VOL. IV, September 22, 1986
R.C.C. NO. 89
Monday, September 22, 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 Adolfo S.
Azcuna.
Everybody remained standing for the
Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. AZCUNA: Almighty Father, help us to
remember that to think great thoughts, we must be heroes, as well as
idealists; that we must learn to fix our course by a star which we have
never seen; to dig by the divining rod for springs which we may never
reach; and to go on working and giving it our best, sustained only by
the conviction that years from now, generations yet unborn will be
marching to the tempo of our thoughts. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will
call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Present* | Davide | Present* |
| Alonto | Present | Foz | Present |
| Aquino | Present* | Garcia | Present* |
| Azcuna | Present | Gascon | Present |
| Bacani | Present* | Guingona | Present |
| Bengzon | Present | Jamir | Present |
| Bennagen | Present* | Laurel | Absent |
| Bernas | Present | Lerum | Present |
| Rosario Braid | Present | Maambong | Present* |
| Calderon | Present | Monsod | Present |
| Castro de | Present | Natividad | Present* |
| Colayco | Present* | Nieva | Present |
| Concepcion | Present | Nolledo | Present* |
| Ople | Present | Suarez | Present* |
| Padilla | Present | Sumulong | Present |
| Quesada | Present | Tadeo | Present* |
| Rama | Present | Tan | Present* |
| Reyes de los | Present | Tingson | Present |
| Rigos | Present | Treñas | Present |
| Rodrigo | Present | Uka | Present |
| Romulo | Present | Villacorta | Present |
| Rosales | Absent | Villegas | Present |
| Sarmiento | Present |
The Secretariat is in receipt of official
advice of absence of Commissioner Regalado.
The President is present.
The roll call shows 31 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 the previous session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move
that we approve the Journal of last Saturday’s session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection
that we approve the Journal of the previous session? (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
Communication from Mr. Zacarias P. Raner,
8 Barile Street, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, expressing his reaction
against the proposal to make Tagalog/Pilipino as our national language,
saying that the dominance of Tagalog, which is spoken by around 25% of
our people, has caused the alienation of the 75% of our compatriots who
are non-Tagalog.
(Communication No. 949 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Atty. Rodulfo S. Rosales,
Editor, The Lemuria Times, 65 V. Luna Road, cor. Maginoo St., Quezon
City, expressing support for the retention of the U.S. military bases
and against the policy of neutrality.
(Communication No. 950 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Communication from Sister Carmen Balazo
and nineteen (19) other members of the Association of Religious Women in
Zambales, seeking the dismantling of the U.S. military bases in the
Philippines.
(Communication No. 951 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Communication from Mr. Ernesto C.
Gonzalez, 669 Aurora Blvd., Quezon City, expressing opinion on the
status of Filipino citizens who are “green card” holders, saying that a
“green card” holder who remains to be a Filipino retains his Filipino
citizenship and as such, is entitled to the rights, duties, obligations
and privileges of a Filipino citizen and consequently entitled to hold
public office.
(Communication No. 952 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of
Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Communication from Mr. David D. Boaz, 224
Second Street SE, Washington, D.C., transmitting a copy of the Cato
Report containing an article by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, “The
Constitutional Protection of Economic Freedom,” hoping that the same may
be of use to the Constitutional Commission.
(Communication No. 953 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Communication from Mr. Dexter B. Bajade,
transmitting Resolution No. 13, series of 1986, adopted by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur, expressing support to the
adoption of a nationalist-oriented Philippine Constitution.
(Communication No. 954 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Communication from Ms. Erlinda Q.
Martinez, transmitting Resolution No. 47-86 of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Trento, Agusan del Sur, expressing support for the adoption of a truly
nationalist constitution.
(Communication No. 955 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader
is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 537
(Article on the Declaration of Principles)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. CALDERON: I move that we continue the
consideration of the Article on the Declaration of Principles. We are
now in the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The honorable chairman and members of the
Committee on the Declaration of Principles will please occupy the front
table so we can continue the period of amendments. For the information
of the body, we will be imposing our Rules on the time to be allotted to
every speaker, the three-minute rule. We will request the members of
the committee or the chairman to designate who will be the one to speak
for the committee, unless there are two views, in which case, there will
be one for each of the minority and the majority views.
Who will be our first speaker or
proponent of an amendment?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, we are now
in Section 10, and those who have amendments shall please see and
confer with the committee chairman.
In the meantime, I move for the
suspension of the session for three minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 10:10 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:26 a.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is
recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Regarding Section 10, the
committee, along with Commissioners Gascon, Monsod and Davide, is
recommending the following formulation for our Declaration of
Principles: “The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in
nation-building and shall promote AND PROTECT their physical, moral,
spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. IT shall inculcate in
the youth nationalism, patriotism and ENCOURAGE THEIR involvement in
PUBLIC AND CIVIC SERVICE.”
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any comment?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, instead of
“SERVICE,” may I propose “AFFAIRS” — “PUBLIC AND CIVIC AFFAIRS.”
MR. TINGSON: We accept, Madam President.
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is
recognized.
MR. GASCON: During the period of
interpellations, I asked two questions with regard to the term
“involvement” so that I could be clarified since I wanted to present a
proposal. With regard to this, we retained the words “involvement” and
“encourage THEIR involvement in PUBLIC AND CIVIC AFFAIRS.” I asked
Commissioner Nolledo whether this implies therefore that as a principle,
we should also encourage representation of the youth in affairs which
affect them. Is the issue of representation of the youth and the
encouragement of their participation in the affairs of the State
implied, Madam President?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, Madam President.
“Involvement” would be “participation and representation” in public
affairs.
MR. GASCON: So, with that assurance, I
will not continue my proposal of including the word “representation.” I
am happy with the proposal, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any comment? Are
we ready to vote?
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is
recognized.
MS. QUESADA: We would like to inform the
body that the committee has decided to move lines 13, 14 and 15 to the
Article on Family Rights. We believe that these lines are details which
are more appropriate in the Article on the Family Rights:
The State shall protect children from all
forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation, particularly in conditions
harmful to their physical, mental or moral well-being.
THE PRESIDENT: So, these will not form
part anymore of Section 10?
MS. QUESADA: No more, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I have an amendment to the
first paragraph of Section 10. I propose to add the words “AND PROTECT”
after the word “promote.”
MR. TINGSON: That was already stated,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the chairman please
read again Section 10, as formulated.
MR. TINGSON: Yes, Section 10, as
formulated, reads: “The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in
nation-building and shall promote AND PROTECT their physical, moral,
spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. IT shall inculcate in
the youth patriotism, nationalism, and ENCOURAGE THEIR involvement in
PUBLIC AND CIVIC AFFAIRS.”
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of
this Section 10 as read by the chairman, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 22 votes in favor and
none against; Section 10 as formulated is approved.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is
recognized.
MR. TINGSON: The committee has drawn up
the following formulation of Section 11 with the help of President Muñoz
Palma, Commissioner Davide and the Secretary-General.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall this be part of the
Record?
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I think
there is a pending request of Commissioner Aquino that we hold in
abeyance the deliberation on Sections 11 and 12 until she arrives.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we can proceed to
Section 13.
Is the committee ready with Section 13?
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, we actually
acceded to that request. Would the President allow at least the
committee to read our tentative proposal subject to the participation of
Commissioner Aquino when she arrives so that the body will have a
general idea of the formulation, or shall we just proceed now to Section
13?
THE PRESIDENT: May we first hear Section
11 as formulated by the committee?
MR. OPLE: Prejudicial question, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is
recognized.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, is it correct
that 22 cast their votes on Section 10? Twenty-two votes fall short of a
quorum and it is a matter of record that although 31 responded, only 22
cast their votes.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a quorum.
MR. OPLE: But only 22 out of the quorum
present voted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there still is a
quorum.
MR. OPLE: Thank you for that
clarification, Madam President.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, Section 11
would sound something like this: “The State recognizes the role and
participation of women in nation-building and shall ensure the EQUAL
RIGHTS of women with men in all spheres of economic, political, civic,
social and cultural life, including family life.”
THE PRESIDENT: What about Section 12?
MR. TINGSON: Section 12, Madam President,
would be something like this: “The State affirms the RIGHT of labor as a
social and economic force, and shall PROMOTE THE welfare and protect
THE rights OF WORKERS.”
REV. RIGOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is
recognized.
REV. RIGOS: May I ask whether it is the
intention of the committee to entirely omit this paragraph concerning
children?
THE PRESIDENT: That was already explained
by Commissioner Quesada. What was the explanation of Commissioner
Quesada?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It will be transferred
to the Article on Family Rights, Madam President.
REV. RIGOS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: So can we proceed now to
Section 13?
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, there has
been a slight error in the formulation of Section 12 which was approved
by the committee, and this is: “The State affirms the primacy of THE
RIGHT OF labor as a social and economic force, and shall PROMOTE THE
welfare and protect THE rights OF WORKERS.”
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I do not
understand what primacy of the right of labor as . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Could we just discuss
Sections 11 and 12 when Commissioner Aquino comes?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I then
request the committee to have these typed and distributed to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Sections 11 and 12?
MR. MONSOD: The ones that they have
reformulated, Madam President.
Thank you.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, Section 13
will now be read by Commissioner Rosario Braid.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Section 13 as
reformulated by the committee reads: “The State shall establish,
maintain, and secure adequate social services, SECURITY IN OLD AGE AND
guarantee a life worthy of human dignity.”
We deleted, Madam President, some phrases
on lines 26, 27, 28 and 29 because we feel that these are surplusages.
However, we remembered to include security in old age since we deleted
it in the earlier provision.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Is this section also going to
be transposed to another area or can we discuss this section now?
THE PRESIDENT: This can be discussed now.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, this is a
provision of Section 13.
MR. MONSOD: Will the Commissioner please
read it again?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: “The State shall
establish, maintain, and secure adequate social services, SECURITY IN
OLD AGE AND guarantee a life worthy of human dignity.”
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I thought we already covered
the area of human dignity in an earlier section, and last Saturday, we
approved the section calling for improved quality of life. Is there any
difference between what we are saying here and what we are saying in the
two other paragraphs that we have already approved?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: This is the first time
we mentioned “adequate social services, SECURITY IN OLD AGE.”
MR. MONSOD: I agree with this first part,
Madam President. It is only in the second part where we talk about
guaranteeing them a life, et cetera. These are already covered in the
other two sections where we talked about an improved quality of life,
rising standard of living and protecting and recognizing human dignity.
Are those not covered already, Madam President?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It is already to
emphasize the importance of social services and security in old age but
we are open to amendments.
MR. MONSOD: But why do we not just put a
period there?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: After the words “old
age”?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, or after the words
“social services.”
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: We will be willing to
accept that amendment but it was agreed upon earlier that we should
include “SECURITY IN OLD AGE.”
MR. MONSOD: I do not think that the body
agreed. The committee agreed to consider it, and my proposal is that it
be included under social services. When we talk about social services,
we talk about the underprivileged, the sick, women, older people, et
cetera. I believe that is defined more explicitly in the section on
health in the Article on Social Justice.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, we
will submit it to the body for a vote, since “SECURITY IN OLD AGE” was
proposed by several Members last Saturday.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, perhaps I
could seek to amend the proposed amendment of Commissioner Monsod as he
originally proposed. Maybe, we could put a period (.) after “SECURITY IN
OLD AGE” and exclude the expression “and guarantee a life worthy of
human dignity.”
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes.
MR. GUINGONA: I wonder if Commissioner
Monsod would accept that.
MR. MONSOD: My only reservation is that I
believe taking care of our elderly is part of social services.
MR. GUINGONA: I know, but the other
social services and recognition given to women, members of indigenous
communities, youth and labor have been expressly provided here. If I
remember correctly, it was suggested by Commissioner Maambong when I
objected to the deletion by Commissioner Davide of the expression
“security in old age,” that this be included in Section 13, and this was
accepted by the committee. Because I can see the point of the Gentleman
regarding the expression “and guarantee a life worthy of human
dignity,” perhaps we could put a period (.) after “security in old age.”
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I will not
die on that issue, but perhaps we should give the body a chance to vote
on whether that should be added or we just put a period (.) after
“social services.”
THE PRESIDENT: But may we hear the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Monsod?
MR. MONSOD: My proposed amendment, Madam
President, is to put a period (.) after “social services.” And if
Commissioner Guingona wants to, then he can put the additional phrase to
a vote.
MR. GUINGONA: So the parliamentary
situation will be for Commissioner Monsod to ask for deletion of the
provision after the words “social services” with a reservation on my
part to seek the addition of the phrase “IN THE FIELDS OF EDUCATION AND
SECURITY IN OLD AGE.”
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is
recognized.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, will
Commissioner Monsod answer just one question?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Does the term “social services”
include social security?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President. As a
matter of fact, it is included in the original formulation of the
committee which says: “social services in the fields of education,
health, housing, employment, welfare and social security.”
MR. OPLE: I am glad to hear that because I
just wanted to say for the record that security in old age is only one
of several major benefits granted by our Social Security System to eight
million enrolled workers in the private sector, and the workers pay for
these benefits, Madam President. They are not wards of the State; most
of them are able-bodied workers engaged in productive employment who pay
a proportion of their wages as payroll tax for social security. And,
therefore, I would urge against putting them in the bracket of dependent
wards of the State. They are paying for all of these benefits at the
prime of their working age so that later on, in the twilight of their
lives, they will have earned the security that they paid for.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I agree with
Commissioner Ople, and “social services” precisely is a more
comprehensive and broader term that includes those instances.
THE PRESIDENT: The parliamentary
situation is this: The committee has submitted its new formulation of
Section 13. Commissioner Monsod proposed an amendment. The proposal of
Commissioner Guingona is, in fact, part of the committee report.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So that it is already
covered in the committee report.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I make
a manifestation regarding the remark of Commissioner Ople? Not all
those who are covered by the Social Security System now could be
included in the social security that might be envisioned under this
proposal. Perhaps, what we could do is, since there seems to be an
objection to the limitation with reference to the social security to
security in old age, we could fall back on the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide which amplifies and explains the meaning or
elaborates on the meaning of social security by saying ”INCLUDING
SECURITY IN THE EVENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT, SICKNESS, DISABILITY, WIDOWHOOD,
OLD AGE, OR LACK OF LIVELIHOOD IN CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF
THE CITIZEN.”
THE PRESIDENT: We will have to vote first
on the Monsod amendment.
Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Madam President, besides what
Commissioners Ople and Monsod said, I, too, have a problem with old age,
because it is not only included in social services and social security,
but it is within our natural life as a Filipino and which we are very
proud of. It is within our culture to take care of our old. So if we
mandate it in the Constitution, I think that is an insult to something
we are already doing and are very proud of, and something where we
differ from western countries.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to call the
attention of Commissioner Tan, that in the proposed Article on Family
Life there is an explicit provision wherein we will give attention and
care for our elderly in the Filipino tradition.
SR. TAN: Yes, I agree with the Gentleman.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: This Section 13 is another
provision which starts with the clause “The State shall,” and then it
mentions three verbs — “establish, maintain and secure,” followed by
“adequate social services.” This is all very broad and comprehensive. Is
this concept not already included in our Constitution that we have to
repeat it in the Declaration of Principles? Moreover, with regard to
“social services,” we have many provisions on this, especially on social
justice. How do we expect the State to establish, maintain and secure
social services within the entire framework of government for the
purpose of not only protecting human rights, but also extending social
services to all our people? I think this is unnecessary, and it may be
entertained for deletion.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a proposed
amendment of Vice-President Padilla which will supersede the amendment
of Commissioner Monsod?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I said in
my last statement that this can be considered for deletion and then, I
would proceed to move for the deletion of the entire section.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I am willing to accept that
proposed amendment. I have a suggestion. Can we transpose the words
“social services” to Section 8 where we talk about “social justice” so
that we can just say “SOCIAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL SERVICES,” and then
eliminate the whole paragraph?
MR. PADILLA: I have no objection to the
suggestion of Commissioner Monsod.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May we, therefore, decide
now on the motion of Commissioner Padilla to delete. If that is
approved, then we can move on to Commissioner Monsod’s suggestion to
include “social services” in Section 8.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Padilla
insist on his motion to delete?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So what we have now before
the body is the proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla to delete
the entire Section 13 on the ground that it is covered already by other
provisions in the Constitution.
Are we now ready to vote? The Chair
wishes to advise the chairman that there is a pending motion before the
body. So let us vote on whether to delete or not. If it loses, then we
can reformulate Section 13.
MR. TINGSON: Thank you, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of
the proposed deletion of the entire Section 13, please raise their
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 19 votes in favor and 16
against; the amendment is approved.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we have
one minute because we want to reinsert this in another section.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 10:53 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:57 a.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
May I ask the chairman what happens now
to Section 13?
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, we ask that
Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: We would like to seek the
guidance of the Chair because what we are going to propose is an
amendment to insert the following phrase in Section 7: “PROVIDE ADEQUATE
SOCIAL SERVICES.” Section 7, as amended, would read as follows: “THE
STATE SHALL PROMOTE A JUST AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER that will ensure the
PROSPERITY AND independence of the nation and FREE the people FROM
POVERTY THROUGH POLICIES THAT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SOCIAL SERVICES, PROMOTE
full employment, a RISING STANDARD of living AND AN IMPROVED QUALITY OF
LIFE FOR ALL.” That seems to be the only place where it might fit, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the committee
say?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, we accept, Madam
President. The phrase will be “PROVIDE ADEQUATE SOCIAL SERVICES” after
the words “policies that.”
THE PRESIDENT: Will there have to be a
motion for reconsideration?
MR. MONSOD: It may have to be that, Madam
President, because we have already approved Section 7.
THE PRESIDENT: May we ask Commissioner
Monsod to formally submit his motion.
MR. MONSOD: I move that we reconsider
Section 7 in order to insert the phrase “PROVIDE ADEQUATE SOCIAL
SERVICES” between the words “that” and “promote.”
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to
the motion to reconsider Section 7 which was approved last Saturday for
the purpose stated by Commissioner Monsod? (Silence) The Chair hears
none; Section 7 is reopened for the purpose indicated.
Is the committee accepting the proposal?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, Madam President.
MR. TINGSON: We are accepting the
proposal, Madam President, and Section 7 is now proposed to read as
follows: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A JUST AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER that
will ensure the PROSPERITY AND independence of the nation and FREE the
people FROM POVERTY THROUGH POLICIES THAT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SOCIAL
SERVICES, PROMOTE full employment, a RISING STANDARD of living AND AN
IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL.”
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Can we not say “MAXIMUM
employment” instead of “full employment”?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: That will mean a
reopening of the amendment we have approved. We only reopened for the
insertion.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, but once it is
reopened, it should be reopened. That is just a suggestion; instead of
“full employment,” we say “MAXIMUM employment.”
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is
recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Just a matter of
information for Commissioner Padilla.
In the field of economics, “full
employment” is usually defined as attainable employment which tolerates a
certain level of understandable unemployment because of changes of
jobs, because of the need for training. So, “full employment” is not
really in a perfect employment.
MR. PADILLA: With that explanation of the
term “full employment” I will not insist on my amendment.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of
Section 7, as now formulated, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 31 votes in favor and
none against; Section 7, as now formulated, is approved.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, with the
presence now of Commissioner Aquino, may we ask that she be recognized
in connection with Section 11.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, the women
section in the committee, with the conformity of the men and the Madam
President, is proposing a committee amendment to Section 11, such that
Section 11 will now read: “The State recognizes the role and
participation of women in nation-building and shall ensure the EQUAL
rightS of women with men in all spheres of economic, political, civic,
social and cultural life, including family life.”
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may I ask a
few questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is
recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Does this mean that the Civil
Code will be automatically amended?
MS. AQUINO: The women section in this
committee sympathizes with the insecurity of the men, should that be the
intended effect. And we likewise do not intend to cause a massive
dislocation in our Civil Code and in the civil law jurisprudence.
Therefore, the committee intends that this amendment or this section
should give impetus for the amendatory process done through statutes.
MR. ROMULO: In the amendatory process in
accordance with legislative procedures, does this article mean that when
a choice has to be made, the choice cannot be lodged by the law in the
husband? I will give a concrete example with regard to residence. Under
the present Civil Code, it is the husband who establishes residence.
Suppose my wife insists on living in Cebu. In the process of amending
that portion of the Civil Code, does this constitutional mandate
prohibit Congress from allowing the husband to make such a choice?
MS. AQUINO: We will reiterate the
committee interpretation of Section 11 as articulated by Commissioner
Azcuna: The provision intends that in situations where sex is not a
relevant factor in the determination of rights and duties of citizens,
then it should be disregarded. In the context of equality in fact and in
law, sex where it is irrelevant should not be considered in the
determination of rights and duties.
MR. ROMULO: It establishes the principle
of nonsexism. Is that right?
MS. AQUINO: In effect, yes.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, does this
Section 11 give credence and meaning and recognition to Filipino customs
and values on family life?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, of course, Madam
President.
MR. BENGZON: Therefore, in the event of a
conflict between Filipino customs and values and this provision, which
would prevail?
MS. AQUINO: It is axiomatic in the
interpretation of laws that the courts take judicial recognition of
customary law. However, in the drafting of laws and statutes, this
judicial recognition does not necessarily mean affirmation, although it
does not also necessarily mean that one will contravene customs and
traditions.
MR. BENGZON: So, when Congress takes that
step to give flesh to Section 11, Section 11 does not necessarily mean
that Congress could totally ignore cultural ties or the Filipino culture
insofar as this section on Philippine life is concerned.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is
recognized.
FR. BERNAS: In the phrase “shall insure
the right of women . . .”
MS. AQUINO: No, it should read: “insure
the EQUAL rightS of women with men.”
FR. BERNAS: I see. I was going to ask if
the word “equal” was deliberately omitted.
MS. AQUINO: It was an unintended
omission.
FR. BERNAS: Going back to Commissioner
Aquino’s answer to Commissioner Romulo that this does not amend the
Civil Code but merely starts the process of amending, is it not a matter
of fact that when a subsequent provision of the Constitution becomes
inconsistent with existing civil law provisions or even criminal law
provisions, the Constitution amends such provisions?
MS. AQUINO: We know that as a matter of
an academic position. However, we are aware that the process of
transition to a new set of laws on the rights of women would require the
amendatory process in the legislature.
FR. BERNAS: Let me be more specific. In
the civil law provision now on legal separation, the grounds for legal
separation are adultery on the part of the wife and concubinage on the
part of the husband. What effect would this provision have on pending
cases for legal separation? What effect would this have on prospective
cases for legal separation? Can the woman opposing the legal separation
now say: “There is no ground for legal separation because what we had
has been rendered unconstitutional by the new provision”?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, even before
we are to adopt this provision, the Civil Code Revision Project of the
UP Law Center of which our Secretary-General Romero is a member, is
actually implementing this new provision as intended by Section 11. It
might appear, therefore, that in the absence of a statutory
implementation of Section 11, which, however, is already being intended
in the Civil Code Revision Project, the laws in the Civil Code now where
they stand may be in a period of suspended animation. I would think,
however, that on the matters of deciding on pending cases, the Civil
Code would have to yield to the provision of the Constitution. And
pursuant to this mandate, even without a statutory implementation, the
courts can evolve the new jurisprudence informally with this new
provision.
FR. BERNAS: The Civil Code will have to
yield to the Constitution?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: And since it is only a
project which is not yet a law, as soon as this is approved, there would
be no law on legal separation.
MS. AQUINO: No. Our position is this: In
the hierarchy of legal values, the constitutional mandate takes
precedence over statutes. And the absence of a statutory implementation
notwithstanding, the intention of Section 11 should take precedence
without precluding specific statutory implementation which will amend
the Civil Code.
FR. BERNAS: So, the intention, therefore,
is not to automatically amend but merely to authorize amendment.
MS. AQUINO: It would not be an ipso facto
amendment.
FR. BERNAS: Not ipso facto amendment?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: But suppose nothing is done
for five years?
MS. AQUINO: We are very positive in
anticipation that the Civil Code Revision Project will, by itself,
provide enough ground for the amendment of the Civil Code. The Civil
Code Revision Project has, in fact, been active over the past five
years.
FR. BERNAS: My problem is that a mere
intent unspecified in a constitutional provision and an intent which
runs contrary to the letter is not just a vagueness in the letter. The
letter would have to prevail over whatever unexpressed intent there is
since the letter is clear. The letter expresses equal protection and
every inequality in existing laws must yield to this.
MS. AQUINO: The problem is that if we
provide for an ipso facto amendment of the Civil Code, particularly
pertaining to the laws on personal and family relations, the
determination of the rights and duties pertaining thereto carries with
it intricate details which could not proceed from a vacuum if we say
that ipso facto the provisions in the Civil Code are repealed. There
would have to be a semblance of standards.
FR. BERNAS: In such a case, I would
propose an amendment, some kind of a transitory amendment, to make
things clear. It will say something to this effect: That pending the
enactment of new laws on this subject, existing laws shall continue.
That expresses the Commissioner’s intent and that will save the Supreme
Court the problem of trying to reconcile two things which are
diametrically opposed.
MS. AQUINO: Would that be necessary
considering that it is already clearly intended in the provision?
FR. BERNAS: To my mind, it would be
necessary because we appeal to the records only when the letter is
unclear. Since the letter is very clear, then whatever is said in the
debate will have to yield to the letter.
MS. AQUINO: The committee is willing to
accommodate the amendment, if we will be convinced that such will be
necessary.
FR. BERNAS: I am convinced it is
necessary, although I would not be against ipso facto abolition of
existing inequities.
MS. AQUINO: We are apprehensive of a
position which would adopt an ipso facto amendment because it will cause
a massive dislocation in civil law and the jurisprudence.
FR. BERNAS: Therefore, I recommend some
kind of a transitory provision.
MS. AQUINO: Yes. We are willing to
accommodate that.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is
recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to ask
Commissioner Aquino some questions. Is it not true that the custom must
never be contrary to the Constitution or existing law? That is a basic
provision of the Civil Code.
MS. AQUINO: We understand that. But there
is no Filipino custom that mandates the inequality of men with women.
In other words, we do not foresee that fine morning when one will wake
up with his wife telling him that he cannot do this or that because that
is by law provided in the Constitution or in any congressional statute.
MR. NOLLEDO: I have my misgivings about
this proposed provision, Madam President. It might cause some social
upheaval in Muslim Mindanao. Among Muslims, husbands cannot get more
than four wives, but the wives are not given this privilege. I
understand from my Muslim brothers that as far as Muslims are concerned,
male Muslims consider women inferior to them.
MS. AQUINO: I think the fear of
Commissioner Nolledo is more apparent than real because as far as Muslim
culture is concerned, we know that even the Civil Code would yield to
the Muslim laws on personal and family relations. Shari’a courts apply
the Muslim Code.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, there is another civil
code for Muslims which recognizes their customs and traditions.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: I was thinking that this
provision might automatically amend the provisions of the Muslim
personal law, because Muslim women will then claim their equal rights
with Muslim men and Muslim men will not surrender their rights.
MS. AQUINO: I would like to assure
Commissioner Nolledo that this does not intend to affect the distinctive
character of cultural groups, particularly the Muslim people who have
adopted their own civil code pertaining to their personal and family
relations.
MR. NOLLEDO: Based on this provision of
the Civil Code, there is a provision that the husband is the
administrator of the conjugal regime. Under this provision, can the wife
now claim joint administration with the husband?
MS. AQUINO: Yes. Ideally, the statutory
implementation of this provision, as far as administration of the
conjugal property is concerned, should pertain to joint administration
between husband and wife. The present status of the Civil Code would
give only to the wife or transfer only to the wife . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: The right to object.
MS. AQUINO: Yes. First, the right to
object, when the administration has been known to be contrary to the
family interests, and when the husband is mismanaging the property of
the conjugal partnership.
MR. NOLLEDO: Under the Civil Code, the
wife can exercise any profession or engage in any kind of business,
subject to the right of the husband to object. Would the Commissioner
now say that if we approve this provision, the wife is absolutely free
to engage in any kind of business or exercise her profession without any
objection from the husband?
MS. AQUINO: First, our position is that
the equality of the rights of men with women is not absolute equality,
or we do not contemplate it in terms of absolute likeness. We have to
yield, therefore, to the requirements of the best interests of the
family, which should not necessarily be interpreted as sublimating the
interest and the rights of women.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to marriageable
age, the marriageable age of a man is different from the marriageable
age of the woman.
MS. AQUINO: Fourteen for the woman.
MR. NOLLEDO: Would the Commissioner say
that the marriageable age should now be at par with each other, meaning,
equal?
MS. AQUINO: In fact, if there is any
group that should object to the statutory provisions on marriageable
age, it is not the women but the men because the provision on
marriageable age would seem to say that the level of maturity of the men
does not come at par with the maturity of the women, notwithstanding
similarity of age. For a valid marriage, a woman should be 14 while the
man should be 16.
MR. NOLLEDO: Is Commissioner Aquino not
willing to entertain an amendment and concentrate the equality between
men and women in civil and political life of the nation, rather than
involve the social life?
MS. AQUINO: I beg the pardon of
Commissioner Nolledo.
MR. NOLLEDO: What I mean is that the
equality between men and women should specifically cover the political
life and civil life, without including social life because we will be
adversely affecting a lot of different customs and traditions of the
indigenous communities. Would the Commissioner reconcile this provision
with the constitutional provision that the State shall respect the
customs and traditions of indigenous communities?
MS. AQUINO: Of course. There is no
intention to contravene the provisions on customary laws, especially
with reference to indigenous communities.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: But I cannot agree to
limiting the provisions on equality to political and civil life; social
life after all comprehends civil and political life.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: The Civil Code of the
Philippines is a statutory enactment by Congress patterned after the
Civil Code of Spain, with certain amendments, particularly the
paraphernal law. The Penal Code has been a statutory enactment since
1932 and may be subject to improvement or revision also by the Congress.
If this provision would entail the
present or the enforced amendments of the Civil Code by a constitutional
provision, I am totally against it, Madam President. First of all,
there is a wrong presumption that the Civil Code is in favor of husbands
and fathers of families and against wives and mothers of families. For
example, the husband chooses the family residence; the husband is the
administrator of the conjugal properties; the wife may engage in any
profession with the consent of the husband; the wife cannot accept a
donation from a stranger without the consent of the husband. All these
are good provisions that are intended to preserve the unity and
solidarity of the family.
There is nothing wrong in our Civil Code
that is unduly favoring the husband as against the wife. As a matter of
fact, the wife in good families exercises tremendous influence even over
her husband.
Mention is made in the Penal Code of
adultery and concubinage based on human nature because the infidelity of
the wife — even if it be one intercourse with a stranger who is not her
husband — may give occasion to conception and the introduction of a
spurious child within the legitimate family. The problem is that when a
mother delivers a child during the coverture with her husband, said
child is conclusively presumed to be legitimate, and yet that child may
be the product of illegitimate intercourse by the wife with a man other
than her husband.
On the other hand — it is not to justify,
much less encourage, the infidelity of the husband — if the husband
commits some indiscretion and has intercourse with a woman other than
his wife, there is no danger, as far as the husband is concerned,
because the possibility of pregnancy by the woman and her delivery of a
child — especially because we must preserve the child or even the unborn
from its conception — does not disturb the integrity and the harmony
within the legitimate family.
So, I do not understand, Madam President,
why the feminist movement always wants to stress that there are
inequities or inequalities in the provisions of the Civil Code and the
Penal Code regarding family relations.
I think I should move for the deletion of
this entire section.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, the
self-sacrifice of the women who comprise half of the population is
almost legendary. It would be a tragic aggravation if we will gloss over
that problem and institutionalize their powerlessness and their
destitution. I would like to invite the attention of Commissioner
Padilla to particular provisions of the Civil Code, and then I would
leave to him the discomfort of making a reassessment of his judgment on
the Civil Code.
The intention of the provision in Section
11 calls to mind the need, for example, to amend Article 110 of the
Civil Code, which gives to the husband the sole prerogative to choose
the family residence, in such a way as to make this a matter for both
husband and wife to determine with the best interest of the family, in
due consideration of the manifestation of Commissioner Nolledo, as the
deciding factor.
We invite the attention of the
Commissioner to the provisions of Article 114 of the Civil Code which
prohibit the wife from acquiring any property by gratuitous title,
except from her ascendants, descendants, parents-in-law and collateral
relatives within the fourth civil degree. And there is no such
prohibition imposed on the husband. Effectively, that would mean that I
cannot give a gift to the wife of Commissioner Padilla, without the
consent of Commissioner Padilla.
I would like to invite his attention to
the provisions of Articles 165 to 168 of the Civil Code in regard to the
administration of the conjugal partnership, which vests the power of
administration automatically in the husband when, in actuality, the
Filipino woman has proven herself to be competent in managing the
affairs of the conjugal partnership.
I would like him to reexamine the import
of the legal dictate of Article 111 of the Civil Code which says that
the husband is responsible for the support of the wife and the rest of
the family. While on the other hand, Article 115 says that the wife
manages the affairs of the household. The import of this provision is
that the paramount destiny and the mission of the women in the country
and in the population is just to fulfill the benign offices of wife and
mother.
I would like to call Commissioner
Padilla’s attention to the legal requirements of Article 84 of the Civil
Code about a widow having to wait 300 days before she can be issued a
license to a new marriage when, as opined by some of the scholars, the
issuance of a medical certificate to the effect that the applicant is
not pregnant would be sufficient precaution against the possibility of
introducing a spurious child to the line of the family.
I would like to call the Commissioner’s
attention to Article 17 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code withdrawing
from a widow, who remarries, parental authority over her children, where
no such inhibition exists upon the widower. Then, of course, we have
the problem of citizenship; we have the problem of the inadequacy of our
existing laws on annulment and legal separation.
This is an attempt to just go over some
of the major provisions; this is not even an exhaustive enumeration. But
these are the major points on this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is
recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, I yield to
Commissioner Villacorta for a while.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, it seems
that the prevailing assumption suffices that equality of women is
contrary to Filipino customs and values. The contrary is what really
exists or what has really existed.
If we go as far back as precolonial
times, our historians and anthropologists tell us that women have always
had high status in precolonial Philippine society. We had female
rulers; the preferred priests or the babaylans were mostly women, and
even among existent indigenous communities, women have as much share as
the men in terms of responsibility, work and in terms of opportunity. I
wish that Commissioner Bennagen were here to confirm that. It was also
mentioned that when it came to the management of household and certain
family businesses, women play a very active and important role.
So, therefore, it is not really true that
in our culture, women have a subordinate role and this was confirmed by
Commissioner Padilla when he spoke about assertion of women’s equality
even in the Civil Code which was heavily influenced by Spanish culture.
Japan, where women have traditionally been subservient to men, has in
its constitution a clear provision that there shall be no discrimination
on the basis of gender, and the equal rights of women have always been
asserted in Japanese laws. In Philippine culture, while equality of
women is affirmed, the identicality of women in relation to men is, of
course, not accepted. And as Commissioner Aquino has said, equality is
not the same as identicality, that differences between women and men,
biological or otherwise, are acknowledged in our culture but the equal
rights, as well as equal duties of women are accepted. I think this very
quality of our society is one of the major sources of the strength of
the fiber of Philippine society and culture. When we speak of equality
of women in economic life, we are referring to the fact that women and
men shall have equal rights to be gainfully employed; shall receive the
same wages for the same type of work; that women shall not be denied the
employment on the basis of their gender, age or civil status; that
women shall have equal opportunities for promotion and professional
development; and that marriage shall not affect the rights of women to
own and control their own properties, to freely engage in commerce or
industry, to practice any profession, trade or craft or to use as they
please the proceeds of their labor.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry I have to
interrupt the Commissioner. Will he just finish his statement?
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, Madam President.
On family life, marriage shall be based
on free and mutual consent; equality of both spouses and that properties
bought or awarded for the benefit and welfare of the entire family
shall be in the name of both spouses. Management and disposal of such
must be by the mutual determination of both spouses.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is
recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
May we address a few questions to the
Honorable Aquino. I can detect that there is some agitation among the
male population in this Commission with her proposal. So may we try to
quiet their fears?
There are procedural and substantive
problems. Let us go to the procedural problems because under the Rules
of Court a wife cannot sue without joining the husband. Under the
Commissioner’s proposal, I suppose this situation would have to be
affected; meaning, that now a wife can sue without joining the husband
and correspondingly the defendant can file a counterclaim against the
wife without joining the husband either. Is my understanding correct, if
we fully implement the thinking spelled out in the Commissioner’s
proposal?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Madam President.
MS. SUAREZ: Let us go to the substantive
problems. Referring to the provisions on the Civil Code, as the
Commissioner pointed out correctly, the wife is not presently the
administrator nor the coadministrator of the conjugal partnership. It is
the husband alone. Under the proposal of Commissioner Bernas, maybe
there could be some kind of a transitory provision to cover that
situation, Madam President. Does the Commissioner agree?
Let me go to the definition of the word
“rights.” It usually connotes something by way of obligation. In other
words, there is an equal right and there is an equal obligation. So if
we are going to fully implement this, the wife would now be under legal
obligation to maintain and support the family.
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: And if I were a Juan Tamad, I
could compel my wife to take care of the family. I could tell her: “You
go to market; you go to office; you support me because we have an equal
right in maintaining the family.” Is that within the contemplation of
this provision, Madam President?
MS. AQUINO: Rights necessarily carry with
them duties and obligations but in the realm of possibilities and in
the context of settled customs, that example may be a bit absurd.
MR. SUAREZ: Meaning, the example I gave
will not be all that ridiculous, if we are going to implement this
thinking that a right connotes an obligation. Therefore, when we speak
in terms of supporting the family, it is not only the husband but also
the wife who would be under obligation to support the family. She has
equal right to the properties. This concept may destroy the conjugality
in property ownership. Are we going to carry it to that logical extreme
or conclusion?
MS. AQUINO: I do not see how it will
destroy the concept of conjugality in the property ownership between
husband and wife. In fact, as it is intended, Section 11 would, in
effect, say that the wife is a coadministrator of the conjugal property.
MR. SUAREZ: Going back to the obligation
to support the family, that would include the obligation on the part of
the wife to support the children. The children could, therefore, file
for support under this proposal. Would it contemplate a situation where
even the children could file a claim for support against the mother, not
necessarily against the father?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, they have
that option?
MS. AQUINO: But the problem is this: We
know that in jurisprudence, an action for support proceeds either from
the wife who has been abandoned by the husband or, in all instances,
from the child, filed jointly with the mother as a coparty litigant
because understandably the child is a minor. The Civil Code provides
that upon the age of maturity, when the child is possessed of the full
faculties of human activity, he is not entitled to support.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Suarez
desire to ask for an extension of time because his time has already
expired?
MR. SUAREZ: Only one more point, Madam
President, regarding the matter of parental support and custody.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner will
please proceed.
MR. SUAREZ: So, if the children are
entitled to parental support and custody, they have the option of
choosing whether it is the father or the mother who will be obligated to
put them in their custody or give them support?
MS. AQUINO: Yes. This would, in effect,
amend the Child and Youth Welfare Code, P.D. No. 603, which says that
the child remains with the mother until the age of 7.
MR. SUAREZ: So, the Commissioner would
have no intention of limiting the equality of rights to, as correctly
pointed out by Commissioner Nolledo, civil and political exercises?
MS. AQUINO: That would smack of a certain
measure of mental dishonesty. We know that civil and political rights
are part and parcel of social life. If we can be so liberal with a gush
as to say that we will grant equal rights to women with men, why do we
have to hold back and, on the basis of a strained explanation, say that
we will limit this only to civil and political rights?
MR. SUAREZ: I thank the Commissioner for
the clarification.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: My question is based on the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code on marital infidelity. There are
two kinds of crimes under this heading in the Reused Penal Code — one
for men and one for women. In the case of men, the crime punishable is
called “concubinage,” which means there is no crime unless the husband
cohabits With another woman, does it under scandalous circumstances, or
keeps a woman in the conjugal home. In the case of the wife, however,
one act of infidelity, one sexual intercourse with another man is
“adultery.” The women consider this unequal. If we are to equalize this,
would the Commissioner want the women to be equal to men so that wives
will not be guilty of any crime under marital infidelity unless they
keep their paramours in the conjugal home, cohabit with them, or do
their indiscretions under scandalous circumstances? Or, if the
Commissioner wants the men to be equal to women, would she penalize a
husband, imprison him, for just one act of indiscretion?
MS. AQUINO: The first part of the
question is what actually exists now. The evidentiary burden, to be able
to establish a crime of concubinage, would have to fall squarely with
the requirements of the definition of concubinage which means, as the
Commissioner has mentioned, putting up a concubine in the conjugal home,
conducting sexual intercourse in scandalous circumstances, as against
infidelity which would make a woman punishable for every single sexual
act outside of the marital bed.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes. As explained by
Commissioner Padilla, the reason for this is that in the case of a wife,
a spurious child may be introduced into the family, and legally
presumed conclusively to be the child of the poor husband. If we are
going to equalize, how are we going to equalize this crime on marital
infidelity for men and women? May I ask again: Should we penalize a
husband, send him to jail, for just one act of sexual intercourse, like
adultery now? Or, should it be the other way around? Should we not
penalize the wife for a single act of sexual intercourse with another
man, but only penalize her if she cohabits with another man, does her
acts of infidelity under scandalous circumstances, or keeps a paramour
in the conjugal home?
MS. AQUINO: First, the fear of the law is
unmasked in providing that infidelity is just as much a grave act as
concubinage. Just by one act of a sexual liaison outside the marital bed
is justified. This kind of a conclusion inheres and is attendant to the
biological difference between a man and a woman for, after all, it
remains unchallenged that still the woman has the monopoly of
child-bearing. However, on the possibility of interpreting the
difference between proving adultery and concubinage and infusing
equality, I am not, for the moment, prepared to come out with a
configuration of equality except in terms of evidentiary burden.
MR. RODRIGO: That is what worries us men.
We do not know how this is going to be equalized.
I thank the Commissioner very much, Madam
President.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, may I have
the floor?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is
recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: I think everybody recognizes
that in the Philippines the husbands always consult their wives on all
matters of family importance, even in business. As a matter of fact,
some are even henpecks. I am serious in saying this because I believe
there is no need for this provision. In actual practice, the equality of
women has been recognized in our economic, political, civic, social and
cultural life. Although it is true that some of the provisions in our
laws may be considered disadvantageous to the women, all these are not
observed nor even demanded by the husbands. Proof of this is that our
President now is a woman; the President of our Commission is a woman;
and the women have excelled men in business. Most or many big businesses
in our country are founded and managed by women. I believe that
although it may be admitted that probably some of our laws are
disadvantageous to the women, if we insist on this, it may cause even
some disagreement among the couples now. For this reason, I take the
view of those of us who have given their reasons for not approving this
provision in our Constitution.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I would admit to a certain
measure of truth in the manifestation of Commissioner Colayco, but that
would pertain only to the women who have achieved a certain measure of
education and, therefore, the opportunities for career and social
mobility are infinite. That would pertain only to the views of the
middle- and upper-middle-class husbands, the Commissioners’ wives,
children and sisters. What of the bigger bulk of the women population
who are in the provinces, in the rural areas? The concept of women
inequality partakes of two fronts — inequality that is attendant to and
inheres in the social class to which the woman belongs, for example, a
woman who belongs to a peasant family; and the gender oppression, which
is the inequality that pertains to the woman arising from her sexual
biologically determined factors. In this context, we refer to this as
the double oppression of women.
MR. COLAYCO: I beg to disagree with that
view, Madam President. Even among the poor classes — and I have had
occasion to deal with these people — the inherent respect which Filipino
people have for the women is always there. There may be some
exceptions. The Commissioner may have heard about men who get drunk and
when they go home, they beat their wives. These are very, very few
exceptions and I can assure the Commissioner.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
MR. COLAYCO: Just one more minute, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The three minutes of the
Commissioner is already over, unless he would ask for an extension of
time.
MR. COLAYCO: I do not want to make an
exception, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Commissioner
Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Aquino yield
to a question.
MS. AQUINO: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: This concerns the equal rights
of women with men in Section 11 which states: “. . . in all spheres of
economic, political, civic, social and cultural life, including family
life.” I am reminded of a basic rule in management; that is, when a rule
works, it is not to be changed. Is there a perceptible state of
rebellion among the women of the Philippines against the Civil Code,
especially its parts pertaining to family life so that Section 11
becomes an urgent response to this state of revolt against an oppressive
and unacceptable legal system in the Civil Code applying to Filipino
family life?
MS. AQUINO: I would like to assure
Commissioner Ople that there is a great deal of consciousness on the
matter which, unfortunately, has not attained to the level of a revolt.
But let me cite as example the mushrooming of women organizations in
Davao where there are about 120 and in Manila. We are now witnesses to
the distinct pattern of class-based women grouping together in women’s
organizations.
MR. OPLE: Are they protesting the Civil
Code in particular, Madam President?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: It is very strange that this
rebellion of women’s groups focused on the family provisions of the
Civil Code had not come to our attention until this morning. I know that
there are women groups fighting for equality in all fields, especially
for representation in the economic and political spheres. But I did not
know that this is one of the great issues that have inspired their
existence and have agitated them.
MS. AQUINO: Earlier, I have made a
distinction between the two classes of oppression that are made to bear
upon women. First, the oppression arising from their being a member of a
social class which would pertain, therefore, to economic and political
issues. Second, the oppression arising from gender we would call gender
oppression. A lot of women organizations that had mushroomed during
martial law and the dark days after the lifting of martial law have
united. It is a unity borne out of a struggle against the Marcos
dictatorship. That was essentially the imprint of the social class
oppression of women, and along with it the development of the feminist
aspect of the women’s equality movement.
MR. OPLE: I see. In the economic field, I
can agree with the proponent. I see, for example, that 70 percent of
all our postgraduate enrolment consists of women but only about 1
percent of the higher administrative and managerial posts in this
country are held by women. So there is a wide gap between training and
the actual opportunity received. But in the matter of family life, I am
beginning to fear in this section an organized invasion into my own
privacy and that of my family. I do not know if so many other families
will share this.
THE PRESIDENT: The time of Commissioner
Ople has expired, unless he wants to have an extension of one minute.
MR. OPLE: May I wind up with a closing
sentence, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner will
please do so.
MR. OPLE: Lacking the opportunity to
debate on what now seems to be a revolutionary and momentous issue with
potential unsettling impact on the tranquility and peace of all the
families in the Philippines, I would like to reserve my opposition to
this section at the proper time, Madam President.
Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: May we request a continuing
suspension of the three-minute rule considering that the issues under
discussion are of momentous significance to 48 families represented by
the 48 Commissioners in the Commission, of course, not including the 52
million other Filipinos outside the halls of this Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But the three minutes
has been quite fruitful. I think we have had enough ideas. It is just a
question of repeating and repeating the same story.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is
recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
The proposed Section 11 has two parts.
One states: “The State recognizes the role and participation of women in
nation-building.” And I have not heard any word of objection regarding
this part. The second part says:
. . . and shall ensure the right of women
to equal protection with men in all spheres of economic, political
civic, social and cultural life, including family life.
My question, Madam President, is: Is this
rule supposed to be envisioned to be a hard-and-fast rule or an
absolute rule; especially in view of the manifestations made by the
honorable Commissioners, particularly Commissioners Padilla and Rodrigo,
who talked about the possible introduction of a spurious child into the
family?
THE PRESIDENT: May we know the answer of
Commissioner Aquino.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, Section 11
is a constitutional provision that seeks to recognize in law and in fact
the equality of women with men.
MR. GUINGONA: Is it supposed to be an
absolute rule or would it admit of exceptions?
MS. AQUINO: No, I have manifested earlier
that we do not speak of absolute equality or likeness, precisely
because of the necessity of recognizing biologically determined
differences.
MR. GUINGONA: So there could be
exceptions?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, of course, there are.
MR. GUINGONA: Who would determine the
exceptions?
MS. AQUINO: It is not a question of who
would determine the exceptions because it is axiomatic that there is
biologically determined difference between man and woman. For so long as
this difference is relevant in the determination of rights and duties,
then we have to yield to that.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, but who would
determine, therefore, the relevancy? I mean, this is a general
statement. There must be some specifics.
MS. AQUINO: The constitutional mandate
cannot exist in a vacuum. It could only be given flesh by statutory
implementation and by the customs of the society.
MR. GUINGONA: Would there be any
objection if we introduce, for example, the expression “AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW”?
MS. AQUINO: How would the provision read
now?
MR. GUINGONA: The provision would now
read as follows: “IT shall ensure the EQUAL right OF women with men in
all spheres of economic, political, civic, social and cultural life,
including family life AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.” By the expression “AS
MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW,” we are talking about the exceptions, the few
exceptions that the Commissioner has admitted may occur.
MS. AQUINO: I have to disagree to the
addition of the clause “AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW” because it will
diminish the intent and meaning of the section. When you say “you
recognize,” you do not have to wait for a law which will recognize the
equality of the rights between men and women.
MR. GUINGONA: I thank the Commissioner,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is
recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, just a few
observations. As a student of economic development in this country over
the last 20 years, I have gathered enough empirical evidence that the
Philippines is basically a matriarchal society. The women have
definitely had prominence in economic life. They are usually the ones
who start entrepreneurial enterprises. The only areas where men
predominate are in the professional fields. Even in the running of
family finances, women are unique in the world, together with another
community in Sumatra, where very important decisions in financial
matters are usually left to the women. There is what we call “entrega,” a
Spanish word, which means total surrender of the salaries of the
husband to the wife and the wife, literally, has a monopoly of deciding
how to make use of these funds. So even the statistics cited by
Commissioner Ople attest to the fact that in education the women,
especially in rural life, have always been preferred over the men. If
there is a decision on whom to send to further schooling, for example,
to a university, it is always the daughters who are given preference.
This explains the fact that the Philippines is also unique in the world
in having 60 percent of its university enrolment and 70 percent of
graduates accounted for by women. Even the United States does not have
such a bias in favor of women. So I am sure Commissioner Aquino will
forgive me if I say that the way this section stands now, it smacks of
colonial mentality, borrowing from the feminists movement in the U.S. I
think it does not apply at all to Philippine culture. I would be happier
if the section reads as follows: “The State recognizes the role and
participation of women in nation-building and shall ensure the FULL USE
OF THEIR RIGHTS in all spheres of economic, political, civic, social and
cultural life, including family life.” I do admit that in a few
exceptional cases already enumerated by Commissioner Aquino, there are
certain obstacles to the full use of rights by women. So this is the way
I would suggest the section will read.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is
recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: I have a proposed amendment,
Madam President, which might reconcile the different views. Instead of
“EQUAL right of women with men,” I propose that we say: “shall ensure
the FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW of women with men in all
spheres.” So we again go back to “equal protection,” because equality
before the law means “equal protection.”
THE PRESIDENT: What does the committee
say? Does Commissioner Aquino need time to study it?
MS. AQUINO: We have initially agreed,
Madam President, in conference with Commissioner Azcuna, to accept the
amendment.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, the
Commissioner is a member of the committee, so we are accepting that as a
committee amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is
recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may I
suggest another formulation for consideration, which is, after “shall,”
add “BY LAW REMOVE ANY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN BY REASON OF SEX.”
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 12:02 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 12:09 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, may we
request the recognition of Commissioner Azcuna who will present the
combined formulation of the Azcuna-Rodrigo committee amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is
recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you, Madam President.
This is a joint formulation by Commissioners Romulo, Villacorta, Ople,
Guingona, Monsod, Maambong and myself. It would read as follows: “The
State recognizes the role and participation of women in nation-building
and shall ensure the FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW of women with
men AND SHALL BY LAW REMOVE ANY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN BY REASON
OF SEX in all spheres of economic, political, civic, social and cultural
life.”
MS. AQUINO: So we delete “including
family life.”
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, we delete it.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I address one question
to the proponent?
MR. AZCUNA: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: The Commissioner’s
amendment speaks of fundamental equality before the law of men and
women. How is this different from the original formulation of the
committee of equal rights of women with men?
MR. AZCUNA: The intention probably is the
same. We just wanted to make it very clear that the equality we are
speaking of here is not an identical set of rights, but rather equal
protection before the law of rights which must spring from their dignity
as persons — the fundamental equality of men and women. But it can
admit of different treatment without violating the equality where the
difference is based on rational, relevant or germane distinctions.
MR. SARMIENTO: I thank the Commissioner
for that clarification.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is
recognized.
MS. QUESADA: May we just ask some
questions of the proponent?
MR. AZCUNA: Willingly, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Would this new formulation
include, for example, certain school policies in the admission of
students? As a concrete example, in the University of the Philippines’
College of Medicine there is a discrimination between men and women
applicants. Women are required to have a higher general weighted average
of 1.5 versus 1.75 for men applicants.
MR. AZCUNA: This would include that type
of discrimination.
MS. QUESADA: Would this also include the
admission requirements for certain degree as in nursing, where there is
discrimination against men applicants? Would this also be part of the
intentions of this provisions?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, that would also be,
insofar as the relevances are disregarded.
MS. QUESADA: I thank the Commissioner.
MR. AZCUNA: According to Aristotle, and I
quote:
It is the highest inequality to treat the
same things differently and to treat different things the same way.
MS. QUESADA: Still another clarification.
We have been talking of equality before the law. But this is not really
legislation but educational policies or orientations. For instance, in
the offering of courses in schools like home economics, this is only
offered to girls instead of girls and boys. The choices for physical
education courses for men and women show discrimination that seems to
highlight the difference between men and women or girls and boys. Would
these discriminations be addressed in this formulation?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Madam President. And,
precisely, the second portion of the amendment which was drawn up
originally by Commissioner Romulo is an affirmative action provision
which makes legal affirmative action correct past discriminations.
MS. QUESADA: Would that include some
customs and traditions like the responsibility of girls and boys or men
and women in relation to family life?
MR. AZCUNA: With regard to customs, we
probably have to go a little slower because we also take into account
local customs especially in indigenous culture. That is the reason we
concentrate on fundamental equality. If they strike at the fundamental
rights of a person, then even that custom should yield to equality.
MS. QUESADA: So this would have
implications to our value orientation which need not be legislated but
could be part of the thrust of this new orientation towards equality
between men and women.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, even schools, for
example, in view of this new thrust can voluntarily start affirmative
action. If they are challenged in court, the courts should sustain a
voluntary affirmative action to remedy imbalances in violation of this
equality.
MS. QUESADA: I thank the Commissioner for
the clarification.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid
is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: May I just ask a few
questions? Beyond affirmative action, would this provision provide the
climate for the transformation of attitudes, such as, for instance, what
are found in the mass media today and the world of symbols where women
are always portrayed in terms of sexist themes, their attractiveness and
of being fashion models rather than for the quality of their minds?
Would this provision address itself to the need to erase stereotypes,
like the perception that women are good for the kitchen or for the
bedroom as our former dictator had said? Would this promote better
communication between husband and wife, because rigidity in roles shall
be slowly removed?
I think we are more concerned about the
stereotypes that are with us. We hope that certain restructuring of the
world of symbols around us, as well as of attitudes, could be done in
order that we can promote improved communication based on equality. We
cannot communicate if the other is less equal or inferior.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Madam President. It
encompasses all that.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just wanted to mention that
in reply to the question of Commissioner Quesada about admission
requirements, for example, in medical schools, I would not be very quick
to say that all of those would be eliminated because sometimes there
are rational bases for these. The statistical records show that a very
high disproportionate number of women do not practice the profession
after they graduate.
What I am only saying is that there
should not be any categorical statement that that is wrong because we
really do not know what is the basis of the policy. I agree with the
formulation of Commissioner Azcuna, but I would not interpret very
quickly that all of these things have no basis after this constitutional
provision.
The other point I want to make is: Do we
need to retain the words “and participation”? When we say “recognizes
the role of women in nation-building,” does that not already include the
idea of participation and involvement?
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner
Aquino say?
MS. AQUINO: The committee is amenable to
delete “and participation.”
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, the committee is
amenable to deleting it, so the provision will just read: “The State
recognizes the role of women in nation-building . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is
recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to ask the proponent. If I
heard him right, has the area of family life been excluded?
MR. AZCUNA: The phrase “including family
life” has been excluded, but the area of family life is still included
under “social and cultural,” but it is not explicitly stated.
MR. COLAYCO: The Commissioner said that
the family life area was excluded because it was deemed included in
“social and cultural.” Am I right?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, the Commissioner is
right.
MR. COLAYCO: Would this, therefore,
justify Congress in amending the Civil Code so that both husband and
wife will have joint administration of the conjugal partnership?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Madam President. Right
now, it is one of the modes allowed in the Civil Code.
MS. AQUINO: It is a premarital
arrangement.
MR. AZCUNA: Actually, the Civil Code
allows the parties to a marriage to choose, under an antenuptial
contract, the domain or the regime of property relationships of the
spouses during the marriage. It is just that if they do not make any
choice that automatically it becomes the conjugal partnership of gains.
MR. COLAYCO: Precisely, Madam President.
In the absence of antenuptial agreement, what would be the authority of
Congress to modify the present provisions of the Civil Code?
MR. AZCUNA: If I understand the
Commissioner’s question right, he is asking whether or not Congress can
now amend the Civil Code so that in the absence of any antenuptial
agreement, the prevailing regime will be a joint administration.
MR. COLAYCO: That is it.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes. I think it will be
within the ambit of legislative power to do so, but it does not have to.
I think the “EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW” clause still admits conjugal
partnership of gains as a possible regime, because it can still be
sustained as based on some rational distinctions. It is up to Congress
to appreciate the difference.
MR. COLAYCO: So, in the matter of
purchasing goods for the family like, for instance, if the husband wants
to buy a new car, his wife can say no.
MR. AZCUNA: It is up to Congress, if they
feel there is no rational difference between a husband and a wife
buying a car considering our culture.
MR. COLAYCO: No, this is very important. I
think it can cause a lot of disagreement. Under our present laws, the
wife can buy any necessities for the family, like a refrigerator,
without consulting her husband.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, that is correct.
MR. COLAYCO: But the husband, it would
seem, cannot buy anything without the wife’s consent, which would be a
very unusual situation.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, that would be a cruel
and unusual punishment. (Laughter)
THE PRESIDENT: The time of Commissioner
Colayco has elapsed.
MR. COLAYCO: Just one more question,
Madam President.
If we allow this, will it not cause a
disruption and confusion, if not disagreement, between husband and wife?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Madam President. I do
believe, however, that the present formulation grants enough flexibility
for Congress to fine-tune our Civil Code, both in the light of the
demand for equality by women and the antecedent structure of cultures in
our society, so that it will not be so abrupt.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I be clarified on two
points. The provision, as proposed, would read “FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY
BEFORE THE LAW of women with men.” How would the Commissioner
distinguish this from the second sentence of Section 1 of the Article on
the Bill of Rights which provides: “nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws”?
MR. AZCUNA: There is no real difference,
Madam President, because equality before the law means equal protection.
This is one way of saying that.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, that
particular portion can be deleted because it is already covered by
Section 1 of the Article on the Bill of Rights.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, we want to
emphasize that this equal protection before the law should be observed
with respect to women vis-a-vis men.
MR. DAVIDE: But the “equal protection of
the laws” clause applies both to men and women, and even to a possible
third sex.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, but the women have been
treated as second class persons, so we wanted to eliminate that
treatment by emphasizing that this fundamental equality before the law
obtains in the relationship of women with men.
MR. DAVIDE: On the second point: What are
contemplated as the components of ”nation-building”? Are these not the
social, civil, political, cultural, moral and intellectual components?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, they are, but basically
“nation-building” refers to the development of people.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, civilly, politically,
socially economically, intellectually and even spiritually.
MR. AZCUNA: That is right, Madam
President.
MR. DAVIDE: So, in other words, the
second portion of the second sentence may not even be necessary, because
the flagship provision reads: “The State recognizes the role of women
in nation-building.” That would be sufficient since “FUNDAMENTAL
EQUALITY” is covered by the “equal protection of the laws” clause. The
last portion regarding civil, political, social, economic and cultural
are themselves the components already of nation-building.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Madam President. But as I
said, it has to be emphasized that in this nation-building process the
women are not just taking a backseat role. They are equal participants
with men in this nation-building. So there is a need to reiterate their
fundamental equality before the law with men.
MR. DAVIDE: This should be a provision of
first impression. It was not in the 1935 Constitution, neither in the
1973 Constitution. So if we merely stop at recognizing the role of women
in nation-building, that really would be a recognition of the role of
women — enshrining the particular role of women.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, may I just
ask one question?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson may
proceed.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, does the
Commissioner agree that in the light of our culture in the Philippines,
the husband is the head and the wife is the heart of the home?
MR. AZCUNA: That is a metaphor, to which I
agree.
MR. TINGSON: That would be partly the
reason why we would now delete “including family life.”
MR. AZCUNA: No, Madam President.
“Including family life” is to be deleted because it is already embraced
and subsumed by the phrase “social and cultural life.” We should not
give examples or include such in the law because it is not good drafting
style.
MR. TINGSON: Do I understand that our
committee did not accept the amendment a while ago to add the phrase
“ACCORDING TO LAW”?
MR. AZCUNA: It is included in the second
portion where it says: “AND SHALL BY LAW REMOVE ANY DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST WOMEN . . .”
MR. TINGSON: I thank the Commissioner,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, will the
two main sponsors, Commissioners Azcuna and Romulo, agree to a simple
formulation to read as follows: “The State recognizes the role of women
in nation-building and shall ensure the EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN BEFORE
THE LAW” and delete all others?
MR. AZCUNA: I regret I cannot, Madam
President, because I believe the phraseology is sparse enough,
considering the need really to make this equality before the law
explicit in all spheres of endeavor.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, the
formulation which is based on the committee suggestion is “EQUALITY
BEFORE THE LAW of women with men.” I think it should be “EQUALITY OF MEN
AND WOMEN.” The phrase “women with men” may imply that there are
discriminations, inequalities, inequities in the Civil Code, Penal Code
or other laws. Let us say: “EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN BEFORE THE LAW.”
I am against the phrase “SHALL BY LAW
REMOVE ANY DISCRIMINATION . . .” because that assumes that any such
discrimination, inequality or inequity exists in the Civil Code or in
the Penal Code.
Assuming arguendo that there is such
discrimination, then that would be the function of the Congress. It is
the Congress that passed the Civil Code and the Penal Code.
Also, I am against this phrase “in all
spheres” because as observed by Commissioner Davide, these are already
included in the role of nation-building. There is no necessity of making
it too long or enumerating, because there is no need for an
enumeration, which may not be exhaustive, for an enumeration might
exclude others under the principle of inclusio unius est exclusio
alterius. So for a provision in the Constitution, I believe that the
first portion can stand without the other long phrases and clauses
thereafter. I will repeat my suggestion, Madam President: “The State
recognizes the role of women in nation-building and shall ensure
EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN BEFORE THE LAW,” and delete all others.
THE PRESIDENT: But it has not been
accepted by Commissioner Azcuna. How about the committee? Does it accept
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla?
MS. AQUINO: The committee regrets that it
cannot accept the amendment of Commissioner Padilla.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is
recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may I
suggest that we suspend the session.
THE PRESIDENT: But we are ready to vote
on Section 11 as formulated by Commissioner Azcuna.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, the
committee chairman is manifesting that we would ask for time.
MR. TINGSON: We prefer to resume this
after lunch so that we could probably, in a sense, perfect this
formulation and reconcile.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. ROMULO: I move that we suspend the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 12:32 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:03 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that
Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, Section 11
was proposed to read as follows: “The State recognizes the role of women
in nation-building and shall ensure EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN BEFORE
THE LAW.”
MR. ROMULO: Will Commissioner Padilla
yield to an amendment by substitution to read as follows: “The State
recognizes the role of women in nation-building and shall ensure the
FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW OF MEN AND WOMEN.”
MR. PADILLA: It is essentially the same,
so I accept.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the committee
say?
MS. AQUINO: We already agreed on that —
that it will be transposed: “WOMEN AND MEN.”
MR. AZCUNA: So ladies first.
MR. ROMULO: What does Commissioner
Padilla say?
MR. PADILLA: According to Commissioner
Davide, we leave it to the Committee on Style. But the first portion
speaks of the role of women, so the second portion should be “EQUALITY
OF MEN AND WOMEN.” Even the last word becomes even more impressive than
the previous word.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, precisely
proceeding from that kind of an observation, I think what is logical is
that we give preference in terms of attention and focus to women.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Even alphabetically it
should be “MEN AND WOMEN.” (Laughter) Adam was created before
Eve.
THE PRESIDENT: How shall we submit this
now to the body, Commissioner Aquino?
MS. AQUINO: I would formally move to
amend that, if Commissioner Romulo is amenable to it, to transpose
“WOMEN” before “MEN.”
MR. ROMULO: I accept, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So will the Commissioner
please read it again so that we can submit it to a vote, because we have
discussed this quite lengthily?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, it shall now
read: “The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building and
shall ensure the FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW OF WOMEN AND MEN.”
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of
this new formulation of Section 11, please raise their hand.
(Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 28 votes in favor and
none against; Section 11 is approved.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, likewise,
the committee calls on Commissioner Aquino to state the committee’s
formulation of Section 12.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, conformably
with the observations in the period of interpellations, the committee is
introducing an amendment to Section 12 to streamline and dovetail the
provisions on social justice pertaining to the labor group.
Section 12, as amended, would now read:
“The State affirms the primacy of labor as a social and economic force
and shall PROMOTE THE WELFARE AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS.”
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: I have an amendment which
would read as follows: “THE STATE AFFIRMS THAT LABOR IS A PRIMARY SOCIAL
AND ECONOMIC FORCE. ACCORDINGLY, IT SHALL PROMOTE THE WELFARE AND
PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS.”
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, the
committee accepts the amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I have also a
formulation. The primacy of labor is not a social and economic force
but the primacy of the right to a just share of the fruits of
production. I do not think there is a meaning to saying “primacy of
labor as a social and economic force.” We recognize labor as a social
and economic force and protect the primacy of the right to a just share
of production.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the primacy
of the right of labor to a just share is very well enshrined in the
Social Justice Article and to dovetail, precisely, what we are affirming
here is the fact that labor is a primary social and economic force. So
that is the principle we are declaring here and proceeding from that,
therefore, is the promotion of the welfare and the protection of the
rights of the workers since they are a primary social and economic
force.
MR. MONSOD: I just do not understand what
we mean by “A PRIMARY SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FORCE.” I think that is my
problem, Madam President. What is a secondary social and economic force?
What is a tertiary social and economic force?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: May I intervene, Madam
President. The intention behind “PRIMARY” is only to give due
recognition to the fact that what requires us to recognize the labor
force is the human element behind the creation of vital commodities
which create wealth. It is only in the spirit of affirming human dignity
in any kind of social order.
MR. MONSOD: But it is a primary force in
what, Madam President? Is it in production, in national life? It must be
a force for something.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is
recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: If I understand it right,
at least part of the inspiration of this provision comes from the
proposed resolution I filed and Commissioner Aquino said that. The idea
really is the primacy of labor over capital. I think Commissioner Aquino
pointed out very well the thrust of that assertion. It is really an
assertion of the supremacy of human dignity over things.
In the process of production, labor is
always a primary and efficient cost, while capital remains a mere
instrumental cost. We will notice that all the means by which a person
appropriates natural resources and transforms them in accordance with
his need are the result of the historical heritage of human labor.
Besides, it is clear that every person sharing in the production process
is the real efficient subject, while the collection of instruments, no
matter how perfect they are, is only a mere instrument subordinate to
human labor.
In our present system, capital is
sometimes given more weight than labor. Let me give an illustration:
Sometimes when there is an increase in the price of raw materials, we
automatically increase the price of goods and there is no question about
that because the price of raw materials has been increased. Yet when
the workers ask for a corresponding increase in their wages, they are
told: “Wait, the price of raw materials is already very high and you
will still ask for an increase in the price of labor?”
So in actual consideration, it seems that
labor takes the last place in the consideration and computation of the
things that must be increased. So I think it is important to assert
that.
I believe Commissioner Aquino caught the
thrust very well when she said that this is really an assertion of the
primacy of human dignity over things.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I just
wanted to ask one question of Commissioner Bacani.
If the Commissioner wants to affirm the
primacy of labor as against capital; then that can only be concretized
in terms of sharing. So the operational result of that is the primacy of
their right to a just share because we can only translate the idea of
primacy of labor over capital through sharing.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. So what this aims is
that in the consideration of the different economic factors, increase in
labor must first be considered over the necessary increase in capital
costs.
MR. MONSOD: So what the Commissioner is
saying is that we recognize labor as a primary social and economic
force. Is that the reason why the Commissioner added “PRIMARY”?
BISHOP BACANI: Also in relation to
capital; that is, to create the goods used in the production process, it
has the primary place in relation to this particular reality.
MR. MONSOD: Will the Commissioner accept a
rewording that states: “THE STATE RECOGNIZES LABOR AS A PRIMARY SOCIAL
AND ECONOMIC FORCE AND SHALL PROTECT THEIR WELFARE AND THEIR RIGHT TO A
JUST SHARE OF THE FRUITS OF PRODUCTION”?
BISHOP BACANI: I think it does not fully
convey the sense of the resolution I filed, but I would be happier if we
say: “THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE PRIMACY OF LABOR OVER CAPITAL AND SHALL
PROTECT THE JUST SHARE OF . . .”
MR. MONSOD: I submit to the committee
because I believe in the discussions of the Social Justice Article, the
same subject came up and the compromise was that there is a
corresponding right of capital. If we are dropping that last phrase on
the corresponding right of capital, it would be an unbalanced article. I
think that would be my comment on that, and I would like to leave it
for others to discuss.
BISHOP BACANI: May I just note that in
that formulation in the Article on Social Justice, the word “capital”
has an ambiguous meaning there because it does not refer to things but
it refers to capitalists, to people because we are not really speaking
of the just share of capital; that is, of raw materials or of money, et
cetera, to a corresponding share. I do not think that that is the
meaning there. But what it tries to assert is the primacy of the human
factor over the non-human factors in production.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani’s time
has expired for three minutes already.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: May we request for a
suspension of the session so we can harmonize the provisions of
Commissioner Bengzon, which we have accepted already, with the proposal
of Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 3:18 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:22 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, may we
request for the recognition of Commissioner Bengzon who would present
the formulation for Section 12.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, this is the
new formulation for Section 12. “The State affirms labor as a PRIMARY,
social and economic force. ACCORDINGLY IT SHALL PROMOTE THE welfare and
protect THE rights OF WORKERS.”
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: In the Article on Social
Justice, under the first subheading on Labor, we have already decided on
the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers,
the right of labor to a just share in the fruits of production and the
right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, expansion and
growth. There seems to be no necessity for this Section 12. Even the
suggestion of Commissioner Bengzon regarding the word “primary” will not
be in consonance with what we have agreed on the section on Labor under
the Article on Social Justice. Madam President, I agree with
Commissioner Bacani that human force or human participation in
production is more important than the instruments of production, like
machinery or equipment. But what we need is more private initiative of
captains of industry. Commissioner Villegas has been mentioning that
private enterprise is necessary not only for agricultural development
but more so for industrial development and also for the creation of
wealth by all factors of production. Unfortunately, we have so many
people unemployed who are willing and are qualified to work, but unless
we have more agricultural development and more industrial enterprises,
the labor force may remain unemployed. We would like to have maximum or
full employment, but this cannot be achieved unless we have the capital
entrepreneurs who will put up industrial plants for manufacture, not
only for the domestic market but also for export.
And so our President, in her visit to the
United States, invited investors for capital formation in the
Philippines on joint venture or even without joint venture. Under our
prostrate economic society, under the many years of the Marcos
dictatorial regime, our situation is prostrate, we cannot even move
forward, especially with the burden of the P26-billion foreign
indebtedness. We need capital and private entrepreneurs, preferably
Filipinos. So why are we going to always stress the primacy of labor? I
want to give the labor group the opportunities to have jobs and to share
in the productive benefits of creating more wealth.
THE PRESIDENT: The time limit has already
expired.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is
recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
We just like to reiterate the position of
the committee that this particular provision is very vital for the
labor sector and we believe that having a flagship principle in the
words of Commissioner Ople, or the curtain principle in the words of
Commissioner Nolledo, would set the principle underlying the
implementing guidelines found in the Article on Social Justice. So we
believe that it is very important to retain it in the Declaration of
Principles alongside with the rest of the principles that we have
provided for such concerns as the youth, women, children, indigenous
communities, family, et cetera.
I think we are now ready for the vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Bengzon
read the new formulation of Section 12.
MR. BENGZON: “The State affirms labor as a
PRIMARY social and economic force. ACCORDINGLY, IT SHALL PROMOTE THE
welfare and protect THE rights OF WORKERS.”
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of
the new formulation of Section 12, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 25 votes in favor and 2
against; so Section 12 is approved.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, Section 13
has been deleted and we have approved that. We now go to Section 14.
Similarly, the committee has amended this particular section and I am
going to call our committee member, Commissioner Rosario Braid.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I would like to submit to the
committee later a complementary section to the section on Labor that
would, in turn, affirm the support of the State for private initiative.
However, I would still formulate it. I just want to reserve that
amendment because it should follow the provision on Labor.
THE PRESIDENT: So, is the Commissioner
proposing a new section?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, to complement the
provision on Labor but I will still be formulating this.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, in line
with the manifestation of Commissioner Monsod, probably the committee
can consider a formulation which is actually the last paragraph of
Section 3 of the Article on Social Justice. By way of a suggestion to
the committee, it will only be a matter of transposition. It would read
as the second paragraph of Section 12: “It shall regulate the relations
between workers and employers, recognizing the rights of labor to its
just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to
reasonable returns on investments, expansion and growth.” Actually we do
not have to decide on this because this has already been decided upon
as the last paragraph of Section 3 of the Article on Social Justice. I
am only suggesting that as a complementary provision. Probably,
Commissioner Monsod can consider this as the second paragraph of Section
12. By way of suggestion, I am not presenting it to the committee right
now, Madam President.
Thank you.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, ordinarily
our committee would only want a statement of principles and we would
rather prefer that provisions like that be left where they are in the
particular corresponding article, unless the Commissioner could explain
to us why it is really vital and necessary that it should be moved here.
MR. MAAMBONG: I would agree with the
committee on that statement. As a matter of fact, in the outline I
presented, I was suggesting a single sentence for all these principles
and policies but the present formulation as approved by the body stops
on the right of workers; for me, it is incomplete. A person who reads
Section 12 will see that we are only trying to protect workers and, as
stated by Commissioner Padilla, that is not exactly correct. So, in
order that the body will not be burdened by a formulation, I suggest
that we just transpose the last paragraph of Section 3 of the Article on
Social Justice as the second paragraph of Section 12. That is only a
suggestion to complete the whole text.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we will take that up
as soon as we receive the reservation of Commissioner Monsod.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we can proceed first
to Section 14.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President,
Commissioner Rosario Braid will read Section 14.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Section 14, which is
now Section 13, reads: “The State shall promote rural development and
agrarian reform as priorities BASED ON cooperativism.” It ends there. We
have deleted the last phrase.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I would like to suggest that
we drop the thing about cooperativism, because at this point we already
have a section on that in another area which is in the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony. According to some labor unions, that is
not, by any means, the primary way of organizing. We already have a
provision for cooperatives in the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, that mandates
Congress to create an agency that will unify and integrate efforts in
cooperatives. This one recommends cooperativism as a principle of rural
development on the basis that the real prime value in our society is the
“bayanihan” or the collective unity. And so, we find out that the
problem that is singled out from agrarian reform and other rural
development projects is the lack of adequate collective efforts in
pursuing these rural development projects. Rural development does not
preclude other principles beyond cooperativism, but we just recognize
the primacy of cooperativism over other forms of organizing mechanisms.
MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, I was
going to move for the deletion of this section, because this is a part
of the Article on Social Justice and the reference to cooperativism is
an undue emphasis on something that has not been fully determined to be
the best way that organizing should be done.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Since it is there, then we
might as well put it in the Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: In the Article on
Social Justice, there has been no mention of rural development. There
were independent efforts towards social justice as a principle, but
rural development as a strategy has not been mentioned at all in any of
the provisions.
MR. MONSOD: So, why do we not just say:
“The State shall GIVE PRIORITY TO rural development and agrarian
reform”? Either that or we delete the whole section. I will leave it to
my colleagues if there are any anterior proposals in that regard.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The committee accepts
with the understanding that cooperativism should be one of the guiding
principles, if not the most important principle.
MR. MONSOD: I submit, unless there is
somebody from the body who would like to propose a deletion which is
really my first preference.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I gently oppose the
move to delete this section. If we gave women and labor their respective
sections, I do not see any reason why we should delete this section on
agrarian reform and rural development.
May I introduce an additional amendment
to this section. What is equally important other than rural development
and agrarian reform is the matter of industrialization. So, may I
suggest to the committee that we include the word INDUSTRIALIZATION, so
that Section 14 will read: “The State shall promote rural development,
agrarian reform AND INDUSTRIALIZATION as priorities with cooperativism
as its organizing principle.”
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, I have an
anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is
recognized.
MR. JAMIR: I move to delete Section 14.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the committee
say?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: We cannot accept the
deletion. We would like to react to Commissioner Sarmiento’s amendment,
Madam President.
MR. JAMIR: In that case, Madam President,
I ask for a vote.
MR. TADEO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is
recognized.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, ang
pinakamalaki at pinakamalawak na sektor ay ang magbubukid. Bakit naman
natin aalisin ang magbubukid? Totoong napakalalim ng iniwang krisis ni
Ginoong Marcos sa ating bayan. Hindi na pwede pa yaong patapal-tapal o
“palliatives after palliatives.” Kayat hinihiling ng magbubukid sa
kapulungang ito na kung maaari ay manatili ang Section 14.
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is
recognized.
MR. GASCON: We are discussing the Article
on Declaration of Principles. I would like to support the position of
Commissioners Tadeo and Sarmiento that we should have a provision
stating the general principle with regard to rural development, which
affects the peasantry the most. We are not stating the implementing
guidelines. That is covered in the Article on Social Justice. What we
are talking about is a basic principle which will affect these peasants.
I would strongly suggest that we include one sentence referring to them
as far as agrarian reform and rural development are concerned. I think
we owe this as much to the peasants. So, I would strongly object to this
anterior amendment and when we vote, that does not preclude any
amendments to this provision.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is
recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President, I think
the amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento is not only in order but also
farsighted. While we are all in favor of rural development, let us not
forget that rural development is not the only factor that will propel
our society from its status to a rich and progressive one. Also, another
consideration or factor that will help the Filipino people to attain
this progress is industrialization. While we have not yet even begun or
probably we have very minor beginnings in our industrialization program,
we should include it in our Declaration of Principles, because if we
speak of our own concept of how Philippine society is developed and
remain as it is, confined to the development of rural society, rural
progress, we can never attain the industrial power and other beneficial
effects to the economy. Therefore, we must combine our orientation
towards agriculture and rural development; let us not forget that we are
a people who aspire for better things in life. This can only be
achieved if we combine the two in economic, rural and industrial
development and progress. I agree with Commissioner Sarmiento that his
sight is not only in what we have now but also in the future.
Thank you.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nieva is
recognized.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, I think we
should maintain Section 14 because there would really be an imbalance
here if we stress the primacy of labor and we are not taking into
account the great majority of the people who live in the agricultural
area. And so, really, there is no mention of rural development as such
per se in the Article on Social Justice while everything else, perhaps,
would lead to rural development. If this section is supposed to be the
flagship proposal, I think, we should maintain this.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Parliamentary inquiry, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo, we
are still receiving comments on the motion to delete.
MR. RODRIGO: May I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Commissioner may
proceed.
MR. RODRIGO: I think the parliamentary
situation is that there is a motion to delete the whole section.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we are discussing
that.
MR. RODRIGO: But before that there was a
proposal by Commissioner Monsod to place a period after the words
“agrarian reform” and delete the rest. So, while the motion to delete
the whole section is a priority, with that parliamentary situation I
wonder if Commissioner Jamir might not withdraw his motion to delete the
whole section to give way to this amendment of Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair is going to
inquire from Commissioner Jamir if he insists on his motion to delete.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the answer
first of Commissioner Jamir.
MR. JAMIR: If the committee accepts the
amendment of Commissioner Monsod without any further addition, I will
withdraw my motion.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President.
MR. GASCON: I would object to that. If
that is the case, then I would suggest that we vote on the motion to
delete.
THE PRESIDENT: May we request
Commissioner Jamir to state whether he is withdrawing or not, because it
cannot be conditional.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the answer
first of Commissioner Jamir.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, I move that a
vote be taken on my motion.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I just
want to have this thing clarified. I heard the committee say that they
were accepting the amendment of Commissioner Monsod up to the words
“agrarian reform” subject to the interpretation of Commissioner Rosario
Braid. I do not see why we have to delete it now considering that it has
been accepted by the committee. Is it my understanding that
Commissioner Rosario Braid is accepting it up to the words “agrarian
reform”?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: If that be the case,
Commissioner Sarmiento is not preempted here because if we approve this
up to the words “agrarian reform” with the understanding that he can put
in additional amendment as a primary amendment after we approve it,
then we can save the situation, Madam President.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: But there is this motion
of Commissioner Jamir to delete, so let us first vote on that motion.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I heard
Commissioner Jamir say that if the committee accepts the amendment of
Commissioner Monsod up to the word “agrarian reform,” he is even willing
to withdraw the motion.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, we accept
that.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, we have accepted
the amendment of Commissioner Monsod.
MR. MAAMBONG: So, that is the situation,
Madam President.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I have a
previous objection.
THE PRESIDENT: There is an objection from
Commissioner Gascon.
MR. GASCON: What I have objected to is
the condition that the committee does not accept any other amendments
assuming that once the committee has accepted the proposal of
Commissioner Monsod, that does not hamper any other Commissioner to
present amendments which the committee will have to act on. I do not see
why we should pose on that.
THE PRESIDENT: So let us proceed to the
motion of Commissioner Jamir — whether to delete or not to delete.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, before we
vote on the Jamir motion, may I talk only for 50 seconds?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is
recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
I vigorously object to the motion of
Commissioner Jamir. Section 14 was formulated by us to underscore the
importance of rural areas in national development, Madam President.
About 70 percent of our population lives in rural areas. It is said by
economic experts that if rural development fails, democracy will fail in
our country.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President,
parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I just want to ask this: In
case the motion of Commissioner Jamir to delete is approved, may
Commissioner Monsod still present his amendment which is a new
formulation of Section 14?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. That is what we did
before.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I am
suggesting a simple statement for Section 14.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But let us vote first
on the motion to delete and then we will go into that so that we can
get out of our chest this motion to delete of Commissioner Jamir.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, just for
the record, may we ask Commissioner Jamir to state again the reason for
his motion for deletion?
MR. JAMIR: I base my motion upon the
previous statement of Commissioner Monsod in effect that this provision
is unnecessary.
MS. QUESADA: Would the Commissioner not
say that this is also true for the rest of the provisions that we have
already approved because they are already covered?
MR. JAMIR: My reason is short and
specific. It is based upon what Commissioner Monsod said.
THE PRESIDENT: With respect to Section
14.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is
recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I understand
that when Commissioner Jamir was told that the committee accepted the
Monsod amendment, then he was willing to withdraw his motion to delete.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but there was an
objection to that. It cannot be conditional.
REV. RIGOS: He has no more condition.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: In other words,
Commissioner Jamir asked for a vote on his motion to delete. That is the
latest that we have. So, let us proceed to vote on that motion to
delete and if the members are not convinced on the merits of it, then
please do not vote for the deletion. I think that is just very simple.
As many as are in favor of the motion of
Commissioner Jamir to delete Section 14, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 9 votes in favor of the
deletion and 21 against; so the motion to delete is lost.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the amendments
to Section 14?
MR. MONSOD: May I then propose now my
amendment which is to put a period after “agrarian reform.”
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner
state the whole sentence.
MR. MONSOD: “The State shall promote
rural development and agrarian reform.”
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The committee accepts,
Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to give an answer
to Commissioner Sarmiento regarding industrialization. I just want to
note for him that rural development is not synonymous with agricultural
development.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: When we talk about “rural
development,” that would include both agricultural and industrial
development because “rural” is a place. It does not concern itself with
either agriculture or industry.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you, Madam
President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I give my brief
rejoinder to the observations of Commissioner Monsod. Madam President,
my submission is that rural development would not cover
industrialization. We can have urban development and we can have
industrialization when we speak of “urban development.” To me, rural
development, agrarian reform and industrialization are three different
concepts which the State should give importance to. If we mention
“industrialization” in the Article on National Economy and Patrimony, if
we mention “agrarian reform,” I see no reason why we should not mention
“industrialization” which is a very vital element for national progress
and development.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the answer of
the committee. The committee has accepted the amendment.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, we
explained earlier, during the period of interpellations, that
industrialization is a strategy of rural development. We could have
balanced agro-industrial development which is rural development. We
could have educational development that is tailored to rural development
and that is part of rural development, but it is a strategy. We believe
that “rural development” is an all-encompassing term that will include
the concept of industrialization.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am
willing to die on this proposed amendment; so, may I suggest that we
vote on this concept of industrialization.
MR. TADEO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, please.
Will Commissioner Sarmiento please state again what he said?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am
suggesting that we vote on this proposed amendment that I made — that we
include the concept of industrialization after “agrarian reform.”
THE PRESIDENT: So this is an amendment to
an amendment by Commissioner Monsod which has been accepted by the
committee.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, to
reconcile or harmonize the proposals of both Commissioners Monsod and
Sarmiento, may I propose the following amendment: “The State shall
promote rural AND URBAN, AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL development.”
MR. TADEO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is
recognized.
MR. TADEO: Ipapaliwanag ko lamang po
iyong “cooperativism” kung bakit dapat mapasama.
Madam President, hindi maaaring magkaroon
ng rural development na hindi organisado ang mamamayan sa kanayunan.
Hindi maaaring maipagtagumpay ang agrarian reform nang hindi organisado
rin ang mamamayan sa kanayunan. Kaya sa akin pong palagay, dapat
manatili ang “cooperativism.” Batay po sa karanasan ng magbubukid, kapag
hindi organisado ang mga magbubukid, lalamunin lamang siya ng sistema.
Kinakailangan siyang maorganisa; kaya kailangan ang “cooperativism” as
its organizing principle. Hindi maaaring magkaroon ng rural development,
hindi maipagtatagumpay ang agrarian reform program nang hindi
organisado ang mga magbubukid. Kasama rin dapat ang “industrialization.”
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 3:54 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:05 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. TINGSON: Commissioner Rosario Braid
please, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid
is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, our
reformulated provision, with the help of several Commissioners:
Commissioners Monsod, Davide, Sarmiento, Villacorta, Padilla and the
committee and others who have joined us, states: “The State shall
promote COMPREHENSIVE rural development and agrarian reform.”
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I know from the
committee whether the concept “industrialization” could be covered by
“COMPREHENSIVE rural development”?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The words “rural
development” is an all-encompassing term which includes social,
economic, human, cultural, political development and will include
strategies, such as industrialization strategy, agro-industrial strategy
as well as other strategies such as the integrated area of development
strategy during the past decade.
MR. SARMIENTO: What about cooperativism?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Cooperativism is a
primary organizing principle which does not preclude also other
principles.
MR. SARMIENTO: With the Commissioner’s
explanation, I am willing to die for the new formulation. (Laughter)
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.
MR. TINGSON: We would like the
Commissioner to live for it.
THE PRESIDENT: So, are we ready to vote
now?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Padilla
not ready to die?
MR. PADILLA: No, I am against.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner is
against.
MR. PADILLA: I am against especially on
the introduction of the adjective “COMPREHENSIVE.” We might have to add
“COMPREHENSIVE,” “COORDINATED,” “COMPLETE” and whatnot. This will make
it even worse than the original committee report.
I do not know how industrialization can
be included in rural development. Why do we not just say “rural and
urban development,” “agricultural and industrial productivity”? It gives
the wrong impression that if we have “agrarian reform” that is already
provided for in the Social Justice provision and is the “end-all” and
“be-all” of our productivity.
We need to give job opportunities to the
many unemployed and that cannot be covered by just rural development
even if we qualify that with the adjective “COMPREHENSIVE.” Job
opportunities are usually the jobs in industrial plants. Many feel that
while agricultural productivity is very important, it must be associated
with or accompanied by industrialization to give our many people,
especially in the urban areas, job opportunities.
If we do not mention productivity, the
creation of wealth, how can we improve our economy? I am against the
reformulation and I do not know whether the other Commissioners will not
be gracious enough to consider and if possible accept my short and
concise expression of the same idea.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, the
committee does not accept. It has taken note of Commissioner Padilla’s
amendment and we are convinced that all of these activities or
strategies are all parts of rural development. Agrarian reform is
mentioned because it is the basic program on which rural development
should be anchored on. We also submit that the other concepts of
agricultural productivity or entrepreneurship can be accommodated in a
separate provision which perhaps the Commissioner can submit at an
appropriate time after we have discussed this provision. But we will
maintain our wording of his provision as read earlier and we should like
to request for a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may read
the new formulation.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, my
suggestion is in the nature of an amendment to the amendment that has
been accepted by the committee.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes.
MR. PADILLA: May I ask for a vote on my
proposed amendment.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The situation, Madam
President, is that Commissioner Padilla is requesting a vote on his
amendment to the amendment which he will read to our amended provision.
MR. PADILLA: My proposed amendment reads:
“The State shall promote rural AND URBAN development, AGRICULTURAL AND
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTIVITY.”
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the committee
formulation?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The committee
formulation is: “The State shall promote COMPREHENSIVE rural development
and agrarian reform.”
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is
recognized.
MR. GASCON: May I just speak for one
minute against the proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may
proceed.
MR. GASCON: I would like to oppose it in
support of the proposal of the committee after discussing with the other
Commissioners because the proposal of the committee concentrates on the
issue of rural development and agrarian reform, while the amendment of
Commissioner Padilla speaks of urban, rural, industrial and agrarian
reform which actually, if we look at it, is even simpler than total
development of economy and society, which does not really mean anything.
As far as this section is concerned, the intent is to concentrate on
rural and agrarian reform.
Thank you.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Just one question to the
committee. Did I hear the Commissioner right when she said that “rural”
includes “urban”?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, we have noted,
however, that 70 to 75 percent of our population lives in the rural
areas and this is why it takes primacy over urban development.
MR. DE CASTRO: So the Commissioner likes
to develop 75 percent but she does not like to develop 100 percent. If
rural is 75 percent, as the Commissioner has said, and urban becomes 25,
we are developing rural only here, but Commissioner Padilla is also
including urban. So the Commissioner likes to develop 75 percent instead
of 100 percent, is my understanding correct?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, that is not
correct. In other provisions, we have attended to the needs of the urban
population such as in the Article on Labor, Social Services and other
mechanisms here that would improve the lives of all the Filipinos within
the nation. But because we must, as we have said, give a preferential
option for the poor, the disadvantaged, we plan to enshrine this
particular provision on rural development.
MR. DE CASTRO: Seventy percent of those
in the urban are also poor. Do I understand that labor is only prevalent
in the urban area not in the rural area?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, but we will submit
that a large percentage of organized labor comes from the urban
population. We submit that labor encompasses both urban and rural, but
this section would like to mandate the State or the Congress to attend
to rural development and to come up with a more vigorous policy in rural
development that is addressed to the majority of our population.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, but this has
been sufficiently discussed and we have to put to a vote the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Padilla.
MR. DE CASTRO: To include “URBAN” in the
development.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed Padilla
amendment is: “The State shall promote rural AND URBAN development,
AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTIVITY.”
As many as are in favor of this
formulation, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 5 votes in favor and 16
against; the proposed amendment is lost.
Let us proceed to vote on the committee
formulation which is: “The State shall promote a COMPREHENSIVE rural
development and agrarian reform.”
As many as are in favor of this
formulation of Section 14 as presented by the committee, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 20 votes in favor and 4
against; Section 14 is approved.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, regarding
Section 15, the committee has deleted line 6 up to line 10, and the new
formulation suggested by the committee, which will now become Section
14, reads: “The State respects the rights of indigenous communities TO
PURSUE their own path of development within the framework of national
unity.”
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I would like to suggest that
we also delete lines 4, 5 and 6, beginning with the word “to” and ending
with the word “characteristics.” I would also like to retain the word
“recognize.” So, the section will now read: “The State shall recognize
and respect the rights of indigenous cultural MINORITIES within the
framework of national unity AND DEVELOPMENT.”
In other words, we delete the words “to
choose their own path of development according to their political,
economic and cultural characteristics.” I think those are repeated in
two or three other sections of the Constitution. It is really
unnecessary when we say: “shall recognize and respect the rights.” Those
are all rights of indigenous cultural minorities within the framework
of national unity. Then we add “AND DEVELOPMENT.”
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, we would
like to hear from Commissioner Bennagen.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is
recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: If he has no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: That is in connection with
the formulation of the proposal of Commissioner Monsod.
MR. BENNAGEN: I leave it to the committee
to decide on what they see fit.
Thank you, Madam President.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The committee accepts,
Madam President, except we would like to verify from Commissioner
Monsod if we heard it right. It reads “cultural communities” here and we
would like to retain the concept of “communities” rather than
“MINORITIES.”
MR. MONSOD: Yes, it should be
“communities.” I am sorry. The section reads: “The State shall recognize
and respect the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity AND DEVELOPMENT.”
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, the
committee accepts the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I request that the
following amendments be incorporated? After the word “communities,” we
insert the following: “AND ENSURE THEIR FULLEST DEVELOPMENT within the
framework of national unity.”
MR. TINGSON: We accept, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I do not
think that that adds anything because we are already talking about their
development in other sections. We are talking here about the framework
of national unity and development. The words “FULLEST DEVELOPMENT” would
be just a verbiage at this point. We are trying to establish the
principle that their rights shall be recognized in the context of both
unity and development.
MR. DAVIDE: If Commissioner Monsod is not
willing to accept the word “FULLEST,” then at least what should be
referred to as development? It is ensuring their development within the
framework of national unity. It is not just respecting or recognizing
the right within the framework of national unity. What is important is
affording them their development within the framework of national unity.
MR. MONSOD: My only short answer, Madam
President, is that their right includes the right to develop fully,
culturally, economically and socially. That is part of their right. In
fact, we have stated that so many times in the Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: If that is so, may I suggest
that instead of “respect” it should be “PROMOTE.”
MR. MONSOD: I will agree to that and also
maybe we should just take out the word “shall.” We just say: “The State
recognizes and shall PROMOTE the rights of indigenous cultural
communities within the framework of national unity AND DEVELOPMENT.”
MR. TINGSON: We accept that formulation,
Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: It does not sound elegant at
all when we say “The State recognizes and shall PROMOTE the rights of
indigenous communities.” I would propose that we delete “shall” and just
say “The State recognizes and PROMOTES.”
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us settle this first;
is that all right?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, we accept the
formulation.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioners Davide and
Monsod’s amendment?
MR. MONSOD: We will leave that up to
styling. As a matter of fact, that should probably be referred to the
Committee on Style.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: The chairman of the
committee has already accepted the formulation. Is it normal that
another member shall object to the acceptance made by the chairman?
MR. TINGSON: We want the help of the
original proponent, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: I just like to make it
straight, otherwise every member of the committee can object to the
acceptance by the chairman.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we now ready to vote?
Will Commissioner Rosario Braid please state Section 15?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, I shall read
Section 15 as it is renumbered as Section 14 now: “The State recognizes
and PROMOTES the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity AND DEVELOPMENT.”
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of
Section 15 which is renumbered as Section 14, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 23 votes in favor and
none against; the amendment is approved.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, Section 16,
now renumbered as Section 15 is amended and would read as follows: “The
State shall encourage nongovernment and community-based organizations
TO ENGAGE in activities that promote the welfare of the nation.”
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Can we say “nongovernmental
and community-based organizations” and then delete “engaged in
activities”? We will just say: “The State shall encourage
NON-GOVERNMENTAL and community-based organizations that promote the
welfare of the nation.”
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The committee accepts,
Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I propose an amendment to
insert the word “INDEPENDENT” before “NON-GOVERNMENTAL.” I understand
that the idea here really is to recognize people’s organizations as
mandated in the Article on Social Justice. And so, it should be: “The
State shall encourage INDEPENDENT NON-GOVERNMENTAL and community-based
organizations . . .”
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, may I
just give a brief background of this provision?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may
proceed.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: This provision
recognizes a philosophy that is prevalent now even in our country as
well as in many other countries of the world — that volunteerism and
participation of nongovernmental organizations should be encouraged. I
think this has been substantiated by the Club of Rome study of twenty
years of development all over the Third World which showed that
government-led development has failed to reduce disparities, has failed
to trickle down resources to the majority and that the next decade
should be a decade where volunteerism, community-based and nongovernment
agencies, independent organizations will be given their due support. We
would like to maintain “NON-GOVERNMENTAL” here which is really a broad
term to include independent organizations also.
MR. DAVIDE: The point is that this is
really related to the concept of independent people’s organization in
the Article on Social Justice and more specifically also in the Article
on Agrarian Reform.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, we
will entertain an amendment by addition from Commissioner Davide but the
concept of nongovernmental here acknowledges private enterprise and
privatization.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, independent, therefore,
not dictated by the government. Even if it is nongovernmental, it may
still be dictated by the government or organized by the government. So,
is the idea to preserve the concept of independent people’s organization
in the Article on Social Justice?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, the
concept of NGOs or nongovernmental organizations is an acceptable
concept in the international world. And so, the importance given to NGOs
here acknowledges that we are rising on the wave of volunteerism and
private initiative.
MR. DAVIDE: For clarification purposes,
the nongovernmental and community-based organizations alluded to here
are distinct and separate from independent people’s organization or
farmers’ organizations under the Article on Social Justice.
Is this broader in a sense?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: This is broader and
the concept of the independent organizations as found in the Article on
Social Justice would refer to the community-based organizations here
which will be different from nongovernmental organizations which perhaps
are really more organized.
MR. DAVIDE: But community-based
organizations are necessarily nongovernmental?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: And that is the meaning here?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Some of the
community-based organizations may be government-initiated.
MR. DAVIDE: So it is now very clear that
under the proposed Section 16, which will eventually be Section 15,
community-based organizations may be organized by the government itself?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Maybe and also by
private enterprises.
MR. DAVIDE: In short, my last question
is: The contemplation of Section 16 is broader than the organizations
contemplated in the Article on Social Justice?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The Commissioner is
right.
MR. DAVIDE: I am not going to insist then
on the incorporation of the word “INDEPENDENT.”
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now?
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is
recognized.
MR. OPLE: Just one question if
Commissioner Rosario Braid will not mind. Can we have some examples of
nongovernmental organizations? Let us say, in the countryside setting,
we know that this is derived from the United Nations so that NGOs are
generally invited to take part in international conferences, either as
observers or as full participants. What are some examples of NGOs which
we would like to mandate in this section of the draft Constitution?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I think they will be
classified into different groups. They could be civic organizations,
such as the Rotary Clubs and the Jaycees; development organizations,
such as the Assisi foundation; independent organizations, like the
NAMFREL; women’s organizations, such as the YWCA; and they could also be
organizations of businessmen, like the Bishops Businessmen Conference
or the Philippine Business for Social Progress.
MR. OPLE: Will this also include, let us
say, labor and peasant organizations?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, they will be
included if they are nongovernmental organizations.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Before we vote on this
section, may I be clarified? May I know if organizations like the
Jaycees, Rotary Clubs, etc., are covered by these nongovernment and
community-based organizations? What I have in mind are peasants,
lawyers, human rights organizations, not these businessmen’s
organizations.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I mentioned a few, but
human rights, farmers and other organizations will form part of this.
That is why I mentioned Philippine Business for Social Progress, which
is an umbrella organization that supports farmers’ organizations. We
also have community-based organizations, under which smaller peasant
organizations are included.
MR. SARMIENTO: My understanding is that
Jaycees and similar organizations are exclusive clubs. Before one
becomes a member, he has to pay fees. I do not think these are
community-based organizations. This will encourage membership from the
masses, from our people. So, is that within the intendment of Section
16?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: They would fall under
nongovernmental organizations as long as they are engaged in activities
that promote the welfare of the nation. We will not exclude them really
from being participants of beneficial support as long as the activities
are directed to social-economic upliftment of the majority of the
disadvantaged population.
MR. SARMIENTO: One last question. To the
best of my personal knowledge, these organizations are concerned with
projects like giving medical aid, giving extra clothing to indigents
during Christmas time, and similar other projects. These are the thrusts
of the Jaycees and other similar organizations. Are we made to
understand that we are going to encourage this kind of organizations
within the intendment of Section 16?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I think we can add to
the records the criteria for organizations that would fall under this.
And among these criteria is what the Commissioner has just mentioned —
that these organizations contribute to the welfare through a different
kind of social service that moves away from dole outs but which, in
fact, encourages participation and human development. So, if we add
these criteria in the records because we could not add the phrase
“PROMOTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND PARTICIPATION,” that is really the
intent of this provision.
MR. SARMIENTO: If the intent is to do
away with dole outs and other similar activities, then I accept the
explanation of the committee.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready now to vote?
MR. GARCIA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia is
recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Could we suggest a
formulation? Perhaps to make this clear, just add “NON-GOVERNMENTAL,
community-based and INDEPENDENT SECTORAL organizations,” because I think
the intent is to actually mandate the different sectoral organizations
besides the nongovernmental and the community-based which would be
geographical. The other one would encompass what we were discussing, the
trade unions and peasant organizations, and these would be the
independent sectoral organizations. So, I think if we reformulate it,
that would have a wider coverage.
That is my suggestion to the committee.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will the Commissioner
please restate it.
MR. GARCIA: “The State shall encourage
NON-GOVERNMENTAL, community-based, AND INDEPENDENT SECTORAL
organizations or SECTORAL organizations that promote the welfare of the
nation.”
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: We accept the
amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, did we
maintain the word “INDEPENDENT” or we took it out?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, we are accepting
the word “INDEPENDENT.”
MR. MONSOD: Yes, but the word
“INDEPENDENT” should be applicable to all types of organizations not
just to sectoral, why do we not just say “SECTORAL ORGANIZATIONS”?
MR. GASCON: We withdraw the word
“INDEPENDENT.”
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Withdrew, yes. So, it
will read now: “The State shall encourage NON-GOVERNMENTAL and
community-based SECTORAL organizations that promote the welfare of the
nation.”
MR. MONSOD: This is just a question of
clarification. Are these not cumulative?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: We change the word “and”
after “community-based” to “OR.” It should read: “community-based OR
SECTORAL.”
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: We accept the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Rosario
Braid read the amended Section 15 so that we can proceed to a vote?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: “The State shall
encourage NON-GOVERNMENTAL or community-based and SECTORAL organizations
that promote the welfare of the nation.”
THE PRESIDENT: The word “OR” is placed
after “community-based.”
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, I am sorry, the
word “OR” is after “community-based.” So, again: “The State shall
encourage NON-GOVERNMENTAL, community-based OR SECTORAL organizations
that promote the welfare of the nation.”
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of
the new formulation, 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 24 votes in favor and 1
against; so, the new Section 15 is approved.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, Section 16
has something to do about health and we have an expert regarding health
in our committee.
Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, mindful of
the need not to be redundant with the other provisions contained in the
Article on Social Justice, we have reformulated our section here on
health. This would now read: “THE STATE SHALL FOSTER HEALTH
CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE PEOPLE.” We believe that this was the main
thrust of Commissioner Rama’s representation when he said that one of
the things that our country should develop is the health consciousness
among its people which will be cheaper than investing in curative
medicine. So, we feel that if this can be a principle that would govern
all the instrumentalities of the government to address themselves to
developing the health consciousness among the people, then we would be
developing a healthy citizenry that would contribute to our economic and
social development.
So we have just focused on this
particular declarative principle.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I address a few
questions to the Commissioner before voting on this formulated section.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may
proceed.
MR. SARMIENTO: Will the promotion of
health consciousness cover giving protection to the health of the
people?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, that would be included.
MR. SARMIENTO: Will protecting the health
of the people mean giving support and incentives to private hospitals?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. SARMIENTO: I ask this question
because many of the private hospitals are closing down because of
bankruptcy. This was the information relayed by several private
hospitals, the reason being that the equipments and drugs that they
imported are too costly and because of the incapacity of the indigents
to pay, hospital expenses could not be collected. Will this mean giving
support and incentives to these private hospitals which help in
promoting the health of our people, especially the poor ones?
MS. QUESADA: Actually the Commissioner’s
concern will be covered in our Article on Social Justice, particularly
in the section on health where we said there would be a disintegrated
comprehensive approach to health development. And in our articulation of
the rationale behind this section, we said that there will be the
attempt on the part of the State to really have all the sectors, both
the government and the private sector, to work together in the promotion
of health and in helping people benefit from their right to health. So,
that would really be covered, although they have the responsibility to
develop health consciousness and, therefore, would receive such support
from the State.
MR. SARMIENTO: In other words, it will
not be a mere attempt but a real effort on the part of the State to
support or to help public and private sectors, meaning, private and
public hospitals?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, we believe that if we
have given support to education as it delivers educational services to
the citizens because the State cannot provide for total education, in
the same manner we would call upon the State to provide support to the
private sector as they render services so that people will enjoy their
right to health.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Madam
President.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong was
seeking to be recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President. I was
just about to ask the committee if it will consider a suggestion to
join Sections 17 and 18 because Section 18 speaks of healthy
environment. I wonder if we can put these in one section. That is just
my question to the committee. Is that possible?
MS. QUESADA: There is a different concern
for the environment. That would not really be appropriate for our
concern for health. We are talking about ecological balance as well.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, I know; it is
ecological balance towards a healthy environment but I was thinking that
it falls under the category of health. But that is just a suggestion.
If it could be done, that will be fine.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is
recognized.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Quesada
answer just one question?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: In the new formulation of
Section 16, fostering health consciousness among the people, does the
committee mean an emphasis on preventive approaches to health and
medicine?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, Madam President, which
would include education of the people in all settings including labor
communities.
MR. OPLE: Yes. Then that will give this
section a real modern dimension. Of course, Commissioner Quesada will
confirm the fact that one of the great issues facing the medical
community of the world is the accusation against the medical profession
and the medical community as a whole that preventive approaches to
medicine are being systematically neglected since obviously this will
mean approaches to health that are not connected with the financial
revenues of the medical community. I think this section introduces a
modern dimension to the question of health by keeping to this
interpretation.
Thank you, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: The Gentleman is right. We
really are stressing the self-reliant roles of individuals as they take
care of their health and, therefore, the need for all people to develop
that consciousness that will liberate them from dependence on doctors.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now?
Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I just
clear up one point with Commissioner Quesada?
When we are speaking of fostering health
consciousness, I understand from what I have been reading in the
newspapers and magazines that this health consciousness business is
somehow related to sports or physical exercise. Is that also within the
contemplation of fostering health consciousness?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, the development of
physical fitness would definitely be part of health consciousness.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, the favorite
subject of our distinguished former Olympian regarding sports
development could be integrated within this health consciousness matter.
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MS. QUESADA: The consciousness that we
refer to will be physical, mental, social and spiritual health.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I propose an amendment?
It should be reformulated to read: “THE STATE SHALL INSTILL HEALTH
CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE PEOPLE.” So, we will have a different word but
with a greater and more embracing mandate.
MS. QUESADA: Would the Gentleman say that
“INSTILL” would be more stressful of our concern or would that water
down?
MR. DAVIDE: I would believe so. As I say,
it is really more declarative of a vigorous mandate.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, we accept
“INSTILL” instead of “foster.”
MS. NIEVA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nieva is
recognized.
MS. NIEVA: I was just wondering. We want a
very strong declaration of principles as far as health is concerned.
Somehow health consciousness for me is just like awareness.
Consciousness and awareness do not mean a very active promotion of the
health needs of the people. We can be conscious of a lot of things and
may not act upon that consciousness.
The first section in the Article on
Social Justice states very clearly and strongly: “The State shall
protect and promote the right to health.” It could be like a flagship,
as we have been using this term, that would describe what we really want
to cover in the whole section on health.
Is there any possibility that we consider
moving the first sentence that was already approved in the Article on
Social Justice to that section in the Declaration of Principles to make
it very strong?
MS. QUESADA: Could the Commissioner
please read the first part of the section on the Article on Social
Justice?
MS. NIEVA: “The State shall protect and
promote the right to health,” which is a very strong and definite
mandate to the State, whereas here it is just “shall INSTILL” or
“foster” health consciousness. I feel that just being conscious and
aware about the importance of health does not necessarily lead to the
necessary implementing measures that would promote and protect the right
of all the people to health.
MS. QUESADA: The reason we had that
formulation in the Article on Social Justice is that this is the area
where we had defined the social rights of the citizens, and health being
one of those, that they should have such right. So, here is actually a
thrust to make our health care become more preventive in orientation
rather than having to wait for people to seek medical care when they are
already sick.
MS. NIEVA: So, the thrust is just an
awareness then.
MS. QUESADA: It is not just an awareness.
I do not want to put the words “CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS,” but it is
actually not just knowing the facts about why one needs to brush his
teeth and all that.
MS. NIEVA: But actual measures would be
included already, and we are providing it there?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, a consciousness that
makes people really behave and put into practice what they know about
their health; so that they stop smoking, they exercise, they avoid
certain foods because they now have this consciousness. So, it is a
consciousness that makes people act on what they know. So, it is really
what Commissioner Ople said.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, I understand what the
Commissioner means, but my personal perception is that it is not strong
enough. It does not mandate the State by stating in the Declaration of
Principles that this is vital to the total development of the citizens.
MS. QUESADA: Actually, how this would be
translated by the State would really be an emphasis on health education
program which will be undertaken by all instrumentalities we have in
society. It could be the mass media making people become more conscious
about what they need to do. So, instead of purely entertainment, we can
use the media to instill consciousness among our people and there will
be a reorientation in all the settings. In schools, for example, there
would be this mandate on the State to improve health education so that
it will not just be wedded with physical education or character
education and taught during unholy hours like 12:00 to 1:00. This would
have such implications for a redirection in the thrust.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: We will continue this
dialogue after we suspend the session for a few minutes
It was 4:51 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:22 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Nieva
be recognized.
MR. MONSOD: She is not yet here.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner
Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I was
thinking of a formulation that would combine Sections 17 and 18, not
Sections 16 and 17, incorporating the comments of Commissioner Nieva:
“The State shall PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO HEALTH
AND A BALANCED ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT.”
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: In the absence of
Commissioner Nieva, may I respectfully speak in her behalf because
before we suspended the session, she wished to propose an amendment by
combining the first sentence of Section 11 on the Article on Social
Justice and a portion of Section 16 so that the proposed amendment will
read as follows . . .
May I yield the floor to Commissioner
Nieva, Madam President, because she is here.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nieva is
recognized.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, it will read: “The State
SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO HEALTH AND INSTILL HEALTH
CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE PEOPLE.”
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is a proposal
now of Commissioner Monsod to combine Sections 17 and 18.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is
recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: I manifested to
Commissioners Nieva and Sarmiento that I was joining them in this
proposal. But instead of saying “PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO
HEALTH,” I was going to suggest that we delete the word “RIGHT” and say
“TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE.” I think we should
concern ourselves with the promotion and protection of health.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the proposal of
Commissioner Monsod to combine Sections 17 and 18?
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I would like
to react to the proposal of Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon may
please proceed.
MR. GASCON: I would like to object to the
proposal because I think the two sections are different in the sense
that the first speaks of the health of the individual and the
responsibility of the State to ensure the optimum health of individual
persons. The second speaks of the environment, the ecology. For purposes
of delineating the two concepts, it would be best, from my point of
view, to separate the two because, in fact, there is a very strong
movement now throughout the world calling for everyone to take a second
look at our ecology and environment as a determining force in the issues
of economic programs and policies, politics, and even social life. So,
to maintain the purity of the concept of ecology and the environment, as
well as the issue of health of individuals, I would like to request
Commissioner Monsod to separate the two concepts, if it is possible.
MR. MONSOD: My only argument is that when
one talks about health, that is an internal matter. So, internal and
external are interacting and, therefore, we should protect both the
individual health and the environment in which he lives.
MR. GASCON: Yes, we agree totally with
that. However, as I said, there are two different concepts — one is the
issue of ecology and environment; the second is individual health.
Although they are related in the sense that just as much as we want to
protect the health of the individual, we must also protect the health of
the environment, the issue, I think, merits some delineation.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is
recognized.
MR. OPLE: The two sections on health and
environment are undoubtedly linked, but not to a degree that they have
to be merged.
To be sure, we ought to have a strong and
powerful statement in the Declaration of Principles concerning the
ecology in terms of its impact on health, but also for other equally
humane and noble purposes and having in mind the danger of the
exhaustion of resources. In the case of forests, this can mean eternal
flooding. And so, I think that section can stand apart. But does
Commissioner Monsod find anything unbearable in the present formulation
of Section 16?
On the matter of the right to health, I
think Commissioner Quesada is right. It should be retained in the
Article on Social Justice, because the right to health of the rich and
the right to health of the poor may be imbued with certain critical
nuances that call for a social justice declaration on health. I think
the committee is right in wanting to focus on fostering health
consciousness among the people as a declaration of principles because a
nation that has risen to a state of consciousness for itself and the
health of its members will make so many hospitals and so many expensive
outlays on social services in the field of health unnecessary. There is a
very strong initial movement now in the medical profession, exemplified
by the American school of Major Kenneth Cooper, which holds that this
is the key to the future health of mankind. It may put the doctors out
of order and may be leaving the nurses later on to be more important,
because when one takes a preventive approach to health, he is making the
large outlays for curative medicine unnecessary. One will permit
mistakes to realize ample, perhaps, unheard-of savings, if the nation
has risen to a state of health consciousness that makes it capable of
preventing rather than treating diseases.
It is, therefore, on that basis that I
would like to align myself with the committee regarding Section 16.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear now from
Commissioner Quesada, with respect to Commissioner Monsod’s suggestions
and may we also hear the formulation of Commissioners Sarmiento and
Nieva.
MS. QUESADA: During the break, there was a
representation from some other Members of the Commission who convinced
the members of the committee to reconsider the proposal of Commissioners
Nieva, Sarmiento, Davide, Gascon, Garcia and Guingona to merge the
first sentence of Section 1 of the health section, which reads: “THE
STATE SHALL PROMOTE AND PROTECT THE RIGHT TO HEALTH AND INSTILL HEALTH
CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE PEOPLE.” The succeeding sentence in this health
section would already be the process by which the State can promote and
protect such right.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the committee submits
this now as the new formulation?
MS. QUESADA: The new formulation,
although with the recognition of the importance that we have given to
health consciousness, clearly enunciated by Commissioner Ople, would
still be there except that some felt the mandate will be stronger if the
first sentence of the health section is placed in the Declaration of
Principles. The committee acceded to such representation during the
break. So, it will now read: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE AND PROTECT THE
RIGHT TO HEALTH AND INSTILL HEALTH CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE PEOPLE.”
THE PRESIDENT: How about the proposals of
Commissioner Monsod to combine the two sections?
MS. QUESADA: We have also talked about
that, and we would appeal to Commissioner Monsod to let the provision
that we have reformulated for so many times already remain as it is — a
separate provision for ecology and another one for health.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the new Section
16?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: In view of the appeal of the
committee, I will withdraw my amendment and deal with it in the next
section.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you very much, Madam
President.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is
recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Regarding my earlier
remarks, I had a talk with Commissioner Nieva, and she explained to me
that the wordings that she read are the wordings found in the Article on
Social Justice and, therefore, I would like to manifest that I am
supporting the formulation of Commissioner Nieva as accepted by the
committee without qualification.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Section 11 on health in the
Article on Social Justice reads: “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE
THE RIGHT TO HEALTH.” It seems that this will be repeated under Section
17 and with practically the same words.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: Would that mean a
transposition of the first sentence of Section 11 to the Declaration of
Principles?
MS. QUESADA: Yes. Madam President, we
have just stated that it will be a transposition — “transportation,”
according to Commissioner Davide — of the first line of the health
section on the Article on Social Justice and incorporated with the
concept of instilling health consciousness among the people. So, it will
not be a repetition anymore since we are removing that in the Social
Justice Article.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, just one
question and I will be very happy.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: In the course of the
interpellation, the Gentleman has stated that it is possible that the
State will give support to private hospitals because of their financial
conditions. Will this mean possible tax exemption? I ask this question
because I am reminded of this Hospital Journal, a quarterly
publication of the Philippine Hospital Association. It disclosed that
during the past two years alone, a Philippine Hospital Association
survey has shown that more than 70 private hospitals in the country have
declared bankruptcy, have closed or in the process of being foreclosed
by their creditors, meaning, the financial lending institutions. So, may
I be clarified on this point.
MS. QUESADA: We shall leave this to
Congress to deliberate on.
MR. SARMIENTO: The matter of tax
exemption?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, and all the other
incentives that private hospitals have already been receiving for the
past years. As early as 1975, we have already worked this out during a
national tripartite conference on the assistance that the government
should provide to the private health care industry.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Madam
President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Did I hear the Honorable
Quesada state that the first sentence of Section 11 under the Article on
Social Justice will be transposed to the Declaration of Principles?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, the Gentleman has heard
it right and this has been the proposal of the chairman of the
Committee on Social Justice and the other Commissioners.
MR. DE CASTRO: I do not believe that will
be possible under our Rules, Madam President, because we have already
laid to rest — using the words of Honorable Davide — the provisions on
Social Justice. We have already closed the period of amendments, the
debates and we have already approved on Second Reading the Article on
Social Justice. The best thing that can be done would be a suspension of
the Rules and a motion for reconsideration.
MS. QUESADA: If there is no objection
from the floor, then we can do that. I think we have done that in the
past.
MR. DE CASTRO: What, for example?
MS. QUESADA: Like the social justice
provision on all the phases of national development. That was the first
sentence which is the flagship section of the Article on Social Justice.
MR. DE CASTRO: Would the Commissioner not
be comfortable if we leave that in the Article on Social Justice and
take it out from the Declaration of Principles so that we can be saved
from the suspension of the Rules and motion for reconsideration?
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as the committee is
concerned, there is no motion for reconsideration. We are not discussing
the merits of the proposal that we have approved. We are not going into
the substance. We are merely transposing it to another section. So we
do not actually violate the Rules.
THE PRESIDENT: In fact, this can be done
by the Committees on Style and Sponsorship.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just a very minor point.
The sentence sought to be transposed reads: “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND
PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO HEALTH.” The reading of the section now by
Commissioner Quesada states: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE AND PROTECT.” So,
which is which? Which will come ahead?
MS. QUESADA: I stand corrected. It shall
be: “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE” as was stated in the Article
on Social Justice.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of
this new Section 16, as read by Commissioner Quesada, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 23 votes in favor and
none against; the new Section 16 is approved.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The chairman is
recognized.
MR. TINGSON: The committee’s new
formulation of Section 17 reads: “The State recognizes the RIGHT OF
EVERY PERSON to a HEALTHFUL environment and the singular demand of
nature to follow its own rhythm and harmony. IT shall therefore PROTECT,
RESTORE AND ENHANCE THE ecological balance FOR the sustenance of THIS
AND future generations.”
I am going to hand it over to
Commissioner Azcuna for answers to whatever questions will be asked.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just to keep our records
straight, may I formally present a motion, Madam President? I move that
the first sentence of Section 11 on the Article on Social Justice be
transposed to Section 17 of the Article on the Declaration of Principles
and State Policies, with instruction to the Committees on Style and
Sponsorship to so indicate this transposition.
I so move, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Section 17.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: I likewise move, Madam
President, that the first sentence of Section 1 of the Article on Social
Justice which says, “The State shall promote social justice in all
phases of national development,” be transposed to the new section in the
Article on the Declaration of Principles and State Policies.
I so move, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, before we act
on the motion of Commissioner Maambong, may I just ask whether this same
approach to transpositions or this precedent, with respect to articles
already approved, after a lapse of time beyond the 48 hours provided for
in the Rules, will apply to all future proposals for transpositions
without the formality of reopening or a motion for reconsideration? I
just wanted the Rules to be interpreted now so that this question need
not arise in the future, before we act on the motion of Commissioner
Maambong.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner
Maambong say?
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, this
matter of transposition does not really affect any substance of the
provisions. What we are only trying to do is to transfer it to its
proper place. So, to my mind, there is no need for a motion for
reconsideration or suspension of the Rules because we are not deleting
any portion; we are not changing the substance; we are using practically
the same words. As a matter of fact, this properly belongs to the
Committees on Style and Sponsorship, but we are just trying to
effectuate this in a more orderly manner.
MR. OPLE: If that is the understanding,
then I think this clears up the doubt in my own mind, at least.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is
recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I be clarified by
Commissioner Maambong if, when he proposes this transfer, it means that
the sentence will no longer appear in the Article on Social Justice?
MR. MAAMBONG: It will no longer appear,
Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Then, how will the second
sentence sound like if we remove that? I do not remember the full
sentence.
MR. MAAMBONG: Precisely, that would be
the subject matter of the next motion which I was about to present.
BISHOP BACANI: I think we should spend
more time in deciding this. If we transpose something, like transposing
part of my hand to my feet, then, of course, we are not changing the
substance of my hand apparently but it may not look as nice anymore, and
the likes of this may be happening here. We approve them precisely
within the context of said articles. I remember yesterday there was a
long discussion for the transposition of one sentence to the Article on
Social Justice. So, I think, we should be more careful about these
transpositions.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, the point
of Commissioner Bacani is well taken. That is precisely why I was about
to request the Chair to instruct the Committee on Sponsorship and the
Committee on Style as regards Section 1 of the Article on Social Justice
wherein the words “in pursuit thereof” should be taken out and the
sentence will now start with: “Congress shall give highest priority.”
This is to solve the problem of Commissioner Bacani.
And in the case of Section 11 of the
Article on Social Justice, instead of the words in the second sentence,
“to this end it shall adopt,” it will read: “THE STATE shall adopt an
integrated and comprehensive approach to health development. . .” It
will not change the meaning. There is nothing new in this formulation.
It is only a matter of realigning it in order that the sentence will not
look awkward.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take note of this
as a suggestion to the Committees on Style and Sponsorship when they
come to this particular section.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. JAMIR: Parliamentary inquiry, Madam
President.
I remember that Commissioner Suarez
raised the question on whether or not upon the transfer of the Romulo
amendment to the Article on Transitory Provisions, the formulation of
the Romulo amendment could be subject to change or amendments, and the
Chair ruled then that in due time the Chair would announce its ruling on
the matter. Will this procedure that we are adopting constitute a
precedent with respect to that particular matter?
THE PRESIDENT: The situations are not
similar. In other words, this is a case where a particular portion has
been approved in a section and which is now believed to be properly
placed in the Declaration of Principles. So, there is no similarity
between the two.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, inquiry
only.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
We are transposing the first sentence of
Section 11 of the Article on Social Justice to the Declaration of
Principles. If we do that, the second sentence in Section 11 will have
no meaning.
THE PRESIDENT: That is why Commissioner
Maambong was making some suggestions for the consideration of the
Committees on Style and Sponsorship, without changing the substance. It
is just a question of styling now because of the transposition of this
first sentence.
MR. DE CASTRO: If the Committee on Style
will put some sense in the second sentence of Section 11, it will have
to change some statements because the second sentence of Section 11, if
we take away the first sentence, will have no sense or meaning.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 5:44 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:56 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is
recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I would like
to ask for a reconsideration of the ruling on the Maambong motion
because I would like to present a different proposal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. MAAMBONG: I have no objection as the
proponent of the motion, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no objection; the
said ruling is reconsidered.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to propose that instead of
transposing certain sentences from the articles that are already
approved into the Declaration of Principles, we will just copy those
sentences without transferring them. And then we will just direct the
Sponsorship Committee to harmonize the two by deleting later on the
copied sentences from the original articles and retaining them in the
Declaration of Principles.
MR. MAAMBONG: I will have no objection to
that, Madam President, as long as it will have the same effect as
transferring the words in Sections 11 and 1 of the Article on Social
Justice to the proper section in the Declaration of Principles. What I
am only worried about is that if that discretion is given entirely to
the Committee on Sponsorship and the Committee on Style, then the said
committees may not transfer the sentence to the proper section in the
Declaration of Principles. But with that understanding, I have no worry
about that.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I believe we
should just allow the duplication and then the Sponsorship Committee or
Style Committee can make a recommendation after which we will have to
follow the Rules at a time when the issue arises.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: There is no authority to each
committee to do that.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, with that understanding.
The chairman of the Sponsorship Committee
is about to seek recognition.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but excuse me. The
Sponsorship Committee, I believe, should be guided by the decision of
the body as to where that particular sentence will be — whether it
should remain in the section on the Article on Social Justice or in the
Declaration of Principles.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, without guiding them,
Madam President, or without necessarily taking away all discretion from
them.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, just guide them.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
Shall we debate on all these?
MR. MONSOD: No, I just wanted to find
out. Is it clear that the Rules will have to be observed at the time?
MR. AZCUNA: The Rules will have to be
observed. That is right.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, on behalf
of the Sponsorship Committee, we will do whatever the Commission decides
on this matter.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any section that
we should approve?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The chairman of the
committee is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Yes, Madam President, we
will request Commissioner Azcuna.
MR. AZCUNA: I move, Madam President, that
the words that were supposed to be transposed from the Article on
Social Justice to the Declaration of Principles be merely copied instead
of being transposed, thereby creating a duplication which the
Sponsorship Committee can harmonize under the Rules.
MR. OPLE: I second the motion.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that
actually there will be no need for that. What we have to do now is to
approve a section. Have we approved that section already?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, we will just approve a
section that is worded in the same way.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, in the same way; that
is all.
MR. AZCUNA: That is right; that is the
motion.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, what I am
actually saying is that there is no need for the motion. The motion
which I presented and which was approved by the Chair can be considered.
All the words are now back to Section 1 and Section 11.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
MR. AZCUNA: I withdraw the motion then,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: That is why the Chair was
asking what the section is that we will vote upon.
MR. AZCUNA: The next section that we will
vote upon is Section 17, formerly Section 18, Madam President.
MR. TINGSON: Section 17.
MR. AZCUNA: This is on the right to a
healthful environment. We have a new committee formulation, Madam
President.
MR. TINGSON: Section 17 will read: “The
State recognizes the right of a person to a healthful environment and
the singular demand of nature to follow its own rhythm and harmony. It
shall, therefore, protect, restore and enhance ecological balance for
the sustenance of this and future generations.”
MR. AZCUNA: This particular formulation
is due to the efforts and coauthorship of Commissioners Garcia,
Guingona, Bengzon, Rigos and myself, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, will the
proponent yield to a question?
MR. AZCUNA: Willingly, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. OPLE: “The singular demand of nature
to follow its own rhythm and harmony” — that is a very charming
language.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: And this is, of course, to be
read in the context of what precedes it — “a healthful environment.”
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct, Madam
President.
MR. OPLE: Is there a kind of pantheistic
dimension to this statement so that, in effect, a regression to a state
of nature for humanity is endorsed? An example is the Tasaday community.
Let us not talk about the controversial character of its authenticity,
but does Commissioner Azcuna refer to the “singular demand of nature to
follow its own rhythm and harmony” in the sense that Stone Age
civilization might be singularly preferable to, let us say, a more
advanced but, at the same time, a more strife-ridden culture? It is said
that the Tasadays do not have the word “war” in their vocabulary. It is
said that they are living in perfect harmony. But we also know that man
in a state of nature is a savage, and that is why we know about the
noble savage. This is certainly not contemplated. It is an ideal state
of human society in the second part of the first sentence in Section 18.
MR. AZCUNA: No, Madam President, we have
precisely no intention of being atavistic in this particular
formulation, but, rather, merely to respect the laws of nature which, if
violated, have their own violent reactions, such as when one tries to
denude a forest and there is flood. As the Gentleman has mentioned
earlier, there is, therefore, merely a demand for balance in the
environment.
MR. OPLE: There are no tacit choices
expressed as to the preferable state of human culture and civilization.
MR. AZCUNA: None, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: This deals only with ecology in
terms of the natural resources and the rhythm of nature.
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Madam
President.
MR. AZCUNA: The Gentleman is welcome.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Would the proponent yield
to some questions?
MR. AZCUNA: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. VILLACORTA: Does this section mandate
the State to provide sanctions against all forms of pollution — air,
water and noise pollution?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Madam President. The
right to healthful environment necessarily carries with it the
correlative duty of not impairing the same and, therefore, sanctions may
be provided for impairment of environmental balance.
MR. VILLACORTA: Correspondingly, does
this mean that under this section there will be protection provided to
human communities surrounding airports, military bases and factories?
MR. AZCUNA: There may be insofar as such
mentioned matters contribute to harming the environment or the quality
of the human environment.
MR. VILLACORTA: In other words, it is
protection not only to the life and limb of these human communities but
to their psychological welfare as well.
MR. AZCUNA: Insofar as it relates to
causes from the environment such as noise, for example, which is
considered as a form of pollution. This may be controlled or regulated
under this provision, Madam President.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you very much,
Madam President.
MR. AZCUNA: The Gentleman is welcome.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is
recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
I wonder if the proponent would entertain
an amendment by substitution. This is a simple sentence that
Commissioner Monsod and myself had been working on and the sentence will
read simply like this: “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND ENHANCE A BALANCED
ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.”
MR. AZCUNA: That sounds good to me, Madam
President. May the Gentleman repeat it.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes. “THE STATE SHALL PROJECT
AND ENHANCE A BALANCED ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PRESENT AND
FUTURE GENERATIONS.”
I think the thrust of what the proponent
has in mind is already integrated in this expression because the words
“BALANCED ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT” not only for the present but also for
the future generations are already included.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes. My problem there is, it
does not state the right to a healthy or healthful or clean environment
which is, in modern development, considered a right of every person with
the correlative duty of nonimpairment. I wonder if we could somehow put
it in the duty or responsibility of the State to protect and enhance
the ecological environment.
MR. SUAREZ: Taking into consideration the
factor which the Gentleman has brought out, probably, it could be
further amended to read: “IT SHALL PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE TO A BALANCED ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PRESENT AND FUTURE
GENERATIONS.”
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. AZCUNA: May we ask for a suspension,
Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 6:09 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:17 p.m., the session was
resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, we have a
reformulation which is the combined poetic effort of all the
Commissioners here present, namely: Commissioners Garcia, Guingona,
Bengzon, Rigos, Ople, Jamir, Monsod, Villacorta, Suarez, Davide, Aquino,
Quesada, Gascon, Rosario Braid. Nolledo . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Are there so many poets
here?
MR. AZCUNA: There are so many poets,
Madam President. (Laughter). And it reads as follows: “THE STATE
GUARANTEES THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR POSTERITY TO A BALANCED AND
HEALTHFUL ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT IN ACCORD WITH THE SINGULAR DEMAND OF
NATURE TO FOLLOW ITS RHYTHM AND HARMONY.”
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla does
not seem to agree. (Laughter) What does he say?
MR. PADILLA: If we were writing a poem,
that phrase “rhythm and harmony” may have some place, but not in a
Constitution, and much less in the Declaration of Principles. Madam
President, in fact, taxis Section 17 is within the inherent power of the
State under its police power. In fact, the Civil Code has provisions on
nuisances under Article 6, line 4, which provides that a nuisance is
any act, commission, establishment, business, condition or property or
anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of
others; (2) annoys or offends the senses; (3) shocks, defies or
disregards decency or morality; (4) obstructs or interferes with the
free passage of any public highway or street or any body of water; and
(5) hinders or impairs the use of property.
And then it provides for nuisances per se
or per accidens and public or private nuisances.
So, if we must be prevailed upon to
include a provision in the Declaration of Principles, to which I do not
exactly concur, let us make it simple, similar to what was suggested by
Commissioner Suarez. Or if we want to preserve some of the wordings of
the committee report, let us just simply say: “THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE
HUMAN RIGHT TO HEALTHFUL ENVIRONMENT AND TO ECOLOGICAL BALANCE OF
NATURE” or adopt what Commissioner Suarez suggested, because it is not
necessary to say “FOR THIS AND FUTURE GENERATIONS” or “FOR NOW AND
POSTERITY.” It is understood that whatever we do here is intended for
the general welfare of all the people now and tomorrow.
On the question of environment, balanced
ecology may be disrupted by, for example, the striking out of trees
especially the deforestation or the denudation of our forests, because
trees, I understand, absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, and that is
good for the human body. Water, which is stagnant, will also create
problems not only from possible diseases, germs, et cetera. And if water
is not stagnant but running, there is less chance of nonecological
balance.
And so, I am against the new formulation,
especially when it mentions “THE SINGULAR DEMAND OF NATURE FOR RHYTHM
AND HARMONY.” These may be beautiful words, but they have no substantial
meaning.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is
recognized.
MR. OPLE: Am I entitled to three minutes?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, three minutes.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
I just wanted to express my disagreement
with Commissioner Padilla concerning this section. I do appreciate his
demand and concern for simplicity and clarity, and I think this section
meets that standard and somewhat exceeds it, I suppose, in terms of this
phrase that has been described as poetic, which undoubtedly it is, but
which is far from being meaningless. It speaks of a balanced and
healthful ecological environment in accord with the singular demand of
nature for rhythm and harmony. I believe this is far from being a
meaningless or a hollow statement. It conveys a powerful sense of the
very real problems that we face. Having violated the rhythm and harmony
of nature with the rape of our forests and lakes, we have to take
seriously the admonitions of many experts that if nothing drastic is
done by the government and the people in 50 years, we can be a desert,
Madam President. Our lakes are already dying. The Laguna de Bay,
according to most experts, can literally die in 20 years if nothing gets
done now. In my own Province of Bulacan, the pollution problem is
beginning to feed an insurrectionary atmosphere among many fishermen,
for example. Farms and rivers which are the only means of sustenance for
many thousands of families are being irreparably damaged by pollution
from some chemical companies there.
And so, I think, a statement on ecology
this powerful and attractive should have a place in the Declaration of
Principles.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I agree in full with the
proposal of the committee, but to shorten it, may I just move for the
deletion of the words “THE SINGULAR DEMAND OF NATURE TO FOLLOW.” So, it
will only read: “IN ACCORD WITH THE RHYTHM AND HARMONY OF NATURE.”
THE PRESIDENT: What does the committee
say? Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: We accept, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May we also change the word
“GUARANTEES” to “PROTECTS”? Instead of “GUARANTEES,” place “PROTECTS,”
because the word “GUARANTEES” would be used the first time in the
Constitution and somehow it sounds like a financial transaction.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Monsod agree
with the words “TO PROTECT AND ADVANCE THE RIGHT”?
MR. MONSOD: I think those were the words
of Commissioner Suarez.
MR. OPLE: “Advance” is stronger than
“enhance.”
MR. MONSOD: I will leave that to the
committee. I was just taking issue with the word “GUARANTEES.”
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: So, how will this new
section now read?
MR. AZCUNA: The new section will now
read: “THE STATE SHALL, PROTECT AND ADVANCE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AND
THEIR POSTERITY TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT IN
ACCORD WITH THE RHYTHM AND HARMONY OF NATURE.”
MR. GASCON: Madam President,
parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is
recognized.
MR. GASCON: Did Commissioner Padilla
propose an anterior amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think there was
any. He was just making a suggestion.
MR. GASCON: So, we shall be voting on the
committee proposal then.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, taking into account
the objections of Commissioner Padilla.
Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I have been involved in the
environmental movement for sometime. But this is the first time I heard
about ecological environment. Why not simply say “balanced ecology”?
MR. AZCUNA: The ecological environment,
Madam President. refers to the total human environment.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is the meaning of
ecology.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. BENNAGEN: But why “environment”? What
I am saying is, just use “ecology” instead of “ecological environment.”
MR. AZCUNA: We accept, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to ask, Madam
President: Is the committee willing to accept “ADVANCE”? It sounds like a
military operation.
MR. AZCUNA: How about “ENFORCE”?
MR. OPLE: Since I suggested the word
“ADVANCE,” Madam President, may I have the floor for just a minute.
I think advancing the right of people is
nothing odd nor curious. We encounter this in all literature, but
especially with respect to human rights, the rights of the poor,
enhancing a right is out of place. One cannot enhance a right. There are
no degrees of rights but advancing the right of the people to a sound
ecology is perfectly in order and there is a resonance to it which ought
not to be begrudged when we speak of a strong and powerful statement on
ecology and health.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready now for the
formulation?
MR. AZCUNA: May I read it once more,
Madam President: “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND ADVANCE THE RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE AND THEIR POSTERITY TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY IN ACCORD
WITH THE RHYTHM AND HARMONY OF NATURE.”
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may I
suggest the deletion of “POSTERITY” for the sake of economy of words,
because I think Commissioner Padilla is right. What we pass here is for
now and the future.
MR. AZCUNA: “THE PEOPLE” means the
present and future generations; we agree.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of
the new Section 17, 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 22 votes in favor and
one against; so, the new Section 17 is approved.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. TINGSON:: Madam President, it has
been a long day of rhythm and harmony and to add rhyme and reason to it,
we suggest that we adjourn.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Acting Floor
Leader say?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, in the
interest of the committee’s biorhythm, I support the motion to adjourn
until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned
until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
It was 6:33 p.m.
* Appeared after
the roll call.