R.C.C NO. 74

Thursday, September 4,
1986

OPENING OF SESSION

At 10:01 a.m., the President, the
Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, opened the session.

THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to
order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise
to sing the National Anthem.

Everybody rose to sing the National
Anthem.

THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please
remain standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable Rene V.
Sarmiento.

MR. SARMIENTO: A reading from the Book of
Sirach, Chapter 25, verse 1:

With three things I am delighted for they
are pleasing to the Lord and to man:

Harmony among brethren, friendship among
neighbors, and the mutual love of husband and wife.

PRAYER

Loving Father, Friend and Counselor, we
are about to finish the work which You, in Your wisdom, have assigned
and destined us to do. Yet, frail as we are, we have our fears. Amid the
turmoil in our land and our differences in this Commission, we ask:
Will we be able to finish our task united and inspired? Will we be able
to work hand in hand, unselfishly giving our best until we fulfill the
co-creation of a masterpiece?

Loving Father, God of our patriots and
heroes, our Refuge through all generations, we are confident that with
You teaching us to number our days aright, prospering the work of our
hands and filling us at daybreak with Your kindness, we, all Members of
this Commission, healthy and sick alike, will succeed in our mission,
for in You, with You and through You, nothing is impossible.

As we begin anew our delicate job this
morning, and resume it in the days to come, grant us the grace to have
harmony and friendship among us in the midst of sponsorship,
interpellations, debates, amendments, and amendments to an amendment.
Guide us with Your fatherly hand to transcend our biases and prejudices,
our selfishness and pride, so that, remembering our limited but
precious days in this Commission, we will accomplish our task.

In Jesus’ name, we pray. Amen.

ROLL CALL

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will
call the roll.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Abubakar	Present *	Natividad	Present *
Alonto	Present *	Nieva	Present
Aquino	Present	Nolledo	Present*
Azcuna	Present *	Ople	Present*
Bacani	Present	Padilla	Present
Bengzon	Present *	Quesada	Present
Bennagen	Present	Rama	Present
Bernas	Present *	Regalado	Present
Rosario Braid	Present	Reyes de los	Present
Calderon	Present	Rigos	Present
Castro de	Present	Rodrigo	Present
Colayco	Present	Romulo	Present
Concepcion	Present	Rosales	Absent
Davide	Present	Sarmiento	Present
Foz	Present	Suarez	Present
Garcia	Present *	Sumulong	Present
Gascon	Present *	Tadeo	Present *
Guingona	Present	Tan	Present
Jamir	Present	Tingson	Present
Laurel	Present *	Treñas	Absent
Lerum	Present	Uka	Present
Maambong	Present *	Villacorta	Present
Monsod	Present	Villegas	Present

The President is present.

The roll call shows 32 Members responded
to the call.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the
presence of a quorum.

MR. CALDERON: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader
is recognized.

MR. CALDERON: I move that we dispense
with the reading of the Journal of yesterday’s session.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection
that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of the previous
session? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.

APPROVAL OF JOURNAL

MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move
that we approve the Journal of the previous session.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move
that we proceed to the Reference of Business.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The Secretary-General will read the
Reference of Business.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary-General read the following
Communications, the President making the corresponding references:

COMMUNICATIONS

Letter from Rev. Romeo Palma transmitting
a resolution adopted by the Inter-Church Ministerial Fellowship,
Cotabato City, urging the Constitutional Commission to incorporate in
the Constitution a provision that the separation of the Church and the
State shall be inviolable as embodied in the 1973 Constitution and as
understood historically and jurisprudentially in the Philippines.

(Communication No. 706 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Communication from fifty-three (53)
concerned citizens of Davao City and Davao del Sur, appealing to the
Constitutional Commission to consider favorably provisions that would
enshrine in the Constitution the value of human life, e.g. that an
unborn child in its mother’s womb should be entitled to the protection
of the State.

(Communication No. 707 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

Communication from Mr. Delfin R.
Manlapaz, 1707 E. Rodriguez, Sr. Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City, submitting
an article “On Import Liberalization” hoping that the same may be of
interest and use in the consideration of the Article on National Economy
and Patrimony.

(Communication No. 708 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on the National Economy
and Patrimony.

Communication from the Philippine Council
of Evangelical Churches, Inc., 62 Molave St., Project 3, Quezon City
urging the Constitutional Commission to incorporate, among others, a
provision that the separation of the Church and the State shall be
inviolable as embodied in the 1973 Constitution and as understood
historically and jurisprudentially in the Philippines.

(Communication No. 709 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Communication from Ms. Pacita G. Infante
and fourteen (14) other women of Negros Occidental, expressing concern
over the U.S. bases issue, among others, saying that if the U.S. bases
are pulled out, the vacuum will immediately be occupied by Russia.

(Communication No. 710 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

Communication from the Philippine Council
of Evangelical Churches, Inc., Ozamis City Chapter, signed by its
Chairman, Abraham Mapangal, and ten other officers and members, urging
the Constitutional Commission to incorporate in the Constitution the
provision that the separation of the Church and the State shall be
inviolable as embodied in the 1973 Constitution and as understood
historically and jurisprudentially in the Philippines.

(Communication No. 711 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Communication from Mr. Juanito J.
Manangkil of 266 Sta. Quiteria Road, Caloocan City, suggesting that
elections must be for every six years for all elective officials from
President to Barangay Captain and that the incumbents including their
relatives and relatives by affinity within the fourth degree shall be
barred from running for the same position in order to minimize, if not
totally eradicate, political dynasty and political warlordism.

(Communication No. 712 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Steering Committee.

Letter from Mr. Lucio I. Ricafuente,
transmitting Resolution No. 35 on the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan,
requesting the Constitutional Commission to allow in the new Philippine
Constitution the retention of the American bases in the Philippines
even after the year 1991.

(Communication No. 713 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

Communication from the Diliman Campus
Bible Church, 152 Valenzuela Street, Area 2, U.P. Campus, Diliman,
Quezon City, signed by its Pastor, William Girao, and two others, urging
the Constitutional Commission to incorporate in the Constitution the
provision that the separation of the Church and the State shall be
inviolable as embodied in the 1973 Constitution and as understood
historically and jurisprudentially in the Philippines.

(Communication No. 714 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Communication from the Palkan Alliance
Church, Palkan, Polomolok, South Cotabato, signed by its Secretary, Mr.
Domingo C. Biantan, urging the Constitutional Commission to incorporate
in the Constitution a provision that the separation of the Church and
the State shall be inviolable as embodied in the 1973 Constitution and
as understood historically and jurisprudentially in the Philippines.

(Communication No. 715 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Communication from Ma. Paz R. Hidalgo and
Leonarda A. Yber, both of Madrid, Spain, requesting inclusion of
Spanish as one of the official languages in the new Philippine
Constitution.

(Communication No. 716 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Human Resources.

Communication from the Church of the
Foursquare Gospel in the Philippines, Romblon-Aklan-Masbate District,
Odiongan, Romblon, signed by Rev. Norberto D. Doromal, Jr., urging the
Constitutional Commission to incorporate in the Constitution a provision
that the separation of the Church and the State shall be inviolable as
embodied in the 1973 Constitution and as understood historically and
jurisprudentially in the Philippines.

(Communication No. 717 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Letter from Mr. Gerardo C. Enriquez,
Chairman, Environmental Conservation Movement, Alabat, Quezon, proposing
various suggestions on conservation of our natural resources.

(Communication No. 718 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on the National Economy
and Patrimony.

MR. RAMA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is
recognized.

CONSIDERATION OF C.R. NO.
29
(Article on Education, Science, Technology, Arts and Culture)
Continuation

PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

MR. RAMA: I move that we continue the
consideration of Committee Report No. 29 on the Article on Education,
Science, Technology, Arts and Culture. We are now in the period of
amendments.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection
that we continue the consideration on Second Reading of the proposed
Article on Education? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.

We request the honorable chairman and
members of the Committee on Human Resources to please occupy the front
seats.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that
Commissioner Davide be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is
recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, there was a
pending proposed amendment to Section 1, page 1 of the committee report.
I submitted yesterday an amended omnibus amendment to the proposed
article, and I would like to modify my earlier proposed amendment to
Section 1 (a) to read as follows: “IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO
PROVIDE EDUCATION TO ALL THE CITIZENS, AND TO ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS AND
OPPORTUNITY TO IT. MEASURES TO PROMOTE QUALITY EDUCATION AT ALL LEVELS
SHALL BE VIGOROUSLY IMPLEMENTED.” Madam President, this will actually
reconcile the problem presented by Commissioner Ople.

THE PRESIDENT: Will this be the opening
paragraph of Section 1?

MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Is the committee ready to
give any observation?

MR. VILLACORTA: The Commissioner is, in
effect, amending the proposal which he earlier submitted which states:
“THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS, et cetera.”

MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President. The
modified proposal will reconcile the problem presented by Commissioner
Ople and it will also meet what Commissioner Gascon had repeatedly
requested that we should emphasize the duty of the State.

MR. VILLACORTA: Commissioner Gascon would
like to give his reaction to this proposal.

MR. GASCON: Madam President, we have no
serious objection to the Commissioner’s proposal, but we would like to
emphasize the right of the citizen to such education which is the duty
of the State to provide. Although it is implied, we feel that it would
be for clarity’s sake to make use of the words “the right to education.”

MR. DAVIDE: I understand that
Commissioner Aquino has a proposal to amend my amendment. I would like
to listen to it.

MS. AQUINO: This is an attempt to satisfy
the specific desires of the committee in the formulation of Section 1.
My proposed amendment to Commissioner Davide’s amendment would read:
“EVERY CITIZEN HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT TO EDUCATION. THE STATE GUARANTEES
THAT NO ONE SHALL BE LEFT WITHOUT ACCESS TO EDUCATION.” The
qualification of the right with the word “EQUAL” is being introduced to
approximate the problem presented by Commissioner Ople on the
possibilities of arbitrary classification in terms of availments of
educational facilities.

MR. VILLACORTA: Commissioner Guingona is
recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, this has
reference to the use of the word “QUALITY.” If the Commissioner would
allow me, I would elaborate briefly on the matter of quality education
as I had explained in a previous session. The quality of education has
been linked by me with the imposition of minimum requirements.

Webster defines “quality” as the degree
of conformance to standards. I assume that the word “standards” here
would mean acceptable or suitable standards, which would mean that the
quality of education should be acceptable or suitable. And there is no
agency, body or ministry that is most qualified to provide minimum
requirements in order to bring about quality education than the Ministry
of Education, Culture and Sports.

As a matter of fact, Madam President, the
ministry has done this not only through the Manual of Regulations for
Private Schools, but also through numerous memoranda and circulars, as
well as other manuals including the Qualification Standards Manual.

Just to show the extent of coverage of
the minimum requirements, Madam President, may I be allowed to enumerate
some of the areas of concern. These include administration,
institutional objectives, financing, faculty qualifications, library
facilities, textbooks and other instructional materials, curricula,
laboratory, methods of teaching and physical facilities, which would
include prohibition of having more than a number of students or limiting
the number of students in a class, and institutional facilities and
contributory programs regarding research and community involvement. Of
course, there are educational institutions which provide requirements
higher than the minimum requirements. And we could say that these
schools are providing not only quality education, but higher quality
education. It has often been said that education or institutions of
higher standards are expected to grow continuously and progressively,
which is a reiteration of what I have said earlier that “Better than
ever is not enough.”

With respect to the word “QUALITY,” I
think it is the agreed sense of the committee that it should be included
in Section 1 (a). However, my personal preference is not to include it
in said section, which is sought to be amended by the honorable
Commissioner Davide, but in the section on supervision and regulation,
which is Section 2 (b). This is precisely the original proposal of the
committee as contained in the committee report. It is through external
governance, supervision, regulation, prescribing of minimum requirements
and seeing to it that these are observed that the aims of quality
education are realized.

Thank you, Madam President.

MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is
recognized.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. VILLACORTA: Since the members of the
committee have different ideas on how to react to the Davide and Aquino
amendments, may we request a two-minute suspension.

THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.

It was 10:23 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:31 a.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that
Commissioner Davide be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is
recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, during the
suspension of session, the three main proponents, Commissioners Aquino,
Bernas and this Representation, had agreed to present a joint modified
amendment which will be read into the record and sponsored by
Commissioner Bernas. Other coauthors of the proposal are Commissioners
Monsod and Rama.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is
recognized.

FR. BERNAS: Madam President, the proposed
provision now reads: “THE STATE SHALL, IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMARY RIGHT
OF PARENTS, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHT OF ALL CITIZENS TO QUALITY
EDUCATION AT ALL LEVELS OF EDUCATION AND SHALL TAKE VIGOROUS STEPS TO
MAKE SUCH EDUCATION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.”

MR. MONSOD: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.

MR. MONSOD: I would like to propose an
amendment to the amendment. Can we substitute another word for the word
“VIGOROUS,” like “NECESSARY” or “APPROPRIATE”?

FR. BERNAS: I would have no objection to a
substitute word.

THE PRESIDENT: May the Chair know the
substitute word for “VIGOROUS.”

MR. MONSOD: It is “APPROPRIATE,” Madam
President.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable to the
sponsor?

FR. BERNAS: Yes, Madam President.

MR. GASCON: How would the phrase now
read?

FR. BERNAS: The phrase would now read:
“SHALL TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO MAKE SUCH EDUCATION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.”
The provision emphasizes four things: 1) that the primary right of
education belongs to the family; 2) that the State has the duty to
support this primary right; 3) that the State shall make efforts to
support this primary right by promoting quality education; and 4) making
such quality education accessible to all.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.

MS. AQUINO: Just some observations, Madam
President. I propose that the reference to the natural right of the
parents be deleted from this section and instead transposed to Section 1
(b) regarding compulsory education. In terms of conceptual balance, the
perspective and priorities of rights are better placed and appreciated
in the context of compulsory education which is included in the
committee report. So I propose the deletion of that reference in Section
1 (a) and I would accordingly propose an amendment in Section 1 (b) to
accommodate that principle.

MR. GASCON: Madam President, we would
like first to express that the committee feels the same way, that the
phrase “IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMARY RIGHT OF PARENTS” is not necessary
because it is assumed as the basic premise when we speak of education
that it is the right, duty and obligation of the parents to provide for
the education of their children. Second, it is included, at this point
in time, in the Family Rights Article which shall be presented later on.
So because of these two basic premises, we feel that it is unnecessary
for it is already assumed.

FR. BERNAS: On that understanding, I
would not object to the deletion of the phrase “IN SUPPORT OF THE
PRIMARY RIGHT OF PARENTS” on the understanding that this concept is
accepted and, in fact, will be enshrined elsewhere in the Constitution.

MR. GASCON: Yes, that is correct. And
besides, Madam President, when we speak of that right, we speak of two
rights, in fact — the primary right of parents to provide education for
their children and the basic right of every citizen to that education.

FR. BERNAS: That is correct, Madam
President.

MR. GASCON: So it is not only the duty of
the State to support the primary right of parents to provide for
education, but also to provide for such a right to education.

MR. MONSOD: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.

MR. MONSOD: Apropos of the comment of
Commissioner Bernas that the principle should be stated in some other
place, I propose that we recognize the primary right of parents to
educate their children in the Article on Declaration of Principles.

MR. GASCON: The committee does not have
any objection at all.

MR. MONSOD: Thank you.

BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is
recognized.

BISHOP BACANI: In the proposal of
Commissioner Bernas, he vindicates the right of all citizens to quality
education at all levels. Am I correct, Madam President?

FR. BERNAS: Yes, The Commissioner is
correct.

BISHOP BACANI: I would like to know
whether the Commissioner would really want to vindicate the right of
every single citizen to education in the tertiary level. Would the
Commissioner consider that a right of every citizen?

FR. BERNAS: Yes, I would consider it a
right. And although we say that the State shall protect and promote the
right of all citizens and also take appropriate steps to make such
education accessible to all, this is not a prescription that the State,
therefore, should give free education up to the tertiary level but that
the State should take steps and promote measures, which will ensure that
education up to the highest level would be quality education.

BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but would that mean,
Madam President, that the State, therefore, cannot prescribe qualifying
examinations which would screen students for education at the tertiary
level so that they could say: “I have a right to this. The Constitution
vindicates my right to this and so you cannot stop me from having
education at the tertiary level as well.”

FR. BERNAS: Precisely, part of the duty
of the State to provide quality education is the duty to screen those
who are not qualified, because if we accept unqualified people into
higher education, then we are diluting the quality of education.
Besides, not everyone will qualify.

MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, as I
mentioned earlier, all rights, including the right to education, are not
absolute. In other words, these will be subject to the inherent right
of the State to exercise police power.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Also, Madam President,
we accept the concept of quality. Would quality, to Commissioner
Bernas’ mind, include taking into consideration the differential
aptitudes, the logic, the unique capabilities and limitations of
learners who come from different levels of socioeconomic and cultural
development?

FR. BERNAS: Yes, we will take those into
consideration. A person may have very strong native skills, but because
of the fact of background, it may be that these skills are undeveloped.
And part of the duty of the State would be to offer opportunities for
such a person to be able to develop himself so that he can qualify for
higher education.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Or to move away from
homogeneous curricula and approaches to take into consideration these
unique capabilities. Is that the intent?

FR. BERNAS: Yes, Madam President.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I ask because,
otherwise, we would introduce the concept of appropriateness after the
concept of accessibility.

FR. BERNAS: Yes, Madam President. What I
am trying to say there is that, for instance, to go into a doctoral
level, to allow a person to be promoted to a doctoral level, would
already imply that the State should have higher requirements for the
doctoral level. If a person is not qualified for that, then there is no
right.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you, Madam
President.

BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is
recognized.

BISHOP BACANI: I would like to suggest
that we just state in this section a general principle that the State
shall protect and promote the right to education of all citizens. In
Section 1 (b), I propose an amendment to read: “The State shall
establish and maintain a system of free public ELEMENTARY education AND
SHALL PROVIDE MEASURES THAT WILL MAKE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL EDUCATION AT THE
ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL LEVELS AND AT THE TERTIARY LEVEL FOR THOSE
QUALIFIED.”

THE PRESIDENT: Is the proposed amendment
acceptable to Commissioner Bernas?

FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I would like
to introduce the concept of quality as early as possible. We are trying
to raise the standards of education. And if we say that our aim is any
type of education, then we would be diluting our aim. So I would like to
introduce the concept of quality as early as possible in the very first
sentence of the Article on Education.

MR. RAMA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama is
recognized.

MR. RAMA: I was insisting on the
inclusion of the words “QUALITY EDUCATION,” because we have a peculiar
problem in this country. There has been a survey which shows that many
of our schools are “diploma mills.” That is a peculiar problem of this
country. In other words, we should frame a Constitution not in the
vacuum of theories and principles from other countries. We should
address this peculiar problem.

Now why quality education? It would be
defeating our purpose if we give education to everybody. And with the
kind of education that we have which is farcical, it gives no education
at all. So this is a peculiar problem that I believe is one of the
biggest rackets in this country. The parents are made to pay and
sacrifice all their lives to send their children to school to get
inferior or no education at all. And that is a waste of money and the
biggest racket of which the parents in this country are victims. So I
hope that we maintain the words “QUALITY EDUCATION” to address a
peculiar problem in this country.

MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I would
like to take exception to the particular remark of the honorable Floor
Leader that there is rampant existence of “diploma mills.” I do not know
of the survey he is talking about. If he is talking of the SOUTELLE
survey, what was shown there was that, in general, public education in
the elementary and secondary level performs in a less efficient manner
than that in the private schools. If he is referring to the Monroe
survey, that occurred more than 30 years ago.

What I am trying to say, Madam President,
is that generally, our educational system, both public and private, is
providing quality education because, clearly, the fact that we have had
graduates whom I said had distinguished themselves in many areas of
activities and that we have been attracting even foreign students to
this country mean that we are not providing a very poor type of
education really.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid
is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Although Commissioner
Guingona, our vice-chairman on Education, has made substantive research
on this matter, we still agree with the proponents that on the primary
level, particularly in barangay schools, there is much to be desired in
terms of quality of education. So I think, generally, the committee
accepts the concept of quality which we have included on page 2, Section
1 (c). The proponents would like to transpose this to Section 1 (a) as
its first sentence, because we will note that it is on page 2.

BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is
recognized.

BISHOP BACANI: Actually, my proposal also
includes that — that we just state in Section 1 (a) that the State
shall protect and promote the right to education of all citizens and
amend Section 1 (b) to read: “The State shall establish and maintain a
system of free public ELEMENTARY education AND SHALL PROVIDE MEASURES
THAT WILL MAKE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL EDUCATION AT THE ELEMENTARY AND HIGH
SCHOOL LEVELS AND AT THE TERTIARY LEVEL FOR THOSE QUALIFIED.”

MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I
invite the attention of the honorable Commissioner that at our caucus
held two days ago, the committee agreed that we would deliberate on this
proposed article on a section-to-section basis. The honorable
Commissioner Bernas is now going to the next section.

Actually, we agreed that the sequencing
would not be done by us here on the floor. We have taken into
consideration the proposals of the honorable Commissioners Maambong and
Monsod and we have, in fact, already prepared our sequencing which we
are ready to distribute either this afternoon or tomorrow in final form.

So we believe that the sequencing is not
to be considered here. What we should consider is the substance of the
various sections. If Commissioner Davide has his own proposal regarding
sequencing, we would also be glad to take that into consideration so we
should first take the proposal of Commissioner Bernas with regard to
Section 1 (a) and proceed to Section 1 (b).

BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, the
reason I came in at this point is that precisely I have a difficulty
establishing a right of all citizens to education at the tertiary level.
I have no difficulty affirming strongly that that should be made
accessible to all and that those qualified should be admitted. But I
cannot, at this point, affirm that every citizen has a right to
education at the tertiary level. That it should be made accessible to
all, is quite clear to me; but that everybody has a right to that, is
not clear to me. That is the reason I formulated my amendment in that
way.

MR. GASCON: I believe Commissioner Tan,
who is a member of the committee, wishes to present something.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is
recognized.

SR. TAN: I have been feeling confused
because we have been talking about quality education and evidently our
concept of quality education is different. Some of us believe that we do
not have quality education and others believe that we are so great in
quality education that foreigners come to our country to be educated.

Since this is very substantial and
important for all of us more than sequencing, I would like to ask the
president of the Ateneo University to let us know what his ideas are
about quality education.

FR. BERNAS: Education is a combination of
many things. It involves acquisition of information, development of
critical thinking, one’s artistic talents, moral qualities and his
sensitivity to the needs of others, and so forth. All of these, as much
as possible, should be maximized. That is my concept of quality
education.

Perhaps, it is easier to define what is
not quality education. One has to have, at least, the minimum — reading,
writing and arithmetic — at least, mastery of a certain language and
reading and writing. That is very basic as far as skills are concerned.

And I think it is generally accepted that
education, especially in the elementary level, has deteriorated so
much. When a person who has the basic talent is accepted into the
secondary school and he or she will be capable of receiving instruction
proper to secondary schools. This affects the whole chain. If one has
poor quality on the basic level of education, it affects the entire
system.

What we are trying to say is that the
State should attend to this, and this will have to be very gradual. At
the moment, for instance, the emphasis, I think, of the government is on
making sure that basic education is really solid, because if it is not
solid, it affects the quality of secondary education. If secondary
education is poor, then the person goes to college unprepared for
college work. And if he is allowed to graduate again with a poor quality
college education, he goes to university professional education even
more unprepared. So this is my understanding of quality education.

What I am trying to say is that the State
should recognize its duty to promote quality education and as much as
possible make this accessible to all and not just to the wealthy.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is
seeking recognition.

MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I am in
favor of the proposal of Commissioner Aquino which is more simple and
clear.

Our country, Madam President, was one of
the highest in literacy rate in Asia. Unfortunately, we have illiterates
that count to millions. In fact, we wanted to qualify suffrage to the
literates but, apparently, the “Rama resolution” objected to it. Many of
our people do not even have the basic three “Rs”; they cannot read or
write.

I think the primary purpose of state
education, if not private education, is to make all our people, if
possible, literate, and that is only the primary grades. Then comes the
elementary grades, high school and tertiary education: college,
university and other higher branches of learning. Madam President, I am
in favor of “quality education,” because even law students sometimes
have no adequate qualification. Many of them cannot even write clear and
correct English. But to say that we must assure quality education from
the primary or elementary grades to the tertiary level is a beautiful
dream. I am not against quality education, but to impose it from the
very start when we cannot even make all our people literate is somewhat
visionary. We have to be a little more practical and make our people
first literate through the primary grades. I have been mentioning
minimum requirements to prevent some schools that others call “diploma
mills” to operate as sources of profit without the real purpose of true
education. But finding or qualifying with the minimum requirements does
not necessarily mean high quality education. Why do we not just say, as
Commissioner Aquino stated “EVERY CITIZEN HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT TO
EDUCATION. THE STATE GUARANTEES THAT NO ONE SHALL BE LEFT WITHOUT ACCESS
TO EDUCATION”? It is very simple as the first paragraph. And later on
we may mention elementary, secondary and tertiary education. I do not
believe that the State has a right or duty to give all the citizens
tertiary education. That will be limited to some students, whom God has
given more talents, who are qualified for higher learning. After the
elementary grades, and even before high school, many students go to
technological schools rather than pursue liberal education. I am in
favor of liberal education, with the basic principles of logic, but that
cannot be extended to all citizens and, inevitably, not as a mandatory
duty of the State.

Thank you, Madam President.

FR. BERNAS: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is
recognized.

FR. BERNAS: May I just reiterate that
when the proposal here says that all citizens should aspire for quality
education or that the State should protect and promote the right of all
citizens to quality education, it does not mean that everyone is
entitled to go to UP. That is not what it means. What it means is that
all citizens are entitled to quality education according to their level
of talent. At least on the elementary level he should have quality
education, but if he has the talent to go further, then he should be
given quality education in the secondary level. And if he has the talent
to go further, he should be given quality education in the tertiary
level. I would like to emphasize the idea of “quality” because we are
living in a context of a Philippine situation where educators are
precisely deploring the deterioration of education in the Philippines.
So, if we just mention education in general again, we are losing this
opportunity to emphasize the urgency of raising the level of education
in the Philippines. We had a fairly good system of public education some
years ago, but it is commonly accepted that both on the private and the
public levels, there has been a very serious deterioration in
education. And we must address this. We have the opportunity, and we do
this by emphasizing “quality.” I am telling the State: Do what you can
to improve the quality, and do what you can to make sure that this
quality education is accessible not just to those who can afford to pay
high tuition but to everybody. In other words, to be more concrete, for
instance, the State maintains the University of the Philippines. And
anyone who is qualified has a right to try to get into UP. We are
telling the State here, as much as possible, to establish more state
colleges and universities around the Philippines. Or, if this is not
acceptable, at least, give subsidies to students so they can go to
private schools. This is what we are saying. We are not saying that
everyone should go to the university level. We are not saying that at
all.

MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO: Before I propound one
question to Commissioner Bernas, may I just say that with that
explanation, I think this provision is not visionary nor idealistic, but
practical and good for our people.

When the Commissioner speaks of quality
education at all levels, will this include quality education at the
preschool?

FR. BERNAS: I do not know what the status
of preschooling is now. I think preschool means “before the school.”

MR. SARMIENTO: Let us say, nursery and
kindergarten. Would these be covered?

FR. BERNAS: I would say no.

MR. SARMIENTO: I thank the Commissioner.

MR. GUINGONA: Madam President,
Commissioner Bernas spoke of Philippine conditions and I had made
reference to the degree of the quality of education. In relation to
tertiary education, if we try to compare, for example, a Filipino
student with an American student, then perhaps we could say with
reasonable certainty that the first year student in the United States
would be better qualified. But that is due to other factors. For
example, in the United States, to finish secondary level, the student
has to go through 12 years of elementary and secondary education. Here,
we only require ten years. So, actually, a first year student in the
tertiary level in the Philippines would only be a fifth year high school
student in the United States.

FR. BERNAS: Madam President, my own
experience is that when some students from some schools in the
Philippines go to the United States, they try to enter the equivalent
level of the school in the United States. They get in there and they are
immediately accelerated. There are some quality schools here.

THE PRESIDENT: May the Chair know whether
or not the committee accepts this new formulation.

MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, before
we announce our decision, we would like to point out that things would
have been simpler if the body accepted the original formulation of the
committee which says:

Education is the right of every citizen
of the Philippines. The State recognizes its duty of providing education
to all citizens.

But after conferring with the members of
our committee, we are accepting the Bernas, Rama, Aquino and Davide
amendments.

MR. GASCON: Madam President, what we
would like to emphasize first is that we are now discussing Section 1
(a) and these are the basic principles we would like the body to
discuss: the right of every citizen to education and the duty of the
State to provide for such education. We are not yet speaking of the
different levels and others.

Now there have been proposed
reformulations of the basic principles. For example, in the Aquino,
Bernas, Davide and Rama amendments, when we speak of the duty of the
State, of course, we are already taking as a basic premise the primary
right and duty of the parents. This is already an assumed premise. The
duty of the State to provide education is included in the phrase “The
State shall protect and promote.” Then the provision defines that there
is such a right to education of all citizens. It continues to define
further its duty by stating that it shall take appropriate steps to make
education accessible, which is the basic essence of the second sentence
in our original proposal. There is a new added concept, which is the
concept of quality education, the definition of education that not only
is it the duty of the State to support the citizen’s right to education
but also to assure that whatever education such a citizen thinks as his
right, should be quality.

We do not define quality as the levels of
education alone — primary, secondary, tertiary. There could be
different forms of quality education. So this is a new added concept to
our original proposal; that is why we have accepted the proposed
section. We feel that it still reflects our basic principles of defining
the right of the citizen to education and the duty of the State to
provide for such.

BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Just a very brief
reminder, Commissioner Bacani, because this matter has already been
sufficiently discussed in the previous meetings.

BISHOP BACANI: The reason I objected to
the formulation of Commissioner Bernas was that I thought he was
asserting a right to college education for all. But now I see that the
thrust is to have a right to quality education in the college level. So I
do not interpose any objection to Commissioner Bernas’ proposal.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is
recognized.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.

We would just like to clarify a few
points with Commissioner Bernas because I heard Commissioner Gascon say
that the Bernas proposal elevates the right of citizen to education to
the right of citizen to quality education. Is my understanding correct?

FR. BERNAS: Yes, although I would say
that we are not saying different things. I am sure that when
Commissioner Gascon says education, he means quality education. But I
put in “quality” here because of the context we live in. We just want to
emphasize that. Not just any institution which calls itself a school
should be recognized as a school.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you. So it is clear
that the right sought to be promoted and protected under this provision
is the right of every citizen to quality education, which is at all
levels.

FR. BERNAS: Yes. And, moreover, the right
to go to the various levels would depend on the person’s talents and
capabilities.

MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: Before we vote, I would like
to pose an inquiry. Are we voting for an amendment by substitution to
Section 1 (a) only?

MR. GASCON: That is correct, Madam
President.

MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.

MR. GASCON: Another thing, when we speak
of education here, it does not mean only formal education but also
informal and nonformal education. This is the first of the basic
principles of the right to education in whatever form and level.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, to
allay the fears of those who feel that this will involve additional huge
investments, I think the concept of quality means using existing
resources more creatively. Any additional investment would mean the
reorientation of teachers so that they are able to develop more
learner-oriented approaches in teaching with the maximum use of
community resources. Therefore, we relate education to the relevant
needs of the communities, so that when a Grade IV student drops out, he
would be able to fit his skills to the needs of the communities’
economic and social development programs.

MS. QUESADA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada
desires to be recognized.

MS. QUESADA: Just for the record, I would
just like to state here that the concept of accessibility also includes
the concept of availability and affordability.

MR. RAMA: In addition to what
Commissioner Rosario Braid has stated, I would like to tell this
honorable Commission why we have this peculiar problem. I made a
research on this for a series of articles in the Philippines Free Press.
The peculiar problem of a low standard of education came after the war.
When the war broke out and we set up our educational system, there was a
dearth of teachers. So the government was hiring every Pedro, Pablo and
Juan, even if he was not qualified to be a teacher.

Second, there was a great period of
profiteering at that time so that we have 2,000 fake teachers, many of
whom are still in the teaching profession. That is the finding that we
made which was confirmed by the Department of Education.

And third, there was a preposterous law
passed by Congress soon after the war which gave an additional credit or
percentage to anybody who passed or did not pass the examination of
teachers on the ground that they were veterans. So the government could
not really get the better teachers. If they failed in this examination,
say, if they got only 70%, they were given an additional 5% because they
were veterans. These are some of the things that created this peculiar
problem where we have a very low standard of education. So I hope we
maintain the words “quality education.”

MR. SUAREZ: I am satisfied with the
explanation of the Commissioner. But may I go to another point.
Commissioner Bernas uses the phrase “PROTECT AND PROMOTE.” This is a
little bothersome because it could lead to unnecessary litigations. Let
us take the case of a simple Juan de la Cruz going to court compelling,
by a mandamus action that a certain university should provide
quality education. Does the Commissioner not think that under this
provision, if we do not delete the phrase “PROTECT AND PROMOTE,” we may
be swamped with unnecessary litigations, Madam President?
Notwithstanding the observation of the Honorable Guingona, there may
indeed be some “diploma mills” abounding all over the country. What is
the Commissioner’s thinking about this, Madam President?

FR. BERNAS: My thinking about that, Madam
President, is that I do not think we really need to fear because
concretely, for instance, if a student were studying in a school and
found out that the teachers were unqualified, the facilities were not as
promised and so forth, then he could appeal to this provision. He
should have a right to appeal to this.

MR. SUAREZ: Precisely, that student will
seek the protection of the State.

FR. BERNAS: Correct.

MR. SUAREZ: He can do this by compelling
that university or school to improve the quality of its education. Can
he do that?

FR. BERNAS: Yes, or if one wants that
school to continue its operation, the complaints could be addressed also
to Congress. Usually a school is unable to continue because it needs
money. Precisely a school could have a low standard because it does not
have the money to pay qualified teachers, to buy good books and so
forth. Hence, students could address their complaints to the State also,
telling the State: “Look, if you want the school to continue, it is
your duty to support it.”

MR. SUAREZ: I have been handling a number
of cases in behalf of student demonstrators who were demanding quality
education in the form of good teachers, good books, academic freedom,
improved facilities. Will this statement “The State shall protect and
promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels,”
be a license or permission for them to go before our courts and demand
the protection which is provided under this provision?

FR. BERNAS: The answer would have to be
in the affirmative, with proper explanation. If the school involved is a
state school, then I think the State can easily answer that. But if the
school involved is a private school, which is precisely in such
situation because the State is not allowing a private school to collect
the tuition that is necessary to raise its quality, then the private
school would have a proper defense. This will awaken the eyes of the
State to the fact that, if the private schools are to deliver quality
education, then there must be some reasonableness in the regulation of
tuition fees.

MR. SUAREZ: So who, in the ultimate
analysis, will determine whether a certain school is providing quality
education or not? Would it be the courts or the State through its
instrumentalities or agencies like the Ministry of Education, Culture
and Sports?

FR. BERNAS: Certainly, the State, by its
police power, can insure that there are minimal levels of quality
education. But there are other ways of insuring quality. Private
accrediting associations, for instance, are very effective in raising
the quality of education and part of the thing which can be done by the
State is to recognize private schools that are already delivering
quality education. Hence, we should not just lump them together with
everybody else in terms of regulation.

MR. SUAREZ: Under the Commissioner’s
theory, that assumes that there will be practically a reexamination or
review of the quality of the education now being given by these private
schools. Is that what the Commission has in mind?

FR. BERNAS: We are entering into the area
of accreditation. Certainly, the State has some authority to determine
at least minimum levels of quality. But private educators also have the
right to require even more.

MR. SUAREZ: Can we agree on the
procedural matters to be taken up regarding the matter of providing
quality education? I asked so because I would like to prevent the
proliferation of suits against the State or the school. Can we put in
the record that under this provision, what is contemplated is that a
complaining student can address his protest against the State
instrumentalities or agencies before going to the courts for seeking
refuge under this particular provision?

FR. BERNAS: Under the principles of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, yes.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you .

MR. RAMA: Madam President, the body is
now ready to vote on that amendment.

MR. GASCON: The committee has accepted
the Bernas amendment.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT: The committee has accepted
the amendment.

As many as are in favor of this proposed
Bernas, et al amendment which has been accepted by the committee, please
raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)

The results show 28 votes in favor and 1
against; the amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that
Commissioner Aquino be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I would
propose an amendment by substitution to the second sentence of Section 1
(b), lines 1 and 2 which will now read: “WITHOUT LIMITING THE NATURAL
RIGHT OF PARENTS TO REAR THEIR CHILDREN, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IS
COMPULSORY FOR ALL CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE.”

MR. VILLACORTA: The committee accepts the
amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment by
substitution for the entire paragraph?

MS. AQUINO: This is only for the second
sentence of Section 1 (b), lines 1 and 2.

MR. GASCON: The second sentence reads:
“Education shall be compulsory through the elementary level.”

MS. AQUINO: Again, the amendment by
substitution reads: “WITHOUT LIMITING THE NATURAL RIGHT OF PARENTS TO
REAR THEIR CHILDREN, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IS COMPULSORY FOR ALL CHILDREN
OF SCHOOL AGE.” The intent and reason for this is that, however strong
its interest in universal compulsory education, the State’s interest is
not absolute to the exclusion of all the other interests. It is
consistent in jurisprudence that the children are not mere creatures of
the State. Those who nurture them and those who direct their destinies
have the primary right to develop them for additional obligations.

MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.

MR. PADILLA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: I would like to propound a
few questions.

I am really against this provision making
elementary education compulsory, but then Commissioner Aquino puts a
condition which is about the rights of parents. However, what is the
meaning of that? Does it mean that if the parents say, “I do not want my
child to go to school,” then that child is exempted from the compulsory
elementary education?

MS. AQUINO: Yes. For clarification, the
provision for compulsory education is already a historical imperative
and I suppose we are in agreement on that principle. But the
qualification in the clause, “WITHOUT LIMITING THE NATURAL RIGHT OF
PARENTS,” taken in context with the second part of the sentence, only
hopes and aspires to set some kind of a moral compulsion for the parents
to lead their children to undertake primary education. We do not speak
in terms of sanctions or in terms of penalty for a misdemeanor, but we
speak in the nature of a moral compulsion.

MR. RODRIGO: In our 1935 and 1973
Constitutions, there is no provision making compulsory elementary
education.

MS. AQUINO: Yes, that is true.

MR. GASCON: If the Commissioner will
still recall during the period of interpellations, the reason we had
included the provision on compulsory elementary education is to stop the
retrogression which is occurring at present, wherein our literacy rate
is going down, and, second, we feel that if we make elementary
education, at least, from the position of Commissioner Aquino, as
morally compulsory, this would alleviate the situation where our
illiteracy rate is increasing and would avoid the situation where
retrogression of those who dropped out of school will no longer occur.

MR. RODRIGO: But if we make it a
provision in the Constitution, we do not make it only morally
compulsory. It is compulsory by constitutional mandate.

MS. AQUINO: May I add to supplement the
position of Commissioner Gascon on the matter that when I say that
compulsory education is a historical imperative, it is not only the call
of progress but it is also an attempt to arrest the problem of
declining literacy which has a chain reaction to the problems of
involuntary child labor, child prostitution and the host of other social
ills that arise from ignorance. Now, as I have qualified, a
constitutional mandate for compulsory elementary education does not
necessarily provide for an impetus for sanctions. This has been
consistently ruled in jurisprudence in the United States of America,
like in the case of Wisconsin vs. Yoder and that of Pierce vs.
Society of Sisters in the Holy Name of Jesus. In fact, compulsory
education has been adopted in almost all of the constitutions all over
the world except that it would have to yield to the recognition of the
primacy of the natural right of the parents, lest it would infringe on
the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth
Amendment.

MR. GASCON: In fact, when the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights itself spoke of education it states that
elementary education shall be compulsory. This is in Article XXVI, which
is stated for that very same reason advanced by Commissioner Aquino.

MR. RODRIGO: Yes, but we have to be
practical about this. First of all, I know that in the provinces there
are many barrios without school buildings. According to Dr. Juanita
Guerrero of the Bureau of Elementary Education, the government provides
elementary education free of tuition and matriculation fees but it does
not give free books or free materials. So what will happen to the
children of very poor families, either in Manila or in the provinces who
cannot afford to buy books? With this situation, some parents could not
send their children to school. They try to encourage them to go but do
they penalize them? If there is no penalty, then what is the use of
making it compulsory? How can we make it compulsory unless there is a
sanction?

MR. GUINGONA: As I mentioned in an
earlier discussion, the sense of the committee is that the word
“compulsory” is not to be construed or interpreted in its strict sense.
As a matter of fact, I made reference to exemptions provided by the
government with regard to school attendance, and I mentioned about the
accessibility, which may be three kilometers away, or if the children
cannot afford. I enumerated all of these the last time, which show that
this is subject to exemptions.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, the
intention in the provision is that when there is a constitutional
mandate, it should have enough moral suasion to carry with it compulsory
effect but without necessarily entailing sanctions or penalties. In
fact, it has been ruled out in the host of cases in the United States
that to penalize the failure to abide by the rules of compulsory
education as a misdemeanor is unconstitutional.

MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I view this
also from my position as chairman of the Committee on Style. Why should
we use the word “compulsory” if it is not really compulsory? We cannot
compel because as the Commissioner says there is no sanction. So, why do
we not use some other words, like “persuade” or “encourage”? I have
been raising this point all the time for when the Constitution says
“shall provide free high school education,” the understanding is that it
is a commitment of the government. Then we say, “it shall,” although it
is not really a commitment.

Here it is compulsory, but there is no
sanction. We do not compel, and if the parents do not want to send their
children to elementary school, then they do not have to go. Why should
we use the word “compulsory”? We might be misleading our people.

MS. AQUINO: I do not share the
apprehension of Commissioner Rodrigo. In fact, I think his fear is more
apparent than real. The concept of compulsory education subject to the
primary right of the parent, has acquired a settled usage in law and in
jurisprudence.

MR. RODRIGO: It is not a fear. I am not
afraid. It is just that I want to call a spade a spade, and I would like
to state that in the 1935 Constitution, we do not have such a provision
making elementary education compulsory. Neither do we have it in the
1973 Constitution. Now that we are in an economic crisis, we, all of a
sudden, incorporate in our Constitution a provision making elementary
education compulsory. We are saying it is compulsory, but it is really
not.

That is all I want to express.

MR. PADILLA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is
recognized.

MR. PADILLA: I would like all our
children to acquire not only primary education, but also elementary,
and, if possible, high school. But when we affirm the right of a child,
can the exercise of that right be compelled? A person may waive the
exercise of his right but he cannot be compelled to exercise that right.
If the word “compulsory” carries no penal sanction, not even as a
misdemeanor, then said word may appear attractive but it may not have
real value.

Is it not enough that the State should
provide for free primary or elementary education but should it be made
compulsory? To attach any kind of a sanction for non-exercise of a right
would be illegal and unconstitutional. That is why I share the view of
Commissioner Rodrigo that there are goals we want to achieve, but we
have to be careful that the means we will use are not only within the
resources of the State but it should also be realistic and practical.

MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I be
recognized?

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is
recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.

That word “compulsory” existed in the
1935 Constitution, but if I remember right, it was compulsory only up to
the primary level. Then it was extended up to the elementary level. I
remember very well that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, the use
of the word “compulsory” was extended up to Grade 6 or Grade 7 because
the government was alarmed by the increase of illiteracy on a certain
period of time in our Republic. Considering the basic and national
purpose, a transcendental purpose of promoting literacy in the country, I
believe that the right cannot be waived. While it is true that a minor
cannot waive, still a parent can waive in the child’s favor. Thus, the
imperative demand for increasing literacy shall result in the
“non-waivability” of the right.

So, I believe that we have to retain the
word “compulsory” there. The fact that we put “compulsory” and we do not
punish does not necessarily mean that we preclude Congress from
providing for a sanction whether civil or criminal. Perhaps, the
criminal sanction may take the form of a fine or forfeiture of certain
privileges in a reasonable manner. Considering that our literacy
percentage is not too high as compared with other civilized countries of
the world, the word “compulsory” shall exist. The fact that there is no
sanction does not mean that the word “compulsory” is out of place
because it opens the avenue for Congress to provide for a sanction if
the time will come that the parents will not send their children because
they labor under the impression that, at any rate, there will be no
sanction at all.

I hate to say this. I am not unFilipino.
This provision on compulsory education is being geared towards the
mentality of most Filipinos. Unfortunately, I say this because if we put
it there as optional then we will be promoting illiteracy in the
country because the path of least resistance may be followed by the
parents. Since there is no word “compulsory,” and there will be no
sanction at all in the future, then they will not send their children to
school anymore. If this event happens and the word “compulsory” exists
in the Constitution, then Congress can pass a law in order to arrest the
alarming proportion on the part of parents not sending their children
to school in order to promote literacy in this Republic.

Thank you, Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: Did Commissioner Nolledo say
that under the 1935 Constitution elementary education is compulsory?

MR. NOLLEDO: That is what I said; correct
me if I am wrong.

MR. RODRIGO: There is no such provision.
May I read Article 14, Section 5:

All educational institutions shall be
under the supervision of and subject to regulations by the State. The
Government shall establish and maintain a complete and adequate system
of public education, and shall provide at least free public primary
education . . .

It is not compulsory.

MR. NOLLEDO: If the Commissioner would
make a further research, that was interpreted as compulsory because, if
my memory serves me right, there was a commonwealth act implementing it.

MR. RODRIGO: Then it is not a
constitutional provision. I have read Section 5; I would like to ask
Commissioner Nolledo if there is any other section.

MR. NOLLEDO: As a law professor, my
interpretation is that it is, in effect, compulsory. It was implemented
in that sense by the National Assembly.

MR. RODRIGO: So it is not a provision of
the 1935 Constitution. It is an interpretation by Professor Nolledo.

MR. NOLLEDO: It says there, “shall
provide at least . . .”

MR. RODRIGO: Let us make it clear.

MR. NOLLEDO: That was also the
interpretation of the Committee on Education in the 1971 Constitutional
Convention where I appeared because the wordings are not clear enough.
But it says there, “shall provide at least primary instruction.” So, it
was compulsory on the part of the government and the implementing
statute said that the children must acquire that knowledge in order to
promote literacy. That is my interpretation, but if the Commissioner
disagrees, that is his right to do so.

THE PRESIDENT: So, let us limit ourselves
to the question that is before us. Shall it be compulsory or not?

MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.

MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is
recognized.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.

May we address a few questions to
Commissioner Nolledo?

MR. NOLLEDO: Gladly.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.

I like Commissioner Nolledo’s gentle
interpretation of the word “compulsory” as now proposed. According to
Commissioner Monsod it is really a soft mandate in the sense that
although it is compulsory in character there is no sanction or penalty
attached to it. Are we clear in that regard?

MR. NOLLEDO: In the Constitution there is
no penalty attached to it, but even if there is no penalty attached to
it, we still open an avenue to the Congress to provide for a penalty in
the event that circumstances should justify the imposition of a penalty.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, may I
clarify something.

THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may
proceed.

MS. AQUINO: When we say that there are no
sanctions constitutionally provided for, we are very conscious of
jurisprudence that strikes down as unconstitutional any criminal
sanction to failure to comply with compulsory education. However, as
articulated by Commissioner Nolledo, it does not preclude Congress from
providing for statutory provision of reasonable sanctions. It may vary
modalities of sanction and penalties.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.

In other words, we leave it up to
Congress to determine later on the nature of the penalties or sanctions,
if any, that may be provided by way of implementing this mandate of our
Constitution.

MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner is right.

MS. AQUINO: Conscious, however, of the
constitutional limitations in the infringement of free expression
clause.

MR. SUAREZ: Yes, subject to that
limitation, I assume that to be true. So, in other words, since we do
not have those laws, like the truancy law in the United States, that may
be provided by Congress, therefore, this is only in the pursuit of that
soft mandate or gentle interpretation that we have been advocating. Is
my understanding correct?

MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.

MR. SUAREZ: What is bothering a number of
the Commissioners is that when we speak of compulsory education on the
elementary level, it might connote something like physical arrest and
put them there in school, notwithstanding the fact that the student
concerned may be needed to support the family, notwithstanding the fact
that there may be no schools available on the elementary level in most
countrysides. The Commissioner does not have those in mind, does he?

MR. NOLLEDO: No, because if the
Commissioner will notice in my remarks, I said that the penalties should
be reasonable enough.

MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner wants that
this constitutional mandate should be applied in a very humane way.

MR. NOLLEDO: I agree.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is
recognized.

MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, in line
with the earlier principle articulated that we should not write a
Constitution in a cultural and economic vacuum, let me just share with
the body some insights that I have derived in studying the economics of
education. In the Philippines, true to our Asian heritage, parents have
already an inner compulsion to send their children to school. We do not
have to compel parents. That is anthropologically and culturally
established that as part of the Asian region, parents have already an
inner compulsion to send their children to school. The only reason why
literacy has dropped in a very alarming way in the last few years is
economic: Either they are needed by their parents to help out in the
farm or their parents do not have the money, not necessarily for
tuition, but for transportation and all the other items that have been
enumerated. So I think it would be a wrong diagnosis to infer that
parents are not sending their children to school because of noneconomic
reasons. Since the word “compulsory” has already led us to a lot of
byzantine arguments, I would suggest that we do not use it if we do not
mean compulsory and already rely on the inner compulsion that Filipino
parents have to send their children to school if the State and other
agencies will provide the economic wherewithals.

Thank you very much.

MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President.

MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is
recognized.

MR. VILLACORTA: I yield to Commissioner
Bennagen.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is
recognized.

MR. BENNAGEN: I have been raising my hand
earlier.

I speak in support of the observation of
Commissioner Villegas. All empirical studies on Filipino values point to
education as one of the leading values that are upheld by Filipino
families because they look at education as a vehicle for social mobility
although this is not exactly supported by data. We are saying,
therefore, that outside of the legal compulsion, there is a
psychological compulsion amongst parents to send their children to
school limited only by the inadequacy of the State and sometimes the
family itself to meet this high value that is placed on education as a
vehicle for upward mobility.

MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, with
respect to the issue of compulsory education, we just would like to
mention that in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights of which the Philippines is a signatory, paragraphs 1
and 2 of Article XIII state:

The States Parties to the present
Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education.

The States Parties to the present
Covenant recognize that, with a view to achieving the full realization
of this right: (a) Primary education shall be compulsory and available
free to all.

Madam President, Article 26, Section 1
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone has the right to education.
Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental
stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory

We thought that we should just add
these citations for the record.

MR. TINGSON: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is
recognized.

MR. TINGSON: I remember my grandparents
telling me in the early 1900s that the policemen were rounding up the
children and compelling the parents to send them to school. But those
were in the early days and those were the times when the worth of
education was not well appreciated by us. But we are now living in a
different stage of educational level and we have a deeper appreciation
of the value of education. I do agree with the observation propounded by
Commissioner Villegas a while ago, that indeed this is now the feeling
preponderant in our society in which we do not need to be compelled. We
would like to have education. So I am also against the use of the word
“compulsory” here.

MR. REGALADO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.

MR. REGALADO: My point of information is
in connection with the observations of Commissioners Villegas and
Tingson. There is in the Revised Penal Code a felony known as
“indifference of parents” which penalizes the parents who fail to afford
the education of their children which their position or social status
permits. That provision has been there since January 1, 1932, when the
Revised Penal Code took effect. I am not aware that that provision has
ever been invoked nor has there ever been a prosecution thereunder, for
the simple reason that we do not have to compel the parents to send
their children to school. If they fail to do so, it is because of
circumstances beyond their control.

Thank you.

MR. GASCON: We would like to submit the
proposal of Commissioner Aquino to a vote. May we ask Commissioner
Aquino to restate her proposed amendment.

At this juncture, the
President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Adolfo S. Azcuna.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Aquino is recognized to restate her proposal.

MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, lines 1
and 2 o page 2, as amended, will now read: “WITHOUT LIMITING THE
NATURAL RIGHT OF PARENTS TO REAR THEIR CHILDREN, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IS
COMPULSORY FOR ALL CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE.”

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: I thought we agreed earlier
that the concept of the primacy of the parents’ right in the education
of children would be transposed to the Article on the Declaration of
Principles. Would this not be a redundancy if we are going to repeat it
here?

MS. AQUINO: We have not yet approved the
Article on the Declaration of Principles. My perception is that in terms
of balancing concepts, this is where the natural right of the parents
should be balanced against the State’s interest. This provision should
be properly articulated.

MR. MONSOD: If such provision would be
incorporated in the Article on the Declaration of Principles, would we
then go back and eliminate it here? Or is there no harm putting this
provision here as well?

MS. AQUINO: There is no harm or danger.

MR. MONSOD: There was a manifestation
made earlier by the committee that we go section by section according to
the committee’s draft. This is one instance where it might be good to
look at its totality and see that in the process of amending we already
start restructuring the entire article. The way we are going about it is
that we can really put the amendment of Commissioner Aquino in one
phrase if we adopt restructuring where we say “The State shall establish
and maintain . . .” We can put her amendment in one phrase rather than
put it in the context of an entire paragraph.

This is where we believe that we cannot
really amend without considering the sequence and the consolidation of
the sections.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): What
does the committee say?

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer,
the committee just wants to be clear about the proposal of Commissioner
Monsod. Is the Commissioner referring to his proposed amendment as well
as those of Commissioners Davide and Maambong?

MR. MONSOD: Yes.

MR. VILLACORTA: The committee in its last
caucus — the Commissioner was present there — decided that we go
section by section based on the draft that is now in the possession of
all the Commissioners because otherwise it will be confusing if we go by
the proposed restructuring.

MR. MONSOD: Yes, but my point is that I
do not entirely agree that if we go paragraph by paragraph we can go
back and then decide the sequencing later. It will not make sense when
we sequence them later since the structure and even the wordings would
be different.

As I understand it, one of our resource
persons, Deputy Minister Ordoñez, has also suggested certain
consolidations which would put the article in a very organized fashion. I
really cannot understand why we have to go section by section according
to the original if there are ways by which we can consolidate, cut down
and put ideas in their proper context.

MR. VILLACORTA: The systems and
procedures that we are following now are consistent with the systems and
procedures that were followed by the other committees that presented
their reports. I do not see any reason we should deviate from this
procedure that we have agreed upon.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
session is suspended for a few minutes to thresh this matter out.

It was 11:53 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
session is resumed.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move
that we suspend the session until two-thirty this afternoon.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is
suspended up to two-thirty this afternoon.

It was 12:03 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 2:58 p.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
session is resumed.

MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner
Aquino be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Aquino is recognized.

MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
discussions this morning have been exhaustive on the proposal so I
suggest that we submit it to a vote. The amendment would now read:
“WITHOUT LIMITING THE NATURAL RIGHT OF PARENTS TO REAR THEIR CHILDREN,
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IS COMPULSORY FOR ALL CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE.” This
would belong to lines 1 and 2, second paragraph of Section 1 (b) on
page 2.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): We
will now vote on the proposed amendment.

MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Gascon is recognized.

MR. GASCON: Can we ask Commissioner
Aquino to repeat her amendment for clarity since we will be voting on
it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Commissioner will please read the proposed amendment again.

MS. AQUINO: “WITHOUT LIMITING THE NATURAL
RIGHT OF PARENTS TO REAR THEIR CHILDREN, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IS
COMPULSORY FOR ALL CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE.”

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): We
will now proceed to vote on the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Aquino.

As many as are in favor of the proposed
amendment as read, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)

As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)

The results show 15 votes in favor, 13
against and 1 abstention; the amendment is approved.

The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask
that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: My amendment is on page 1,
line 16. I propose to insert “ENDEAVOR TO” between the words “shall” and
“establish.” So, that paragraph will read: “The State shall ENDEAVOR TO
establish and maintain a system of free public education at the
elementary and the secondary levels . . .”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): What
does the committee say?

MR. VILLACORTA: We are still conferring,
Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. GASCON: What does the Commissioner
mean by the words “ENDEAVOR TO”?

MR. RODRIGO: This is not the first time
this phrase is used. In previous articles, when we know that the
government is not financially capable of accomplishing what it promises
to do, we decided that, instead of the word “shall” which connotes a
definite commitment, we use the words “endeavor to.” May I explain a
little further. One of the criticisms against the so-called
“politicians” is that they make promises which they cannot fulfill. Now,
this is a Constitution we are framing and this is the basic fundamental
law of the land. This is a very serious matter and we should not
promise anything here which we cannot comply with. But as it is, we are
making a categorical statement. Unless we change the word “shall” to
“ENDEAVOR TO,” this Constitution will make a categorical commitment on
the part of the government to establish and maintain free elementary and
high school education. Even our elementary education now, Mr. Presiding
Officer, is not really free. It is free of tuition, yes, but then there
is a lack of buildings; and, not only that, textbooks are not free.
Much less is high school education. High schools are not even free of
tuition and there will be an absolute lack of buildings if tuition were
to be made free.

MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): What
is the pleasure of Commissioner Ople?

MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Rodrigo yield
to a question or two?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Commissioner may yield, if he so desires.

MR. RODRIGO: Certainly.

MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.

The way the amendment of the Commissioner
is formulated now, since elementary education is guaranteed to be free,
when he places his amendment under the limiting term “ENDEAVOR TO,”
will this not represent a reduction of benefits already being enjoyed by
the families of the poor who send their children to free elementary
schools because the context in which this will now be placed will
actually release the State from the guarantees of the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions for free primary and elementary education, respectively?

MR. RODRIGO: I am willing to accept an
amendment to my amendment to make a categorical statement, like in the
1973 Constitution which says that elementary education shall be free.
But then the 1973 Constitution itself says that in areas where finances
permit, high school education shall be free. However, I would like to
state also that we consulted Dr. Juanita Guerrero of the Bureau of
Elementary Education only a few days ago. She said that public
elementary education now, which according to the 1973 Constitution shall
be free, is not really free. She said that what is free is the tuition
or matriculation fee, but the books and other school supplies are not
free.

As I said, I am willing to admit an
amendment to my amendment.

MR. OPLE: Thank you, Commissioner
Rodrigo; I also thank the Presiding Officer.

I want to complete this interpellation
with just another question.

To what does the Commissioner attribute
his doubt concerning the feasibility at this time of free public
education at the elementary and the secondary levels? Is this a question
of his perception of very scarce resources?

MR. RODRIGO: It is known to everybody
that our government is in one of its worst financial crises at present
and for us to give a categorical promise now would just disappoint our
people.

MR. OPLE: I just happen to recall very
recently that P28 billion was ordered released by the President of the
Philippines as new equity infusion for several government financial
institutions, mainly the Philippine National Bank and the Development
Bank of the Philippines. If my recollection of the committee’s figure is
correct, the amount of P28 billion of fresh equity intended to prevent
the two major banks from collapsing would be thrice the amount estimated
to be required to fund free secondary education. I think the government
equity to such failing government corporations will be far in excess of
P28 billion.

The point of these inquiries to determine
Commissioner Rodrigo’s doubts based on his perception of very scarce
financial resources for the government might actually be due to skewed
resource allocations rather than to sheer unavailability of funds to
sustain free elementary and public education. In this connection, may I
also recall the magnificent survey of South Asia in the book entitled
Asian Drama by Gunnar Myrdal, in which countries like Sri Lanka and
Malaysia were ranked far above the Philippines in terms of social
well-being, although in Sri Lanka the per capita income is less than
one-half the per capita income of the Philippines. The fundamental
conclusion out of this three-volume work of Gunnar Myrdal is that we
should allocate our scarce resources to favor the general well-being and
the quality of the population, as shown in Sri Lanka, a poor country,
but both elementary and secondary public education are given free by the
government. Then, in spite of a low gross national product, the sum of
the net economic welfare is higher. And so, I was wondering whether if
the skewed resource allocation policies of the government could be
corrected with less equity for failing banks and more funding for
education to afford free public schools, in addition to the elementary
level. Perhaps this can be rejuvenating for the country, both socially
and economically.

MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Rodrigo
comment on that?

MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Regalado is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: The Commissioner was asking
me a question. May I be given a chance to answer?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Chair stands corrected, and I would like to ask the indulgence of
Commissioner Regalado that he be recognized after Commissioner Ople’s
question is answered.

MR. REGALADO: I will wait, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I
want to make my position clear. I do not say that I am against free high
school education. I wish we could provide free high school education.
As a matter of fact, we should try our best to have free high school
education. What I am against is making a categorical promise to give
free high school education at this stage, considering the dire finances
of the country. We inherited this financial situation from the past
administration.

Regarding banks, we are faced with a
situation where we either save the banks or they will sink. With the
sinking of these banks, many will sink with them. This is a problem that
already faces us. I am not saying that the money should be given to
those banks to save them from sinking and collapsing. Maybe that money
should have been used for education If that money is sufficient, then
let us give free high school education. But are we sure we really can
afford it? I doubt it. That is why I say, let us not make a firm
promise. Let us just say the State will “endeavor,” will try its best.

MR. OPLE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer; that is all I want to say.

MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Regalado is recognized.

MR. REGALADO: Commissioner Rodrigo
mentioned, among other things, the question of finances. In connection
with his observation on finances and for the information of the
committee and also of the Commission, I have here a copy of a letter
from the executive director of the National Census and Statistics Office
showing that we also have to consider, incidentally, the matter of the
school population, not only the finances.

In school year 1972 to 1973, there were
6,667,644 students in the elementary level in government schools. Based
on the 78 percent completed survey, there were 8,210,570 students
enrolled in government elementary schools in the school year 1983 to
1984. In the secondary level, for school year 1972 to 1973, enrolled in
government high schools were only 863,326; but for school year 1984 to
1985, there were 1,957,444 students and again this is only based on 78
percent completed survey. It would be safe to say that for school year
1984 to 1985, there must have been almost 2,500,000 students enrolled in
government public high schools and, in the elementary level, there must
have been about 9,000,000. Since this is only 78 percent complete, in
the elementary level, there were 8,269,825 students enrolled last school
year. So, that shows the ever increasing number of the school
population both in the elementary level and the secondary level.

And if we throw it back a little further
and start with school year 1954-1955 — since we are projecting this not
only for today or for tomorrow — 30 years ago the enrollment in the
elementary government schools was only 3,305,103 as compared with last
year’s enrollment of 8,269,825. In the secondary level in government
schools, there were only 187,373 high school students 30 years ago. Yet
last school year there were 1,957,444. As I have said, safely, there
would be 2,500,000 students in high school because this report of last
year is only 78 percent complete. So, we not only have to balance our
finances but we have to consider the ever increasing population. And the
question is, if we commit ourselves firmly to granting not only free
elementary education but also secondary education, are we really in a
position to comply with our commitment? Are we not engaging in
self-delusion or in deluding the public into believing that the
government really can give them this free secondary education? I do not
think there is any Commissioner here who is against giving free
secondary education. But as between the desirable and the attainable, as
between what is affordable and what is an obsession, perhaps, on our
part we have to strike a happy balance. As we have often heard it said
here, we might be raising false hopes; we might be inviting great
expectations. That is why I agree with Commissioner Rodrigo to
reformulate this in a more modest and a more intellectually honest
presentation as it was in the 1973 Constitution, insofar at least as the
elementary education is concerned. It is not really very expensive. As
far as the expense per capita for the elementary is concerned, perhaps,
we can promise free education. But for the secondary level, where the
cost is a little more expensive not only in the matter of supplies but
also of textbooks, let us go to that 1973 formulation that in areas
where our finances permit, then the government shall endeavor to give
free secondary education. But in the matter of the elementary level, I
think it will be affordable.

We know, of course, that in the
elementary grades, the cost of education is not really very high. I
suppose this time we can make a firm commitment. I understand that the
statistics from the MECS as well as the National Census and Statistics
Office show that dropouts usually start at about the fourth grade. At
least, they shall have the benefit of compulsory and free elementary
education. But in the high school level, let us be a little more
reasonably enlightened on what we will expect within the next 10 or 20
years.

Thank you.

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. VILLACORTA: May the committee react
to that?

MR. SARMIENTO: Before the committee
reacts, may I briefly speak in favor of Section 1 (a)?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Honorable Sarmiento is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO: To me, this section, as
drafted by the committee, will not create a revolution of rising
expectations nor will it foster a spirit of self-delusion.

If we adopt the Rodrigo amendment, we
will emasculate Section 1 (b). The spirit and intent of this section
which, to me, is wise will be weakened. It is a question of reordering
our priorities.

My humble submission is that we have no
scarce resources; it is a question of prioritizing our resources. A
study was conducted that for every peso given to education, several more
pesos are given to the military. And even former Minister of Education
Laya himself, in a statement he made in 1985, admitted that we have this
problem not because of scarce resources but because of governmental
priorities, which shows that if we reorder our priorities and give more
emphasis to education and not to the military budget or to other
concerns of the government, the government can definitely handle the
situation. And if we will not require the State to adopt this policy, we
will be aggravating our educational situation. For instance, the
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports said that of the 100
schoolchildren who started in Grade I, 70 finished Grade IV or primary
education. Of the 70, only 62 proceeded to Grade V and only 56 finished
Grade VI. In turn, of the 56 grade school graduates, only 43 managed to
start with first year high school and barely 33 of them reached fourth
year and finished secondary school. Of the 33 high school graduates,
only 30 actually started with first year in college. Those who reached
second year college are further reduced to 21; and finally, only a
measly 11 of them managed to graduate from college.

So, I humbly submit, Mr. Presiding
Officer, that if we adopt this amendment, we compound our educational
crisis.

MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Honorable Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: Heeding the suggestion of
Commissioner Ople, I would like to amend my proposed amendment and
restate the provision of the 1973 Constitution: “THE STATE SHALL
MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AND, IN AREAS
WHERE FINANCES PERMIT, ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC
EDUCATION AT LEAST UP TO THE SECONDARY LEVEL.”

That is the provision in the 1973
Constitution and that remedies the first objection of Commissioner Ople
that I might be retreating from the 1973 provision, which makes
elementary education free. I would like to state that when I was in the
Senate, from 1955 to 1967, education always had the biggest part of the
budget pie. But even then, under the 1935 Constitution, the government
could afford to give free education only up to the primary grades. In
the 1973 Constitution, when finances were better, the government could
only afford to give free education up to the elementary level and only
free tuition at that. Free tuition is not synonymous with free education
because free education means even the textbooks can be loaned for free.

Mr. Presiding Officer, it is true that we
can save from some of the misspendings. But the priority, I think, is
also on education. Before spending the money, whatever money we can get
for free high school education, we should first increase the salaries of
our teachers from the primary up to the high school level because our
teachers are very, very poorly paid. Even the facilities of schools
should be improved. I think that is also a priority.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Honorable Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Would the distinguished
proponent yield to some questions on the proposed amendment?

MR. RODRIGO: Gladly.

MR. DAVIDE: If we approve the modified
proposal, does it mean, therefore, that the government can choose the
areas where there will be a free public high school?

MR. RODRIGO: Where finances permit.

MR. DAVIDE: How would the proponent
determine the availability of finances for a particular or specific
area?

MR. RODRIGO: The financing for high
school now is shared by the national government with the city,
provincial or municipal government and even the barangay. So, there are
places where the local governments can help in giving free high school
education. I think that was an issue in the City of Manila recently. It
used to be free under Mayor Lacson. Under Mayor Villegas, tuition fees
were restored and I do not know if at present they were able to restore
in the City of Manila free high school education.

MR. DAVIDE: In other words, the local
governmental units may, by themselves, provide for a free high school
education?

MR. RODRIGO: Yes.

MR. DAVIDE: But is it the Commissioner’s
position that the national government may assist these local
governmental units if in that particular area the national government
can have available financial assistance or sources?

MR. RODRIGO: Yes.

MR. DAVIDE: Would this not amount to
undue discrimination and class legislation because the national
government will now assist those high schools which are maintained by
the local governments, but it may not at all open any high school in
other areas where the local governments cannot provide a free high
school? So, in areas where the local government does not attend to the
needs of the education of the youth, necessarily the national government
may not open a high school. Where lies now the right of every citizen
to free education or to quality education?

MR. RODRIGO: I am not acquainted with all
the details in financing the public high schools; however, let me read
what Dr. Antonio Dumlao of the Bureau of Secondary Education has to say:

Tuition and matriculation fees are paid
by all public high school students. Subsidy comes from the national
government and the local government through the barangay, the
municipality, cities and provinces.

There is the possibility that this might
lead to discrimination but that is up to the implementing powers. I
think they can devise a means to avoid discrimination.

MR. DAVIDE: I understand that the
practice now is that barangay high schools receive national aid to the
extent of about 70 percent of the salaries for teachers and these are
graduated depending on the class of the municipality. There is national
assistance to high schools maintained by the city government. But if we
follow the Gentleman’s argument, it would necessarily mean that the
national government can only give assistance to high schools, if these
high schools are opened by the local governmental units. And so, in
areas where there are no high schools maintained or operated or
supported by the local governmental units, it would not be mandatory
upon the national government to open any high school, and, therefore,
deprive the youths in that particular area of high school education
simply because the local government has not provided for a high school
there.

MR. RODRIGO: I do not know how it is
implemented. As I said, however, this is a provision in the 1973
Constitution which has been enforced since 1973 up to recently — for 13
years already — and I have not heard of any complaint about
discrimination. Has the Commissioner heard of any?

MR. DAVIDE: Frankly, I have not heard of
any discrimination because there were no complaints so far, especially
in the rural areas. They have no opportunity to make the complaint. It
is a question of life and death in the rural areas; they cannot really
ask for something more. But my point is, it is not really expensive to
maintain high schools even if we provide free public high schools and
even if we maintain the number of high schools all over the country and
make them free now, meaning to say, we do not collect matriculation and
tuition fees from the students. I believe it is just a question of
prioritizing. Commissioner Sarmiento was correct. If we only reduce the
budget for defense even to the extent only of about 5 percent and if we
now proceed with the merger and liquidation of government corporations,
we will have a lot of savings and this could be used to fund the high
schools. Probably, if we even abolish the Senate, we can have additional
savings for high school education.

So, the point is, I really do not see why
the government cannot maintain a free high school education. Even if we
only maintain one high school in every municipality, I think the people
will be satisfied with that. There are now means of transportation from
the rural areas, from the farms to the poblacion, and it is easy for
the national government to maintain free high schools — at least one in
every municipality.

MR. RODRIGO: Yes, I am in favor of that
but the only issue is whether we should mandate it in the Constitution.
Should we make a definite commitment to that effect in the Constitution?
Let us remember that with this amendment of mine, then it will be up to
Congress. Let us not forget that Congress will be composed of Senators —
let us not please abolish the Senate; we already approved it — elected
nationwide and by Congressmen who are elected by the people in their
respective districts. And I think they will be very much interested in
education as we are, even more than we are. We are appointive officials.
And so, let us leave it to them and they are the ones who will know
just what the finances are. They will be in a better position than we to
know. Can we afford this? So, we have the same purpose. All I am saying
is, why make a definite commitment on something which, in all
probability, we will not be able to comply with.

MR. GASCON: Before the committee presents
its position, I would like to make a reaction to the amendment to the
Gentleman’s own amendment. If the phrase “WHERE FINANCES PERMIT” were to
be retained, those who have the responsibility of disbursing funds for
educational institutions would always have a constitutional excuse. It
is this avoidance of public duty as protected by the Constitution that
we disagree with. So, we cannot accept the amendment.

MR. RODRIGO: Suppose we change “WHERE
FINANCES PERMIT” to “THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AND SHALL ENDEAVOR TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A
SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION AT LEAST UP TO THE SECONDARY LEVEL.”

BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Honorable Bacani is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: I would like to ask the
committee because if its objection is to the phrase “WHERE FINANCES
PERMIT,” then let us change that to “AND SHALL ENDEAVOR” or “SHALL
STRIVE ITS UTMOST TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC
EDUCATION.” It is just that when we promise something, let us be sure
that we can comply with it. I think that with this amendment, then we
leave it to Congress, and Congress will be in a better position.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): What
is the pleasure of the Honorable Bacani first?

BISHOP BACANI: I was going to suggest an
amendment to the amendment which may skirt the issue and at the same
time be satisfying to all. May I suggest this amendment that was
presented by Commissioner Nieva and myself?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Please proceed.

BISHOP BACANI: “THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN A
SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.” I think we are all agreed
on that. “AND SHALL PROVIDE MEASURES THAT WILL MAKE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL
EDUCATION AT THE ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL LEVELS AND AT THE TERTIARY
LEVEL FOR THOSE QUALIFIED.” May I explain just briefly why I suggest
this particular formulation?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Please proceed.

BISHOP BACANI: Here we say that “WE SHALL
PROVIDE MEASURES THAT WILL MAKE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL” not only education
at the elementary level but also at the high school level. At the same
time, we do not specify necessarily that this will have to come in the
form of free public high schools. I am sorry to say that, by and large,
the record of public high schools, that is, the barangay high schools,
that we had in the past has not been a very happy one. I think the
standard of education in those barangay high schools leaves much to be
desired.

What this amendment tries to point out is
the giving to parents their right to choose; and hence, the State can
choose other means to render available educational service at the
elementary and high school levels and not simply by establishing and
maintaining public elementary and high schools. It was pointed out that
the service contracts before have been less costly to the government and
apparently serves the purpose better.

MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Honorable Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: I accept the amendment to my
amendment, except the repetition of the word “elementary.”

BISHOP BACANI: Yes, the reason there is
the repetition of the word “elementary” is this.

MR. RODRIGO: Will Commissioner Bacani
please repeat it?

BISHOP BACANI: Yes. It says: “THE STATE
SHALL MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AND SHALL
PROVIDE MEASURES THAT WILL MAKE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL EDUCATION AT THE
ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL LEVELS.”

MR. RODRIGO: Why is that there again?

BISHOP BACANI: The reason for this is
that the State may also adopt measures, perhaps not immediately but in
the future, by which pupils will be helped to do elementary schooling
not necessarily again by making them enter public elementary high
schools but by another way.

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer,
may the committee react to all these amendments?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Just a
moment. The Chair would like to clarify the situation now. The
proponent, the Honorable Rodrigo, has accepted only a portion of the
amendment to the amendment, so that there is no repetition of the word
“elementary.” Is that correct?

MR. RODRIGO: Yes. Can we not eliminate
that word in the last part of the sentence?

BISHOP BACANI: Yes. The reason for the
second word “elementary” is this: The State may provide for another way
of making education available to elementary school pupils.

MR. RODRIGO: Maybe private high schools,
is that it?

BISHOP BACANI: Maybe private elementary
schools.

MR. RODRIGO: Then I accept the amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
amendment to the amendment is accepted.

May we know the reaction of the
committee?

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer,
the two amendments are based on two assumptions: first, that the
burgeoning student population will make it impossible to meet the
demands for free public secondary education; and second, the government
does not have the funds and the resources to finance free public
secondary education. Are we right, Mr. Presiding Officer?

BISHOP BACANI: No, Mr. Presiding Officer,
if I may reply.

Those are not my assumptions. The very
first assumption is that the parents should be helped and enabled to put
into effect a choice not only for education but where the education
will be received because it has been pointed out, and nobody doubted it,
that it is the parents who have a primary right to the education of the
children. If they have the primary right, they have the primary right
to choose. And if the State can help them to choose, then they should be
helped in that choice.

MR. VILLACORTA: Then Commissioner
Bacani’s amendment is addressed to another issue. But let me just first
elaborate on these two assumptions, which I think are the bases of the
fears of many, with respect to our proposal for free public education.

First, on the matter of whether the
burgeoning student population will make it difficult for the government
to meet the demands for free public secondary education, I think that
Commissioners Regalado and Sarmiento had pointed out the dropout rate at
the elementary level. In other words, it is clear that there are not
that many who would be able to avail even of free high school education
assuming that it is assured by this Constitution because if it is true
that they dropped out of Grade IV, then that means that a lot of our
children cannot even avail of the free public elementary education which
is presently guaranteed. So I think the student population problem is
real in that sense.

Secondly, we agree with Commissioners
Davide and Sarmiento that it is a question of priority. The Honorable
Rodrigo mentioned the fact that up to 1967, Congress had given priority
to education, but the ACUP Report of 1983 noted that while in the 1950’s
and the 1960’s education received an increase in share of total
government expenditure, in the 1970’s up to 1980, the average share of
the education sector decreased to 2.35 percent of the GNP and to only
17.47 percent of the total government expenditure, or an almost
50-percent slash in an 11-year period. About 85 percent to 90 percent of
the current operating expenditures are spent on salaries of teachers
and other school personnel with only 10 percent to 15 percent earmarked
for other resources such as textbooks, learning aids, instructional
materials, teachers’ upgrading and others.

Commissioner Rodrigo was asking about the
facts concerning the financing of secondary education if it would be
made free. According to the study done for us by Dr. Arcelo, if we
assume that the secondary level enrollment will increase from the
present 3.3 million to 9.4 million, with 57.4 percent share of the
public secondary schools, enrollment in the public sector will reach 5.7
million. The incremental enrollment will be 3.8 million, which is 5.7
million less than the present enrollment in the public sector of 1.9
million. And he said that the total cost of secondary education will be
P6.9 billion broken down as follows: operating cost — P4.576 billion;
capital outlay cost — P2.376 billion. The amount of P6.952 billion
represents only a 6-percent increase over the present budget of P11
million. So, it is only a 6-percent increase. It is not that scary with
respect to the additional appropriation that the national government
will have to give to guarantee free public secondary education.

We would also like to point out that in
addition to Sri Lanka, there are many poor countries, even poorer than
we, that guarantee free education at all levels, namely: Paraguay,
Uruguay, Venezuela, Haiti, Panama and Thailand. And this free public
education at all levels is guaranteed in their constitutions.

We were also told by Deputy Minister
Victor Ordoñez, who was with us in our caucus yesterday, that he was
informed by Minister Lourdes Quisumbing that she was misquoted in a
Philippine Tribune news report that was read to us by the Honorable
Padilla that she was really all out for free public secondary
education. However, she says there must be a provision for a transition
period to allow this to happen. In other words, it should not be
implementable within the next school year or two school years from now.
And for that purpose, the committee decided yesterday to propose to the
Committee on Transitory Provisions to provide for this allowance. With
the help of our fellow Commissioners, we can come up with the
appropriate resolution that will embody this wish. We in the committee
would like to stress that the reason we would like the government to
give priority to public education, both elementary and secondary, and to
guarantee such education for free, is that we would like to enhance the
quality of literacy. It is not enough for our people to be literate. We
also have to invest on human capital as well which is the most valuable
capital of any nation. With this valuable investment on human capital,
we would be increasing our chances for both human and social
development.

I think Commissioners Guingona and Gascon
would like to add something.

MR. GASCON: I would like to ask Bishop
Bacani a question. From my point of view, I think what Bishop Bacani is
saying in his proposal is another issue which we can tackle. Aside from
providing for a system of free public elementary education, when it
comes to secondary education and even perhaps elementary education,
instead of creating public high schools, the State could subsidize
students to enter private high schools. Is that correct? So that their
choice is not limited to entering public high schools only where they
can have free public education but they can also have free private
education because the students will be subsidized as they enter private
schools. Is that correct?

BISHOP BACANI: Yes, that is one of the
main features of the amendment. The first one is precisely to answer
such a concern of Commissioner Villacorta that Minister Quisumbing said
it may not be implemented this year or next year, and that is why we
say: “AND SHALL PROVIDE MEASURES THAT WILL MAKE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.” In
other words, it is not being told right away — “it shall maintain free
elementary and public high school” — but it shall provide measures to
move towards that.

MR. GASCON: However, Deputy Minister
Ordoñez told us that Minister Quisumbing herself feels that a statement
calling for the establishment and maintenance of free public secondary
schools would be very helpful towards that long-term goal of the
ministry. Even she herself believes that we can. The issue that is being
presented actually is another issue which we have to discuss separately
from the issue of providing for a system of free public secondary
education as well because that is supplemental. So, my perspective is
that perhaps we could separate the two issues to make this provision
clearer.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
may I ask a clarificatory question? I quite agree that this is a
separate issue and that perhaps one implication of the proposal is that
the State may provide subsidy to parents who then can select schools of
their own choice.

BISHOP BACANI: Yes. I am not in agreement
completely with the committee’s wording that is why actually my
amendment to Commissioner Rodrigo’s amendment is an amendment to the
committee’s wordings.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: We would like to
encourage Commissioner Bacani to come up with a separate proposal on
this issue. Perhaps another implication of the proposal is that,
therefore, we encourage more service contracts since they are really
less expensive to the State.

I have here, for instance, figures which
indicate that the per student cost in the private school is P276 per
year as against P593.17 in public schools. So, it is actually cheaper
for the State to enter into service contracts with private schools.

BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer,
precisely it is here that an opening is being made for that.

MR. GASCON: Yes.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: But it is a different
issue.

MR. GASCON: This is a different issue
because, first, the assumption is that there are enough private schools
for the parents to be given their choices whereby the State will support
them in providing their children the opportunity of entering private
schools. But, in reality, over and above the State’s probability of
supporting parents to send their children to private schools by a direct
subsidy, there is still the need for the creation or establishment of
public high schools in places where there are no public high schools or
even private high schools because that choice is broader. We are
actually saying that over and above providing public high school, it
should also support students to enter private high school. We have no
disagreement with that, but the problem is the assumption that the
Commissioner is making — that there are enough private high schools
where all the students can go. But in reality, in the rural areas, there
are not even enough public high schools and we are saying now that we
should subsidize them to go into private high schools as well when there
is none. So, over and beyond that issue, there is the issue of
providing secondary education to all in the rural areas, for example.
That is what we mean. We feel that the issue that was presented should
be discussed; and, in fact, I am amenable to it because it is something
even broader. But it clouds the basic issue of secondary public
education.

MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer,
additionally, I notice that some of our honorable colleagues are
cost-oriented or cost-conscious, which is certainly a good thing, and
what our distinguished chairman has pointed out, the increase, as
contained in this study by FAPE and provided us by Dr. Arcelo, would
only be 6 percent of the present low budget of P11 billion. And may I
point out that in the giving of the figures by our distinguished
chairman, he has considered capital outlay as an expense but
Commissioner Rosario Braid has talked about private service contracting
which will reduce drastically the capital outlay expense, which
according to this report is about P2.4 billion; which means that we can
still subtract this amount of P2.4 billion from the P6-billion increase
which will even reduce the increase from the present P11-billion budget
to only 3.6 percent.

With regard to the remark of Commissioner
Rodrigo, I believe that his reference to the concern of Congress for
education is rather speculative because there are other areas of concern
for the legislators; and if the legislators were given a choice between
providing for education, on the one hand, and providing for their pork
barrels, on the other hand, I wonder which they will choose.

SR. TAN: Mr. Presiding Officer, point of
order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Honorable Christine Tan is recognized.

SR. TAN: We were on the amendments on
compulsory education, then we went to private education, the pork barrel
and funding private education. I do not know where we are.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Chair would like to clarify the situation. The amendment of the
Honorable Rodrigo, as amended by the Honorable Bacani, is to reword
Section 1 (b) to read as follows: “THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF
FREE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AND SHALL PROVIDE MEASURES THAT WILL
MAKE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL EDUCATION AT THE ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL
LEVELS . . .”

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Honorable Nolledo is recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: Only for one minute. I would
like to speak against the amendment and for the retention of the
recommended provision by the committee, subject to a provision in the
Transitory Provisions that the implementation of free high school
education will be delayed for some time.

Mr. Presiding Officer, I think the main
objection is that we do not have the money to finance free education in
high school and that objection, I think, is premised on the wrong
assumption that we will never attain economic recovery. I would like the
Members of the Commission to know that the uniform result of our
consultations in all places of the Philippines is that the people are
demanding free elementary and high school education; there is no dissent
to that.

And we have already stated in an approved
provision that education is a right. To provide free secondary
education will strengthen this provision. We also stated that it is the
duty of the State to provide education. To provide free high school
education will be to render meaningful this provision. And I do not need
to say that education is the foundation of a strong nation. An educated
citizenry makes an enlightened nation.

If there is a will, there is a way. If we
put the recommended provision of the committee in the Constitution,
there is something to hope for on the part of the citizenry, and an
obligation to aspire for on the part of the State.

So my conclusion is that the economic
constraints that we are talking about are merely temporary.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer,
may we ask for a suspension of the session for two minutes so we can
resolve this problem.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
session is suspended for a few minutes.

It was 3:57 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:11 p.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
session is resumed.

The Honorable Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: The parliamentary situation
is I have accepted the amendment to the amendment presented by
Commissioner Bacani. So, may I request that Commissioner Bacani.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

So as to make the issues very clear, the
committee, at the request of Commissioner Rodrigo, has acceded that I
withdraw my amendment to the amendment so that the amendment of
Commissioner Rodrigo will be voted upon, and then I can just propose my
amendment later.

MR. RODRIGO: So, may I reformulate my
amendment?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Gentleman may proceed.

MR. RODRIGO: The amendment will read:
“THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
AND SHALL TAKE MEASURES TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FREE
PUBLIC EDUCATION AT LEAST UP TO THE SECONDARY LEVEL.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): What
is the reaction of the committee?

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
regret that we cannot accept the proposal because the committee is
planning to submit to the Committee on Transitory Provisions a proposed
section that will allow Congress to determine the period of time during
which the government would be able to implement the giving of free
public secondary education. In other words, that step of ours will
really respond to the worry of Commissioner Rodrigo about the present
inability of the government to finance free public secondary education.

MR. RODRIGO: But, Mr. Presiding Officer,
that idea that Congress will determine when this will be implemented is
contained in my amendment — “SHALL TAKE MEASURES.” Those measures mean
legislation by Congress. And so, I ask that we vote on my amendment to
expedite matters.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
body will now vote, but before we vote, we will ask Commissioner Rodrigo
to restate his amendment.

MR. RODRIGO: The amendment will read:
“THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
AND SHALL TAKE MEASURES TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FREE
PUBLIC EDUCATION AT LEAST UP TO THE SECONDARY LEVEL.”

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Just a
moment, Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Before we vote. I heard
that to get a free elementary and high school education, we have to
prioritize our budgeting to meet the objections of Honorable Rodrigo. Is
that correct?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes.

MR. DE CASTRO: If we are to prioritize
our budgeting, we have to get from some items like public works.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): May I
know to whom the question is addressed? Is it to the committee?

MR. DE CASTRO: I am talking about the
question of prioritizing our budget.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Please proceed.

MR. DE CASTRO: I will show the body that
it would be impossible at this time. I heard Commissioner Sarmiento say
that if we reduce the budget of the AFP, perhaps we can give free high
school and elementary education. As of now — correct me if I am wrong —
the budget of the AFP is 8.7 percent of our budget and that of education
is 12 percent. Am I correct?

I will say that unless there is peace and
order in this country, we cannot have free elementary and high school
education. At present, the strength of the NPA is about 20,000. To
appropriately meet this force, according to our studies, the ratio
should be 1:15 up to 1:20. If we will have a ratio of 1:20, to stop
insurgency once and for all, we will need 400,000 regular armed forces.
As of now, we only have 200,000 — 80,000 PCs, 70,000 police maintaining
peace and order, plus 70,000 CHDFs which we will demilitarize when we
reach the Article on General Provisions. The ration of each soldier is
only P12 a day. That is why when a soldier reaches the barrio, he gets
chickens, pigs, goats and so on. This is a violation of human rights. I
am not protecting them. I am condemning these acts and I have told
General Ramos about these. But he said we need P16 to appropriately feed
our soldier, but the most we can give is P12. According to Commissioner
Sarmiento, we still have to reduce that and give it to education as a
matter of prioritizing. One will find out that in a few months the
communists will be ruling us because we shall not be able to stop them,
and perhaps our talk about free education cannot be realized anymore.
Please take note that our President is getting out of her way to meet
Nur Misuari in the South, a very dangerous place indeed, just so she can
pacify the MNLF, not the 20,000 insurgents yet.

So, Mr. Presiding Officer, if we are
talking of prioritizing the support on education, I hope we will also
prioritize the requirements to beat once and for all the insurgency
problem and establish peace and order in our country. Once this problem
is solved, we can have agrarian reform, social justice and all the
education we want. But, above all, to my humble thinking, peace and
order must first be resolved.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Are
we now ready to vote?

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
chairman of the committee is recognized.

MR. VILLACORTA: We just would like to
point out that the prioritization that we are talking about is not only
at the expense of the AFP budget. We are not singling out the AFP.
Moreover, on the question of peace and order, there is much that free
public secondary education can contribute to better peace and order
because peace and order cannot only be attained through pacification but
through other means. Besides, the other measures that are being
proposed by this Constitution — agrarian reform, industrialization and
other economic measures, as well as sociopolitical measures — will
eventually bring our country to economic recovery and political
stability. We are anticipating these better days for our country.

MR. DE CASTRO: I made mention of this,
Mr. Presiding Officer, because I heard Commissioner Sarmiento say — I
hope I heard him correctly — that if we can reduce the budget for the
AFP, perhaps we can meet at least five percent of the requirement. And I
still heard some members of the committee talk about the budget of the
AFP. I am not for increasing the budget of the AFP; I am for seeing to
it that there is peace and order in our country. So, I made mention of
these statistics that I have in my mind. I really have a write-up on
this, but I cannot help but answer some comments about reducing the
budget of the AFP in order to prioritize the educational requirement.

Thank you.

MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Honorable Padilla is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: Before the last suspension
of the session, I was about to make two inquiries of the committee. I
heard from Commissioners Rosario Braid and Guingona about service
contracts. Are these also contemplated in the area of education? I
thought service contracts could be entered into with regard to our
natural resources and public utilities. Is it contemplated that there be
also service contracts, meaning, some foreigners with probably Filipino
capital entering into the field of education?

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
are separating the issue of service contracts which was included in
Commissioner Bacani’s proposal. By the way, these service contracts are
with respect to educational service contracting, not with foreigners but
more with private schools.

MR. PADILLA: Because I was confused by
the words “service contracts.”

I have another inquiry for the
distinguished chairman. He mentioned many poor countries including
Haiti, Sri Lanka and some South American countries — and I hope I did
not hear Bangladesh — to the effect that their constitutions provide for
free secondary education. Is this a mere formal expression in the
constitution or is that actually implemented in those countries?

MR. VILLACORTA: We consulted their
constitutions, Mr. Presiding Officer; we have not really dealt with the
actual experiences of these countries because these data are not
available.

MR. PADILLA: These countries might have
made a nice expression of free education, including secondary education.
But I doubt very much if there is such an established fact of free
elementary education in Haiti, for example, or in Bangladesh. These are
very poor countries and we should not compare ourselves with them. We
just have to face the realities of our situation. We have a growing
population. That means more children will have to be accommodated not
only in the elementary but perhaps in the high schools. We really have a
problem on peace and order; we have the problem of economic
reconstruction. And when the distinguished chairman said that the
Rodrigo amendment is based on two assumptions, I am afraid that many
answers of the committee are based on mere assumptions.

MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): What
is the pleasure of the Honorable Regalado?

MR. REGALADO: There were a few things
during the suspension of the session that I wanted to clarify but,
incidentally, on that matter of service contracts which is generally
confused with what we give to these foreigners who come here to try to
drill for oil, in the MECS, where there is this practice, students from
public schools are brought to private schools and they pay for their
tuition there. They do not call it service contracts; they call it
contract servicing, meaning, a contracted rendition of educational
services to distinguish it from service contracts. That was the original
term. They eventually decided to make a distinction.

During the suspension, there were
statements by members of the committee that we can make a firm
commitment to grant free secondary education if we slash a portion from
the allocation to the military, and not only to the military but also
other budgetary allotments. Of course, that is true. If we can slash 50
percent from each budgetary allotment, we can even grant free tertiary
education. But has the committee made inquiries into the feasibility of
transferring some of the budgetary allotments from the allottees right
now so that they could possibly be availed of for purposes of the
Ministry of Education, say, within one year or two or three years from
now since the committee is contemplating on putting something in the
Transitory Provisions? Has the committee made some preliminary inquiries
into the feasibility of such transfers or slashes in the budget of the
Ministry of Education? And if so, what were the findings?

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer,
first of all, we would like to clarify that it is not just a matter of
slashing but also of saving, and this present government has done a good
job in saving money by doing away with needless expenses. And that in
itself would be proof that if we have the political will to provide more
for education, it is possible. I think we can trust the genius of our
future elective, as well as appointive, leaders to come up with ways to
make money.

MR. REGALADO: Incidentally, just as a
kickoff, for this fiscal year, what is the present budget and what is
the percentage allotted to the Ministry of Education?

MR. VILLACORTA: I understand it is P12.5
billion.

MR. REGALADO: For the ministry?

MR. GASCON: It is 11 percent.

MR. VILLACORTA: I think Commissioner
Gascon has the statistics.

MR. GASCON: The percentage that education
receives at this point in time is P12.5 billion.

MR. REGALADO: And if we were to provide
free public secondary education, what would be the projection?

MR. GASCON: We said that we need P6.5
billion more so that it will reach up to P19 billion, which will mean an
increase in the national budget of only 6 percent for education. So,
from the present 12 percent of the national budget for education, if we
increase it to 18 percent or perhaps 20 percent, we would be able to
provide for free secondary education. It will be recalled that prior to
the Marcos dictatorship, education received up to 35 percent. The whole
point is, if we really reprioritize to provide an increase in
percentages for education, maybe in the next three to five years, we
would be able to provide for free secondary education. It is possible.

MR. REGALADO: Have there been fiscal
projections to the effect that suppose we want to give free secondary
public education by next year, we would be in a position to do so given
the present expenditure and income that we have?

MR. GASCON: By next year, perhaps, no.
However it is the intent of the Ministry of Education, Culture and
Sports to gradually increase the percentage that education receives from
its low 12 percent to, hopefully, at a level point of 20 percent to 25
percent.

MR. REGALADO: I asked the question about
fiscal projections because of the statement of the chairman that the
committee plans to put in the Transitory Provisions a certain rating
period within which we can have the implementation of the program.

MR. GASCON: That is correct.

MR. REGALADO: But we still do not have,
more or less, a tentative specific period.

MR. VILLACORTA: Not yet, Mr. Presiding
Officer. We leave it to Congress because Congress would be able to tell
how long it will take.

MR. GASCON: So, actually, with regard to
the Rodrigo amendment which we would be voting on — although it states
categorically that, first, there will be a system of free elementary
education and, second, it shall take measures to establish and maintain a
system of free public education at least up to the secondary level —
our proposal is that instead of putting it under the provision on
education, we make a categorical statement that it shall establish and
maintain a free public education up to the secondary level, and when we
go to the Transitory Provisions, we shall provide for such.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
just add that the 6 percent that the honorable Commissioner Gascon
mentioned is already the maximum. As I pointed out earlier, it would go
down to as low as 3.6 percent of the percent budget; that is, for the
school year 1986-1987.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. REGALADO: In other words, the Rodrigo
proposal provides that the State shall provide measures, whereas the
committee would like to specify right away that it shall provide for a
free secondary education. But in the Transitory Provisions, those
proposed measures contemplated in the Rodrigo amendment would be made
available in the Transitory Provisions.

MR. VILLACORTA: That is right, Mr.
Presiding Officer. Our proposal will be more reflective of the nature of
the problem. We are apprehensive about a temporary situation that is
why we would like to put it in the Transitory Provisions. But with
respect to provisions on public elementary and secondary education, we
would like it to be more categorical because this is the Constitution
that we are making and it is supposed to be for all time.

MR. TADEO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): What
is the pleasure of the Honorable Maambong?

MR. MAAMBONG: I have just been assigned
as Acting Floor Leader. The floor is now ready for the vote.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. TADEO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): What
is the pleasure of the Honorable Davide?

MR. DAVIDE: In order that I can vote
intelligently, I seek this inquiry from the committee. Is it the stand
of the committee that the Rodrigo amendment is proper provided that it
will be in the Transitory Provisions? In other words, does the committee
accept this? But it is now a question as to where to place the same,
and it is the proposal of the committee that it shall be in the
Transitory Provisions.

MR. VILLACORTA: Not exactly, Mr.
Presiding Officer. What we really want is the approval of the section
that we are proposing.

MR. DAVIDE: On the question of the
Rodrigo proposal, Mr. Presiding Officer, we disregard first the
committee proposal.

MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, that is right.

MR. DAVIDE: Is it the stand of the
committee that it should be accepted but should be placed in the Article
on the Transitory Provisions?

MR. VILLACORTA: No, Mr. Presiding
Officer, because what we have in mind is simply the provision that
Congress will determine the period of time.

MR. DAVIDE: I thought that that was the
position of Commissioner Gascon speaking for the committee.

MR. VILLACORTA: Commissioner Gascon?

MR. DAVIDE: Yes.

MR. VILLACORTA: I do not remember
Commissioner Gascon making that statement.

MR. GASCON: What I said, Mr. Presiding
Officer, is that the committee prefers what is written in our committee
report. However, we see that the Rodrigo amendment, which states that
the State shall take measures to establish and maintain a system of free
public education at least up to the secondary level, is more attuned to
what we intend to do in as far as providing it in the Transitory
Provisions.

MR. DAVIDE: In effect, the committee will
be adopting that, but it should be in the Transitory Provisions.

MR. GASCON: Not exactly. It needs a
little rewording because what we want to say is that Congress will
provide the term towards a secondary education.

MR. DAVIDE: We want to be clarified on
the stand of the committee so we could either join the committee or not,
because if the committee prefers that it should be in the Transitory
Provisions, I might even be voting in favor of that.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No. Let me explain,
Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The stand of the
committee is that we would like free secondary education but we would
also like to include a provision in the Transitory Provisions along the
Rodrigo proposal, but it will specify a particular time frame.

MR. DAVIDE: In effect, the committee has
no serious objection to the Rodrigo proposal, except that it should be
in the Transitory Provisions.

MR. VILLACORTA: No, Mr. Presiding
Officer. The Rodrigo proposal has two parts. The first part reaffirms
the 1973 provision for free public elementary education. The second part
has to do with the State endeavoring to take measures to ensure free
public secondary education.

MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

MR. VILLACORTA: May we ask for
clarification from Commissioner Rodrigo?

MR. RODRIGO: There is a conflict now
between the answers of the two committee members. I remember that
Commissioner Gascon said that the purpose is to have a provision in the
Transitory Provisions, leaving it to Congress to determine the time
frame.

MR. VILLACORTA: For free public secondary
education, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. RODRIGO: Yes. But then Commissioner
Rosario Braid said a definite time frame will be in the Transitory
Provisions. Which is it now?

MR. VILLACORTA: The committee is not for a
definite time frame because Congress will determine the time frame.

MR. RODRIGO: So, the two points in my
proposed amendment will also be incorporated, except that the two will
be separated — one in the body and the other in the Transitory
Provisions. But why break it up? Is it not clearer for people who read
the Constitution to see this in just one sentence instead, because it
seems we are mandating a definite commitment to have a secondary
education? And then one has to see the Transitory Provisions; and in
there, it is not really a commitment. We are leaving it to Congress. I
ask that we vote.

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Chair would like to make an announcement that the matter has been
sufficiently discussed and the Chair would like to submit it to a vote
now.

MR. GUINGONA: With due respect to the
Chair, may we just clarify the situation?

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
session is suspended.

It was 4:38 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:11 p.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
session is resumed.

Commissioner Guingona is recognized to
give his reply to the remarks of Commissioner Rodrigo.

MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.

I would like to yield to Commissioner
Ople.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

I thought I would like to get some final
clarification concerning the distinction — it can be a distinction of
substance or form — between the committee-proposed text and the Rodrigo
amendment in which he was joined by Bishop Bacani.

MR. RODRIGO: May I answer that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): What
is the pleasure of Commissioner Rodrigo?

MR. RODRIGO: I thought Commissioner Ople
was asking a question. Was he propounding it to me?

MR. OPLE: I said I would like to seek a
final clarification and this can be addressed to both the committee and
to the proponent of the amendment. In the committee text, it says
categorically that the State shall establish a free system of public
education at both the elementary and the secondary levels.

In the Rodrigo amendment, I think, the
wording is such that the State shall take measures to establish such a
system. The committee had sought to accommodate Commissioner Rodrigo’s
concern over the financial feasibility of the free system of public
education up to secondary level. The committee manifested their
intention to submit a proposal to the Committee on Amendments and
Transitory Provisions that would, in effect, mandate Congress to pass a
law that would determine the time frame within which this free system of
public education up to the secondary level will be deemed
implementable. This, I think, is correct because Congress holds the
purse in the tripartite system of government where we have the
executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. It is said that the
executive is the sword, the judiciary is the Scripture, and the
legislature, the holder of the purse. And so, it is right that Congress
should determine the time frame for the implementation of a
constitutional mandate establishing a free system of public education in
both the elementary and the secondary levels.

Will Commissioner Rodrigo subscribe to
this distinction, a substantial distinction between his proposal and the
text submitted by the committee?

MR. RODRIGO: May I add to that
distinction. If the committee stand is approved, then anybody who reads
Section 1(b) in the body of the Constitution will get the impression
that this is a definite, unconditional commitment by the State. Unless
he turns the pages and looks into the Transitory Provisions, that will
be his impression.

And so, this can be deceptive. Very few
persons, after seeing this provision, will take the trouble of looking
at the Transitory Provisions, unless we place an asterisk and indicate
“Please see Transitory Provisions.” Whereas in my amendment, all of
these are in just one section. There is no possibility of mistake, or of
being misled or deceived. If the committee wants to place a provision
in the Transitory Provisions, let us say, giving Congress ten years,
then there is no inconsistency with my amendment. But the good thing
about my amendment is, at one glance, people will see just what the
Constitution provides; whereas, in the committee plan, there are two
provisions. In one, it appears like an unconditional, immediate mandate.
But then there is a sort of a catch in the Transitory Provisions.

MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are
talking of a distinction between substance and form, and I think
Commissioner Rodrigo has been accentuating the form rather than the
substance.

MR. RODRIGO: But that is very important.

MR. OPLE: May I complete my statement,
Mr. Presiding Officer. When I speak of a distinction of substance, I do
refer to the fact that in the committee text the Constitution holds the
initiative. It says outright that the State establishes a free system of
public education up to the secondary level and that leaves a very
little margin of choice to the Congress in order to put the structure on
flesh to such an unequivocal, forthright and, perhaps even urgent
mandate of the Constitution.

On the other hand, in the Rodrigo
provision we leave to Congress most of the initiative, including the
discretion, perhaps under pressure from financial advisers of the
government who are very powerful, to take their time before measures are
taken. We are not even sure about the sufficiency of such measures
before the system of free public education up to the secondary level
actually gets translated into a workable and operating system.

I think I should like to point out, Mr.
Presiding Officer, that as Commissioner Guingona said earlier, we have
been to some of these public hearings and there seemed to be a
tremendous clamor for free public schools in addition to free elementary
education that the people now enjoy. I really admire the attitude taken
by Commissioner Rodrigo from the beginning. I have joined him many
times in urging this Commission to be prudent in offering hope that
cannot be fulfilled because that is one way of deceiving our people. But
I think in this case, I would like to part ways with Commissioner
Rodrigo because the vision of a free public school system does obsess
many of us. This is not a mandate to establish overnight free public
schools in all municipalities. Unlike in the case of the universal
elementary school system, I think there is a good amount of flexibility
given to Congress and to the President and the Minister of Education,
Culture and Sports in the days to come.

I have looked very closely at some of
these data. I think the cost is affordable — P6 billion need not be a
recurring cost because part of this is P2.5 billion of infrastructural
capital budget, which means these are one-time expenses. And, therefore,
when I take a look at the hemorrhage of public funds through losing
government corporations, I am fascinated by the thought that even just a
part of these funds that go into new equity infusion to failing
government corporations could indeed make it extremely feasible for
Congress to establish the kind of free public school system up to the
secondary level as is contemplated in this report. And so, in reply to
Commissioner Padilla, may I say that in the case of some countries I
mentioned, based on the monumental work of Gunnar Myrdal, I think the
principal conclusion of that great study known to most scholars is
precisely that when we allocate more funds to the development of the
human being himself, we improve the quality of the population. That is
an investment that recovers manifold the returns of other investments
merely placed in natural resources. The primacy of human resources, both
as a factor in economic and social progress, can no longer be doubted.
And so, in Sri Lanka where the per capita income is $260 versus the $700
per capita income of the Philippines, they have a complete free public
school system up to the secondary and the tertiary levels. I am not
saying that Sri Lanka is superior to the Philippines. What I am saying
has reference to Gunnar Myrdal’s historic study, The Asian Drama, an
inquiry into the poverty of nations in South and Southeast Asia. A
country poorer than the Philippines, like Sri Lanka, by all the indices
of social and economic well-being seems to be more elevated than we are,
and the only reason is that they spend for free public education a lot
more proportionately to their budget than a richer country.

And it is upon these grounds, Mr.
Presiding Officer, that I want to manifest my support for the text of
the committee report, provided that we accommodate Commissioner
Rodrigo’s well-placed concern for the financial feasibility of this free
public educational system in the Transitory Provisions, leaving to
Congress the mandate and the flexibility to determine the time frame.

Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Does
Commissioner Rodrigo wish to respond?

MR. RODRIGO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): With
the indulgence of Commissioner Tadeo, I would like to give Commissioner
Rodrigo a few minutes to respond.

MR. RODRIGO: Just two sentences, Mr.
Presiding Officer. The only issue is: should we separate the portion
which states that Congress will have to implement this provision from
the main provision that this is a definite constitutional commitment? As
for me, I would not want to separate the two. I want them in just one
provision. I think this is better because the people will know just what
the provision really is at one glance. I think it is better that we
place in one provision, right in the body of the Constitution, the whole
principle plus the implementing provision, so that there can be no
mistake; there can be no deception, intentional or unintentional.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): What
is the pleasure of Commissioner Tadeo?

MR. TADEO: Ang aking tunay na papel dito
ay ang magbigay ng dugo at laman batay sa karanasan.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Ito
ba ay tungkol sa amendment ni Commissioner Rodrigo?

MR. TADEO: Ano ba ang iniisip ng
Kinatawang ito tungkol sa “free public education in all levels” para sa
mga magbubukid? Education is the right of every citizen of the
Philippines . Ang edukasyon ay hindi “‘profit-oriented”, ito ay
“service-oriented.” Kung ito ay “service-oriented,” ang karapatan ng
isang mayaman ay karapatan din ng isang dukha, sapagkat ito ay isang
karapatan at hindi isang pribilehiyo — mayroon ding karapatang tumuntong
hanggang kolehiyo ang mga dukha. Nais ko lamang bigyang buhay ang isang
kongkretong karanasan noong isilang ang barangay high school. Bunga ng
sobrang kahirapan, sumisigaw sa kahirapan ang manggagawang bukid, na ang
hanapbuhay ay nakatuon lamang sa pagtatanim at maghihintay pa siya ng
gapasan para siya kumita. Sa panahong bakante, paano pa siya
makapagpapaaral ng kanyang anak — libre ang pagpapaaral sa elementarya,
ngunit pagdating ng high school, panay na pribadong paaralan lamang ang
nagbibigay ng sekondaryang edukasyon? Makatutuntong pa ba siya ng high
school?

Ang manggagawang bukid kung walang gawain
ay walang makain; puro utang iyan. Kayat pagdating ng anihan, babayaran
lamang niya ang kanyang mga utang at magsisimula na naman siya sa wala.
Ngunit nang dumating ang barangay high school, nakapagpapaaral siya
kahit walang kakainin.

Mayroong isang magandang nagawa si
Commissioner Natividad sa Bulacan — ang Bulacan College of Arts and
Trades. Mayroon ngayong kolehiyo sa Bulacan, at kamakailan lamang ang
lahat ng kauna-unahang nagtapos ng pagka-inhinyero o “civil engineering”
ay pasadong lahat. Ito ay isang kolehiyo lamang sa Bulacan. Nagkaroon
din ng Bulacan College of Arts and Trades sa Bustos, at ang aking anak
na si Andres Bonifacio ay doon nag-aaral. Alam ba ninyong ang matrikula
ay P130 lamang sa isang taon? Aba’y sino naman ang hindi makapagpapaaral
ng ganoon? Ngunit ang isang manggagawang bukid na walang maibigay na
baon sa anak ay pinahihinto ang pag-aaral ng mga anak sa BCAT (Bulacan
College of Arts and Trades) dahil ito ay nasa Bustos. Kami ay
taga-Plaridel, kayat ang pamasahe ay ikakain na lamang ng pamilya. Saan
ipinasok ang bata? Ipinasok sa barangay high school, dahil sa barangay
high school mamimisikleta ka lamang o maglalakad ka lamang; wala ka nang
pamasahe.

Ito ay isang kongkretong karanasan.
Naniniwala akong ang aking tungkulin dito ay ang bigyan ko ng dugo at
laman ang isang kongkretong karanasan.

Mga kasama, sasagutin ko lamang ang aking
kaibigang Commissioner de Castro. Makabubuting suriin nating mabuti ang
ibig pong sabihin ni Commissioner Sarmiento tungkol sa “budget” ng
militar. Noong hindi pa idinideklara ang martial law, ang bilang ng
military ay animnapu’t dalawang libo lamang, ngunit pagkaraan ng ilang
taon, inaabot ito ng tatlong daang libo kasama ang paramilitary bagamat
wala naman tayo sa digmaan. Isa ito sa pinakamalaking lumalamon ng ating
budget. Ngunit ano ba iyong ugat ng peace and order? Muli akong
magbabahagi sa inyo ng isang karanasan. Kapag inilaban ng magbubukid ang
kanyang karapatan sa lupa, ang itatapat ng propretaryo o panginoong may
lupa ay private army. Kapag nagreklamo ang mga magsasaka sa Mindanao
tungkol dito sa pangangamkam ng lupa ng multinational, ang itinutugon ng
Armed Forces of the Philippines ay dahas. Kayat ang tugon ng magsasaka
ay:

Saan ba kami tatakbo? Kahit saan kami
sumilong, papatayin nila kami, humawak man kami ng armas para
ipagtanggol ang aming mga sarili. Ang armas ay proteksyon para sa amin.

Kung titingnan natin ang kalagayan, ang
solusyon sa kanayunan ay ang tunay na reporma sa lupa. Kapag ipinairal
natin ang tunay na reporma sa lupa, magkakaroon ng katarungan. Sinasabi
iyan sa mga sinulat ni Mateo 23:23 (Matthew 23:23). Ang pinakamahalaga
ay katarungan. Kapag ipinairal natin ang tunay na reporma sa lupa sa
kanayunan, magkakaroon ng katarungan, ng kapayapaan at mawawalan ng
kaguluhan. Ang mga tao sa bundok ay bababa na kapag pinairal natin ang
tunay na reporma sa lupa. Hindi na kailangan ang militar. Babawasan
natin ngayon ang military at ang budget ng militar ay ibibigay natin sa
edukasyon.

Iyan lamang ang ibig sabihin ni
Commissioner Sarmiento bilang paglilinaw.

The argument against free public
education all the way to college based on financial constraint of the
government will not hold water when the same government is being
pressured to support financially through exemptions and subsidies
private schools, including proprietary schools.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, may
we now request for a vote.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer,
just one statement, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.

Nabanggit ni Commissioner Tadeo na bago
raw mag-martial law ang lakas ng militar ay wala pang isang daang libo;
marahil mga limampung libo lamang. At bago naman mag-martial law, ang
ating kalabang NPA ay wala pang limang daan. Dumami lamang nitong
panahon ng ating magaling na Ginoong Marcos. At hanggang ngayon ay
dumadami pa sila sapagkat kulang na kulang ang ating armed forces upang
makibaka sa kanila. Kung ating babawasan ang militar, walang problema sa
akin; ako ay isang retired officer; bahala na sila. Ngunit, isipin
natin na kung walang peace and order, ay paano na ang ating barangay
high school? Bagamat walang bayad diyan, hindi naman natin mapapasukan.

At pagkatapos ng martial law, dumami
naman ang MNLF. Paano nangyari ito? Ang dahilan ay ang Tripoli Agreement
na ginawa ng ating dating Presidente na hindi naman sinunod. Ilang libo
silang kumakalaban sa ating armed forces ngayon at sinasabi kong padami
pa sila. Ito’y amin nang nabanggit kay General Ramos at sa ating dating
Presidente. Bakit nang bago mag-martial law ay mga limang daan lamang
ang NPA? Bakit ngayon ay labing-anim hanggang dalawampung libo na sila?

Ngayon, kung ninanais ninyong alisin ang
ating armed forces, walang problema sa akin iyan. Ang may suliranin ay
kayong mga bata. Dadalawang taon o isang taon na lamang ang aking
itatagal dito sa mundong ito, ngunit ang mga bata ay mayroong mga
tatlumpung taon pa. Isipin ninyo kung saan kayo pupunta kung walang
peace and order. Hindi sapagkat ipinagtatanggol ko ang Armed Forces of
the Philippines, kinakalaban ko pa nga sila. Bakit dumami ang New
People’s Army? Sapagkat ninanakawan sila ng manok, ninanakawan sila ng
kambing, ninanakawan sila ng baboy. Ang sabi naman ng mga militar:

Ano naman ang kakanin namin? Ang
ibinibigay sa amin ay ganoon lamang. And yet, we fight and we die
everyday.

Recently, there were 16 members of the
military killed. If they were our brothers or our relatives, perhaps, we
would cry to the heavens. Bakit ganyan ang nangyayari? Kaibigang Tadeo,
kakaunti ang militar bago mag-martial law sapagkat kakaunti ang
kalaban.

Ang Sri Lanka, ayon kay Commissioner
Ople, ay walang problema tungkol sa insurgency, kayat naibubuhos nila
ang malaking halaga sa edukasyon. Kayat ang insurgency at ang peace and
order ang dapat nating unahin. Maaaring dumating ang panahon na tayo ay
hindi na makakakain ng tanghalian, hindi na makakakain ng hapunan
sapagkat tayo ay inaabala ng kapwa tao. Iyan lamang ang aking pahatid sa
ngayon kay Commissioner Tadeo.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Thank
you.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
withdraw my motion for a moment and ask that Commissioner Bacani be
recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI: May I ask the committee
what difference it will make if it is the committee’s version or the
version of Commissioner Rodrigo which will be followed? Let us foresee
the scenario after this Constitution is approved, when we say that the
State shall provide free elementary and high school education, while
Commissioner Rodrigo says that the State shall take measures to provide
such.

MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

The main difference we had pointed out is
that our proposal makes permanent the idea of free public education up
to the secondary level, because as we said, the body of our Constitution
is addressed to all times. We are not concerned with the immediate
present because the conditions of the immediate present may change, and
are likely to change because we shall not be forever underdeveloped.
However, to provide for the apprehensions such as those expressed by
Commissioner Rodrigo, et al., we would like to provide in the Transitory
Provisions the idea of Congress determining the time frame for the
implementation of free public secondary education — only for free public
secondary education. We understand and we sympathize with those who are
afraid that, given the present economic crisis, it may not be possible
for the government to immediately implement the intention of this
proposed paragraph in Section 1 under Education. So, that is the main
difference.

However, this is not to say that we do
not appreciate the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo in the second
sentence which says that the State shall take measures to this effect.
But as in the 1973 Constitution, there have been many provisions which
stated that Congress shall take steps or that Congress shall take
measures, but we know from our experience, as in the example of the
development of the national language, that hardly anything was done. The
proposal gives the government, or any government, much leeway,
something to fall back on if it is unable to fulfill its duty.

Secondly, I do not think that there is
anything deceptive, although as Commissioner Rodrigo said, it might be
unintentionally deceptive to put this allowance for Congress in the
Transitory Provisions. Although we have the terms of the President and
the Vice-President fixed in the body of the Constitution and at the same
time in the Transitory Provisions, we shall be providing for
adjustments to respond to immediate and present exigencies and
circumstances. For example, the synchronization of elections contained
in the provisions proposed by Commissioner Davide appears in the
Transitory Provisions in order to supplement the provisions that are in
the body of the Constitution.

I hope that answers the question of
Commissioner Bacani.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Chair recognizes Commissioner Maambong.

MR. MAAMBONG: The floor now asks for a
vote, but during all these discussions, the amendment got lost somewhere
along the way. May we ask the committee to restate the amendment in
clear terms so that the body will know what is to be voted on.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: The proposed amendment
reads: “THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION AND SHALL TAKE MEASURES TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF
FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION AT LEAST UP TO THE SECONDARY LEVEL.”

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): As
many as are in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise their hand.
(Few Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (One Member raised their hand.)

The results show 13 votes in favor, 18
against and 1 abstention; the proposed amendment is lost.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: May I ask that Commissioner
Bacani be recognized for his amendment?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, may
I now propose my amendment which I made together with Commissioner
Nieva and which is also cosponsored by Commissioners Guingona and
Rosario Braid?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Please proceed.

BISHOP BACANI: My amendment reads “THE
STATE SHALL PROVIDE MEASURES, INCLUDING SUBSIDY TO STUDENTS, THAT WILL
MAKE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL EDUCATION AT ALL LEVELS.”

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.

MR. VILLACORTA. Before the committee
makes a decision on the motion, may we know whether this does not take
the place of the committee’s proposal which says: “The State shall
establish and maintain a system of free public education at the
elementary and secondary levels”? Will the Commissioner’s amendment be
the second sentence after our first sentence? Is that the intention?

BISHOP BACANI: Yes. I was made to
understand by the committee that the paragraph that we just voted upon
has to do with the public system of education. Now what is being
proposed here is that the State will also make accessible elementary and
high school education, as well as tertiary education for those
qualified by other means.

MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer,
parliamentary inquiry, please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.

MR. BENGZON: After the Rodrigo amendment
was defeated, how does the section stand now before the Bacani proposal?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): May
we ask the chairman of the committee to answer that?

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer,
the proposed Section 1 (b) under Education would read: “THE STATE SHALL
ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION AT THE
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY LEVELS AND A SOCIALIZED FEE STRUCTURE IN THE
TERTIARY LEVEL OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.”

MR. BENGZON: The situation now is that we
go back to the original report?

MR. GASCON: But it has not been approved
yet by the body, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. BENGZON: That is right.

MR. GASCON: What we voted upon was the
Rodrigo amendment but this section has not yet been voted upon.

MR. BENGZON: Yes. so we are back. Are we
now using the original text?

MR. VILLACORTA: Yes.

MR. GASCON: Commissioner Bacani’s
proposal, therefore, would follow after we have approved on principle
the providing of free public secondary education. So I think we have to
decide first on that issue before we go into the additional amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Does
that answer the parliamentary inquiry

MR. BENGZON: So are we going to vote now
on whether or not the State shall provide mandatorily for a free public
education in the secondary level? Is that the issue now?

MR. VILLACORTA: Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): May
we ask Commissioner Bacani to read his proposed amendment?

Has it been withdrawn?

MR. VILLACORTA: Commissioner Bacani
reserves the right, Mr. Presiding Officer, to propose it again because
his amendment is really a supplement to our proposal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Meanwhile, Commissioner Bacani has withdrawn his proposed amendment. Is
that correct?

BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, in
the list that I have here, Commissioner Aquino is listed as having
reserved her right to propose an amendment.

MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer, is
this an amendment to the same section? If it is not, maybe we could go
into approving the principle of free public secondary education so that
we can go on the third issue, after which we can continue from there.

So, we request that we make a vote on the
principle of providing free public secondary education.

MR. MAAMBONG: Commissioner Aquino said
that her amendment has already been covered. May I ask that Commissioner
Davide be recognized on the same section.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

These amendments are reflected in the
amended omnibus amendments which I submitted. I would like to propose
the insertion of a new paragraph to Section 1 (a). It will read as
follows: “TOWARD THIS END, THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH, SUPPORT AND
MAINTAIN.”

Then we begin with letter (a), which is
actually paragraph (b) of the original. And I seek to combine (b) with
letter (d) or paragraph (d) on the second page and the others will
follow. So, it will now read as follows: “TOWARD THIS END, THE STATE
SHALL ESTABLISH, SUPPORT AND MAINTAIN:

(a) A COMPLETE, ADEQUATE AND INTEGRATED
SYSTEM OF EDUCATION RELEVANT TO THE NEEDS OF THE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE
WHICH SHALL INCLUDE A COMPREHENSIVE FORMAL, NONFORMAL AND INFORMAL AND
INDIGENOUS LEARNING SYSTEMS, AS WELL AS SELF-LEARNING AND OUT-OF-SCHOOL
STUDY PROGRAMS AND CITIZENSHIP, VOCATIONAL AND OTHER SKILLS TRAINING TO
ADULT AND DISABLED CITIZENS.

(b) A SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION IN
THE ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL LEVELS.”

Then insert what has earlier been
approved which was the Aquino amendment:

“(c) A SYSTEM OF SCHOLARSHIP GRANTS, LOAN
PROGRAMS AND OTHER INCENTIVES, WHICH SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO DESERVING
STUDENTS IN BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS, ESPECIALLY THE
UNDERPRIVILEGED.

(d) A PROGRAM OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND
AMATEUR SPORTS DEVELOPMENT.

NO CONTRIBUTION OR EXACTION OF ANY KIND
SHALL BE IMPOSED ON STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS EXCEPT THOSE
VOLUNTARILY IMPOSED BY THEIR ORGANIZATIONS.”

If I may be allowed to explain, letter
(a) will now totally combine paragraphs (b) and (d) of the committee
report. Paragraph (b) will include the concept of free public education
in the elementary and high school levels and, of course, with the
amendment of Commissioner Aquino on the elementary education.

In the system of scholarship grants,
which appears as paragraph (c), we combined this with loan programs and
other incentives which shall be available to deserving students in both
public and private schools, especially the underprivileged. Mr.
Presiding Officer, this particular proposal is also coauthored by
Commissioner Monsod. We deleted the concept of socialized fee structure
in the tertiary level of state colleges and universities, and instead
proposed for loan programs and other incentives for the reason that a
socialized fee structure might not be adequate, sufficient and may
result in discrimination. On the contrary, granting loan programs would
make available education for the citizens, even those who will enroll in
private educational institutions. And we give particular emphasis to
the underprivileged, insofar as these programs are concerned. We also
included the program of physical education and sports development to
take into account Section 1 where we inserted sports. And, certainly,
since education now will be free, both in the elementary and high school
level, we provided that no contribution or exaction of any kind shall
be imposed on students and their parents or guardians except those
voluntarily imposed by their organizations.

MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Davide yield
to just a question?

MR. DAVIDE: Willingly.

MR. OPLE: I see that Commissioner Davide
has included Section (d) for his proposed amalgamations under Section 1
(a). Is that correct?

MR. DAVIDE: That is correct.

MR. OPLE: And in his amendment, the
Commissioner has included loan programs.

MR. DAVIDE: That is another paragraph.

MR. OPLE: Yes, but that is paragraph (c).

MR. DAVIDE: If Commissioner Ople will
notice, that particular proposal will, in effect, incorporate another
portion of a separate section here.

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, a
prejudicial question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer,
while we are thankful for the efforts of Commissioners Davide and Monsod
in integrating several sections of our proposed article — and we agree
with most of what they are proposing — the committee feels that the
issue hand now is the system of free public education in the elementary
and high school levels. We are wining to separate the issue of
socialized fee structure. Since Commissioner Davide’s proposal here for
Section 1 is a restructuring and contains a lot of issues which have yet
to be debated fully, may we propose that we concentrate on Section 1
(b) which has to do with the system of free public education in the
elementary and high school levels and the compulsory nature of
elementary education which has been approved.

MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
join the committee in this appeal to Commissioner Davide. I have a
selfish reason because when we come to Section 1 (c) and (d), as
previously submitted to the committee we have a proposed amendment
concerning student loan programs based on a common portfolio established
through the government financial institutions and on the “study-now,
pay-later” principle.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I just
would like to get it very clearly from the committee: Is it the
thinking of the committee that we will vote on concepts first?

MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, because there are
many other amendments. For example, Commissioner Padilla has an
amendment on sports and Commissioners Bacani and Nieva have proposals
for accessibility of education.

MR. DAVIDE: Exactly what is the stand of
the committee? Shall we vote first on concept, for instance, on
socialized fee structure or on whether or not we will allow free
education up to the high school level?

MR. VILLACORTA: That is why we would like
to vote first on (b) because that is the issue at hand, without
prejudice to this restructure.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer,
paragraph (b) alone includes several concepts — socialized fee
structure, free education up to the secondary level.

MR. VILLACORTA: No, I refer to (b), the
small letter (b) in the Gentleman’s amendment.

MR. DAVIDE: I see. So what about (a)?

MR. VILLACORTA: We shall go back to that
letter because what we have been discussing, like the amendment of
Commissioner Rodrigo, was this issue of free public education.

MR. DAVIDE: I would have no problem with
that.

MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
whole point is, we may be willing to accept Commissioner Davide’s
reformulation but since we already went into this issue on the system of
free public education, perhaps we can dispose of this first and then go
back to his other amendments.

MR. DAVIDE: We will finish (b) first?

MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, the Commissioner’s
letter (b).

MR. DAVIDE: I will have no objection.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): So,
for the meanwhile, is Commissioner Davide withdrawing his proposed
amendment, considering that on this portion of 1 (b) of the committee
report his own amendments seem to be exactly the same?

We would like to ask if there is any
other proposed amendment to that.

MR. DAVIDE: I understand that the
committee will take up 1 (b) of my proposal, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The
Chair has compared the committee text with Commissioner Davide’s
proposal on that portion and sees no difference.

MR. DAVIDE: Except for the socialized fee
structure.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Yes,
except that.

MR. DAVIDE: Up to the tertiary level of
state colleges and universities.

MR. GASCON: Yes, because the proponent
himself separated it and placed the concept of socialized fee structure
in letter (c), so we shall discuss that when we go to his amendment. We
are agreeable to separating the concepts first; therefore, the committee
is accepting Commissioner Davide’s 1 (b) for the moment.

MR. DAVIDE: It is not exactly 1 (b)
because this has, in effect, been amended by Commissioner Aquino for the
second sentence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): As
amended, yes.

The Chair would like to recognize
Commissioner Maambong.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I
indicate at this point the difficulty we are facing because the
sequencing of the sections is not as it should be. As a matter of fact,
it was because of this that I submitted earlier the outline of the
proposed provisions on education and I gave a copy of my outline to the
Honorable Deputy Minister Victor Ordoñez who graciously answered me with
a letter wherein he indicated an outline and a possible resequencing of
the provisions. Everyone of us has a copy of that.

I would like to suggest to the committee
that perhaps we could go faster, if the committee would follow the
formulation suggested by Deputy Minister Ordoñez without doing any
damage to the provisions as they appear now. Once these are properly
sequenced, I think we can go faster. I notice Commissioner Davide
jumping from one section to another, and this is because the sections
themselves are not sequenced in the proper order.

The order of presentation suggested to
Honorable Ordoñez is only on five parts, and if we could follow the
sequence and if the committee will accept this and probably resequence
the formulation of the sections themselves, we can propose our
amendments on the basis of the new sequence and go very fast.

I would like to know the response of the
committee to that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): May
we hear the chairman of the committee?

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, it
is not true that the sequencing is not proper. I do not know what
criteria were used when we say that the sequencing of our article is
improper. We have our own logic here. I do not think that we just came
up with a haphazard presentation without any logic in mind.

MR. MAAMBONG: I am not suggesting that,
Mr. Presiding Officer. I am just saying that probably we could put it in
a proper outline the way it has been suggested by Deputy Minister
Ordoñez.

MR. VILLACORTA: We are open to that,
except that the Gentleman’s and Minister Ordoñez’ proposal for
sequencing is not the only such proposal. There is the proposal of
Commissioners Monsod and Davide. Just to save time, we are very open to
these suggestions for resequencing but we need time to do it. However, I
think we should tackle the issue now at hand, which is free public
elementary and secondary education.

The committee suggests to the Chair that
we vote on this, unless there is no objection to the Davide amendment
which the committee had accepted. After this, we can go on to the other
paragraphs according to the sequence in the present article and then the
resequencing can be done tomorrow. Is that acceptable to Commissioner
Maambong?

MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, that is acceptable. We
can still go on with the sections as they appear in the committee
report but I still suggest that probably the committee could take a
close look at the sequence presented by Deputy Minister Ordoñez, not
that we are bound by it. It is just that it appears to be like a good
suggestion. However, I would like to disabuse the mind of the committee
that I am trying to say that the presentation is improper. I am just
trying to put in a little bit of order in it. It is not really a
disorderly presentation but I am just trying to help, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

MR. VILLACORTA: The clarification is well
taken. As a matter of fact, the committee itself also requested the
help of Deputy Minister Ordoñez. So, we are one in our intention to
improve the sequence of the committee report.

MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Regalado is recognized.

MR. REGALADO: A parliamentary inquiry.
For purposes of the proposed voting on Section 1 (b), is it our
understanding that we shall vote on the concepts of acceptability,
first, on free compulsory elementary education?

MR. VILLACORTA: Yes.

MR. REGALADO: Second, free education on
the secondary level; and, thirdly, the socialized fee structure.

MR. VILLACORTA: Yes.

MR. REGALADO: With respect to the second,
I understand there will be a complementary provision in the Transitory
Provisions. May we have the gist of what that complementary provision
is, because we are going to vote on its basic concept and the rest?

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): May
we have the answer of the committee first?

MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer,
with respect to compulsory elementary education, I think that has been
decided by the body in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Aquino.
Now, with respect to the gist of our proposal for the Transitory
Provisions, it will be something like this: That Congress will determine
when free public secondary education will be fully implemented. Of
course, the wording can be improved and we shall ask the help of
Commissioner Rodrigo because this basically reflects the intention.

MR. REGALADO: How about the socialized
fee structure? Will there be any conditions?

MR. VILLACORTA: Could we vote on that
concept later on, because that will involve a long discussion and
probably we do not have the time tonight.

MR. REGALADO: So we will only have to
stick to (b) for the time being?

MR. VILLACORTA: Yes.

MR. REGALADO: All right.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: I just would like to modify
the issues presented. It is not that we have to split the issue of free
elementary education and free secondary education. I understand that the
rejection of the Rodrigo amendment was, in fact, a confirmation that
education shall also be free up to the high school level. The issue is
whether or not education shall be free up to the high school level, not
that the issues have to be split — one voting for elementary; another
voting for secondary.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna):
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer,
there are no other Commissioners who have registered to propose their
amendment at this point in time. If there is no objection from the body,
I move that we adjourn the session until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the
morning.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion
is approved.

The session is adjourned until tomorrow
at nine-thirty in the morning.

It was 6:05 p.m.

---

^* Appeared after the roll call