr. Uka stated that it could be
changed to the REPUBLIC OF BAYANIHAN or after the country’s many heroes
like Rizal.

INQUIRY OF MR. ABUBAKAR

On Mr. Abubakar’s query as to the reason why he
would like to change the country’s name, Mr. Uka explained that he
wanted it to have a name that is truly reflective of the country’s
history, ideals and aspirations as a people.

On whether the Constitution could contain a
provision mandating Congress to look for a substitute for “Philippines”,
Mr. Uka stated that although it could be done, the people must also be
consulted.

Mr. Abubakar stated that those who may vote against
the proposal are not necessarily colonialists but lack courage to assert
that Filipinos do not owe their independence to anyone.

Mr. Uka then suggested that the Members think of a good name for the country.

INQUIRY OF MR. CALDERON

On Mr. Calderon’s query whether he would be
agreeable to change the name “Philippines” to MAHARLIKA, Mr. Uka stated
that it would be better to call the country “Republic of Bayanihan” so
that all the citizens thereof would be called “bayani”.

INQUIRY OF MR. JAMIR

On Mr. Jamir’s query whether Mr. Uka would also like
to change the country’s national anthem, the latter replied in the
negative. He added that the country could also retain the present seal
but the name should be changed.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. COLAYCO

On Section 13, in reply to Mr. Colayco’s query as to
what are the other policies which the Committee envisions aside from
population control, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that a board could be
formed to think of programs which would encourage indirect forms of
population control. She pointed out that studies conducted all over the
world have shown that more educated women or families with higher
standards of living opt for smaller families and less children.

On whether the present population program does not
reach the poor people who produce the bigger families, Mrs. Rosario
Braid pointed out that the present population program is mostly on
applied family planning.

At this juncture, Mr. Bacani stated that the phrase
“it shall be the responsibility of the State to adopt population
policies most conducive to the national welfare” does not automatically
include or mandate a population control policy but the government can
review such a policy to determine whether it is most conducive to the
general welfare.

Mr. Colayco stated that he asked the questions to
find out whether the present population control program is effective, to
which Mrs. Rosario Braid replied that the population of the country has
increased, indicating that the program has failed.

On the rationale for the program’s failure, Mrs.
Rosario Braid opined that one of the reasons is the Filipinos’
resistance and the tradition to have big families.

On whether there are statistics to show which
particular social strata of society have shown marked increase in
population, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that while the Committee does not
have accurate statistics on the country, those from other countries show
that family planning programs are more successful in the upper and
middle classes but not among the poor.

As to how much did the government spend for
population control, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the Population
Control Commission, which implements population control programs, spent
P236 million for 1986 while the Ministry of Social Services and
Development spent P187 million. She added that in 1985, P201 million was
spent; in 1984, P194 million; and in 1983, P233 million. She stated
that the data do not include the amounts spent for previous years when
there were greater activities in population control.

Mr. Colayco opined that there could have been better
beneficial programs for the poor if the government had not insisted on
following the theory that a country could improve its economic condition
by cutting down on population, to which Mrs. Rosario Braid agreed.
However, she explained that the thrust of a population control program
is usually determined by the implementing agency which gives the money.

Mrs. Rosario Braid then agreed with Mr. Colayco’s
observation that perhaps the population control program failed mainly
because of the people’s resistance on account of their strong adherence
to tradition.

At this juncture, Mr. Abubakar stated that he
believes in the practicality of population control, although he opined
that there must be a reformulation of the population control programs
and strategies. He stated that it is the parents’ right to decide
whether to raise a big family but that the whole Filipino society should
be enlightened by bombarding it with literatures and campaigns as if it
were a war objective to imprint in the mind of every Filipino to build a
family which does not burden the woman with rearing four or five
children.

COMMENTS OF MS. TAN

Ms. Tan opined that propaganda and communication
would not be sufficient in helping control population, stating that the
problem should be attacked on its very roots, which is abject poverty.
She pointed out that the absence of electricity and recreations the
outlook that a child is a potential wage earner and the traditional love
for large families have contributed to the failure of the population
control program.

REACTION OF MR. COLAYCO

Reacting to Mr. Abubakar’s statements, Mr. Colayco
commented that the government’s approach towards improving the economy
in relation to population control as theorized by the economist, Thomas
Robert Malthus, was proven wrong and that it is high time that the
government approached the problem of economy from a different
perspective which is the equitable distribution of the country’s
resources and wealth.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. RIGOS

Mr. Rigos stated that the population rate was 2.8
which has gone down to 2.4 and increased to 2.6. He then posed the query
whether the program was a failure.

Replying thereto, Mr. Bacani stated that comparing
the amount of expenditure and the effort directed towards such goal, the
program could be regarded as a failure because the expenses and efforts
could have been used to improve not only the quality of life of the
people but also reduce the birth rate itself.

On whether the reformulated provision is better
worded than that of the 1973 Constitution, Mr. Bacani stated that the
reformulation is better because it sets a definite policy for the
achievement and, maintenance of population level.

On whether it is the duty of the State to adopt a
population policy most conducive to the national welfare, Mr. Bacani
stated that the constitutional mandate should first be eliminated,
leaving open the possibility for future policies. He confirmed that the
government may continue with its policy should it later find that it is a
good one.

On whether there would be a violation of the
provision against monopoly contained in Section 11 should a newspaper
business be set up in a town where no one else would like to venture in
the same business endeavor, Mrs. Rosario Braid replied that there would
be no such monopoly since the situation contemplates a single market.
She observed that the concept seems confusing, for which reason, she
stated that the section should be reformulated to provide that media
monopolies shall not be allowed, leaving it to Congress to define what
constitutes a monopoly.

She stated that there is monopoly when an individual
owns a majority of the enterprises engaged in the same business in a
single market.

broaden ownership to avoid too much concentration of
power in only one person since media could be used to realize a
political end.

On whether a single person would be allowed to put
up a business where the people are not yet receptive to the idea of
cooperative enterprises, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the situation
shall be defined under the concept of public interest.

Mr. Monsod stated that he intends to introduce an
amendment that reads: CONGRESS SHALL PROHIBIT OR REGULATE MONOPOLIES AND
COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN MASS MEDIA, to give room for
regulation but not necessarily prohibition.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople observed that eighty percent of the General
Provisions and the Transitory Provisions, taken together, deals with
defense and communications and that it might be mislabelled as an
article on the military and communications.

Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the proponents of the
provisions on national defense would formally propose its segregation
as a separate article after the entire General Provisions shall have
been approved.

Mr. Ople stated that there is nothing wrong with the
way the provisions are fashioned but that future readers of the
Constitution might have adverse reaction because of the disproportionate
emphasis on the two subjects.

Mr. Nolledo commented, however, that the provisions
on communications and the military do not constitute eighty percent of
the General Provisions.

Mr. Ople agreed that Sections 1 to 8 speak of
different subjects but that the rest of the provisions are devoted
almost entirely to communications and the military. He stated that he
just wanted to invite the Committee’s attention to the matter so that it
may redistribute its concerns by making the provisions truly an Article
on General Provisions.

As to what prompted the Committee to place
government retirees at par with war veterans insofar as the rights
accorded by Section 4 are concerned, Mr. Nolledo stated that the
veterans are war heroes, the retired civil servants are the heroes
during peace time.

He stated that he and Mr. de Castro had received
letters from government retirees and war veterans expressing their
sentiments, because of which, they decided to combine their efforts in
formulating a provision for the benefit of both sectors.

Mr. Ople stated that the war veterans used to be
treated as separate class to give due recognition to their valorous
contribution to the country and adverted to the Japanese Government
program of putting up beautiful gardens to honor their dead soldiers in
Southeast Asia and the Pacific. He questioned the elevation of
government retirees to the level of war veterans stating that there is
no moral exaltation in retiring from the government service, in reply to
which Mr. Nolledo stated that distinction between the two could still
be determined, and that such determination shall be left to Congress
which will provide for the details of implementation of the compensation
contemplated in the provision.

Mr. Ople stated that each group has its own set of
claims on the nation and that there is a need to isolate one from the
other to respect the integrity of each group, for which reason, he
stated that he would propose an amendment to this effect.

Mr. de Castro, expressing admiration for Mr. Ople’s
concern for war veterans, opined that most war veterans are government
retirees. He informed that he and most of the men who served under him
in Bukidnon are also government retirees. He stated that he and Mr.
Nolledo would be willing to make a distinction between war veterans and
government retirees should Mr. Ople wish.

For his part, Mr. Ople informed that he is the
incumbent elected Commander, Bulacan Chapter of the Veterans Federation
of the Philippines. He stated that during the Second World War, Mr.
Natividad was a captain in the Republic Regiment of the BMA while he, as
a lieutenant in the Del Pilar Regiment of the BMA, had the good fortune
to fight with the Buenavista Regiment up to the surrender of Gen.
Yamashita in Kiangan. He observed, however, that according to the data
on the Bulacan Chapter of the VFP of which there are 20,000 members, not
more than one percent of this number are government retirees and that
the majority are simple farmers, fishermen and workers. On the 600,000
veterans of World War II, he speculated that the government officials,
retired or retirable, compose a very small fraction. He expressed
appreciation for Messrs. de Castro and Nolledo’s willingness to accept
his amendment at the proper time.

He then inquired whether Mr. de Castro would agree
that the government has not been remiss in its obligations to the
veterans as gleaned from the establishment of the Philippine Veterans
Bank (PVB) which was funded by Japanese reparations. He noted that all
veterans, who are recognized, have stock certificates to prove that they
are co-owners of the PVB.

Upon his inquiry, Mr. de Castro affirmed that he owns PVB stock certificates.

POINT OF INFORMATION OF MR. DE CASTRO

On PVB, Mr. de Castro informed that when the bank
was closed and placed under liquidation, the Association of General and
Flag Officers passed a resolution requesting the Central Bank to conduct
an immediate investigation into the whereabouts of the $20 million
capitalization of the bank and that it also recommended measures to
revive the bank. He stated that he expected Mr. Natividad to investigate
the matter but that he was no longer connected with the bank. The
government, he pointed out, has not done anything up to this time and
has in fact started liquidation proceedings.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. OPLE

(Continuation)

Mr. Ople stressed that what is being asked for are
more benefits although a lot of benefits granted to veterans in the past
were squandered as evidenced by what has happened to the PVB stock
certificates which have become worthless. He noted that the Members,
should such benefits be granted through the Constitution, would ask
whether the same could be subject to the same risk and tragic fate which
be fell the supposed benefits given to the war veterans.

At this juncture, Mr. Nolledo interposed that he was
only 7 years old when the war broke out and although he could not be
considered a war veteran, he had acted as a courier for the guerrillas.

In reply thereto, Mr. Ople stated that the
controlling standard to determine whether one is a veteran or not is the
record of the Philippine and U.S. Governments. He noted that if Mr.
Nolledo, at 7, served as a courier, he is entitled to be listed in the
honor roll of Filipinos who fought for their country regardless of age,
to which Mr. Nolledo stated that he was never listed.

For his part, Mr. Ople informed that he was 17 years
old when he became an officer of the resistance movement and although
it was a marvelous decision, it was more remarkable for one who at age 7
had such a commitment.

Section 7, Mr. Ople observed, has been reformulated
and the 20 year life-span limit of government ministries and other
offices has been lifted and that there would be a need to provide for
such a statement related to periodical review. He observed the
propensity to create a new office for every perceived need and expressed
satisfaction that the Reorganization Committee had recommended the
abolition of 180 useless government corporations. He stated that the
history of every government agency would lead one to discover that it
has developed and grown to such an extent that its activities may no
longer be recognizable in terms of the original purposes for which it
was established and that it can expand its power to such a degree that
it comes to possess plenary powers over the lives of the people which
transact business with them.

Mr. Nolledo affirmed Mr. Ople’s contention. He
noted, moreover, that there were two instances after the war when
reorganization was attempted: 1) after the declaration of martial law;
and 2) upon the setting up of a revolutionary form of government. He
asked why it should take such extraordinary Circumstances before
government can be reorganized.

On security of tenure which the Constitution
guarantees, Mr. Ople inquired whether ministry Officials and employees
would be subjected to the spectre of possible dissolution and mass
displacement Congress or the appropriate government instrumentality in
charge of the review should conclude that a ministry shall be abolished.

Mr. Nolledo replied that between the national
interest and the interest of some civil servants, it is the national
interest that should prevail. He stated that for the government to
maintain an office which has become obsolete would be maintaining a
white elephant at the expense of the national treasury. He added that it
can be recommended to Congress to adequately compensate government
employees whose services are to be terminated. In this connection, he
adverted to the fact that the Supreme Court has consistently adhered to
the ruling that there is no security of tenure involved when a public
office is abolished.

On the Office of the President which is one of the
offices contemplated in Section 7, Mr. Ople inquired whether the Office
could even become obsolescent and therefore fit to be dissolved. He also
asked about such offices as the Central Bank and the Ministry of
Finance.

Mr. Nolledo averred that the Office of the President
is a constitutional office which cannot be abolished except by
constitutional amendment. The Central Bank, he informed, has been raised
to the level of a constitutional authority and cannot be abolished
without a constitutional amendment.

He affirmed, upon inquiry of Mr. Ople, that such
offices can defend themselves during the periodic review. On the less
powerful bureaus and local governments, Mr. Nolledo clarified that what
are primarily referred to are offices in the Executive Department which
can perhaps affect some minor offices in local governments. He noted
that it would not destroy the local government structure as envisioned
by the Constitution.

Mr. Ople opined that the Section is too sweeping in character and perhaps could be amended at the proper time.

On the paragraph “No one individual, family or
corporation can own more than one form of commercial mass media in a
single market” in Section 11, Mr. Ople remarked that it might cause deep
concern as it is an act of allocating markets by means of the
Constitution, The objective, he stated, is laudable but that the power
to allocate markets especially by authority of the constitutional
provision should not be arrogated unto a government. He stated that
there seems to be an obsession with fears which may not correspond to
the real situation considering the new climate which has released new
energies in the field of media. He stated that rather than open the
avenue to the reimposition of the constraints, emphasis must be given to
freedom of initiative and freedom of choice.

He opined that the less the Body dictates to media
entrepreneurs and media practitioners what they should do, the better it
will be for press freedom and the whole climate of liberty.

He expressed the hope that the Committee would
accept an amendment to do away with a constitutional dictum governing
the conduct of media entrepreneurs and practitioners.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. SARMIENTO

Section 17, Mr. Sarmiento observed, has 5 sections,
several paragraphs and subsections devoted to the AFP and the military
which are longer than the Article on Family Rights. The 1973
Constitution, he stated, allotted only 2 sections. He inquired on the
reason for allotting so many sections to the AFP and the military.

In answer, Mr. de Castro admitted that the sections
can be reduced provided they contain the concepts which the Committee
wants to be included therein. He informed that he and Mr. Monsod are
working on the reduction of the number of sections. He stressed that the
concepts upon which to reorganize and professionalize the AFP should be
provided therein.

On Section 17(3) which speaks of the obligation of
the State to strengthen the military sense of patriotism and nationalist
consciousness in the performance of their sacred duty to the nation and
the people, Mr. Sarmiento inquired how this can be implemented.

Responding thereto, Ms. Aquino stated that the
proposal was based on the very recent experience of abuses by the
military, and it took off specifically from the suggestion of General
Ramos for some kind of an internal value formation program within the
military. She pointed out, however, that being used to the blighted
notion that the military is an adjunct that would serve the interest and
security of the President, the thrust of the proposed amendment is to
precisely impose upon the State the responsibility of undertaking an
offensive campaign to reorient the values towards a pluralist commitment
to the people as if the relationship between the armed forces and the
people is that of master and slave.

On the operationalization of such thrust, Ms. Aquino
stated that it would mean a total overhauling of value formation in
terms of commitment to service to the people. She likewise agreed that
it would also mean working closely with the Commission on Human Rights
through an education on human rights to be conducted by the military.

Additionally, Mr. de Castro informed that the
Philippine Military Academy impresses upon the cadets the values of
courage, integrity, loyalty, duty, honor and love of country; for the
enlisted men, they are given at least three months “recruit training”
during which the values of duty, honor and country are inculcated; and
for those undergoing the two-year Reserved Officers Training Corps
(ROTC) training, they are taught the values of duty, honor, country,
courage, integrity, loyalty and patriotism.

He noted that, unfortunately, the people have come
to equate the Armed Forces today with the Armed Forces under Mr. Marcos,
which was the reason why he had proposed in the Constitution certain
provisions to professionalize the military o that their loyalty would be
to country and not to one man.

Thereafter, Ms. Aquino read into the record a
portion of the speech of General Ramos showing that the new Armed Forces
marches towards a new direction, to wit:

The armed forces is already embarking on a value
formation program for all military personnel, a new effort at forming
values, internalization and enrichment of spiritual, moral as well as
nationalistic values in the soldier in order to make him conscious of
his social and moral responsibilities as the people’s protector; in
short, to transform him into a God-centered, people-oriented and
nation-focused Filipino soldier.

Ms. Aquino, likewise, stated that it is
understandable that some Members of the Commission fear that the
Filipinos are overreacting to the spectre of militarization and conclude
that there are others who are inclined to think that the thrust may be
the product of a natural fear borne out of the experience of martial
misrule.

She opined that while it may be true that the
Committee intends to decimate the remnants of the two decades of martial
misrule, it is not at all iconoclast to provide for such a provision
stating that other countries have in fact adopted in their constitutions
provisions on people-oriented armed forces to give constitutional
imprimatur to what the definition of the armed forces should be.

As to how the Committee intends to implement the
noble intention of Section 21, Mr. de Castro stated that it is a
two-bladed provision which mandates: 1) that political parties shall not
influence the armed forces, and 2) that the armed forces shall not
participate in any political activity, directly or indirectly, except to
register and vote.

Additionally, Mr. Nolledo stated that the phrase
“shall be insulated from the influence of partisan politics” is directed
to higher public officials who could possibly influence the military.
For example, he stated that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, may
use the Armed Forces to extend assistance to the President’s political
party even if he himself could not run for reelection, in which case, he
would be guilty of culpable violation of the Constitution which is a
ground for impeachment.

Mr. de Castro stated that, although Mr. Nolledo was
correct, with the ban on his reelection, it is possible that henceforth
the President would no longer involve the Armed Forces in political
activities.

SUGGESTION OF MR. ABUBAKAR

Mr. Abubakar suggested that to insulate the Armed
Forces from partisan politics, the constitutional provision should not
only be mandatory but should explicitly provide that any member of the
Armed Forces found violating the injunction against engaging in partisan
politics shall be tried and punished by a court martial.

SUGGESTION OF MR. NATIVIDAD

Mr. Natividad likewise suggested that, in order to
shield the Armed Forces from partisan politics, the policy banning the
assignment of military officers to civilian offices, unless absolutely
necessary, should be followed.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. SARMIENTO

(Continuation)

On whether Section 22 would be an admission that the
integration of the police with the Philippine Constabulary (PC) was a
failure, Mr. Natividad stated that the integration of the police within
the PC was not a total failure, a though there were many defects which
the provision proposes to remedy. He stated that before the integration,
there was a highly fragmented police system because some cities and
towns have not had budgetary capacity to support an effective and
efficient modern police department. He stated that both Congress and the
civil servants including foreign consultants assessed the situation,
their unanimous conclusion being that the police situation in the
country was deplorable in that an ordinary policeman earns about P20 a
month, a Chief of Police earns about P60 a month, they go about the
performance of their duties in slippers, they share a pistol, their
training is desultory, there was no respect for territorial jurisdiction
and there were no fire trucks to speak of.

Mr. Natividad opined that while it may be true that
the integration spawned a lot of problems, it also gave a little relief
in that it standardized the pay for rural and urban policemen, it
standardized equipment and weapons, it instilled more discipline and it
cut off a lot of political influence. However, he stated that the main
problem was that it brought about the creation of not one but two
national police forces, the PC and the Integrated National Police (INP)
of which the PC is the nucleus although it is not part of the INP which
is a civilian component. He pointed out that the integration of the PC
and the INP was a play of words in the law because while the National
Police Commission has jurisdiction over the INP, it has absolutely no
jurisdiction over the PC which, although under the law, is part of the
INP, is also a part of the military organizations giving rise to a
situation where the INP plays a poor second class cousin of the PC men
who enjoy foggy pay to which policemen are not entitled. Moreover, he
stated that the stigma of organizational and operational control by the
military over a civilian police is not desirable for many reasons which
he would not be able to explain in detail because of time constraints.
He agreed that the disadvantages of integrating the police with the PC
far outweigh the advantages.

On whether the last section would cover the Civilian
Home Defense Forces (CHDF ), warlords, private armies and other groups
created by local politicians, Mr. de Castro affirmed that they are
covered but the Committee tried to reformulate it in such a way that no
mention of the CHDF is made in the Constitution.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. AZCUNA

In reply to Mr. Azcuna’s suggestion to change the
wordings of the provision on the colors of the Philippine Flag from
“red, white and blue” to “blue, white and red”, Mr. Rigos stated that
the Committee may even consider starting the phrase with “white” which
stands for purity.

Mr. Nolledo stated that he would support the amendment at the proper time.

On whether Congress could change the name of the
country, the national anthem or the national seal by ordinary law, Mr.
Nolledo stated that an ordinary law may be questionable with respect to
change in the name of the country but not with respect to the national
anthem and the national seal.

Mr. Azcuna pointed out, however, that Section 2
would authorize Congress to change the name of the country, unlike the
1973 Constitution which provides that “once changed, it can only be
changed by a constitutional amendment”.

On the rationale for dropping the word
“specifically” in the 1973 Constitutional provision which provides
“Unless specifically allowed by law”, Mr. Maambong stated that even if
the wording is changed to “specifically authorized by law” or “allowed
by law,” the effect would be the same. He further stated that the
Committee would consider an amendment to revert to the wordings of the
previous Constitution to be more specific.

On the suggestion to change the phrase “unless
required by law” to UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION
considering that if this is left to the law, Congress may violate the
rule on separation of powers in the sense that it may, by law, assign
executive functions to the Justices, Mr. Maambong stated that the
Committee was guided by the fact that Congress had passed laws making
members of government boards or even Ministers members, either in an ex
officio or other capacity, of several boards of government-owned or
controlled corporations. He stressed that the Committee intends to
eliminate this practice of allowing high ranking government officials to
hold a number of membership or chairmanship in different boards, as was
the case of former Minister Ongpin. He stated that Mr. Azcuna could
propose an amendment prohibiting government officials from holding any
other office in the different boards of the government.

Mr. Azcuna stated that his concern is not so much on
the number of offices held within a department but in holding offices
in several departments in view of the decision to shift to the
presidential type of government.

Mr. Guingona, on a point of information, stated that
the provision referred to may not apply to the members of the Judiciary
because of Section 8 of the Article on the Judiciary which says that
“The members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law
shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.”

On the Committee proposal that salaries and other
emoluments of government officials shall be exempt from income tax, Mr.
Azcuna inquired whether under the provision, the retirement benefits
would be subject to income tax despite the provision in the National
Internal Revenue Code which exempts the retirement benefits of
government officials and employees from income tax.

In reply, Mr. Nolledo recalled that this provision
is also found in the 1973 Constitution which excludes pensions,
gratuities, separation pay, etc. from income tax in the light of the
interpretation given in the 1971 Constitutional Convention that “other
emoluments” includes salaries and other compensations while in office.

On Section 16 relative to consumer protection, Mr.
Azcuna inquired whether this provision mandates what is known as “strict
product liability” by virtue of which manufacturers or persons
responsible for putting a product in the economic stream are liable for
any harm caused by a defect of such product, in reply to which Mr.
Nolledo adverted to the Civil Code provision on quasi delict based on
the logical assumption that it is the manufacturer who is first at
fault.

Additionally, Mr. Maambong stated that in the United
States, the matter of birth control has become a problem of
manufacturers of birth control products in the sense that they are tied
up in costly litigations which, even if won, preclude them from
manufacturing the products, to which Mr. Azcuna replied that even in
Europe they have the “strict product liability”.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. SUAREZ

On Section 3, relative to the definition of the term
“indirect compensation”, on Mr. Suarez’ query whether this would
include per diems or allowances from other corporations, as in the case
of former Minister Ongpin who used to receive such compensations to the
tune of P2 million a month, Mr. Maambong stated that following the legal
definition, any money received other than for reimbursement of expenses
actually incurred would fall under compensation. He pointed out that in
several cases, the ordinary meaning of “compensation”, when applied to
officers, is “remuneration” in whatever form it may be given. He
explained that the term “compensation” covers practically everything a
person receives as long as it is not reimbursement for expenses actually
incurred.

On whether this would also include free trips
abroad, Mr. Maambong admitted that this is a grey area because if one
travels, he is given money for a plane ticket such that the money goes
to the airline company.

On whether the non inclusion of an exemption
provision in the Constitution would make all salaries subject to income
tax, Mr. Nolledo cited a case where the Supreme Court ruled that taxing
the salaries of Justices of the Supreme Court would amount to a
diminution of their salaries in violation of the Constitutional
provision that the salaries of the justices could not be diminished or
increased during their tenure. He stated that for this reason the
provision should be provided 04 the effect of such decision.

On whether this would not apply to other government
officials considering that the decision referred to applied only to
Justices of the Supreme Court, Mr. Nolledo stated that necessarily it
would not, considering that the provisions specially mention those who
are affected, like the Chairmen and Members insofar as non-diminution of
salary during one’s incumbency is concerned.

On Section 14, Mrs. Rosario Braid affirmed that
domestic credit facilities refer not only to private banking
institutions but also to government financial institutions. She stated,
however, that Section 14 would be deleted in the light of Mr. Monsod’s
observation that there is a similar provision in the Article on National
Economy and Patrimony.

As to what penal sanction could be imposed in the
event that the priority contemplated in the provision is not extended,
Mr. Nolledo stated that Congress may provide for sanctions once it is
approved as a constitutional provision.

On whether the provision in Section 16 should still
be constitutionalized despite the fact that the Bureau of Domestic Trade
already extends protection to the consumers, Mr. Nolledo stated that
there is need for constitutionalizing the provision because the
Philippines has become a dumping ground for substandard products from
foreign countries aside from the fact that the consumers have been
suffering from substandard products from Filipino-owned industries.

As to what armed groups or paramilitary forces which
exist contrary to law are referred to in the Transitory Provisions and
which are sought to be dismantled by a constitutional fiat, Mr. Nolledo
stated that the provision refers to the Civilian Home Defense Forces. He
stated that President Aquino had issued an Executive Order making their
existence unlawful.

On whether there is a need to constitutionalize the
provision if it is only a question of implementation of the Executive
Order, Mr. Nolledo opined that there is a need to constitutionalize it
otherwise, other presidents in the future may set up similar
paramilitary or armed groups. He stressed the importance of dismantling
them by a constitutional mandate because the Executive Order may be
revoked anytime.

Mr. Maambong disclosed that the members of the
Committee were divided on the issue. He opined that this provision
should not be placed in the Constitution because these paramilitary
units are existing contrary to law. Commenting on the statement that
should the provision regarding the flag, adoption by law of a new name
for the country, the national anthem and the national seal be approved,
Congress might change them every now and then, Mr. Maambong stated that
this is a sweeping statement, considering the very stringent procedure
being followed in enacting laws.

TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF DEBATE

On motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, the Body closed the period of debate.

PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

On motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the period of amendments.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 5:18 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:46 p.m., the session was resumed.

Mr. Bengzon stated that some proposed amendments accepted by the Committee would be presented for approval by the Body.

Thereupon, he asked that Mr. Davide be recognized.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

On motion of Mr. Davide, and there being no
objection, the Body approved the deletion of the phrase “and recognized
by law” on page 1, line 8 of Section 1 on the ground that it is a
surplusage.

Mr. Padilla, however, maintained that the phrase
should not be deleted as it has already been established in the 1935 and
1973 Constitutions.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Davide stated that the mandate
of the law insofar as the Philippine Flag is concerned is already
obsolete and that the amendment had already been approved by the Body.

The Chair remarked that no objection had been
interposed, in reply to which Mr. Padilla stated that he was about to
interpose his objection when the Chair declared its approval.

The Chair stated that the presumption is that all
the Members had voted in favor of the amendment and that any Member
could ask for a reconsideration.

Reacting thereto, Mrs. Rosario Braid manifested that
the Committee had not yet given its reply because Mr. Azcuna, who just
arrived, would tike to propose an amendment.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MR. DAVIDE

Thereupon, Mr. Davide moved for reconsideration which, there being no objection, was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. AZCUNA

Thereupon, on Section 1, Mr. Azcuna proposed to change the phrase “red, white and blue” to BLUE, WHITE AND RED.

In reply to Mr. Bacani’s query whether the
proponent’s reason is that he is an Atenean, Mr. Azcuna stated that his
proposal was based on the fact that blue is the side of the flag being
held up during peacetime, the red side during wartime, with white
signifying peaceful orientation.

Mr. Bacani and Mrs. Rosario Braid accepted the proposed amendment on behalf of the Committee.

OBSERVATION OF MS. AQUINO

Ms. Aquino observed, however, that considering the
values given to the colors of the flag, white should take precedence
over blue because it stands for purity, to which Mr. Azcuna acceded.

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query whether giving due
course to the proposal would not violate the law which vests recognition
to the flag, Mr. Azcuna stated that the colors are not being changed
but only the order of presentation.

OBJECTION OF MR. SUAREZ

Speaking against the proposed amendment, Mr. Suarez
argued for maintaining the order as presented in the 1935 Constitution
on the ground the red color stands for bravery and courage.

Additionally, Mr. de Castro stated that the flag has been traditionally described as “red, white and blue”.

Thereupon, Mr. Azcuna withdrew his proposed amendment.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query whether the eight rays
of the sun representing the first eight provinces that rose against the
tyranny of Spain would be retained, Mrs. Rosario Braid answered in the
affirmative. She, likewise, confirmed that nothing would prejudice
existing and future laws on the eight rays of the sun.

She stated that during the deliberations, the
Philippine Historical Society submitted an amendment proposing the
inclusion of a symbol for the Cordilleras and the Muslim areas and that
several letters suggested increasing the rays of the sun to thirteen in
representation of the thirteen regions of the Philippines. She
confirmed, however, that the eight rays of the sun would not be
disturbed.

INQUIRY OF MR. GUINGONA

In reply to Mr. Guingona’s query, Mrs. Rosario Braid affirmed that the sun and stars would be in the same yellow color.

VOTING ON MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT

Submitted to a vote, with 10 Members voting in favor and 16 against, Mr. Davide’s proposed amendment was lost.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 1

Thereupon, submitted to a vote, and with 26 Members voting in favor and none against, the Body approved Section 1.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 2

Mrs. Rosario Braid manifested that the Committee was divided on Section 2.

Mr. Bengzon stated that an anterior amendment was
proposed to delete the entire Section 2 which the Committee would like
to throw to the Body.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla stated that he proposed to delete the
entire Section 2 because the name “Filipino” or “Philippines” is already
known worldwide especially with the U.S. visit of President Aquino,
making the provision unnecessary.

In reply to the Chair’s query, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the Committee would leave the matter to the Body.

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople supported Mr. Padilla’s amendment to delete
Section 2 stating that very soon the Philippines would celebrate the
centennial of its independence reckoned from 1898 when the first
Philippine Republic was established in Malolos, which event was the
great watershed for the development of national identity, pride and
solidarity.

He opined that the questions regarding the country’s
name, national anthem and flag were conclusively settled in 1898. He
observed that Section 2 may be used by a future adventurer to make
changes which could prejudice the history of Philippine struggle
embodied in the flag, the name of the country, the national anthem and
the national seal. He strongly urged closing these issues in the
Constitution and clearing the national agenda of these issues in order
to avoid the risk that a future tyrant, taking advantage of his powers,
may disturb these national symbols. He underscored that the Filipinos
have earned their identity through several generations of courageous
struggle.

PARLIAMENTARY SITUATION

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon clarified the
parliamentary situation by adverting to Mr. Padilla’s motion to delete
Section 2 on which, under the Rules, two Members would be allowed to
speak in favor and 2 against. He stated that Mr. Ople had spoken in
favor, Mr. Suarez would interpellate Mr. Padilla, Mr. Uka would speak
against the amendment, after which another Member would be recognized to
speak in favor of the amendment.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

Mr. Suarez observed that Section 1 refers to the
“Philippines” as the name of the country and that Mr. Ople has pointed
out that since 1898, all traditional values and national consciousness
embodied in national symbols have been sanctioned and made sacred. He
then inquired whether Mr. Padilla was aware of the fact that the 1973
Constitution was approved and ratified under dubious circumstances on
January 17, 1973 after the declaration of martial law.

Mr. Padilla affirmed the fact but pointed out that the Constitution was not validly ratified.

As to whether Mr. Padilla was aware that during the
Constitutional Convention, there was a strong move to rename the
Philippines “Maharlika”, Mr. Padilla stated that he was not a member of
the Constitutional Convention being an incumbent Senator at that time
and that Mr. Suarez would probably be in a better position to answer his
own question. He noted, however, that the suggestion of the dictator
was completely unfounded, unreasonable and unjustified.

Mr. Suarez informed that there were steps intended
to implement the renaming to “Maharlika” so much so that there were
prohibitions against the use of the trade name “Maharlika” either in the
Bureau of Domestic Trade or in the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To Mr. Padilla’s observation that an establishment
in Quezon Boulevard named “Maharlika” had to change its name, Mr. Suarez
replied that the name was subsequently changed to “Maalikaya”.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona stated that he has no objection to the
motion to delete and that during the recess someone stated that even
without a provision authorizing Congress to effect the change, Congress
would not be prohibited from changing the name. If this were so, he
opined that perhaps it would be better to place in the Constitution a
provision to the effect that the country’s name can only be changed
through a Constitutional Convention or by putting certain requirements
such as holding a referendum after the act of Congress.

Mr. Padilla maintained that the national symbols
cannot be changed by Congress inasmuch as these are provided in the
Constitution. He informed that this was the reason why the 1973
Constitution inserted in Section 2 the second sentence, to wit:
“Thereafter, the national name, anthem and seal so adopted shall not be
subject to change except by constitutional amendment.” The 1973
Constitution, he stressed, which allowed the possible change of name did
not consider it within the power of Congress but by Constitutional
amendment.

Mr. Guingona stated that as far as the name of the
country is concerned, because of the use of the word “Philippines”,
Congress then did not have the power to change.

Thereafter, in reply to his inquiry with respect to
the national anthem and seal, Messrs. Nolledo and Padilla opined that
these can be changed by law.

Mr. Bengzon stated, at this juncture, that the nest
speaker will speak against the Section, to be followed by a Member who
will speak in favor, after which Mr. Davide will speak en contra.

SPEECH EN CONTRA OF MR. UKA

Mr. Uka stated that he would be a lonely voice in a
big forest yet he would like to put on record the sentiment of one, who
comes from a progeny of people who were never conquered, in favor of
renaming this country not after a foreigner, adventurer or conqueror but
after its own people. He noted that the country is not lacking in
heroes and that the People are not lacking in names. He advised that it
is unchristian to keep on blaming the previous administration for every
mistake.

He recalled that he had earlier voiced his
sentiments on the matter when he remarked that the name “Philippines”
was imposed upon the country by a Portuguese adventurer after King
Philip II who was not even his king. He stated that he is not against
the Spaniards who are his brothers in humanity in accordance with the
teachings of the Qur’an witch says “All men are but one single nation.”
He that above all, Filipinos should love their own people, be proud of
their race and should not try to gain glory by using the name of a
foreigner. He pointed out that Filipinos are fond of honoring foreigners
as can be seen from the streets, sitios and barrios named after them
after they had devastated the country for 400 years.

He stressed that the colonial mentality which Don
Claro Recto assailed cannot be erased if the Filipinos continue to
glorify and honor the names of foreigners. He noted the discrepancy in
the treatment between Filipinos and foreigners, stating that the 100
peso bill once bore the face of Magellan while the one centavo piece
bore the face of Lapu-lapu, and that to add insult to injury, a fish was
named after this Filipino hero.

The Muslims, he stated, have fought for this country
but Philippine history contains words coined by Spanish historians
referring to them as “pirates” or “huramentados” and “moro-moro”. He
stated that he is proud to be a Moro and that his race is a fighting
race which fought powerful nations of the world.

On the origin of the name “Maharlika”, he informed
that as technical assistant to a Delegate to the 1971 Constitutional
Convention, he had made suggestions on the name of the country. He noted
that even the Spaniards did not use “Filipino” to refer to the
Filipinos but insisted on “Indios” and used the word “mestizos” to refer
to those with half-Spanish blood. He questioned why the Constitution
has to enshrine the name of people who despised the Filipinos by trying
to make fools of them in their own country.

He reiterated that the Muslims fought for 400 years
in defense of the country for which the Spaniards is called them
pirates. He stated that if the Moro was a pirate for fighting to defend
his homeland, the Spaniards who travelled 10,000 miles to grab the
Filipinos’ land, are better pirates. He dismissed the contention that
the Spaniards came to spread Christianity and insisted that they came
simply to take this country.

To the saying that “The only good Moro is a dead
Moro”, Mr. Uka maintained that this is believable because it is hard to
conquer a Moro alive.

Mr. Uka stated that there are 87 major tribes
speaking 87 different dialects, which comprise the Filipino people and
their effort to establish a national language would not succeed unless
the stigma of colonization is erased from the people’s mind.

He stated that according to Don Claro Recto, the
worst form of slavery is slavery of the mind or colonial mentality. He
recalled that it was Governor General Claveria who was instrumental for
the adoption of Spanish names when he ordered punishment for all Indios
who would not change their names, thus, the change of Filipino to
Spanish names although some Filipinos have retained their original
Filipino names. He noted that one can adopt any kind of name in this
world but that it would be wrong to name a country after its conqueror.

SPEECH EN CONTRA OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide stated that it is a known fact that
history is not static but growing and dynamic. He noted that history
does not stop today and that between now and 20 years hence, the country
may undergo another historical development.

He noted that the name of the country, its seal and
national anthem must be symbolic and reflective of the traditions,
history and ideals of the nation although these were not truly
reflective and symbolic until today. The 1986 Revolution, he observed,
contributed much to the history of the nation. He inquired whether the
future generations, who will be governed by the 1986 Constitution, shall
be foreclosed from relating their situation to the history as developed
up to their own generation. He stressed that the Body should and must
not.

He maintained that the future generations, through
their chosen representatives, should be allowed to change the national
seal and eliminate therefrom any trace of colonialism represented by the
eagle, the symbol of the United States, or the lion, the symbol of
Spanish rule. On the national anthem, he opined that the “Land of the
Morning” may not be truly reflective of the Filipino traditions, ideals
and history. He stated that after the country underwent a peaceful
revolution fought with prayers and roses, the anthem which moved the
hearts and minds of the people was the song “Bayan Ko”.

The 1973 Constitution, he observed, sought to be
incorporated in the new Constitution is not without purpose. He asked
that the Body retain the wording as recommended and that if there is any
fear that a tyrant may later on change the name, an amendment can be
introduced to the effect that any law changing the name, the anthem and
the seal must only be effective upon ratification by the people in a
plebiscite or a referendum called for the purpose. He stressed that this
is the better recourse and that the Body should not foreclose future
participation in the making and writing of history into the national
symbols of this country.

VOTING ON MR. PADILLA’S AMENDMENT TO DELETE SECTION 2

Submitted to a vote, and with 14 Members voting in favor and 16 against, the motion to delete was lost.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE COAUTHORED BY MR. MONSOD

On line 12, Mr. Davide, with Mr. Monsod as coauthor,
proposed to add the following: SUCH LAW SHALL TAKE EFFECT ONLY UPON
RATIFICATION BY THE PEOPLE IN A REFERENDUM.

The Committee accepted the amendment.

Mr. Davide explained that “by law” refers to the law
adopting a name for the country, a new national anthem or a new
national seal.

AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona proposed to add the 1973 provision, to
wit: THEREAFTER, THE NATIONAL NAME, ANTHEM AND SEAL SO ADOPTED SHALL NOT
BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE EXCEPT BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Mr. Davide noted that the amendment can be treated
separately as it is another sentence although he would reject it. He
pointed out that the Committee already accepted the requirement of a
plebiscite or a referendum and that a constitutional amendment may not
be resorted to for any change.

Mr. Guingona insisted on his amendment on the ground
that there is no prohibition that future Congresses might again change
the name of the country. He opined that it would be best to provide that
future changes would have to be done through a constitutional
amendment.

REMARKS OF THE CHAIR

The Chair noted that Mr. Guingona’s proposal was not
an amendment to the amendment but a separate sentence after Mr.
Davide’s amendment. The Chair called for a vote on Mr. Davide’s
amendment, stating that thereafter the Body would vote on Mr. Guingona’s
amendment.

APPROVAL OF MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT

Mr. Davide restated his amendment to add a new sentence on page 1, line 12, after the period (.) following “people”, to wit:

SUCH LAW SHALL TAKE EFFECT ONLY UPON ITS RATIFICATION BY THE PEOPLE IN A NATIONAL REFERENDUM CALLED FOR THE PURPOSE.

Submitted to a vote, and with 25 Members voting in
favor, none against and 2 abstentions, the amendment was approved by the
Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona proposed to add the following sentence at the end of the Section just approved, to wit:

THEREAFTER, THE NATIONAL NAME, ANTHEM AND SEAL SO ADOPTED SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE EXCEPT BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Mr. Ople inquired whether Mr. Davide would consider
the proposal a necessary precaution or a superfluity, to which the
latter replied that the proposal may no longer be necessary in view of
the approval of his amendment which would have the same effect.

Thereupon, Mr. Ople stated that the Commission
should not establish an overkill of precautions on this matter and
suggested that Mr. Guingona withdraw his proposal.

Thereupon, Mr. Guingona withdrew his amendment.

RESTATEMENT OF SECTION 2

Mr. Bengzon restated Section 2, as amended, to wit:

SECTION 1. THE CONGRESS MAY BY LAW ADOPT A NEW NAME
FOR THE COUNTRY, A NATIONAL ANTHEM, AND A NATIONAL SEAL, WHICH SHALL ALL
BE TRULY REFLECTIVE AND SYMBOLIC OF THE IDEALS, HISTORY, AND TRADITIONS
OF THE PEOPLE. SUCH LAW SHALL TAKE EFFECT ONLY UPON ITS RATIFICATION BY
THE PEOPLE IN A NATIONAL REFERENDUM.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query, Mr. Davide
affirmed that Section 2 provides that Congress may by law adopt a new
name to be submitted to the people for ratification, and that a
subsequent Congress could pass another law again changing the name and
sending it back to the people for ratification, in view of which Mr. de
Castro opined that Mr. Guingona’s amendment was better and that he was
surprised why it was withdrawn when said amendment would guarantee that
not every Congress could change the law unless the Constitution is
amended. Mr. Davide believed otherwise, because even if it would be by
Constitutional amendment, Congress every year could also propose an
amendment to the Constitution which would also require ratification by
the people. He maintained that the operation of both proposals
introduced by him and Mr. Guingona would be subject to ratification.

Mr. de Castro insisted that Mr. Guingona’s amendment
would provide that Congress could change the name, anthem and seal and
submit the same for ratification and, once ratified, they could no
longer be changed unless the Constitution is amended.

In reply, Mr. Davide pointed out the difficulty of
securing an approval because it would be the people who would approve it
if it were an ordinary law or even a constitutional amendment.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF MR. JAMIR

At this juncture, Mr. Jamir inquired whether Mr. de
Castro was asking for reconsideration of Mr. Davide’s amendment which
had been approved, to which Mr. de Castro replied that Mr. Davide’s
amendment was not yet approved.

POINT OF ORDER

Thereupon, Mr. Bengzon raised a point of order on
the ground that the Body was ready to vote on the entire Section 2 since
there was no objection to the motion of the Floor Leader.

Thereupon, Messrs. Guingona and de Castro objected to the motion.

Mr. Bengzon stated that any Member who wants to
change the parliamentary situation should file a motion to reopen the
matter for further floor amendments.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 6:44 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:47 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Bengzon withdrew his
motion to vote on the entire Section 2 in order to allow Mr. Guingona
to present his amendment.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona explained that he was willing to
withdraw his amendment because of Mr. Davide’s manifestation that
Congress could amend the Constitution by constituting itself into a
constituent assembly. He pointed out, however, that he failed to take
into account one factor pointed out by Mr. de Castro that there is a
difference between “Congress acting as Congress” and “Congress sitting
as a constituent assembly” in that the former would only require a
majority vote whereas the latter would require a three-fourths vote. He
agreed with Mr. de Castro that the law should be more strict the second
time around.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. GUINGONA

Thereafter, Mr. Guingona reintroduced his proposed amendment to add the following sentence after Mr. Davide’s amendment:

THEREAFTER, THE NATIONAL NAME, ANTHEM AND SEAL SO ADOPTED SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE EXCEPT BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query, Mr. Guingona
confirmed that the proposed amendment was lifted from Section 2 of the
1973 Constitution.

VOTING ON MR. GUINGONA’S AMENDMENT

Thereafter, submitted to a vote, and with 6 Members voting in favor, 18 against and 1 abstention, the amendment was lost.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query whether under his
proposal, Congress could adopt a new name for the country without
adopting a new national anthem or a new national seal, Mr. Davide stated
that anyone or all three may be taken up in one law.

Mr. Maambong then invited Mr. Davide’s attention to
lines 9 and 10 which provide that “The Congress may by law adopt a new
name for the country, a national anthem, and a national seal”, to which
Mr. Davide replied that the word “and” could be changed to OR, which
change could be left to the Style Committee.

Mr. Maambong, however, maintained that “and” and “or” are two different words that could not be left to the Style Committee.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Thereupon, as proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by
the Sponsor, the Body approved the amendment to change the word “and”
before “seal” to OR.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s further queries, Mr.
Davide affirmed that with the change of the word “and” to “or”, the law
could change the name of the country without changing the national
anthem or the national seal and vice versa, and any such change will
have to be submitted to a referendum for ratification.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 2, AS AMENDED

Mr. Bengzon restated Section 2, as amended, to wit:

SECTION 2. THE CONGRESS MAY BY LAW ADOPT A NEW NAME
FOR THE COUNTRY, A NATIONAL ANTHEM, OR A NATIONAL SEAL, WHICH SHALL ALL
BE TRULY REFLECTIVE AND SYMBOLIC OF THE IDEALS, HISTORY, AND TRADITIONS
OF THE PEOPLE. SUCH LAW SHALL TAKE EFFECT ONLY UPON ITS RATIFICATION BY
THE PEOPLE IN A NATIONAL REFERENDUM.

Submitted to a vote, and with 18 Members voting in favor and 2 against, Section 2, as amended, was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

As proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the
Sponsor, the Body approved an amendment on page 1, line 18, to add,
after “state”, the words OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES.

AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

As proposed by Mr. Monsod and accepted by the
Sponsor, the Body approved an amendment on page 1, line 19, to change
the word “required” to ALLOWED.

AMENDMENT OF MR. AZCUNA

As proposed by Mr. Azcuna and accepted by the
Sponsor, the Body approved an amendment on page 1, lines 15 and 16, to
change the words “unless allowed by law” to UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED BY LAW.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

On page 1, line 19, Mr.. Davide proposed to amend
the phrase “unless required by law” to read UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED IN THIS CONSTITUTION OR BY LAW.

Mr. Maambong stated that the Committee interpretation is that the word “law” includes the Constitution.

Thereupon, Mr. Davide withdrew his amendment on that understanding.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

As proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the
Sponsor, the Body approved, an amendment on page 1, line 22, to add OR
THEIR SUBSIDIARIES after “corporations”.

INQUIRY OF MR. FOZ

In reply to Mr. Foz’ observation that the second
sentence of Section 3 is a duplication of the provision in the Article
on the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Maambong recalled that during his
interpellation of Mr. Davide on the Article on the Legislative
Department, he had suggested that once this provision in Section 3 is
approved, it will be transferred to Section 7 of the Article on the
Civil Service Commission because Section 3 is more encompassing than the
provision now in Section 7 of the Article on the Civil Service
Commission, with the thought that once approved, he would submit the
same to the Style Committee and the Sponsorship Committee for its
transfer.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Foz noted that there is a big
difference between this provision and that in the Article on the Civil
Service Commission which contains the phrase “Unless otherwise provided”
as against the phrase “Unless otherwise required by law” contained in
the Article under consideration. In reply, Mr. Maambong stated that this
was precisely the reason why he opted for the transfer.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

Mr. Suarez inquired whether Mr. Davide’s additional
words “or their subsidiaries” contemplate an office or employment in the
government and not in a private institution, like the San Miguel
Corporation, which may be under sequestration to which public officials
may be appointed as directors.

Mr. Davide affirmed that government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries are included under the
Civil Service Commission provisions. He stated that this would not
include privately-owned corporations even if they are under
sequestration considering that sequestration does not transfer the
ownership to the government. He further affirmed that in case Executive
Secretary Joker Arroyo is appointed as a member of the Board of San
Miguel Corporation or of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,
he would not be violating this constitutional provision.

INQUIRIES OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople recalled that in the definition of the
coverage of the Civil Service Law, there was an amendment by Mr. Romulo
which restricted this definition to government corporations like the
Government Service Insurance System while the Philippine Airlines, the
Manila Hotel and the Hyatt Regency are treated as private subsidiaries
which are beyond the scope of the Civil Service coverage. He then
inquired whether this is precisely a correct definition that would apply
to the alternative offices of employment contemplated in the provision.

In reply, Mr. Davide stated that when it comes to
the prohibition of any other office, the Body has always applied the
prohibition to positions in government-owned or controlled corporations
and their subsidiaries. He opined that this is the sense of the
Committee in adopting this particular provision.

On whether the Minister of Tourism would be
disqualified from sitting as Chairman of the Philippine Airlines which
is not a government corporation with an original charter; Mr. Davide
opined that the law that would govern would be the Article on the
Executive, the reason being that a member of the Cabinet is involved.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod manifested that in the Article on Civil Service, the prohibition is on double compensation under Section 7.

INQUIRY OF MR. NATIVIDAD

Mr. Natividad pointed out that in the past, even a
board member of a financial institution of the government like the
Development Bank of the Philippines and the Philippine National Bank
could be appointed to a number of corporations which have loans from
these institutions. He then inquired whether this is covered by this
provision.

In reply, Mr. Davide stated that it would not be
covered because these are private borrowers which are, if they are
corporations, individual or partnership privately-owned.

FURTHER INQUIRIES OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople stated that in the case of Mr. Feliciano
Belmonte, Jr., who is the Chairman of the GSIS, he has the corporate
obligation to see to it that the interests of the GSIS members are duly
protected in the private subsidiaries like the Manila Hotel, the Hyatt
Regency and the Philippine Airlines where the GSIS maintains majority
interest. He then inquired whether there is anything in this Section
that would prohibit the Chairman of the GSIS from sitting in the board
of any of these subsidiaries in order to perform this obligation to his
stockholders.

In reply, Mr. Davide opined that technically, there
is nothing that would prohibit it because the provision contains the
clause “unless expressly authorized by law” so that the possible
exception to this prohibition is an express provision of law.

REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod opined that membership in the board is
not included within the purview of “office or employment”, such that the
Chairman of the GSIS is not prohibited to sit on the board.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

On the meaning of the phrase “or any of its
agencies” considering that this phrase did not appear in the 1973
Constitution, Mr. Davide cited the fact that the United States of
America may employ an elective or appointive Filipino citizen but the
latter could not accept the appointment without the consent of Congress.
He stated that this could also refer to, if it is a unitary state, any
of its political subdivisions like a province or a municipality of that
particular state.

Mr. Maambong acknowledged the contribution of Mr.
Davide, through his Resolution Nos. 95 and 306, on the formulation of
Section 1 regarding indirect compensation, except pensions or gratuities
while the formulation of the second paragraph should be credited to Mr.
Treñas in his Resolution No. 260. He stated that the clause “unless it
is required by law” has been changed to UNLESS OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY LAW
which is an original subcommittee formulation.

INQUIRY OF MR. AZCUNA

On Mr. Azcuna’s query whether President Aquino still
needs the consent of Congress to receive a medal from the University of
California which is an agency of a foreign state, Mr. Davide stated
that he would not know if the institution referred to is an agency of
the State of California, to which Mr. Azcuna stated that it is part of
the public school system of California.

Mr. Davide stated that his contemplation of the word
“agency” is political agency so that the provision would not apply to
the case cited by Mr. Azcuna.

Mrs. Rosario Braid added that academic institutions would be exempted from the contemplation of the provision.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query, Mr. Davide stated
that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States is more
than a political agency.

INQUIRY OF MR. RIGOS

On whether a Congressman or a Senator of the
Philippines receiving an honorary degree from a state university would
be covered by the phrase “office or title of its agency”, Mr. Davide
explained that the word “State” is used more as a political concept such
that the agency must also be performing a political function.

REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo disagreed with Mr. Monsod’s assertion
that office or employment would not include membership in the board of
directors, stating that the board manages a corporation and the employer
is the corporation itself. He pointed out that the second paragraph of
Section 3 was precisely designed to do away with the practice of
appointing one government official to several boards of directors of
different government-owned or controlled corporations where one board
official receives even up to one million pesos a year. He opined that it
is very basic that the managing body of the corporation is the board of
directors and when one is a member of the board, he is an employee of
the corporation because he is already a part of the management of the
corporation.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

On the basis of interpretation given for Section 3,
Mr. Monsod proposed, instead of the word “he”, the phrase ANY ELECTIVE
OFFICIAL so that it would read “neither should ANY ELECTIVE OFFICIAL
hold any other office or employment in the government.” He cited as an
example the Minister of Trade and Industry who is the chairman of the
National Development Company (NDC) which controls or owns the majority
shares of several corporations.

Mr. Nolledo opined that it is allowed by existing
regulations, to which Mr. Monsod replied that there is no law which
specifically allows the holding of that chairmanship.

Mr. Nolledo opined that the situation could be remedied by legislation or even by executive fiat.

Mr. Monsod suggested that the proposed provision be
aligned with the provision on public service which reads “No elective
official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any
capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.” He agreed
with Mr. Maambong’s observation that this second paragraph, unless
aligned with Section 4, would expand and render the meaning
counter-productive.

On Mr. Ople’s query whether it would in a way
replicate another provision on the prohibition on elective officials
from serving in any other office, Mr. Monsod stated that that is
actually in Section 4 of the Civil Service Article.

On the rationale of reiterating it in Section 3, Mr.
Monsod stated that if it is not reiterated, it might as well be
deleted. He stated that he was just responding to the suggestion that it
should be transposed to replace Sections 4 and 7 of the Civil Service
Article.

Mr. Foz disagreed with the observation that the
proposal is a repetition of Section 4 stating that the difference lies
in the fact that the clause “unless otherwise expressly allowed by law”
does not appear in Section 4 of the Civil Service provisions. He pointed
out that approval of the provision would be a reconsideration of the
approval of Section 4 of the Civil Service provisions. Mr. Monsod
affirmed that the provision makes an exception to Section 4.

Mr. Foz suggested changing the word “he” to AN
APPOINTIVE PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE in order to align this with
Section 4 of the Civil Service. He stated that Section 4 of the Civil
Service refers to elective public officials whereas Section 3 of the
General Provisions refers both to elective and appointive public
officers receiving double compensation, etc. He pointed out that should
the word “he” be understood to refer both to elective and appointive
officials, it would conflict with Section 4 of the Civil Service
provisions.

On Mr. Monsod’s query whether he was referring to
the prohibition which should be more strict with respect to elective
officials than with appointive officials, Mr. Foz replied in the
affirmative, and suggested that a distinction should be made.

Mr. Monsod modified his proposal to change
“elective” to APPOINTIVE so that the second paragraph would read: UNLESS
OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY LAW, NEITHER SHOULD ANY APPOINTIVE OFFICIAL HOLD
ANY OTHER OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT, OR ANY SUBDIVISION,
AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT OWNED OR
CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS OR THEIR SUBSIDIARIES.

Mr. Ople supported the proposal.

Mrs. Rosario Braid, on behalf of the Committee, accepted Mr. Monsod’s proposed amendment.

Mr. Monsod manifested disagreement with Mr.
Nolledo’s assertion, stating that membership in the board is not an
office or employment. He maintained that it is neither an office nor
employment because interpreting membership in the board as an office or
employment would stretch the meaning of “office” or “employment”.

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query, Mr. Monsod reiterated
that elective officials are covered by Section 4 of the Civil Service
provisions.

RESTATEMENT OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, AS AMENDED

Mr. Monsod restated the second paragraph, as amended, to wit:

UNLESS OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY LAW, NEITHER SHOULD ANY
APPOINTIVE OFFICIAL HOLD ANY OTHER OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT IN THE
GOVERNMENT, OR ANY SUBDIVISION AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF,
INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS OR THEIR
SUBDIVISIONS.

QUESTION OF QUORUM

At this juncture, Mr. Gascon raised the question of quorum.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection,
the Chair declared the session adjourned until nine o’clock in the
morning of the following day.

It was 7:24 p.m.

I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.

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

ATTESTED:

(SGD.) CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA
President

Approved on September 27, 1986.