JOURNAL NO. 89

At 10:01 a.m., the President of the Constitutional Commission, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, called the session to order.

The National Anthem was sung followed by a prayer led by Mr. Adolfo S. Azcuna, to wit:

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

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

With 31 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.

The following Members appeared after the Roll Call:

A.M.

P. M

.

Messrs. Regalado and Rosales were sick.

Mr. Laurel was absent.

READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

On motion of Mr. Calderon, there being no objection,
the reading of the Journal of the previous session was dispensed with
and the said Journal was approved by the Body.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

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

REFERRAL TO COMMITTEES OF COMMUNICATIONS

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

Communication No. 949 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

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.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 950 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. 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.

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

Communication No. 951 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

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.

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

Communication No. 952 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

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.

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

Communication No. 953 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

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.

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 954 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Mr. Dexter B. Bajade,
transmitting Resolution No. 13, series of 1986, adopted by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur, expressing support for the
adoption of a nationalist-oriented Philippine Constitution.

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 955 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

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.

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

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

On motion of Mr. Calderon, there being no objection,
the Body resumed consideration, on Second Reading of proposed
Resolution No. 527 (Committee Report No. 36) on the Article on the
Declaration of Principles, entitled:

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

Mr. Calderon stated that the Body was in the period of amendments.

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

At this juncture, the Chair reminded the Members to
observe the five-minute rule in speaking in favor or against an
amendment, and requested the Committee to designate only one spokesman,
unless there are separate views.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Calderon, the Chair suspended the
session to allow the proponents to confer with the Committee on their
amendments.

It was 10:10 a. m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:26 a. m., the session was resumed.

SECTION 10 AS AMENDED BY MESSRS. GASCON, MONSOD AND DAVIDE

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Tingson read Section 10 as amended by Messrs. Gascon, Monsod and Davide, to wit:

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 AND NATIONALISM AND ENCOURAGE THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN
PUBLIC AND CIVIL SERVICE.

Mr. Davide further proposed to change the word “service” with AFFAIRS, which amendment was accepted by the Sponsor.

In reply to Mr. Gascon’s query, Mrs. Rosario Braid,
affirmed that “involvement in public and civic affairs” would include
the participation and representation of the youth in such public and
civic affairs.

MANIFESTATION OF MRS. QUESADA

Thereupon, Mrs. Quesada pointed out that the
Committee decided to transpose the paragraph on page 3, lines 13 to 15
to the Article on Family Rights which provides that “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.”

APPROVAL OF SECTION 10, AS AMENDED

Thereafter, Mr. Tingson restated Section 10, as follows:

SEC. 10. 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 AND NATIONALISM, AND ENCOURAGE THEIR
INVOLVEMENT IN PUBLIC AND CIVIC AFFAIRS.

Submitted to a vote, and with 22 Members voting favor and one against, the same was approved by the Body.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. CALDERON

At this juncture, Mr. Calderon manifested that Ms.
Aquino has made reservations to propose amendments on Sections 11 and
12. He then requested for deferment of consideration of both Sections.

Mr. Tingson affirmed that the Committee had acceded
to her request. Thereupon, he requested permission to read the
Committee’s formulation of Sections 11 and 12 for the Body’s
consideration without prejudice to Ms. Aquino’s amendments later on.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query whether the Body has a
quorum since only 22 Members voted out of the 31 Members who responded
to the Roll Call, the Chair affirmed that there is a quorum but only 22
voted out of those present.

SECTIONS 11 AND 12, AS REFORMULATED

Thereafter, Mr. Tingson read Sections 11 and 12 as follows:

SEC. 11. 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.

SEC. 12. 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.

In reply to Mr. Rigos’ query whether the Committee
intends to omit the paragraph concerning children, Mrs. Rosario Braid
stated that the paragraph will be transferred to the Article on Family
Rights.

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod requested that typed copies of
the reformulated versions of Sections 11 and 12 be distributed to the
Members.

SECTION 13

Mrs. Rosario Braid then read Section 13 as follows:

SEC. 13. THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, AND
SECURE ADEQUATE SOCIAL SERVICES, SECURITY IN OLD AGE AND GUARANTEE A
LIFE WORTHY OF HUMAN DIGNITY.

INQUIRY/PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

On Mr. Monsod’s query whether there is a difference
between “human dignity” and “improved quality of human life” in the
sections previously approved and the one being proposed, Mrs. Rosario
Braid explained that the phrase “adequate social services and security
in old age” is mentioned for the first time.

Mr. Monsod stated that he agrees with the first part
but not with the second part. He proposed to place a period (.) after
“services” and to delete the rest of the sentence.

Mr. Guingona proposed to amend Mr. Monsod’s proposal by placing the period after “age” and deleting the rest of the sentence.

Mr. Monsod pointed out that taking care of the
elderly is part of social services. Mr. Guingona, however, contended
that “security in old age” was originally sought to be deleted by Mr.
Maambong to which he also objected. He added that Mr. Davide suggested
that the phrase be included in Section 13 which the Committee accepted.

Mr. Monsod then asked for a vote on whether “and guarantee a life worthy of human dignity” should be added or not.

Mr. Guingona agreed with a reservation to propose
the addition of the phrase IN THE FIELDS OF EDUCATION AND SECURITY IN
OLD AGE later on.

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query whether “social services” include social security, Mr. Monsod answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Ople then urged the Committee against putting
workers who are paying for their social security benefits in the bracket
of dependent wards of the State.

Mr. Monsod agreed by stating that “social services” is precisely a more comprehensive and broader term.

However, Mr. Guingona manifested that not all who
are presently covered by the Social Security System would be included in
the social security program that is envisioned under the proposal. He
suggested the adoption of Mr. Davide’s proposal to elaborate on the
meaning of social security with the following clause:

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 Chair however, stated that the Body should first vote on Mr. Monsod’s proposal.

Ms. Tan opined that taking care of the aged is not
only included in social services and social security but is, in fact, a
deeply embedded Filipino tradition which needs no constitutional
mandate.

Mr. Monsod also pointed out that the Article on
Family Rights contains a section which provides for care for the elderly
as a Filipino tradition, to which Ms. Tan agreed.

MR. PADILLA’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Padilla sought the deletion of the entire
section as unnecessary, since it is already covered by other provisions
in the Constitution.

Mr. Monsod accepted the proposal but suggested the
insertion of “social services” after “social justice” in Section 8, to
which Mr. Padilla agreed.

Mr. Bengzon stated that the Body should first
consider Mr. Padilla’s motion to delete the entire section and then
consider Mr. Monsod’s suggestion.

Thereupon, Mr. Padilla’s proposal to delete Section
13 was submitted to a vote and with 19 Members voting in favor and 16
against, the same was approved by the Body.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 10:53 a. m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:57 a. m., the session was resumed.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

Upon resumption of session, on motion of Mr. Monsod,
there being no objection, the Body reconsidered the approval of Section
7. Thereafter, he proposed to insert the phrase PROVIDE ADEQUATE SOCIAL
SERVICES after “policies that” so that Section 7, as amended would read
as follows:

SEC. 7. 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. Tingson accepted the proposal.

Mr. Padilla proposed to change “full” with MAXIMUM.

At this juncture, Mr. Villegas informed that in the
field of economics, “full employment” is usually defined as attainable
employment which tolerates a certain level of understandable
unemployment due to changes of jobs and training and therefore it does
not really mean perfect employment.

In view of the above concept of “full employment,” Mr. Padilla did not insist on his proposal.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 7, AS AMENDED

Submitted to a vote, and with 31 Members voting in favor and none against, Section 7, as amended, was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED COMMITTEE AMENDMENT ON SECTION 11

Thereafter, Ms. Aquino presented the Committee proposal to amend Section 11, to 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.

INQUIRY OF MR. ROMULO

In reply to Mr. Romulo’s inquiry whether the
proposal would automatically amend the pertinent provision of the Civil
Code, Ms. Aquino stressed that it does not intend a massive dislocation
in Civil Code and in civil law jurisprudence but would give impetus for
its amendments through statutes.

As to whether the proposal means that when choices
are necessary, as in the matter of choosing a residence, that the same
cannot be lodged by law in the husband, Ms. Aquino stated that the
intention of the Committee is to ignore sex where sex is not a relevant
factor in determining rights and duties. She stated that 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. She affirmed that
this establishes the principle of non-sexism.

INQUIRY OF MR. BENGZON

On the inquiry of Mr. Bengzon, Ms. Aquino affirmed
that Section 11 gives credence, meaning and recognition to Filipino
customs and values on family life. As to which would prevail in case of
conflict, Ms. Aquino stated it is axiomatic in the interpretation of
laws that courts should take judicial recognition of customary laws. The
judicial recognition, she maintained, would not mean affirmation or
contravention of customs and traditions in the drafting of statutes and
laws. She affirmed that Section 11 does not mean that Congress may
totally ignore Filipino culture or cultural ties.

INQUIRIES OF MR. BERNAS

In reply to Mr. Bernas’ inquiry whether it is not in
fact true that a subsequent Constitutional provision amends an existing
civil law or criminal law provision which is in conflict with it, Ms.
Aquino stated that the process of transition to a new set of laws on the
rights of women with men would have to go through amendatory process in
the legislature.

Specifically, as to what effect the provision would
have on pending and prospective legal cases for legal separation
considering that the grounds therefor may no longer be found in the new
Constitution, Ms. Aquino informed that the Civil Code Revision Project
of the U.P. Law Center, of which Secretary-General Romero is a member,
is implementing this new provision as intended by Section 11. She
observed that it would appear that in the absence of a statutory
implementation of Section 11, which is, however, being considered in the
Civil Code Revision Project, the provisions in the Civil Code may be
considered in a state of suspension.

She affirmed that with respect to pending cases, the
Civil Code would have to yield to the Constitution. Mr. Bernas opined
that since it is a project and not yet a law, there would be no law on
legal separation once Section 11 is approved. Ms. Aquino, at this point,
reiterated the Committee’s position that in the hierarchy of legal
values, the constitutional mandate takes precedence over statutes and in
the absence of a statutory implementation of Section 11, the intention
of Section 11 should take precedence without precluding specific
statutory implementation which would amend the Civil Code. She stated
that it would not be an ipso facto amendment.

On the possibility that nothing is done by way of
amendment, Ms. Aquino averred that the Civil Code Revision Project will,
by itself, provide enough ground for the amendment of the Civil Code.

Mr. Bernas observed that a mere intent that is not
specified in a constitutional provision is not only vague but one which
runs contrary to the letter of the provision. The letter, he stated,
would have to prevail over any unexpressed intent since it is the letter
that clearly expresses equal protection to which every inequality in
existing laws must yield.

Ms. Aquino contended that the problem in providing
for an ipso facto amendment of the Civil Code on the determination of
rights and duties between husband and wife, particularly pertaining to
laws on personal and family relations is that it carries intricate
details which could not proceed from a vacuum or statement that ipso
facto the provisions in the Civil Code are repealed. She stated that
there must be a semblance of standards.

At this juncture, Mr. Bernas proposed to clarify the
matter with an amendment to the effect that pending the enactment of
new laws on this subject, existing laws shall continue. He stated that
this would express the intent and save the Supreme Court from trying to
reconcile two diametrically opposing provisions.

As to whether such amendment would still be
necessary considering that it is already clearly intended in the
provision, Mr. Bernas replied that it would be necessary inasmuch as the
records are appealed to only when the letter is unclear. He noted that
the letter of the provision —”equal” — is clear and whatever is said in
the debate will have to yield to the letter.

Ms. Aquino stated that the Committee would be
willing to accommodate an amendment should it be convinced of its
necessity. Replying thereto, Mr. Bernas affirmed his intention to
convince the Committee on the necessity of the amendment although he
would not be against the ipso facto abolition of existing inequities.
Ms. Aquino noted that an ipso facto amendment may cause a massive
dislocation in civil law and jurisprudence. She stated that the
Committee would be willing to accommodate a transitory provision.

INQUIRIES OF MR. NOLLEDO

As to whether custom must never be contrary to the
Constitution or existing law which is a basic provision of the Civil
Code, Ms. Aquino stated that there is no Filipino custom that mandates
the inequality of men with women.

Mr. Nolledo manifested his apprehension that the
Section might cause some social upheaval in Muslim Mindanao inasmuch as
Muslim men consider women inferior to them. Ms. Aquino replied that the
Civil Code would yield to Muslim laws on personal and family relations
and that the Shari’a courts apply the Muslim Code.

Mr. Nolledo noted that Section 11 might
automatically amend the provisions of Muslim personal laws and that
Muslim women might claim equal rights with Muslim men who will never
surrender their rights. Ms. Aquino assured Mr. Nolledo that the Section
does not intend to affect the distinctive character of cultural groups,
particularly the Muslim people who have adopted their own Civil Code on
personal and family relations.

As to whether under Section 11 the wife could claim
joint administration with the husband, Ms. Aquino replied in the
affirmative. She stated that ideally the statutory implementation of the
provision, as far as administration of conjugal property is concerned,
should pertain to joint administration between husband and wife. She
noted that under the Civil Code, the wife has only the right to object
when the administration has been known to be contrary to family
interests and when the husband is mismanaging the conjugal partnership
property.

Mr. Nolledo observed that 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 on the ground that it
might affect morality in the family. He inquired whether the Section
would allow the wife to engage in any kind of business or exercise her
profession without any objection from the husband. Ms. Aquino, in reply,
stated that the Committee’s position is that the equality of rights of
men with women is not absolute equality and is not contemplated in terms
of likeness. She stated that it yields to the requirements of best
interests of the family which should not necessarily be interpreted as
sublimating the interests and rights of women.

On whether the marrying age should now be the same
for men and women, Ms. Aquino observed that the provision on marrying
age would seem to say that the level of maturity of the men is not at
par with women inasmuch as the marrying ages are 14 for women and 16 for
men.

Mr. Nolledo then inquired whether the Committee
would be willing to entertain an amendment limiting equality between men
and women to civil and political life excluding social life. He noted
that it would affect a lot of customs and traditions of indigenous
communities and asked whether the provision could be reconciled with the
provision that the State shall respect the customs and traditions of
indigenous communities. Ms. Aquino replied that as far as the indigenous
communities are concerned, there is no intention to contravene
customary laws. She maintained, however, that the provision cannot be
limited to political and civil life because social life comprehends
civil and political life.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla observed that the Civil Code and the
Penal Code are statutory enactments by Congress and are subject to
revision also by Congress. He stated that he would oppose the provision
if it should entail amendments of the Civil Code by a Constitutional
provision. He noted that there is a wrong assumption that the Civil Code
favors husbands and fathers as against wives and mothers in families,
but he explained that the provisions contained therein are intended to
preserve the unity and solidarity of the family. He maintained that
there is nothing in the Civil Code which unduly favors the husband as
against the wife.

On the matter of concubinage and adultery, he noted
that the infidelity of the wife may give occasion to conception of an
illegitimate child who is introduced into the legitimate family. He
stated that when a mother delivers a child during the coverture with her
husband, that child is conclusively presumed to be legitimate and yet
the child may be the product of the wife’s infidelity. On the other
hand, he observed that should the husband have intercourse with a woman
other than his wife, there is no danger for him because the child born
out of the indiscretion would not disturb the integrity and harmony with
the legitimate family.

He stated that he does not understand why feminist
movements stress that there are inequalities in the provisions of the
Civil Code and the Penal Code regarding family relation. He noted that
if this is the intention of the provision he would move for its
deletion.

REPLY OF MS. AQUINO

Ms. Aquino noted that the self-sacrifice of women,
who comprise half of the population, is almost legendary. She averred
that Mr. Padilla’s proposal would be the worst form of aggravation and
would even institutionalize the powerlessness and destitution of women.

no such inhibition exists for the widower. She also
noted the inequalities in the matter of citizenship as well as in
existing laws on annulment and separation.

REMARKS OF MR. VILLACORTA

Mr. Villacorta observed that the prevailing
assumption in the Body seems to be that equality for women is contrary
to Filipino customs and values. He said that the opposite is what has
existed and is existing. He noted that even in pre-colonial Philippines,
historians and anthropologists show that Filipino women have always had
high status in society. He stated that there were female rulers and the
revered priests, the babaylans, and were mostly women. He stated that
women have as much share as the men in terms of responsibility and work
opportunity and that in the management of the household and certain
family businesses, women have played an active and important role. He
contradicted the contention that in Philippine culture, women have a
subordinate role. In this connection, he adverted to Mr. Padilla’s
discussion on the matter which confirmed the assertion of women’s
equality in the Civil Code which was heavily influenced by Spanish
culture.

Mr. Villacorta also stated that Japan has a specific
constitutional provision that there shall be no discrimination on the
basis of gender and that the equal rights of women have always been
asserted in Japanese laws. In Philippine culture, however, he observed
that while equality of women is affirmed, the identicality of women in
relation to men is not accepted and, as Ms. Aquino had said, equality is
not the same as identicality and that differences between women and
men, biological or otherwise, are acknowledged in Philippine culture,
although the equal rights as well as equal duties of women are accepted.

On equality in economic life, Mr. Villacorta invited
attention to the fact that men and women have equal right to be
gainfully employed, to receive the same wages for the same type of work;
that women are not denied employment on the basis of their gender, age
or civil status and that they have equal opportunity for promotion and
professional development; that marriage shall not affect the rights of
women to own and control their own property, freely engage in commerce
or industry, and practice any profession, trade or craft and use as they
please the proceeds of their labor.

On family life, Mr. Villacorta stated that 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, the management and
disposal of which must be upon their mutual determination.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

In reply to Mr. Suarez’ query, Ms. Aquino agreed
that under the Rules of Court, a wife could not sue without joining the
husband; however, under the proposal, a wife could sue without joining
the husband and correspondingly the defendant could file a counterclaim
against the wife without joining the husband.

On the substantive aspect, Mr. Suarez observed that
the wife is not the administrator or co-administrator of the conjugal
partnership, in view of which, he stated, Mr. Bernas proposed to provide
a transitory provision to cover such situation, to which the proponent
had agreed.

Ms. Aquino, likewise, affirmed that a “right” usually carries a corresponding obligation.

On the contention that implementation of the
proposal would put the wife under legal obligation to maintain and
support the family, Ms. Aquino pointed out that rights necessarily carry
with it duties and obligations, but in the realm of possibilities, the
contention is absurd. She stated that she does not see how the provision
would destroy the concept of conjugality of property ownership between
husband and wife because if it is the intention of Section 11 to make
the wife co-administrator of the conjugal property, such arrangement
would be in conformity with the nature of the conjugal partnership of
gains.

On whether the children, under the proposal, could
file a claim for support from the mother and not necessarily from the
father, Ms. Aquino stated that they could, although jurisprudence points
to the fact that an action for support usually proceeds from the wife
who is abandoned by the husband. She stated that in any case an action
for support filed by the child is joined by the mother as a co-party
litigant because, understandably, the child is a minor. She pointed out,
however, that the Civil Code provides that upon reaching the age of
majority, the child is no longer entitled to support.

On both parental support and custody, Ms. Aquino
agreed that the children would have the option of choosing whether it is
the father or the mother with whom they should be placed in custody and
support, in effect, amending the Child and Youth Welfare Code which
provides that the child remains with the mother until the age of seven.

On the proposal to limit the equality of rights to
civil and political exercises, Ms. Aquino stated that it would smack of
mental dishonesty because civil and political rights are part and parcel
of social life.

INQUIRIES OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo prefaced his query by stating that the
Revised Penal Code provides for two crimes on marital infidelity, one
for men and another for women. He stated that for the husband,
concubinage is committed only when he cohabits with another woman, or
does it under scandalous circumstances, or keeps a woman in the conjugal
home; whereas in the case of the wife, a single act of infidelity or
sexual intercourse with another man is adultery. He pointed out that
women consider this unequal. He then inquired whether, to equalize this,
men should be penalized for a single act of indiscretion.

Replying thereto, Ms. Aquino stated that what
actually happens is that 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, while infidelity would
make a woman punishable for every single sexual act outside the marital
bed.

On whether the law should penalize a husband for a
single act of sexual indiscretion, or it should penalize the wife, only
if she cohabits with another man or does the act of infidelity under
scandalous circumstances or keeps a paramour in the conjugal home, Ms.
Aquino stated that she is not prepared to come up with a configuration
of equality except in terms of evidentiary burden. She pointed out,
however, that the institution of the law providing that infidelity is
just as grave an act as concubinage is justified in view of the
biological difference between man and woman, the fact being that the
woman has the monopoly of child-bearing.

Mr. Rodrigo stated that that is what worries the men
because they just do not know how such inequality between a man and a
woman could be equalized.

INQUIRY OF MR. COLAYCO

Mr. Colayco manifested that there is no need for
this provision because, in actual practice, the equality between men and
women has been recognized in the economic, political, civic, social and
cultural life. He stated that although it may be true that some of the
provisions in the law are considered disadvantageous to women, all these
provisions are not observed, for which reason, he is supporting those
who are for the disapproval of the provision.

Responding thereto, Ms. Aquino stated that Mr.
Colayco’s manifestation is true to the extent that it pertains to women
who have achieved some education for whom the opportunities for career
and social mobility are infinite. She stressed that the concept of women
inequality partakes of two fronts, namely, one is inequality attendant
to the social class to which the woman belongs; and the other pertains
to the inequality arising from a sexual and biological difference.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query on whether there has
been a perceptible state of rebellion among the women of the Philippines
against the Civil Code, especially its parts pertaining to family life,
Ms. Aquino gave the assurance that there is a great deal of women
consciousness which, unfortunately, has not attained the level of a
revolt. She pointed out, however, that women organizations have been
mushrooming all over the country protesting against the Civil Code in
particular.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Ople stated that he is aware
of women groups fighting for equality in all fields, especially in the
economic and in the political spheres, but he is not aware of rebellion
against the family provisions of the Civil Code as one of the issues
that have inspired their existence.

Responding thereto, Ms. Aquino pointed out the
distinction between the two classes of oppression being made to bear
upon women, namely, the oppression arising from their being members of a
social class which pertains to economic and political issues; and the
oppression arising from gender. She also stated that a lot of the women
organizations that had mushroomed during martial law and the dark days
after the lifting of martial law had been born out of a struggle against
the Marcos dictatorship that was essentially the imprint of women
oppression, although it did not preclude the development of the
feministic aspect of the women’s equality movement.

Thereupon, Mr. Ople reserved a turn to oppose the provision in due time.

REQUEST OF MS. AQUINO

At this juncture, Ms. Aquino asked for suspension of
the three-minute rule on the ground that the issues under discussion
are of momentous significance not only to the 47 families represented by
the 47 Members of the Commission but also to the 52 million other
Filipinos outside the halls of the Assembly.

Replying thereto, the Chair stated that the three minutes had been quite fruitful.

INQUIRY OF MR. GUINGONA

In reply to Mr. Guingona’s query on whether the rule
envisioned in Section 11 is a hard and fast rule, Ms. Aquino stated
that Section 11 is a constitutional provision that seeks recognition, in
law and in fact, of the equality of men and women. She pointed out that
the provision does not speak of absolute equality or likeness because
of the necessity of recognizing biologically determined differences and,
therefore, there could be exceptions. She stated, however, that it is
not a question of who would determine the exception because it is
axiomatic that there is a biologically determined difference between man
and woman and for so long as the difference is relevant, there is need
for one to give way to the other.

On the determination of relevancy, Ms. Aquino stated
that the Constitutional mandate could not exist in a vacuum and it
could only be given flesh by statutory implementation and by the customs
of society.

Thereupon, Mr. Guingona proposed an amendment to add the phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW after “family life”.

Ms Aquino did not accept the amendment on the ground that it would diminish the intent and meaning of the section.

REMARKS/SUGGESTION OF MR. VILLEGAS

Mr. Villegas stated that, as a student of economic
development of the country over the last twenty years, he had gathered
enough empirical evidence that the Philippines is basically a
matriarchal society wherein the women had definite prominence in
economic life by usually starting entrepreneurial enterprises. He stated
that it is only in the professional field where men predominate and
that even in the running of family finances, very important decisions
are usually left to the women who literally have a monopoly of deciding
how to make use of funds.

He pointed out that the statistics cited by Mr. Ople
attest to the fact that in teaching, women have always been prepared
than the men and about 70% of college graduates in the country are
women. He stated that even the United States does not have such a bias
in favor of women. He stressed that the provision smacks of colonial
mentality and does not apply at all to Philippine culture.

Mr. Villegas then suggested that the section should read 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.

AMENDMENT OF MR. AZCUNA

Mr. Azcuna proposed the substitution of the words
“equal rights of women with men” with the words FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY
BEFORE THE LAW OF WOMEN WITH MEN, explaining that equality before the
law means equal protection.

INQUIRIES OF MRS. QUESADA

On Mrs. Quesada’s inquiry whether the proposed
amendment would include certain school policies relative to admission of
students, specifically in courses like medicine and nursing, home
economics physical education courses where the discrimination seems to
highlight the difference between men and women, Mr. Azcuna stated that
.these types of discrimination are within the ambit of the new
formulation. He quoted Aristotle who said that “it is the highest
inequality to treat the same things differently and to treat different
things the same way.” He pointed out that the second portion of the
amendment drawn up originally from Mr. Romulo’s proposal is an
affirmative provision in the sense that it makes legal affirmative
action correct past discrimination.

The Committee accepted Mr. Azcuna’s proposed amendment.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. ROMULO

Mr. Romulo proposed another formulation to insert
after the word “shall” the words BY LAW REMOVE ANY DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST WOMEN BY REASON OF SEX.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 12:02 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 12:09 p.m., the session was resumed.

MODIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENT

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Azcuna, jointly with
Messrs. Romulo, Villacorta,. Ople, Guingona, Monsod and Maambong,
proposed the following reformulation of Section 11:

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.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

On Mr. Sarmiento’s inquiry as to how the new
formulation which speaks of “fundamental equality before the law”
differs from the Committee’s original formulation which speaks of “equal
rights of women with men,” Mr. Azcuna explained that while the
intention is the same, the new formulation would make it clear that the
equality envisioned is not an identical set of rights but equal
protection before the law which must spring from their dignity as
persons. He stressed that this could admit a different treatment without
violating the equality where the difference is based on rational,
relevant or germane distinctions.

On whether this would likewise include customs and
traditions like the responsibility of men and women in relation to
family life, Mr. Azcuna stated that caution should be applied insofar as
customs are concerned especially in indigenous culture but he stated
that if they strike at the fundamental rights of a person, then customs
should yield to equality.

On whether this would have implications in value
orientation which need not be legislated but which could be part of the
thrust of the new orientation towards equality, Mr. Azcuna stated that
in view of this new thrust, even schools could voluntarily start
affirmative action such that if they are challenged in court, the courts
should sustain a voluntary affirmative action to remedy the imbalance
in violation of this equality.

INQUIRY OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

Mrs. Rosario Braid inquired whether the proposal
provides a climate for transformation of attitudes such as what are
found in mass media and in the world of symbols where women are always
portrayed in stereotype roles, among others, by exploiting their
attractiveness rather than their quality of mind. She stressed the need
to restructure the world of symbols and attitudes in order to promote an
improved communication based on equality, to which Mr. Azcuna replied
that the provision encompasses all those mentioned by Mrs. Rosario
Braid.

INQUIRY OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod prefaced his inquiry by commenting on
Mrs. Quesada’s remarks on alleged discrimination in admission
requirements to medical schools which, he stated, could not be totally
eliminated because there are rational bases for them, among others, that
statistical records show a proportionately very high number of women
who do not practice the profession after graduation. He opined that it
would be wrong to make a categorical statement on alleged discrimination
because no one in the Commission would know the basis of the policy. He
agreed with the new formulation but he stated that he would not
interpret it to mean that all these things have no basis.

On whether there is need for retaining the words
“and participation” considering that the words “recognize the role of
women in nation-building” already include the idea of participation and
involvement, Mr. Azcuna stated that the Committee is amenable to the
deletion of the words “and participation”.

INQUIRIES OF MR. COLAYCO

On whether the phrase “the area of family life” has
been excluded from the new formulation, Mr. Azcuna explained that the
phrase “including family life” has been excluded but the phrase “the
area of family life”, although not explicitly stated, is still included
in the phrase “social and cultural”. He affirmed that Congress would be
justified in amending the Civil Code so that both husband and wife would
have joint administration of the conjugal partnership. He stated that
this is one of the modes already allowed in the Civil Code in the sense
that the parties to a marriage are allowed to choose under an
ante-nuptial contract their domain or regime of property relationship
during the marriage which, in the absence of any choice, automatically
becomes a conjugal partnership of gains.

As to what would be the authority of Congress to
modify the present provisions of the Civil Code in the absence of
ante-nuptial agreements, Mr. Azcuna opined that it would still be within
the ambit of legislative power to do so although it need not be
resorted to. He expressed the view that the “equality before the law”
clause still admits a regime of conjugal partnership of gains.

On whether the wife can say “no” to what her husband
wants to purchase for the family, as when the husband wants to buy a
car, Mr. Azcuna stated that it is up to Congress if it feels that there
is no rational difference between a husband buying a car and a wife
doing it.

Mr. Colayco warned that this might cause a lot of
disagreements because under present laws, the wife can buy the
necessities for the family. He observed that under the proposal, the
husband cannot buy anything without her consent. He asked if this would
not cause disruption and confusion, if not disagreement, between husband
and wife.

In reply, Mr. Azcuna expressed the view that the
proposed formulation grants enough flexibility for Congress to gradually
fine-tune the Civil Code both in the light of the demand for equality
by women as well as the antecedent structure of cultures in society.

INQUIRIES OF MR. DAVIDE

As to how the proposed provision is distinguished
from the second sentence of Section 1 of the Article on Bill of Rights
which provides “nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the law,” Mr. Azcuna stated that there is no real difference in the
sense that equality before the law means equal protection.

On the contention that the “equal protection of the
law” clause applied to both men and women, Mr. Azcuna pointed out that
women have been treated second-class persons and it is the intent of the
provision to correct such treatment by emphasizing that this
fundamental equality obtains in the relationship between men and women.

As to what are contemplated as components of
nation-building, Mr. Azcuna affirmed that nation-building refers to the
development of people civilly, politically, socially, economically,
intellectually and even spiritually.

On the observation that the second portion of the
second sentence may not even be necessary because of the flagship
provision that the State recognizes the role of women in
nation-building, that “fundamental equality” is covered by the “equal
protection” clause, and that the words “civil, political, social,
economic and cultural” are already components of nation-building, Mr.
Azcuna reiterated the need to emphasize that in nation-building, the
women are equal participants and are not just taking the backseat role.

Mr. Davide stated that the provision is one of first
impressions because it never appeared in the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions. He stated that recognizing the role of women in
nation-building is a recognition of the role of women.

INQUIRY OF MR. TINGSON

On Mr. Tingson’s query, Mr. Azcuna stated that as a
metaphor, he would agree that the husband is the head and the wife is
the heart of the home.

On the reason why “including family life” was
deleted, Mr. Azcuna stated that it is already-embraced and subsumed by
the phrase “social and cultural life”. He stressed that it is not good
drafting style to give examples in the law. He clarified that the phrase
“according to law” is included in the second portion in the sense that
it says “and shall by law remove any discrimination . . . “

MR. PADILLA’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Padilla proposed to amend Mr. Azcuna’s proposed
amendment to read: THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN
NATION-BUILDING AND SHALL ENSURE EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN BEFORE THE
LAW.

Mr. Azcuna did not accept the amendment to his
amendment on the ground that it is necessary to explicitate that the
equality before the law should be in all spheres of endeavor.

Mr. Padilla explained that his proposed amendment to
the amendment is anchored on the phrase “equality of men and women” in
lieu of the phrase “equality of women with men” since the latter implies
some discrimination or inequities before the law, as also implied in
the phrase “shall by law remove any discrimination . . .” which he
proposed to delete.

He opined that if, for the sake of argument, there
are such discrimination, then it would be the function of Congress to
amend the law, particularly the Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code.
He also stated that the words “in all spheres” would not be necessary,
because as observed by Mr. Davide, they are already presumed in
nation-building.

The Sponsor, likewise, did not accept Mr. Padilla’s proposed amendment to the amendment.

At this juncture, Mr. Tingson suggested that the
consideration of Mr. Azcuna’s proposed amendment be continued after
lunch to allow the Committee and the proponents to formulate said
amendment.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 12:32 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:03 p.m., the session was resumed.

MR. PADILLA’S AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Padilla read Section 11 as follows:

SECTION 11. THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE ROLE OF WOMEN
IN NATION BUILDING AND SHALL ENSURE EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN BEFORE THE
LAW.

Thereupon, Mr. Romulo proposed to amend the proposal to read:

SECTION 11. THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE ROLE OF WOMEN
IN NATION-BUILDING AND SHALL ENSURE THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY OF MEN AND
WOMEN.

Mr. Padilla accepted the proposal.

However, Ms. Aquino proposed to transpose “men and women” to WOMEN AND MEN.

Mr. Padilla pointed out that according to Mr.
Davide, the matter should be left to the Committee on Style. He added
that the first portion refers to the role of women so that the second
part should be “equality between men and women”.

Ms. Aquino maintained that precisely because of this
it is logical to give preference in terms of attention and focus to
women than men.

Mr. Rodrigo stated that alphabetically it should be “men and women”. He stated that Adam was created before Eve.

Mr. Romulo, however, accepted Ms. Aquino’s proposal.

Thereafter, Section 11 was submitted to a vote and
with 28 Members voting in favor and none against, the same was approved
by the Body.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 12

Ms. Aquino then read Section 12 as follows:

SECTION 12. THE STATE AFFIRMS THE PRIMACY OF LABOR
AS A SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FORCE AND SHALL PROMOTE THE WELFARE AND PROTECT
THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. BENGZON

Mr. Bengzon proposed to reword the Section to read:

SECTION 12. THE STATE AFFIRMS THAT LABOR IS A
PRIMARY SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FORCE. ACCORDINGLY, IT SHALL PROMOTE THE
WELFARE AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS.

Mr. Tingson accepted the amendment.

INQUIRIES OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod pointed out that primacy of labor is not a
social and economic force but is the primacy of the right to a just
share in the fruits of production.

Mr. Bengzon explained that the primacy of the rights
of labor to a just share in the fruits of production is already
enshrined in the Article on Social Justice, hence, the principle sought
to be declared by the proposal is the promotion of the welfare and
protection of the rights of workers as the primary social and economic
force.

Mr. Monsod then inquired as to the meaning of
“primary social and economic force”, to which Ms. Aquino replied that
the intention in using the word “primary” is to give due recognition to
the human element in the creation of vital commodities thereby affirming
the human dignity of workers.

On the query as to what is labor a primary force in,
Mr. Bacani stated that part of the inspiration of the provision came
from the Proposed Resolution he filed and the idea is to give labor
primacy over capital or the assertion of human dignity over things. He
stressed that in the production process, labor is always considered as
primary and efficient cost while capital is merely the instrumental
cost, but in the present system the latter is given primacy over the
former so that when prices of raw materials increase, the prices of
goods also increase without a corresponding increase in workers’ wages.

Mr. Monsod stated that if the intention is to affirm
the primacy of labor as against capital, this could only be concretized
in terms of sharing, to which Mr. Bacani agreed.

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod queried whether Mr. Bacani
would be amenable to rewording the section to read: 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.

Mr. Bacani stated that it does not fully convey the
spirit of the resolution he filed. He suggested the following as a
better alternative: THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE PRIMACY OF LABOR OVER
CAPITAL AND SHALL PROTECT THE JUST SHARE OF . . .

Mr. Monsod pointed out that during the discussions
on the Article on Social Justice, the same subject came up and the
compromise was to say that capital has a corresponding right and that,
therefore, the deletion of the last phrase pertaining to the right of
capital would result in an imbalanced provision, to which Mr. Bacani
replied that “capital” in the Article on Social Justice has an ambiguous
meaning because it referred not to things but to the capitalists. He
stressed that what the provision seeks to assert is the primacy of the
human factor over the non-human factors of production.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Upon request of Ms. Aquino, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 3:18 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:22 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Bengzon read the new formulation of Section 12 as follows:

SECTION 12. THE STATE AFFIRMS LABOR AS A PRIMARY
SOCIAL ECONOMIC FORCE. ACCORDINGLY, IT SHALL PROMOTE THE WELFARE AND
PROTECT THE RIGHT OF WORKERS. .

At this juncture, Mr. Padilla observed that Section
12 is unnecessary because in the Article on Social Justice, the Body had
already agreed 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. He also manifested agreement with Mr.
Bacani’s opinion that human participation in production should be given
more importance than the means of production like machinery or
equipment. He added that what the country needs are investors for
agricultural and industrial development so that the unemployed could be
given opportunities to work.

Mrs. Quesada stated that the Committee’s position is
that the provision is very vital for the labor sector and that it
should be retained as a principle or implementing guideline for the
other principles found in the Article on Social Justice.

Submitted to a vote and with 25 Members voting in favor, and 2 against, the same was approved by the Body

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod made a reservation to propose a new
Section that would affirm the support of the State for private
initiative, to complement the approved provision on labor.

SUGGESTION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong suggested, in line with Mr. Monsod’s
manifestation, to transpose the last sentence of Section 3 of the
Article on Social Justice to the last sentence of Section 12, which
sentence reads: 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.

In reply, Mr. Tingson stated that the Committee
would like to limit the Article to a statement of principles and would
prefer to leave the sentence where it is. Mr. Maambong, however,
maintained that Section 12 would be incomplete because it only speaks of
the rights of workers. He suggested the transposition in order that the
Body would not be burdened with a reformulation.

The Chair stated that the suggestion of Mr. Maambong
would be taken up as soon as the Body receives the proposed amendment
of Mr. Monsod.

SECTION 14 DENOMINATED AS SECTION 13

Thereafter, Mrs. Rosario Braid read Section 14 which had been denominated as Section 13, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN REFORM AS PRIORITIES BASED ON COOPERATIVISM.

She informed that the last phrase had been deleted.
Mr. Monsod suggested dropping “cooperativism”. He explained that some
labor unions do not consider it a primary mode of organization and that
there is already a provision on the matter in the Article on National
Economy.

Mrs. Rosario Braid affirmed that there is a section
therein which mandates Congress to create an agency that will unify and
integrate efforts on cooperatives. She reasoned, however, that this
specific section recommends cooperativism as a principle of rural
development based on bayanihan as a leading value in Philippine society.
She noted that agrarian reform and other rural development projects
have been beset by the lack of adequate collective efforts in pursuing
them. She stressed that rural development does not preclude other
principles but cooperativism is being recognized over other forms of
organizing mechanisms.

Mr. Monsod manifested that he was going to move for
the deletion of the section inasmuch as it is part of Social Justice.
The reference to cooperativism, he stated, gives emphasis to something
not yet fully determined which might be better placed in the Article on
National Economy.

Mrs. Rosario Braid replied that the Article on
Social Justice does not mention rural development and that as a strategy
it has not been mentioned at all in any of the provisions.

AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod, thereupon, suggested a reformulation, to
read: THE STATE SHALL GIVE PRIORITY TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN
REFORM or else to delete the Section.

Mrs. Rosario Braid, on behalf of the Committee,
accepted the suggestion with the understanding that cooperativism shall
remain the guiding principle of the provision.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento opposed the amendment to delete the
Section arguing that since women and labor have been given their
respective places in the Article, agrarian reform and rural development
should also be given proper attention. Thereupon, he proposed to include
industrialization so that as amended, the provision would read:

THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AGRARIAN
REFORM AND INDUSTRIALIZATION AS PRIORITIES WITH COOPERATIVISM AS ITS
ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. JAMIR

Mr. Jamir moved to delete Section 14, which the
Committee did not accept. Thereupon, Mr. Jamir asked for a vote on his
proposal.

REMARKS OF MR. TADEO

Mr. Tadeo opposed the motion to delete Section 14
stating that the farmers who comprise the largest sector of society
would no longer accept mere palliatives.

REMARKS OF MR. GASCON

Mr. Gascon supported Messrs. Sarmiento and Tadeo’s
position that there should be a provision stating the general principle
on rural development, which affects the peasantry most. He noted that
the Commission does not state the implementing guidelines covered by the
Article on Social Justice. He objected to the anterior amendment and
stated that voting upon it should not preclude any amendment on the
provision.

REMARKS OF MR. ABUBAKAR

Mr. Abubakar remarked that Mr. Sarmiento’s amendment
is in order since rural development is one factor which will make
society rich and progressive, and industrialization is another factor
through which progress can be achieved. He observed that
industrialization should also have a place in the Declaration of
Principles and that rural and industrial development should be combined.

REMARKS OF MRS. NIEVA

Mrs. Nieva spoke in favor of retaining Section 14 on
the ground that there would be an imbalance if the primacy of labor is
stressed without giving due importance to the great majority of people
who live in rural or agricultural areas. She noted that there is no
mention of rural development per se in the Article on Social Justice
when everything else leads to rural development.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo noted that while there is a motion to
delete Section 14, there is also a proposed amendment from Mr. Monsod.
He stated that the motion to delete takes priority and inquired whether
Mr. Jamir would be willing to withdraw his motion to give way to the
amendment of Mr. Monsod.

On the Chair’s query, Mr. Jamir stated that should
the Committee accept the amendment of Mr. Monsod, he would withdraw his
motion.

Mr. Gascon objected to Mr. Jamir’s statement and asked for a vote on the motion to delete.

The Chair stated that Mr. Jamir’s withdrawal of the
motion to delete should not be conditional. Thereupon, Mr. Jamir asked
for a vote on his motion.

REMARKS/INQUIRIES OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong stated that for purposes of
clarification, the Committee would be willing to accept Mr. Monsod’s
amendment up to the word “agrarian reform” subject to the interpretation
of Mrs. Rosario Braid. He opined that there is no reason to delete the
Section inasmuch as Mr. Monsod’s amendment had been accepted.

On the query of Mr. Maambong whether the Committee
would accept Mr. Monsod’s amendment to place a period after the word
“agrarian reform”, Mrs. Rosario Braid replied in the affirmative. She
then stated that Mr. Sarmiento’s motion is not preempted because should
the Body approve Mr. Monsod’s amendment, the former could put in an
additional amendment.

On the Chair’s observation that Mr. Jamir had a
motion to delete the Section which should first be voted upon, Mr.
Maambong reiterated that Mr. Jamir would be willing to withdraw his
motion to delete should the Committee accept the amendment of Mr.
Monsod. The Committee then affirmed its acceptance of Mr. Monsod’s
amendment.

REMARKS OF MR. GASCON

At this juncture, Mr. Gascon explained that what he
was objecting to was the condition that the Committee would not accept
any other amendment once it accepts the amendment of Mr. Monsod.

REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo objected to the motion of Mr. Jamir on
the ground that Section 14 was formulated by the Committee to underscore
the importance of the rural areas to national development, noting that
economic experts claim that if rural development fails, democracy would
also fail in the country.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo inquired whether approval of Mr. Jamir’s
amendment would preclude Mr. Monsod from presenting his amendment based
on a new formulation, in reply to which the Chair stated that Mr.
Monsod could present his amendment after the motion to delete shall have
been voted upon.

INQUIRY OF MRS. QUESADA

In response to the query of Mrs. Quesada, Mr. Jamir
stated that his motion for deletion was based on the statement of Mr.
Monsod that the Section is unnecessary.

REMARKS OF MR. RIGOS

Mr. Rigos interposed to state that Mr. Jamir was
willing to withdraw his amendment if the Committee would accept Mr.
Monsod’s amendment. The Chair replied that there was an objection to
this condition and thereupon, Mr. Rigos informed that Mr. Jamir had
withdrawn the condition.

VOTING ON MR. JAMIR’S AMENDMENT TO DELETE

Thereafter, the Chair called for a vote on Mr.
Jamir’s amendment and, with 9 Members voting in favor and 21 against,
the same was lost.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. MONSOD’S AMENDMENT

Mr. Monsod restated his proposed amendment to put a
period (.) after the words “agrarian reform” such that the Section would
now read THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN REFORM.

The Committee accepted the amendment.

On the matter of industrialization, Mr. Monsod
pointed out that “rural development” is not synonymous with
“agricultural development” but the farmer includes both agricultural and
industrial development and that the word “rural” refers to place and
does not solely concern agriculture or industry.

By way of a rejoinder, Mr. Sarmiento maintained that
“rural development” would not cover industrialization and that “urban
development” includes industrialization. He opined that rural
development, agrarian reform and industrialization are three different
concepts to which the State should give importance. He observed that
“industrialization” is a very vital element of national progress and
development.

Mrs. Rosario Braid noted that “industrialization” is
a strategy of rural development and that rural development may be in
the form of a balanced agro-industrial development. “Rural development”,
she stated, is an all-encompassing term which covers the concept of
industrialization.

At this juncture, Mr. Sarmiento suggested a vote on his proposed amendment.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla proposed the following: THE STATE SHALL
PROMOTE RURAL AND URBAN, AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT to
harmonize the two proposals.

REMARKS OF MR. TADEO

Mr. Tadeo, in supporting the inclusion of
“cooperativism”, observed that there can be no rural development unless
organized by the residents of a community and that agrarian reform
cannot succeed without this organization. He noted that farmers who
failed to organize themselves were not able to protect themselves
against the system.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 3:54 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:05 p.m., the session was resumed.

MODIFIED AMENDMENT

Upon resumption of session, Mrs. Rosario Braid
presented the reformulation, with Messrs. Monsod, Davide, Sarmiento,
Villacorta and Padilla as co-authors, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A COMPREHENSIVE RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN REFORM.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

In reply to Mr. Sarmiento’s query on whether the
concept of “industrialization” would be covered by “comprehensive rural
development”, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that “rural development” is an
all-encompassing term which includes social, economic, human, cultural
and political development as well as industrial, agro-industrial and
integrated area strategies. She also stated that cooperativism is a
primary organizing principle which does not preclude other mechanisms
for organization.

Thereupon, Mr. Sarmiento manifested that he would support the new formulation.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla registered his objection to the
amendment in view of the introduction of the word “comprehensive”
stating that he could not see how industrialization could be included in
rural development. He opined that it gives the wrong impression that
the term “agrarian reform” which is already provided in the Article on
Social Justice is the “end-all” and the “be all” of productivity. He
further stated that job opportunities should be given to the unemployed,
which could not just be covered by rural development even with the
qualification of the word “comprehensive because job opportunities are
usually found in industrial plants. He reiterated his objection to the
reformulation of the amendment.

Responding thereto, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that
the Committee has taken note of Mr. Padilla’s amendment which has not
been accepted by the Committee because it is of the opinion that all
activities and strategies are all part of rural development. She
explained that agrarian reform has to be mentioned because it is the
basic program on which rural development is anchored and that the other
concepts of agricultural productivity or entrepreneurship could be
accommodated in a separate provision which Mr. Padilla could submit at
the appropriate time.

MR. PADILLA’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Padilla proposed an amendment to the amendment, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE RURAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTIVITY.

REMARKS OF MR. GASCON

Mr. Gascon manifested his opposition to Mr.
Padilla’s amendment and his support of the Committee’s formulation on
the ground that Mr. Padilla’s proposal speaks of “urban, rural,
industrial and agrarian” development while the Committee’s proposal
concentrates on the issue of rural development and agrarian reform.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query on whether “rural”
includes “urban”, Mrs. Rosario Braid replied in the negative and stated
that 70% to 75% of the population live in the rural areas which is the
reason why it should take primacy over urban development.

She pointed out that the Committee’s insistence to
develop the 75% would not exclude the remaining 25% because other
provisions would attend to the needs of the urban population in labor
and social services that would improve the lives of Filipinos since a
great percentage of labor comes from the urban population.

On Mr. de Castro’s contention that 70% of the people
in the urban areas are also poor, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that while
organized labor primarily comes from the urban areas, it is the rural
areas which supply agricultural labor. She stated that the Section would
mandate Congress to come up with a vigorous policy on rural
development.

VOTING ON MR. PADILLAS’ AMENDMENT

Thereupon, the Chair submitted Mr. Padilla’s
amendment to a vote. With 5 Members voting in favor and 16 against, the
amendment was lost.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 14

Thereupon, the Chair restated Section 14, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A COMPREHENSIVE RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN REFORM.

Submitted to a vote, and with 20 Members voting in favor and 4 against, Section 14 was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. TINGSON

Mr. Tingson proposed the following amendment to Section 15 which would be renumbered as Section 14, to wit:

THE STATE RESPECTS THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS
COMMUNITIES TO PURSUE THEIR OWN PATH OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK
OF NATIONAL UNITY.

MR. MONSOD’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Monsod proposed an amendment to the amendment, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF NATIONAL UNITY
AND DEVELOPMENT.

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

MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Davide proposed an amendment to the amendment by
inserting after “communities” the phrase AND ENSURE THEIR FULLEST
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF NATIONAL UNITY.

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

Mr. Monsod, however, opined that the amendment is a
surplusage because development is being tackled in other sections and,
therefore, fullest development would just be a verbiage at this point.

Mr. Davide stated that if Mr. Monsod was not willing
to accept the word “fullest”, then development must be ensured within
the framework of national unity and it should not just be respect for or
recognition of the right within the framework of national unity, to
which Mr. Monsod stated that the rights include the right to develop
fully — culturally, economically and socially.

MODIFIED AMENDMENT

Messrs. Davide and Monsod agreed to the following modified amendment, to wit:

THE STATE RECOGNIZES AND SHALL PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF NATIONAL UNITY
AND DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. Tingson accepted the modified amendment.

MS. AQUINO’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Ms. Aquino proposed to amend the modified amendment, to wit:

THE STATE RECOGNIZES AND PROMOTES THE RIGHTS OF. . .

Mrs. Rosario Braid accepted the amendment on behalf of the Committee.

Mr. Monsod stated that the matter could be Mr. Tingson proposed the following amendment resolved by the Committee on Style.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 15, AS AMENDED

Mrs. Rosario Braid restated Section 15, which would be renumbered as Section 14, to wit:

THE STATE RECOGNIZES AND PROMOTES THE RIGHTS OF
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF NATIONAL UNITY
AND DEVELOPMENT.

Submitted to a vote, and with 23 Members voting in favor and none against, Section 15 was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. TINGSON

Mr. Tingson proposed the following amendment to Section 16, which would be renumbered as Section 15, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL ENCOURAGE NON-GOVERNMENT AND
COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES THAT PROMOTE THE
WELFARE OF THE NATION.

MR. MONSOD’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Monsod proposed an amendment to the amendment, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL ENCOURAGE NON-GOVERNMENT AND
COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES THAT PROMOTE THE
WELFARE OF THE NATION.

Mrs. Rosario Braid accepted the amendment on behalf of the Committee.

MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Davide proposed an amendment to the amendment by inserting the word INDEPENDENT before “non-governmental”.

Responding thereto, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that
the provision recognizes the philosophy prevalent in many countries of
the world that volunteerism and participation of non-governmental
organizations is an acceptable concept. She stated that the importance
given to it acknowledges the fact that the law would rise on the wave of
volunteerism and private initiative. She explained that community-based
organizations may be organized by the government itself or by private
enterprises and are therefore, broader than the organizations
contemplated in the Article on Social Justice.

Thereupon, Mr. Davide did not insist on his amendment.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

In reply to Mr. Ople’s request for examples of
non-governmental organizations, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that they
could be classified into civic organizations such as the Rotary and the
Jaycees; development organizations such as the CC Foundation;
independent organizations such as the NAMFREL; women organizations such
as the YWCA; business men organizations such as the Bishops-Businessmen
Conference; or the Philippine Business for Social Progress. She affirmed
that labor and peasant organizations may be included.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento inquired whether organizations such as
the Jaycees and the Rotary Clubs are included in non-governmental and
community-based organizations.

In reply thereto, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that she
had already cited a few examples but pointed out that human rights,
farmers and other community-based organizations are also included within
the contemplation of Section 16.

Mr. Sarmiento pointed out that the Jaycees and
similar organizations are exclusive clubs and not community-based
organizations, to which Mrs. Rosario Braid replied that they would fall
under non-governmental organizations as long as their activities are
directed to the socioeconomic upliftment of the majority of the
disadvantaged population.

On whether it is the intent of Section 16 to
encourage this kind of organizations, the concerns of which are projects
like extending free medical aids and similar projects, Mrs. Rosario
Braid stated that these organizations fall under Section 16 considering
that they contribute to the welfare of the people through a different
kind of social service that gets away from dole-outs but which
encourages participation and human development.

Thereupon, Mr. Sarmiento accepted the Committee’s
explanation with the understanding that the intent of Section 16 is to
do away with dole-outs and other similar activities.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. GARCIA

Mr. Garcia proposed a reformulation of Section 16 to read as follows:

THE STATE SHALL ENCOURAGE NON-GOVERNMENTAL,
COMMUNITY-BASED AND INDEPENDENT SECTORAL ORGANIZATIONS OR SECTORAL
ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF THE NATION.

In reply to Mr. Monsod’s inquiry, Mrs. Rosario Braid
stated that the Committee is accepting the inclusion of the word
“independent”.

Mr. Monsod pointed out that the word “independent”
should be applicable to all types of organizations and not just to
sectoral organizations for which reason, he asked for its deletion.

Mr. Gascon manifested the withdrawal of the word “independent” on behalf of Mr. Garcia.

Mrs. Rosario Braid restated Section 16, as amended:

THE STATE SHALL ENCOURAGE NON-GOVERNMENTAL, COMMUNITY-BASED AND SECTORAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF THE NATION,

explaining, upon Mr. Monsod’s inquiry, that these are not cumulative.

As proposed by Mr. Davide, the Committee accepted
the amendment to change the word “and” between “community-based” and
“sectoral” to OR.

RESTATEMENT AND APPROVAL OF SECTION 16, AS AMENDED

Mrs. Rosario Braid restated Section 16 as amended, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL ENCOURAGE NON-GOVERNMENTAL, COMMUNITY-BASED OR SECTORAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF THE NATION.

Submitted to a vote, and with 24 Members voting in
favor, one against and no abstention, the Body approved Section 16, as
amended, to be denominated as the new Section 15.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 17

Mrs. Quesada read the new formulation of Section 17, denominated as new Section 16, which reads:

THE STATE SHALL FOSTER HEALTH CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE PEOPLE.

She explained that the new formulation reflects Mr.
Rama’s reminder that the development of health consciousness among the
people is cheaper than investing in curative medicine. She opined that
this could be a principle that would govern all instrumentalities of the
government called upon to promote health consciousness and develop a
healthy citizenry.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

On Mr. Sarmiento’s initial query, Mrs. Quesada
affirmed that promoting health consciousness includes giving protection
to the health of the people which also means giving support and
incentives to private hospitals.

Mr. Sarmiento pointed out that many private
hospitals are closing down because of expensive equipment and drugs and
huge collectibles from indigent patients who are unable to pay their
hospitalization, to which Mrs. Quesada replied that problems encountered
by private hospitals would be taken care of by the Article on Social
Justice which envisions that the government and private sectors work
hand in hand in promoting health and in helping the people benefit from
the right to health. She affirmed that there would be real effort on the
part of the State to help public and private hospitals in the same
manner that it is called upon to deliver educational services.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

On Mr. Ople’s inquiry, Mrs. Quesada affirmed that
the new formulation of Section 16 puts emphasis on preventive approaches
in health and medicine, adding that this would include education of the
people in all settings.

Mr. Ople observed that the new Section 16 introduces
a modern dimension cognizant of the fact that one of the great issues
facing the medical community is the accusation against the medical
profession and the medical community as a whole that preventive
approaches in medicine are being systematically neglected and that the
provision as formulated would mean health approaches that are not
connected with the financial revenues of the medical community. In
reply, Mrs. Quesada agreed, adding that Section 16 would stress the
self-reliant role of individuals as they take care of their health and,
therefore, the need for all people to develop a consciousness that would
liberate them from dependence on doctors.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

In reply to Mr. Suarez’ inquiry, Mrs. Quesada
affirmed that the provision contemplates sports development and physical
fitness programs that would foster health consciousness, be it
physical, mental, social or spiritual health.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed to change the word “foster” to INSTILL as more declarative of a vigorous mandate.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MRS. NIEVA

Mrs. Nieva proposed the adoption of the first
sentence of the provision on health in the Article on Social Justice
which reads THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO HEALTH if
the intent is to have a very strong declaration of principle as far as
health is concerned. She opined that health consciousness is just an
awareness and is not a very active promotion of the health needs of the
people in the sense that one could be conscious but may not act upon
that consciousness.

In reply, Mrs. Quesada stated that the reason for
the strong formulation in the Article on Social Justice is that it is in
this Article where the social rights of the citizens are defined
whereas the thrust of the Article on the Declaration of Principles is to
make health care become more preventive rather than curative in
orientation. She stressed that health consciousness would guide people’s
behavior and practice.

Mrs. Nieva expressed the view that the provision as
worded is not strong enough and does not mandate the State to contribute
its share to the total development of the citizens, to which Mrs.
Quesada stressed that under the provision, emphasis is given to health
education programs to be undertaken by the different instrumentalities
and agencies of the government.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 4:51 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:22 p.m., the session was resumed.

MR. MONSOD’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Monsod proposed that
instead of combining Sections 16 and 17 as proposed by Mrs. Nieva,
Sections 17 and 18 should be combined to read:

THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO HEALTH AND A BALANCED ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT.

Mrs. Nieva insisted that Sections 16 and 17 be
combined to read: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO
HEALTH AND INSTILL HEALTH CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE PEOPLE.

MR. GUINGONA’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Guingona, however, proposed to delete the words
“right to” so that the phrase would read THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND
PROMOTE THE HEALTH AND INSTILL HEALTH CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE PEOPLE.

REMARKS OF MR. GASCON

Mr. Gascon objected to Mr. Monsod’s amendment to
Mrs. Nieva’s amendment on the ground that Section 17 speaks of the duty
of the State to ensure the optimum health of individual persons, while
Section 18 provides for the maintenance of ecological balance.

He maintained that the two Sections should be
separated in order to manifest the strong call for ecological balance
through the economic, political and social programs and policies.

In reply, Mr. Monsod explained that health is
something personal and internal while ecology is external, and since the
two interact with each other, the State should protect both people’s
health and the environment.

Mr. Gascon maintained that although there is relation between personal health and environment, they should be delineated.

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople, also opined that Sections 17 and 18 should
not be merged in order that the Article on the Declaration of
Principles would have a powerful statement on the impact of ecology to
health and the exhaustion of natural resources.

However, he agreed with Mrs. Quesada that Section 17
on the right to health should be retained in the Article on Social
Justice to underscore that there is no distinction between the health of
the rich and the health of the poor, without dissociating it from the
promotion of health consciousness among the people, which has been the
movement in the medical profession. He stated that if preventive
approaches to health would be adopted, the large outlays for curative
medicine would not be necessary.

REPLY OF MRS. QUESADA

Mrs. Quesada pointed out that it was agreed upon
during the suspension of session to reformulate Section 16 as amended by
Mrs. Nieva, and Messrs. Sarmiento, Davide, Gascon, Garcia and Guingona,
to read:

THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE AND PROTECT THE RIGHT TO HEALTH AND INSTILL HEALTH CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE PEOPLE.

Mrs. Quesada explained that although health
consciousness should be given importance as suggested by Mr. Ople, the
same provision would be stronger if placed in the Article on Declaration
of Principles.

Mrs. Quesada then appealed to Mr. Monsod to withdraw his proposal, which the latter did.

Thereafter, Mr. Guingona manifested his support for Mrs. Nieva’s proposal.

On Mr. Padilla’s observation that Section 11 of the
Article on Social Justice is the same as Section 17, Mrs. Quesada
explained that the first sentence of Section 11 would be transposed to
the Article on Declaration of Principles in addition to Section 16 to
avoid repetition.

In reply to Mr. Sarmiento’s query whether private
hospitals would get State support in the form of tax exemptions Mrs.
Quesada stated that the matter as well as other incentives which private
hospitals have been receiving for the past years, would be left to the
decision of Congress.

On Mr. de Castro’s query whether the first sentence
of Section 11 of the Article on Social Justice would be transposed to
the Declaration of Principles, Mrs. Quesada replied in the affirmative.

Mr. de Castro contended that it would be against the
rules because the Article was already approved, to which Mrs. Quesada
replied that it could be done as evidenced by several precedents.

On Mr. de Castro’s query whether the sentence could
be retained in the Article on Social Justice, Mr. Nolledo replied that
the transposition would not violate the Rules, to which the Chair
agreed.

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query, Mrs. Quesada
stated that with the transposition, the sentence would read as follows:
THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO HEALTH.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 16, AS AMENDED

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

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 17

Thereafter, Mr. Tingson read Section 17 as reformulated, to wit:

SECTION 17. THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE RIGHT OF EVERY
PERSON TO A HEALTHFUL ENVIRONMENT AND 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.

MOTION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong moved that the first
sentence of Section 11 in the Article on Social Justice be transposed to
Section 17 with instruction to the Committee on Style and Committee on
Sponsorship to so indicate the transposition.

Submitted to a vote, and there being no objection the same was approved by the Body.

Mr. Maambong then moved that the first sentence of
Section 1 in the Article on Social Justice be transposed to the new
Section 8.

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query whether the same
approach to transpositions without the formality of a motion for
reconsideration does not violate the Rules, Mr. Maambong stated that the
transpositions would not really affect the substance of the provisions
and that what he is doing is merely to put the provisions in their
proper place. He added that there is no need for a motion for
reconsideration because the substance would not be changed.

In reply to Mr. Bacani’s query whether the
transposed sentence, in effect, would no longer appear in the Article of
Social Justice, Mr. Maambong replied in the affirmative.

On what would happen to the rest of the sentences,
Mr. Maambong stated that his next motion would be for the Committees on
Style and Sponsorship to realign the other provisions.

The Chair noted this suggestion.

Mr. Jamir stated that when Mr. Romulo proposed the
transfer of his proposed amendment to the Transitory Provisions, the
Chair ruled that it would be considered in due time. He then inquired
whether this would be a precedent that should be adopted by the Body, to
which the Chair replied that the situations are different.

Mr. de Castro then pointed out that if the first
sentence of Section 11 in the Article on Social Justice would be
transposed to the Article on Declaration of Principles then the second
sentence thereof would have no meaning, to which, the Chair replied that
Mr. Maambong had suggested that the Committees on Style and Sponsorship
restyle the provisions without necessarily changing their substance.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 5:44 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:56 p.m., the session was resumed.

RECONSIDERATION OF MR. MAAMBONG’S MOTION

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Azcuna sought
reconsideration of the approval of Mr. Maambong’s motion, and there
being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.

MR. AZCUNA’S PROPOSAL

Mr. Azcuna then proposed that instead of transposing
the sentences they should be copied and left to the Committees on Style
and Sponsorship for proper restyling and harmonization, to which Mr.
Maambong agreed with the understanding that the transposed sentence has
the same meaning.

Mr. Monsod suggested that the Body allow the
duplication after which the Committees on Sponsorship and Style could
make the proper recommendation at which time the Rules could be applied
if the issue is raised.

Mr. Azcuna manifested his agreement thereto.

Mr. Azcuna also concurred with the Chair’s
suggestion that the Committees on style and Sponsorship be guided as to
what sentences should be retained or transposed.

On Mr. Monsod’s query whether the Rules would be followed at that time, Mr. Azcuna replied in the affirmative.

Thereupon, Mr. Azcuna moved that the sentences in
the Article on Social Justice mentioned by Mr. Maambong be duplicated in
the Article on Declaration of Principles.

Mr. Ople seconded the motion.

Mr. Maambong opined that there is no need for such a motion, to which the Chair agreed.

Thereupon, Mr. Azcuna withdrew his motion.

RESTATEMENT OF SECTION 17, AS MODIFIED

Mr. Tingson read Section 17, formerly Section 18, as
a new Committee formulation coauthored by Messrs. Garcia, Guingona,
Bengzon, Rigos and Azcuna, to wit:

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.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople queried as to whether there is a kind of
pantheistic dimension to the statement “singular demand of nature to
follow its own rhythm and harmony” so that a regression to a state of
nature for humanity would in effect be endorsed. He also inquired
whether stone age civilizations might be preferable to the more advanced
but strife-ridden culture. With particular reference to the Tasaday
community, he stated that the Tasadays do not have the word “war” in
their vocabulary and live in perfect harmony although man, by nature, is
a savage.

as in the denudation of forest which results in
flooding. He added that this is merely a demand for balance in the
environment. He affirmed that there are no tacit choices expressed as to
the preferable state of human culture and civilization, and that it
deals with ecology in terms of natural resources and rhythm of nature.

INQUIRY OF MR. VILLACORTA

Upon inquiry of Mr. Villacorta, Mr. Azcuna confirmed
that the section mandates the State to provide sanctions against all
forms of pollution. He added that the right to healthful environment
necessarily carries with it the correlative duty not to impair and
therefore, sanctions may be provided for impairment of environmental
balance. He also affirmed that protection will be provided to
communities surrounding airports, military bases and factories.

On whether the Section would protect the life and
limbs as well as the psychological welfare of communities, Mr. Azcuna
observed that anything which may harm the environment, like noise
pollution, would be controlled or regulated.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. SUAREZ, MR. MONSOD AS COAUTHOR

Mr. Suarez proposed an amendment by substitution, to
wit: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND ENHANCE A BALANCED ECOLOGICAL
ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.

Mr. Suarez observed that the words “balanced ecological environment” is already included therein.

Replying thereto, Mr. Azcuna remarked that it does
not state the right to a healthy or clean environment which is, in
modern development, considered a right of every person which the State
has the duty to protect by enhancing ecological balance in the
environment.

Thereupon, Mr. Suarez suggested a reformulation, to
wit: IT SHALL PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO A BALANCED
ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 6:09 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:17 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of the session, Mr. Azcuna informed that as reformulated, the Section would read:

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.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla commented that if the Body were writing
poetry, the phrase “rhythm and harmony” may have some place but not in
the Constitution. He noted that Section 17 is within the inherent police
power of the State and that the Civil Code has provisions on nuisances,
specifically Title VIII, Article 694, which provides that “A nuisance
is any or act, omission, establishments, condition of 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; or

5. hinders or impairs the use of property.”

He stated that it also provides for nuisance per se or per accidens, and public or private nuisances.

He called for a simple provision similar to the
suggestion of Mr. Suarez or to simply state: THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE
HUMAN RIGHT TO HEALTHFUL ENVIRONMENT AND TO ECOLOGICAL BALANCE OF
NATURE. He noted, moreover, that whatever is placed in the Constitution
is intended for the general welfare of the people now and in the future.

On the matter of environment, he observed that
ecology may be disrupted by the cutting of trees, deforestation or
denudation and that stagnant waters may bring diseases. He objected to
the provision, particularly the phrase “the singular demand of nature
for rhythm and harmony” which has no substantial meaning.

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople disagreed with Mr. Padilla and maintained
that the section meets the standards of simplicity and clarity. He noted
that 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. He stated that inasmuch as the rhythm and harmony of
nature had been violated with the spoiling of the forests and lakes,
the admonitions of experts should be taken seriously because if nothing
is done by the government and the people, in 50 years the Philippines
would become a desert. The Laguna de Bay according to experts, he
stated, could die in 20 years if nothing is done now and that in
Bulacan, the pollution caused by chemical companies is irreparably
damaging the fishing grounds of fishermen and the land of farmers which
provide the only means of sustenance. He stressed that this statement on
ecology has a proper place in the Declaration of Principles.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide, to shorten the provision, proposed to
delete the phrase “the singular demand of nature to follow” which the
Committee accepted.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF MESSRS. MONSOD AND OPLE

Mr. Monsod proposed to change the word “guarantees”
to SHALL PROTECT which Mr. Ople further proposed to modify with the
addition of AND ADVANCE. Mr. Monsod observed that this should be “shall
protect and enhance” as originally proposed by Mr. Suarez, to which Mr.
Ople replied that ADVANCE is a stronger word than “enhance”.

Thereafter, Mr. Azcuna read the Section as amended by Messrs. Davide, Monsod and Ople:

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.

Upon inquiry of Mr. Gascon as to whether Mr. Padilla
proposed an anterior amendment, the Chair noted that Mr. Padilla was
making a suggestion and affirmed that the Body shall vote on the
Committee’s proposal taking into account his objection.

AMENDMENT OF MR. BENNAGEN

Mr. Bennagen proposed to simplify “ecological environment” to ECOLOGY.

To Mr. Azcuna’s remark that ecological environment
refers to the total human development, Mr. Bennagen stated that it would
be the meaning of ecology. Thereafter, Mr. Azcuna accepted the
amendment.

OBJECTION OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod objected to the word “advance”, in reply
to which Mr. Ople stated that “advancing the rights of people” is not
odd but is encountered in all literature especially with respect to
human rights. He stated that rights cannot be enhanced and that
advancing the right of the people to “sound” ecology is perfectly in
order and has resonance.

Upon direction of the Chair, Mr. Azcuna restated the amendment, to wit:

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.

AMENDMENT OF MR. ROMULO

Mr. Romulo proposed to delete “posterity”. He agreed
that Mr. Padilla was right in that what is placed in the Constitution
would be for present and future generations. With this understanding,
the Committee accepted the amendment.

VOTING ON SECTION 17

Submitted to a vote, and with 22 Members voting in favor, 1 against, Section 17 was approved by the Body.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

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

It was 6:33 p.m.

I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.

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

ATTESTED:

(SGD.) CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMAZ
President

Approved on September 23, 1986