Congressional Record wednesday, august 27, 2014 resolutions house resolution no. 1386, entitled: “a resolution directing the house committee on health to conduct an

Vol. 1 Wednesday, August 27, 2014 No. 10a

Congressional Record16th CONGRESS, SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:00 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The session is resumed.

The Sr. Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

REP. BANAL. Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend the session for a few minutes.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion to suspend is approved.

It was 4:00 p.m.




The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we acknowledge the presence of the guests of the Gentleman from AKBAYAN, Cong. Walden F. Bello. They are the Members of Parliament of Indonesia, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). We welcome the guests of the Honorable Bello and ask that they please rise to be acknowledged. Guests of the Honorable Bello, you are most welcome to the House of Representatives and we thank you for your visit. Thank you very much. (Applause)


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to the Additional Reference of Business.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The Secretary General will please read the Additional Reference of Business.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary General read the following House Bills and Resolutions on First Reading, Communication and Committee Reports, and the Deputy Speaker made the corresponding references:

BILLS ON FIRST READING

House Bill No. 4890, entitled:“AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 24 OF THE

NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”

By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

House Bill No. 4891, entitled:“AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED

THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED NINETY-ONE, AS AMENDED, AND OTHER RELATED LAWS, TO ENHANCE THE RESOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION FRAMEWORK FOR BANKS AND BANKING INSTITUTIONS, AND TO STRENGTHEN THE INDEPENDENCE, AUTHORITY AND FINANCIAL CAPABILITY OF THE PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”

By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON BANKS AND FINANCIAL

INTERMEDIARIES

House Bill No. 4892, entitled:“AN ACT REGULATING THE SALE AND

D I S T R I B U T I O N O F E L E C T R O N I C CIGARETTES”

By Representative SuarezTO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

House Bill No. 4893, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING THE PROVINCIAL

ROAD CONNECTING THE MUNICIPALITIES OF BALINDONG AND PIAGAPO IN LANAO DEL SUR TO PANTAORAGAT IN LANAO DEL NORTE INTO A NATIONAL ROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representative AdiongTO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND

HIGHWAYS

2 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2014

RESOLUTIONS

House Resolution No. 1386, entitled:“A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT'S PREPAREDNESS TO ACT ON THE POSSIBLE ENTRY AND SPREADING OF THE EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE (EVD) IN THE PHILIPPINES”

By Representative Barcelona-ReyesTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1387, entitled:“RESOLUTION STRONGLY URGING THE

C O M M I T T E E O N M E T R O M A N I L A DEVELOPMENT TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, OF THE MRT 3 MISHAP THAT INJURED AT LEAST 36 PASSENGERS AND OTHER ACCIDENTS AND SERVICE DISRUPTIONS THAT MAKE MRT 3 PERILOUS AND INEFFICIENT AND LIKEWISE INVESTIGATE MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE MRT CORPORATION AND ITS MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS FOR POSSIBLE CRIMINAL LIABILITIES AND GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY”

By Representative RidonTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1388, entitled:“RESOLUTION URGING THE COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC WORKS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES IN THE PREPARATION, EVALUATION AND R E C O M M E N D AT I O N O F P R O P O S E D PROJECTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT (GAA), RESULTING TO FAVORITISM AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS AND TO RECOMMEND REMEDIAL MEASURES, PENALTY AND SANCTIONS ON ERRING OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES INVOLVED”

By Representative Ferrer (J.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1389, entitled:“ A R E S O L U T I O N C O M M E N D I N G A N D

CONGRATULATING FILIPINO SCIENTIST APOLLO ARQUIZA FOR TAKING PART IN A CORNWELL UNIVERSITY PROGRAM THAT HOPES TO DEVELOP FOOD TECHNOLOGIES THAT WILL ALLOW THE FIRST MARS ASTRONAUTS TO COOK HOT, DECENT MEALS FOR THEMSELVES”

By Representative CasteloTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1390, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE

ON GOOD GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE ALLEGED FIFTEEN MILLION PESOS EXTORTION IN THE NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY (NFA) IN EXCHANGE FOR THE DROPPING OF THE CHARGES AGAINST RICE TRADER JOMERITO SOLIMAN”

By Representative BarzagaTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1391, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE HOUSE

COMMITTEES ON WAYS AND MEANS AND GOOD GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGED FRAUDULENT REPORTING BY ASSOCIATED ANGLO AMERICAN TOBACCO CORPORATION OF IMPORTED TOBACCO AND RELATED ITEMS USED FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF ITS CIGARETTE PRODUCTS AS WELL AS THE VOLUME OF WITHDRAWALS FROM ITS PREMISES IN VIOLATION OF RA 10351 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'SIN TAX REFORM LAW OF 2012' AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”

By Representative Dela CruzTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1392, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEES

ON WAYS AND MEANS AND GOOD GOVERNMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO INVESTIGATE, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE MEMORANDUM ORDER (RMO) NUMBER 23-2014 UNDULY IMPOSING 'TAXES ON, AND COLLECTING OF SAID TAXES FROM, THE ALLOWANCES, BONUSES, COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES AND OTHER FRINGE BENEFITS ALLOTTED TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”


House Resolution No. 1393, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS TO INVESTIGATE, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, THE THREAT, HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION OF RESEARCHER AND BAYAN MUNA-ILOCOS COORDINATOR SHERWIN DE VERA BY THE AGENTS OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COORDINATING AGENCY (NICA) IN ILOCOS NORTE”

By Representatives Zarate and ColmenaresTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1394, entitled:“ R E S O L U T I O N E X P R E S S I N G D E E P E S T

CONDOLENCES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE DEMISE

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2014 3

OF FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL AND PHILIPPINE AMBASSADOR TO CANADA RAUL ILLUSTRE GOCO”

By Representative OlivarezTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1395, entitled:“RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING AND

COMMENDING GABRIEL LUIS MORENO FOR WINNING THE FIRST GOLD MEDAL FOR THE PHILIPPINES IN THE ARCHERY MIXED TEAM EVENT IN THE SECOND SUMMER YOUTH OLYMPIC GAMES HELD IN NANJING, CHINA ON AUGUST 24, 2014”

By Representative SuansingTO THE COMMITTEE ON YOUTH AND SPORTS

DEVELOPMENT

House Resolution No. 1396, entitled:“RESOLUTION HONORING AND COMMENDING

THE COUNTRY'S OUTSTANDING POLICE OFFICERS IN SERVICE (COPS) OF 2014 AWA R D E D B Y T H E M E T R O B A N K FOUNDATION, INC., ROTARY CLUB OF NEW MANILA EAST AND PSBANK”

By Representative PagdilaoTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1397, entitled:“RESOLUTION URGING THE COMMITTEE ON

HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION TO INVESTIGATE, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, THE DEATH OF SEVEN (7) STUDENTS OF THE BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY DURING A FIELD TRIP TO THE MADLUM CAVES LAST AUGUST 19, 2014 AS WELL AS TO REVIEW THE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES OF THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION (CHED) ON EDUCATIONAL TOURS AND FIELD TRIPS TO ENSURE EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF, AS WELL AS SAFETY OF STUDENTS DURING, THESE SCHOOL ACTIVITIES”

By Representative RelampagosTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1398, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE

ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD AND THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FOOD SECURITY TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, TO INVESTIGATE THE REPORTED DUMPING OF TURKISH FLOUR IN THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”


House Resolution No. 1399, entitled:“A RESOLUTION URGING THE SPECIAL

COMMITTEE ON FOOD SECURITY AND THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD TO CONDUCT AN IMMEDIATE

INVESTIGATION IN AID OF LEGISLATION ON THE ENTRY INTO THE COUNTRY OF ABOUT 6 MILLION KILOS OF EXPIRED PORK MEAT BETWEEN JANUARY AND JUNE 2014”

By Representative GuanlaoTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1400, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EXPENDITURES OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY IN AID OF LEGISLATION TO REVIEW THE FUNDS PAID FOR PHILHEALTH PREMIUMS OF THE SPONSORED PROGRAM IN THE 2014 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH BUDGET IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS HIGHLIGHTING THE UNDERUTILIZATION OF PHILHEALTH BENEFITS AND THE LOW BENEFIT DELIVERY RATE FOR SPONSORED PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES”

By Representative Garin (S.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES


COMMENDING ARCHER LUIS GABRIEL MAGDAYAO MORENO FOR MAKING HISTORY AS THE FIRST GOLD MEDALIST IN AN OLYMPIC EVENT AND FOR BRINGING HONOR AND PRIDE TO OUR COUNTRY FOR HIS EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE IN THE NANJING YOUTH OLYMPIC GAMES ON AUGUST 24, 2014 HELD IN NANJING, CHINA”

By Representative VillarTO THE COMMITTEE ON YOUTH AND SPORTS

DEVELOPMENT


COMMENDING FILIPINO ARCHER GABRIEL LUIS MORENO, TOGETHER WITH TEAMMATE LI JIAMAN OF CHINA, FOR WINNING THE GOLD MEDAL IN THE MIXED TEAM EVENT OF THE SECOND YOUTH OLYMPIC GAMES ON AUGUST 24, 2014 IN NANJING, CHINA”

By Representative GomezTO THE COMMITTEE ON YOUTH AND SPORTS

DEVELOPMENT

House Resolution No. 1403, entitled:“A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE

ON HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION TO INQUIRE, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, INTO THE TRAGIC AUGUST 19, 2014 FIELD TRIP WHICH CLAIMED THE LIVES OF SEVEN BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WHO WERE SWEPT AWAY BY RAGING FLOODWATERS WHILE CROSSING THE MADLUM RIVER IN SAN MIGUEL BULACAN”

By Representative RomuloTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES



COMMENDING LUIS GABRIEL MORENO FOR WINNING THE COUNTRY'S FIRST EVER GOLD MEDAL IN AN OLYMPIC COMPETITION DURING THE 2014 SUMMER YOUTH OLYMPIC GAMES IN NANJING, CHINA”

By Representatives Romualdez, Atienza, Dela Cruz, Suarez, Mercado-Revilla, Ortega (V.) and Pichay

TO THE COMMITTEE ON YOUTH AND SPORTS DEVELOPMENT


ON BASIC EDUCATION AND CULTURE AND THE COMMITTEE ON HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY ON THE EXISTING POLICIES AND GUIDELINES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DEPED) AND COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION (CHED) REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF EDUCATIONAL FIELD TRIP IN THE COUNTRY”

By Representatives Romualdez, Atienza, Dela Cruz, Suarez, Mercado-Revilla, Ortega (V.) and Pichay

TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES


ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE CURRENT STATE OF RELIEF AND REHABILITATION EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE CONCERNED G O V E R N M E N T A G E N C I E S O N T H E COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING THE LAGUNA LAKE AFTER THE AREA WAS STRUCK BY TROPICAL STORM ONDOY IN 2009”

By Representatives Bello (W.) and GutierrezTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1407, entitled:“RESOLUTION HONORING AND COMMENDING

THE COUNTRY'S OUTSTANDING POLICE OFFICERS IN SERVICE (COPS) OF 2014 AWA R D E D B Y T H E M E T R O B A N K FOUNDATION, INC., ROTARY CLUB OF NEW MANILA EAST AND PSBANK”

By Representative AngpingTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

ADDITIONAL COAUTHORS

The list of additional coauthors is reflected in Journal No. 10, dated August 27, 2014.*

COMMUNICATION

Letters dated August 15 and 18, 2014 of Vincent Z. Bolivar. Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel

and Legal Services, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, furnishing the House of Representatives with duly certified and authenticated Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas issuances, to wit:1. Circular No. 844 dated 11 August 2014;2. Memorandum No. M-2014-031 dated 8 August 2014;

and 3. Memorandum No. M-2014-032 dated 11 August 2014.TO THE COMMITTEE ON BANKS AND FINANCIAL

INTERMEDIARIES

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Report by the Committee on Veterans Affairs and Welfare and the Committee on Appropriations (Committee Report No. 398), re H. No. 844, entitled:“AN ACT DECLARING THE BALETE PASS IN

STA. FE, NUEVA VIZCAYA AS A NATIONAL SHRINE TO BE KNOWN AS THE BALETE PASS NATIONAL SHRINE”

recommending its approval with amendmentsSponsors: Representatives Roman, Ungab and PadillaTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Welfare of Children (Committee Report No. 399), re H. No. 4907, entitled:“AN ACT PROMOTING POSITIVE AND NON-

VIOLENT DISCIPLINE OF CHILDREN AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill No. 155

Sponsors: Representatives Enerio-Cerilles and Yap (S.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.


REP. DEFENSOR. I move to suspend the session, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is suspended.

It was 4:09 p.m.





PRIVILEGE HOUR

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to the Privilege Hour.

* See ANNEX (printed separately)



The Chair declares a Privilege Hour.

REP. DEFENSOR. First to speak, I move that we recognize the Lady from Camarines Sur, the honorable Rep. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Hon. Leni Gerona-Robredo is recognized to deliver her Privilege Speech.

The Lady has the floor.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF REP. GERONA-ROBREDO

REP. GERONA-ROBREDO. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the House of Representatives, good afternoon.

Two Mondays ago, our family and the entire City of Naga commemorated the second death anniversary of my husband Jesse. We remember that fateful Saturday two years ago when what was supposed to be a happy reunion with Jesse, after a week of performing his official functions in Manila, turned into a horrible nightmare we never woke up from.

At about five o’çlock in the afternoon of August 18, two years ago, the first news that his plane crashed in the sea of Masbate signaled the start of a three-day wake until his body was found. Three days that stretched on to two years. The finality is unmistakable and inescapable: Jesse is gone, but we are not. His strength, his laughter and his service to his home and country has come to an end, but ours has not. We need to ask ourselves this, what will we do with our storehouse of living hours?

Losing Jesse has made me more conscious that we will never know when our plane will go down, figuratively speaking, or when life will be taken back from us, and that we better fill our days with things worthy of our time.

Right after we buried him, I promised on his grave that I will make it my mission to make sure that his legacy is kept alive. Every day since I was elected Representative of my district, I vowed to continue and elevate his fight. My dream is to fill his slippers, however big it may be, in a way that he would be proud of.

I now devote every day of my life to serve the people he loved, and the country he believed in with such passion. I hope he is happy with what he sees. I have no experience in politics, the closest thing that I have done is helping communities and women through my NGO work as a lawyer. Through the years that he has served in public office, I was content to stay in the background, but I married young so Jesse almost literally raised me, and I realized now that it had been a privilege of getting front row seats to mentoring sessions that would show me what to do and how to decide in crucial situations. Nothing quite prepared me more for public service as seeing someone like him in action. The way he rode with garbage truck collectors himself, when he was mayor, to make sure that the task was done right; the way he would go around in slippers and consult with people on the ground; the way he would make sure to be the first man on the streets and the last man off them during disasters; the way he would find a way to institutionalize policies to make sure they would continue even after his term; and the way he

treated the poor and those nameless and voiceless by making them partners in governance and development rather than just merely considering them as beneficiaries. Both on the macro and the micro side of governing, Jesse was always consistent. Public service was about protecting those who had less so that they will have more. Everything revolved around that.

Following Jesse’s example, I believe that moving from listening to empowering is the next stage of our good governance movement. We need to find ways to bring ordinary people into public policy by organizing them so that they can be represented in all stages and levels of governance. Jesse’s gift of being confident enough in opening government to people participation can be institutionalized in every local government across the country. People’s organizations should be given a seat at the table and they should be given the right to share in decision-making about the things that are good for them.

As I see it, Mr. Speaker, this is the revolution that will be the conclusion of people power. In his speech in Cebu before the Church and barangay captains before he passed away, he said and I quote:

It is not the one-time drama of a street revolution that will take us where we want to go. It is having a comprehensive program of good governance that clearly spells out our ultimate goal. This is the real revolution: our collective acts of daily service.

Jesse and I started our lives together inspired by the street revolution of our youth—the 1986 EDSA People Power revolution. It was the one event in our lives that led us to desire a life of service to the nation. After more than 20 years of dedicating our lives to that desire, we are now still struggling to prove that good governance and a people-led government is the answer to our development problems. This has been the battle cry of our government, but it is up to us now to elevate the struggle.

Most of the time, we get frustrated that Filipinos are too in love with personalities and celebrities. We like the big moments too much, forgetting that the world revolves and moves ever so slowly every day and yet it brings the planet around something as massive as the sun.

What we need is to forget the personalities and start realizing that our country will move forward on our own steam, not because of them. We need to work on a comprehensive program of good governance that shares the power of policy with the people and by so doing, build programs where we continue the little fights on a daily basis.

We need to share power with the people from crafting our policies, to planning our programs, to making our budget, and monitoring implementations and accomplishments. This is the heart and soul of good governance. This allows decisions at the policy-making table to truly be responsive to what people need on the ground and not defined by the crosshairs of politics, economic status or family name. This is how we reject the trickle down approach. We do not just give people a monitoring role. We allow them to say their piece in all stages of governance. We give all sectors a voice and listen when they speak. Good governance always requires three things: transparency of processes, accountability of officials, and people participation.

I know, and I say this with all conviction in my soul, that there will be no inclusive growth until decision-making involves people on the ground.


That might mean we would arrive at solutions longer and we get into more arguments with each other. When more people of different backgrounds beat on the table to be heard, things might sound and look chaotic, but that process is beautiful in its seeming ugliness, simply because it empowers and brings into the fold the people who are true stakeholders of governance. If we are to marry citizen participation with harvesting the technical expertise of our development experts, then we can truly start moving on as the dynamic nation that we are meant to be. Something as powerful as collaboration between the church and the barangays can be part of our unfinished revolution.

That has been the story of our beloved Naga, and it can also be the story of our nation. That was the core of Jesse’s work and it has become mine as well. I have filed bills to institutionalize Naga’s way of governing so that all other cities and municipalities across the nation can draw from our lessons. We do not want Naga to be the best city. We want the Philippines to be the best country. In fact, we want other cities to aim to be better than Naga City. This is what Jesse would have wanted and what he worked so hard for at the DILG.

Naga’s growth has not been peaches and cream. In the almost two decades of his experience as mayor, institutionalizing participatory governance was a struggle on many different levels. Sometimes he ended up fighting personalities. Sometimes he fought attitudes of self-entitlement. Sometimes those you seek to empower are the ones who are putting hurdles on the ground. But the fight must continue despite the darkness of inaction and silo thinking. Only when we put power back in the hands of the people who empower us, only when we govern with the most basic values of trust, only when we are all “matino, mahusay, bukas at my puso,” can we be worthy of this great nation we seek to serve.

Ninoy and our heroes already died for us. Nobody else should have to. It is time for each one of us to be the hero by being role models and embracing the way of governance marked by transparency, integrity and excellence. People participation is a messy process. But it works. It did in Naga, and it will for the rest of the nation.

Thank you very much.

REP. BANAL. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you, distinguished Lady.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Gentleman from Quezon City, the honorable Senior Deputy Majority Leader Jorge “Bolet” Banal.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Hon. Jorge “Bolet” Banal is recognized.

REP. BANAL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hindi naman po ako mag-i-interpellate kay Cong. Leni Robredo pero hindi ko mapapalampas ang pagkakataong ito na ipaalam sa kanya na kahapon, pumasa na sa Third Reading ang panukalang “An Act Declaring August 18 as Jesse Robredo Day.” Gusto ko lang po ibalita iyan kay Congresswoman. (Applause)

Alam na rin po siguro niya na ang mga kasama na rin sa “Ang Kaya Natin Movement” na itinatag ni DILG Sec. Jesse Robredo, si Among Ed Panlilio at ang dating gobernadora ng Isabela, si Grace Padaca. Si Sen. Teofisto “TG” Guingona III naman po sa Senado, ipinasa na rin ang Senate version ng Jesse Robredo Day. So, tiyak po, na magiging Republic Act na ito.

Congresswoman Leni, gusto ko rin sabihin and first time kong sasabihin na when I was a city councilor of Quezon City, si Mayor Jesse Robredo ang mentor ko. Ipinasa namin ang version ng Naga City People’s Council Ordinance na dito sa Quezon City ay tinawag na PAT Ordinance o Participation, Accountability and Transparency Ordinance. It was passed during my second term as city councilor and I fondly recall that your husband, kapag mayroon kaming mga deadlocks sa city council, bababa ako sa parking lot at tatawagan ko siya. Siya ang magpapayo sa akin on how to proceed kasi it was a very contentious—kasi it was the first time gagawin ito sa isang highly urbanized city. So you can just understand the apprehensions of my colleagues in the city council. We are all very grateful, the nation is very grateful, and I, personally, and our colleagues at ng Kaya Natin Movement, we are very grateful for your husband’s service. Now, I am sure na ang malaking tsinelas na iyon ay sakto lang sa paa ninyo.

Maraming salamat po.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you, distinguished Gentleman.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer the speech of the Honorable Gerona-Robredo to the Committee on Rules.


The speech of the Lady from the Second District of Camarines Sur is referred to the Committee on Rules.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, next to deliver a speech is the Lady from AAMBIS-OWA Party-List, and I move that we recognize the honorable Rep. Sharon S. Garin.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The honorable Rep. Sharon S. Garin from the Party-List AAMBIS-OWA is recognized to deliver her privilege speech.

The Lady has the floor.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF REP. GARIN (S.)

REP. GARIN (S). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues in this august Chamber,

a few weeks ago a disaster of national implication befell our country. Jollibee was not able to serve its Chicken Joy. The problem happened in so many Jollibee branches that hash tag “chicken sad” became a trending topic worldwide. Jollibee Corporation, however, was quick to point out that it was a technical or logistical glitch. It is, however, possible that a similar occurrence could have happened in other companies and industries due to the problem of congestion in the Port


of Manila. The effects of port congestions are far wider and burdensome than a mere restaurant failing to serve their fried chicken.

Port congestion, according to the Center for the Advancement of Trade Integration and Facilitation (CATIF), the ideal port optimization should be 70 percent of capacity, but the current port capacity is at 95 percent. It even reached 110 percent last June. At one point, there were more than 75 containers at the port, 22,000 of which were empty containers, while the rest were seized or forfeited goods and due-for-release goods, leaving port equipment with no elbow room to board. Shipping and trucking cost have increased exponentially due to the interruption of the supply chain. The delay in shipping affected the flow of delivery of goods. What took seven days to deliver became three weeks at a minimum. The OFW packages, exports and imports of products were delayed as forwarding companies faced problems regarding their contracts with shipping companies, resulting in loss of income for all the forwarding shipping and trucking companies. Trucking cost has reportedly increased by as much as 100 percent to 300 percent, from P8,000 to P80,000. The congestion likewise caused additional cost of $1,300 for port stakeholders, for terminal handling, container imbalance charge and emergency recovery fees. Trade lanes were interrupted. The delay in the delivery of raw materials and intermediate goods needed for production in many industries resulted in the decrease of production, loss of income and loss of jobs.

For the steel industry, operations cost have increased by 50 percent; for the chemical industry, loses were estimated at P3 to P4 billion and job loss at five percent of their workforce. For the food industry, the delay in the delivery of raw materials has decreased production, job losses and caused the increase of food prices. Semi-conductors and electronic industries in the Philippines reported a P43-million loss per day due to lack of materials. The foreign chamber warned that an immediate lay-off of 18,000 workers will happen because of the resulting delay in delivery of materials. Imagine the far-reaching effects of this lay-off, considering our already very high unemployment rates in the country.

There is also the decrease in trade volume. According to the food chamber, the credibility of the Philippines is also at stake as local manufacturers are not able to meet the deadline set by the customers abroad. According to City Group, the negative impact of port congestion to the economy will result in loses of about P61 billion to P320 billion because the Port of Manila accounts for 1/3 of the total inbound and outbound cargo.

The Bureau of Export Trade Promotion (BETP) reported that the growth forecast of 5.8 percent to 7.2 percent in export growth is no longer feasible. Reportedly, if the port congestion is not addressed, the gross domestic product (GDP) may be cut by five percent. Basically, if trade volume decreases, it affects supply and demand, decreased in manufacturing output, leaving thousands of Filipino out of job. There is a domino effect of inflation.

Most alarming and basic is that when trade lanes are interrupted, there is a resulting delay in the delivery of goods and raw materials for factories and agricultural products. The shortages of products began in many supermarkets, leading to increase in prices of basic commodities.

For example, news reports from the bigger markets like Mega Q-Mart pegged the price of chicken to be at P140 per kilo or P30 more than the expected current market price, even though farm gate prices remain constant. Basically, a 50 percent increase in queuing time will increase the freight cost, then increase the delivery and storage cost, increase the price of basic commodities, thereby increasing inflation rate by 4.9 percent, the highest so far, in three years, and eventually decreasing our growth rate.

Many critics were content to blame that the resulting issues are caused by the truck ban implemented by the City of Manila. I do not fully agree to this. What I believe is that the truck ban has been the proximate cause of the port congestion as it exacerbated the long standing problems already existing and other underlying causes that resulted in port congestion. Of course, our government has made efforts such as the use of Batangas and Subic ports; request for international shipping lines to temporarily waive some of their fees for a period of two to three months; the transport of empty containers by barges to the Subic Port; providing a separate 24/7 separate single lane for truckers; and the temporary lifting of the truck ban in areas, especially in Manila. However, those are temporary solutions. The resulting port congestion has brought forth the issue which has plagued the entry and exit of goods in our country for a long time. Before the truck ban was implemented, the ports were already congested beyond a healthy balance, 50 percent of the containers in the container yards were reportedly empty containers.

The recommendations or the solutions I mentioned earlier are mostly short-term and we are in need of a long-term solution because this is beyond the truck ban problem. The long overdue upgrading of the ports and the supporting infrastructure around the area should be a priority. The facilities surrounding the port will show that they are either dilapidated or not big enough to handle the volume of trade coming in the Port of Manila. The volume trade increases by seven to 10 percent annually. The south and north ports were established back during the 1940s. The port infrastructure has not met the demands of the increasing trade nor has it been modernized nor is it more secured today.

The infrastructure problem is the logistics of delivering goods in the containers, in and out of the ports. If we should have an average of 5,000 trucks getting in and out of the port, do we have the road infrastructure to facilitate fast delivery of goods to the stakeholders? Manila is congested, that is a fact that we face every day. Does this not call for additional roads, especially for delivery trucks, or a new skyway or the revitalization of the railway system? If one-third of the national cross-border trades happen in Manila Port, how can we not clear the dilapidated and unused buildings around its perimeter? Why do we not move the informal settlers within the area? Why do we not make the roads safe and unobstructed for the exit and entry of the goods in the area?

We also have to modernize the Bureau of Customs. When the goods arrive in Batangas, they file their import entry electronically, then they print this out, they send it manually to the Port of Manila to process the transit permit, which is then sent back by the Port of Manila, by messenger, to Batangas. This takes at least three days, which should only be a few minutes if we are fully automated. Computerization, upgrading and use of modern technology will lessen face-to-face transactions at the Bureau of Customs, and will help


in faster trade facilitation and curb corruption within the bureau.

Lastly, for the part of the Legislature, we have to modernize the current Customs and Tariff Law. We cannot ignore the fact that many of the problems regarding port congestion will be addressed by modernizing our customs policy. To attract more trade, Customs must not be treated as a mere income generating agency but principally a gateway for trade facilitation. Likewise, a centralized and more efficient system will also help in the disposition of all seized and abandoned goods which are going to waste, as we speak, because of the delay in its disposition.

My fellow legislators, the truck ban serves as a catalyst for us to realize that there are deeper and systematic problems in the port congestion issue. Solving the problem of port congestion should not be limited into a narrow scope because the resulting effects go beyond the borders of Manila. Let us not forget that the Christmas season is also fast approaching. If the condition remains the same, the influx of products starting September will even worsen the port congestion. It is expected that trade volume will increase by as much as 60 percent due to the Christmas season. Ultimately, it is not only businesses which are affected as the domino effect comes trickling down.

Congested ports led to the delay of delivery of both intermediate and processed goods which leads to shortages and increase in prices, and eventually loss of jobs. All these are a burden for our already overburdened fellow Filipinos whose daily living wages are barely enough to cover the needs of their families.

As a simple example, coconut products are the biggest export of our country amounting to $1.5 billion annually. The delays and increased export costs will endanger the credibility of our exporters, likely affecting the volume of their exports and significantly affecting the livelihood of three million coconut farmers or around 20 million Filipinos.

In 2010, we were exporting 32,000 kilos of coconut sugar. By 2012, we were already exporting 220,000 kilos. This is an outstanding improvement of the industry in three years. If we do not take action, we are therefore sending a message of apathy to the millions of coconut farmers living in subsistence income. If we do not take action, we belittle the great strides this country has taken in achieving a seven-percent national growth rate. If we do not take action immediately and comprehensively our economy, currently one of the fastest growing economies in the world, will surely deteriorate and collapse.

Thank you very much and good evening. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you, thank you very much.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer the speech of the Honorable Garin to the Committee on Rules.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the speech of the honorable Rep. Sharon S. Garin is referred to the Committee on Rules.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, next to speak is the Gentleman from MAGDALO Party-List. I move that we recognize the Hon. Francisco Ashley L. Acedillo.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Hon. Francisco Ashley L. Acedillo from the Party-List MAGDALO is recognized. He has the floor. The Gentleman may now proceed.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF REP. ACEDILLO

REP. ACEDILLO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Dep. Majority Leader.

I rise today to avail of this personal privilege in order to promote an advocacy. However, this advocacy, in fact, also has a collective impact to the nation.

Alam po ninyo, nandito ako noong Hunyo 11 para ilahad sa inyo ang isang problema na bumabagabag hindi lamang sa ating Pangulo kung ‘di dapat bumabagabag din sa ating lahat. You can consider this message today as the second part of that message which I relayed on June 11. While the country is polarized by politics and our countrymen are burdened by day-to-day issues, we have lost sight of the fact that our country is in grave danger.

One of the most critical areas in the Asia Pacific Region is the South China Sea. This is mainly due to the conflicting territorial claims and disputed territories. At the heart of South China Sea is our own West Philippine Sea. Kasama na po diyan ang Kalayaan Island Group or KIG. Siguro sinasabi ninyo West Philippine Sea na naman. Sana hindi tayo maumay.

Based on Republic Act No. 9522 or the Baselines Law of 2009, the Philippine territory is composed of the main archipelago and a regime of islands that include the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal. Nakikita po natin sa screen.

Currently, we have structures and personnel in seven islands and two shoals. Vietnam occupies 21, tatlo po ang sa Malaysia at nag-iisa po ang Taiwan. Needless to say, China claims the entire South China Sea but only occupies seven features. Iyon lamang nandoon siya sa loob ng Kalayaan Island Group. Brunei occupies none as far as our KIG is concerned. Take note po, there are 97 features in the South China Sea but only 41 are occupied and there are 56 that are unoccupied.

China’s invasion of the KIG occurred in 1995 when the Chinese military occupied Mischief Reef—ayan po, nakikita ninyo ngayon—and built, initially, wooden structures which the Philippine government protested. Then in 1998, China added more structures that resembled military installations. To date, this structure is now a three-storey building equipped with solar panels, power generators, weather radars, communication equipment, and take note, heavy machine guns, as shown.

Based on this precedent, similar construction might also be done in the Scarborough Shoal or in other areas in our KIG. Shown are the present facilities on other Chinese-occupied areas. Among them are Subi Reef, as shown; Fiery Cross Reef, as shown; Cuarteron Reef and Chigua Reef. Recently, China was found conducting land reclamation and construction on four of its occupied reefs namely, Johnson Reef, Chigua Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Gaven Reef. It is suspected that they are building an airfield, a naval facility at


Mabini Reef that will definitely pose a serious threat to our capability to sustain our garrisons at the KIG.

Ang nakalulungkot po dito ay ang Pilipinas, hindi man lang nag-develop ng kahit alinman sa mga islang hawak natin. Ito po ang mensahe ko noong huli. Ito raw ay alinsunod sa Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea na pinirmahan ng buong ASEAN at ng China noong taong 2002. Kung gusto po ninyong malaman kung ano ang hitsura ng mga islang ito, the latest pictures are as shown, Pag-asa Island at ang sirang runway; Ayungin Shoal at ang bulok na Sierra Madre; Rizal Reef, Kota Island, Lawak Island, Likas Island, Panata Cay, Parola Cay at ang Patag Island.

With regard to the Scarborough Shoal, located 119 nautical miles from the Zambales shoreline and within our 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone, on April 8, 2012, BRP Gregorio Del Pilar responded to a report of poaching and stopped eight Chinese fishing vessels loaded with illegally collected corals, giant clams and live sharks. Two Chinese surveillance ships intervened and blocked BRP Gregorio Del Pilar resulting in a standoff. The Philippines later withdrew but China maintained its presence at the shoal. By July 2012, China had erected a barrier to the entrance of the shoal and declared a fishing ban. Since then, Chinese ships have driven away Filipino fishermen by hosing them with water canons. Ganyan po ang nangyari noong araw na iyon. At present, China maintains, on the average, three ships in the area.

Doon naman sa Ayungin Shoal, located 108 nautical miles west of Palawan and 13 nautical miles lang from Mischief Reef, the Philippines deliberately grounded BRP Sierra Madre in 1999. It is now manned by the Philippine Marines.

China has warned that it will not permit the Philippines’ occupation of the Ayungin Shoal. Chinese coastguard vessels have repeatedly blocked or chased away Filipino fishermen and military supply runs. At least eight bullying incidents were recorded from December 2013 to March lamang nitong taon na ito.

Kung tayo po ay may duda pa sa intensyon ng mga Intsik o hindi kaya ay hindi pa natin nasusukat kung hanggang saan ang kaya nila upang maisakatuparan ang kanilang mga hangarin, inaanyayahan ko ang lahat na panoorin itong video na kuha sa Paracel Islands noong 1988. Walang habas at walang awa nilang minasaker ang 64 na Vietnamese sailors. Panoorin po natin ito.

(Video presentation)Paki-check lang po ang ating audio.Iyon pong mga itim diyan sa dagat ay Vietnamese sailors

na nakatayo ay may hawak na flag nila. Malapit lang sa kinatatayuan nila ang kanilang barko na sinakyan. Ayan sila nakatayo sa dagat ngayon. Iyan ang sinakyan nilang barko.

Take note. These may have been Vietnamese sailors but they were aboard an unarmed ship. Now, we can only speculate but we hope and pray that such incidents will not happen to our troops. But who is to say? Based on all these antecedents it is clear that China will utilize its political power, economic wealth and growing maritime capabilities to impose its will over the whole South China Sea. Our security analysts believe that these moves are part of China’s strategy to assert their claim based on the 9 Dash Line, na ngayon ay ibinalik na nila sa 10 Dash Line and build lines of offshore defense. These Chinese actions have also brought ramifications to our economy.

Based on statistics from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources we are losing approximately P7.1 billion

per year through poaching and an estimated P19.4 billion per year from destruction of corals and illegal fishing, a staggering total of P26.5 billion annually. The area of contention is also known to be rich with gas and oil deposits estimated at 1.748 billion barrels of oil worth P1.1 trillion as well as 16.7 billion cubic feet of gas worth P2.1 trillion or a staggering total of P3.2 trillion. If the situation is not addressed, these resources could potentially be lost permanently.

On March 30, 2014, the Philippines filed an arbitration case against China before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or ITLOS. Last March 4, the Court of Arbitration ordered China to submit its counter argument at binigyan po sila ng hanggang Disyembre 15 ng taon na ito. However, China, through its Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei reiterated Beijing’s non-acceptance and non-participation in the legal proceedings.

Meanwhile, it is the Philippines’ policy to promote strategic partnerships and build ties with our neighbors, foremost of which is with the United States with which we have a Mutual Defense Treaty. Recently, the defense treaty was strengthened by the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement or EDCA. These actions could be construed as probable deterrence to Chinese aggression. However, it is equally important that we develop our own territorial defense capability.

Moving to our air space, bounded in yellow as shown is the Philippine territorial air space that includes all space above our territory which is 12 nautical miles from our archipelagic base line. Bounded in blue is the flight information region that is delineated by the International Civil Aviation Organization or ICAO. Pasensiya na kayo hindi masyadong makita ang yellow. Bounded in green is the current Philippine Air Defense Identification Zone or PADIZ, where all aircraft are required to identify when entering or transiting the Philippine air space. In the past, from the 1950s to the 1980s, we were able to protect our air space and maritime domain.

We had an air defense alert center in Basa Air Base, Pampanga, as well as in Palawan. There were three operational radars in Mindoro, Ilocos Norte and Camarines Norte, and a US Air Force radar at La Union that we later took over.

In the 50s, we had squadrons of 69 F86 day fighters; 29 F86 all weather interceptors and a jet fighter training squadron of 28 T33s. In the mid-1960s, we gained a squadron of 25 Supersonic F5s. Then in 1978, another squadron of 25 F8 maritime fighters that replaced all the F86. We even had precision aerobatic teams.

Alam ninyo, nakapagpadala po tayo ng expeditionary squadron of F-86 to Congo, Africa. We were practically number one in Asia in terms of air power. In a similar note, our Navy was once the envy of our neighbors. Our fleet was once composed of destroyers, frigates, corvettes, midget submarines, minesweepers and landing ship tanks with surface, subsurface and anti-air warfare, naval gunfire support and amphibious operations.

Capabilities. However, through the years our capital ships have lost their ability. Our midget submarines are now displays in museums. Our current fleet is composed of small boats that limited the role of the navy to protecting our internal and limited territorial waters. Nakakapanlumo po na galing sa pagiging numero uno sa Asya noong dekada 70, talo na tayo ngayon kahit ng bansang Bangladesh na


may mas mabang gross domestic product kaysa Pilipinas pero mayroong 77 multi-roll fighters and 89 surface ships. Today, our air defense capability is practically zero. We have only one operating radar with very limited range and no height-finder detection. At present, we only have three S-211 jet trainer aircrafts compared with the fighter interceptor aircraft, kita ninyo o napakaliit. It is subsonic, meaning it travels below the speed of sound and does not have air-to-air missile. With this token capability, our airspace is open to intrusion. We cannot enforce our PADIZ, we cannot patrol our territorial waters and our EEZ (exlusive economic zones), we cannot protect our territories, much less deter intrusions. With an air force that cannot protect our airspace and a navy that cannot protect our maritime interest, claimant countries have accelerated their creeping occupation of our islands.

To secure our territory, the ideal joint concept to adopt is defense in-depth which is anchored in the principle of pressing the border out by engaging the enemy as far away as possible. The system incorporates a sequence of lines—a detection line, decision line and interception line, and requires four basic steps: one, detect the presence of airborne objects, aircraft or missiles; two, identify them as friendly or hostile; three, intercept and examine those not identified as friendly; and four, neutralize those identified as hostile.

This joint concept applies in tandem with our navy’s active archipelagic defense strategy. Situational awareness will be provided by the air defense radars, long-range patrol aircrafts and over the horizon radars. Hostile forces are held to a “no-give zone” within the range of attack aircraft and ground-based missiles. Maneuver forces composed of frigate corvettes and fighter aircraft shall simultaneously attack from different locations to swarm the opposing force in multiple directions.

Bakit ko po inilalahad sa inyo lahat ito? Why are we drowning in these weapons terminologies? This is to develop the AFP’s capability and to implement our territorial defense strategy nagpasa po tayo ng Republic Act No. 7898, the AFP Modernization Act in 1995. But of the P331 billion originally allocated for the 15-year program from 1996 to 2011, the AFP received only a meager P33 billion. The allotment, given that there was an Asian financial crisis at nag-balloon po ang exchange rate, was hardly felt by the Philippine Navy and the Philippine Air Force. Against this backdrop, the House of Representatives and the Senate enacted another law that extended the AFP Modernization Law for another 15 years.

The President on April 21, 2014 approved the modernization program made up of 24 projects amounting to P85.2 billion. In fact, two projects have already been contracted. First, with Canada, for the eight combat utility helicopters and, second, with Korea, for the 12 FA-50 lead-in fighter trainer aircraft. Para klaro po, the 12 jets na galing sa Korea ay hindi totoong fighter jets. Iyan ay lead-in fighter trainer na kinabitan lang ng weapons. The remaining 22 projects are in various stages of implementation, most of which are waiting for funds in order for their respective notices of awards to be issued.

It should be noted that out of the programmed amount of P24 billion para sa taong 2014, only P10 billion was released. This will cause a delay in the implementation

of the modernization program. Gusto ko po sanang i-recommend na ang P14 billion balance for 2014 be added to the 2015 appropriation. But I guess by this time, it is too late.

Let me show you the revised yearly cash program. All these will require appropriations from both the Senate and Congress. These equipment are expensive, but it has been said that there is no price tag for sovereignty. The P26 billion we lose yearly from poaching, destruction of corrals and illegal fishing, and the estimated P3.2 trillion worth of oil and gas deposit is what we stand to lose without our needed capability. That P85.2 billion initial requirement for a territorial defense capability is a very modest request. In fact, mga kasama, it is a worthy investment for the future.

Bago po ako magtapos, uulitin ko lang na ang pagdepensa ng ating teritoryo ay napakahalagang aspeto ng ating pambansang seguridad. It is absolutely essential to secure our air space and maritime domain in order to uphold our sovereignty and protect our core national interests. Kapag hindi po natin sinuportahan at pinondohan ang pagkamit ng kapabilidad na ito, mawawala sa atin ang mga isla, ang mga shoals at reefs na tayo naman ang may karapatan talaga.

Freedom of passage in the West Philippine Sea where 70 percent of world commerce pass through might become restricted, and we may lose our exclusive rights to fish the rich marine and aquatic resources, as well as to explore natural gas and oil. We have seen how events in history shape the present day territorial defense force. We have started at the top and deteriorated from then on. Our great effort of fighting insurgence drew away our attention from territorial defense.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I am an avid history student, and I am reminded of events of the 1930s and of a great man named Winston Churchill.

During that time, he was considered outside the kulambo kahit po miyembro siya ng parlamento. And he was in the wilderness, so to speak, of British politics. But Churchill took the lead in warning about Nazi Germany’s rearmament and campaigned very hard for the strengthening of defenses of the United Kingdom, especially in the face of German aggression.

When the Germans occupied Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, Britain’s response would be appeasement. Churchill only saw folly in this, even remarking, at sinabi niya, “An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.” Our response as espoused by the DFA is almost the same, “Are we hoping that this new crocodile in color red will eat our islets last?” As evidence proves, this crocodile is eating up our territory ahead of all the others. Ang nakakalamang lang sa atin ay ang Vietnam.

Today, we are faced with the challenge of rebuilding our much needed defense capability. In the face of these present threats, we cannot simply build a strong territorial defense force overnight. The task of doing it should have started a long time ago, kahit noong 1995 pa.

Dapat pong magpatuloy ang suporta ng pambansang liderato at kalakip nito ay isang plano para sa procurement of weapons and sensor systems sa darating na panahon na magbibigay kasiguruhan sa implementasyon ng isang epektibong estratehiya. Kaya po ako nandito dahil wala po


tayong kasiguruhan na kung bababa sa puwesto ang ating Pangulong Aquino ay maipagpapatuloy po ang suportang ito na ibinigay sa ating pambansang tanggulan at hukbong sandatahan.

Mga kasama ko, kailangan nila ang ating patuloy na suporta para ang ating hukbong sandatahan ay magpatuloy na maging source of national pride pero lalung-lalo na, maging instrumento ng pambansang lakas.

Let us heed Winston Churchill’s warning. Sabi po niya: x x x if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.

Or worse, mga kasama ko, you, we “may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.”

Magandang hapon po sa lahat. Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dep. Majority Leader. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The time of the Gentleman has expired.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to move for the referral of the speech of the Honorable Acedillo to the Committee on Rules.

REP. BELLO (W.). Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection?

REP. BELLO (W.). Mr. Speaker.

REP. DEFENSOR. May we know, Mr. Speaker, what is the pleasure of the Gentleman?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). What is the pleasure of the Gentleman from AKBAYAN?

REP. BELLO (W.). We would just like to pose some questions to our colleague who just finished speaking.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Before that, the time of the Gentleman has expired.

The Dep. Majority Leader may move for an extension of five minutes.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, may I move for a suspension of the session.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is suspended.

It was 5:22 p.m.





REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, before we proceed, I would like to move for the reconsideration of my earlier motion duly approved, for the referral of the speech of the Honorable Acedillo to the Committee on Rules. The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is that many of our colleagues would want to interpellate him. But today, inasmuch as we would want to accommodate our colleagues, we do not have the time because we are set to proceed with the consideration of the House Bill on Charter change, Mr. Speaker.

I so move.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion for reconsideration is approved.

The referral to the Committee on Rules is recalled.

REP. DEFENSOR. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move for the suspension of the consideration or interpellation of the privilege speech of the Honorable Acedillo.


The interpellation of the Gentleman from Party-List MAGDALO is suspended.

REP. DEFENSOR. The status, Mr. Speaker, is that we have five minutes remaining in the Privilege Hour, and we are committed to give time to the Hon. Rene L. Relampagos. He will be our last speaker, Mr. Speaker, and he will need about 10 to 15 minutes for his speech and after that, we can proceed to take up the Bill on Charter change. With that, I move that upon the expiration of the one hour for the Privilege Hour, we extend it for another 10 minutes for the speech of the Hon. Rene L. Relampagos, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Hon. Rene L. Relampagos is recognized to deliver his privilege speech, and the time is extended for another 10 minutes.

You have the floor, Mr. Speaker.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF REP. RELAMPAGOS

REP. RELAMPAGOS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Dep. Majority Leader.

My distinguished colleagues:It has been all over the news since last week—the death

of seven students during the field trip to Madlum Cave in San Miguel, Bulacan. News accounts have been consistent, Mr. Speaker, my honorable colleagues of this august Chamber. A group of Bulacan State University students conducted a field trip to Madlum Cave in San Miguel, Bulacan on Tuesday, August 19, 2014. Tragedy struck when heavy rains swelled the Madlum River and triggered a flashflood that


swept students who were crossing the river, drowning seven students. The tour consisted of around 180 students, three teachers and 10 tourist guides. The victims were first year tourism students: Mikhail Alcantara, Sean Rodney Alejo, Michelle Ann Rose Bonzo, Helena Marcelo, Madel Navarro, Jeanette Rivera and Maiko Bartolome.

According to initial reports, there was no Commission on Higher Education approval to this field trip. Investigation is currently under way to determine criminal, civil and administrative liabilities of the Bulacan State University.

Madlum is located in the northern part of the Biak-na-Bato National Park. Madlum Cave is a prominent feature in the Angat Limestone Formation which occupies most of the whole reservation of Biak-na-Bato National Park. To get to the cave, tourists have to cross the Madlum River. The caves, as well as the Madlum River, are a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a popular ecotourism site. According to the Manila Standard, the place is among the popular spots for bouldering and river trekking for mountaineering clubs and other extreme outdoor adventure groups. I would like to emphasize the word “extreme” outdoor adventure. I could not feel but sad and furious over this senseless loss of lives. To the families of the victims, my sincerest condolences.

However, the Madlum Cave field trip is only one of the many instances where unfortunate incidents during these educational activities happened. To cite a few examples, just a year ago, we were also shocked by the news of death of three tourism students, two teachers, one reliever-driver and one tour guide during the Manila-Ilocos-Baguio educational tour of the Marinduque State College. They were on their way back to Manila on February 21, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. when their bus collided with a container truck and then with another passenger truck bound for Benguet. The remaining 28 students who joined the tour were also injured. While a CHED-approved education tour, the bus was clearly overspeeding, according to police reports. Worse, the bus used by the school still lacked the nod of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board to operate as a tour bus company, their company’s application having been filed only on February 12 or just six days before the scheduled tour on February 18. In short, it was a colorum tourist bus.

Earlier in the same month of February 2013, two high school students, ages 14 and 15, died when their tourist bus, left running rolled downhill, running over the two minors. The school involved was the Holy Spirit Academy in Malolos, Bulacan, a private school. This incident happened in Tanay, Rizal after the students visited Camp Capinpin.

Not far from my province of Bohol is the incident on the educational tour of the Cebu International School in Bataan during their Philippine Week Celebration in 2012. After an outreach program in Bataan, the participants in the tour decided to visit the nearby Tambangan Waterfalls, just a few minutes away from the school outreach venue. This was not part of the tour itinerary. Upon reaching the falls, the teachers leaped into the water in their street clothes and taunted the students to do the same. The students obliged, and two died due to the strong undercurrent under or near the falls. The victims were Grade 8 students and one of whom is the grandson of former Cong. Jose “Dodong” Gullas.

You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, that in all these instances, the loss of lives is senseless.

Senseless, indeed. After the Madlum Cave incident, calls to abolish these educational activities are being pushed by some sectors.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I filed House Resolution No. 1397 urging the House Committee on Higher and Technical Education, under the able leadership of Cong. Roman T. Romulo, to conduct an investigation in aid of legislation on the BSU-Madlum Cave incident in the light of reviewing CHED Memorandum Order No. 17, series of 2012, which contains the standing policies and guidelines on educational tours and field trips of college and graduate students. Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, as Chair of the Committee on Tourism and member of the Committee on Higher and Technical Education, I have two major concerns on the issue at hand. First is the educational value of these activities, and second is the safety of the students. On the issue of relevance of these educational tours and field trips, I submit that learning should not be confined within the four corners of the classroom or the school campus, and that there is wisdom in providing venues of learning outside the school. It is in this light that the CHED issuance recognized educational tours and field trips duly required in the approved curriculum of authorized higher education programs of both public and private higher learning institutions. The objectives of these activities under the CHED memo are to provide access to efficient and interactive learning, and to provide quality educational tours and/or field trips. Curriculum enhancement and broadening of students’ learning opportunities and a feel of the world are emphasized. Hence, it appears that these educational tours and field trips should already have been pre-approved by the CHED upon approval of the school curriculum. This is bolstered by the fact that higher educational institutions, under Section 16 of the CHED memorandum, are required to inform the CHED regional offices on the nature, purpose, schedule, destination and costs, and at least one month before the opening of classes for every calendar year. I repeat: the CHED requirement is one month before the opening of classes and not one month before the scheduled activity.

I agree with this, that these kinds of learning activities should have already been integrated in the school curriculum in order to ensure its relevance to the whole school or degree program. Failure to include them as required by the CHED should preclude them from conducting such activities within the academic year. Also, the issue of relevance necessarily includes costs as it is sometimes the case that field trips cost more than the tuition fees of the students. The CHED memo also stated that should there be additional costs, prior consultation must be had. More importantly, and as pointed out by the CHED in recent news, these educational tours and field trips should not be made mandatory, nor as basis for grading, nor as a condition for exemption in taking examinations. The CHED memo also provides that students who cannot join the trip should be given parallel school activity.

Again, in our Madlum Cave incident, news accounts quoted Donna Marcelo, mother of one of the students who died, as saying that they allowed Helena to join the field trip because according to her daughter, the examinations would be harder if they do not join the field trip. Further, this incident, as well as the Benguet incident, tourism students were the victims. While these field trips help local tourism, what is the


value of these activities in the teaching of tourism? I submit that these activities should be properly justified as to their nature, relevance and cost.

On the second issue of security of the students, CHED Memorandum Circular No. 17 is very particular on this aspect. The CHED issuance is clear that the “security of the students should be the foremost responsibility of the higher education institutions concerned.” Hence, the following provisions of the CHED memo:

One, priority should be given to registered museums, cultural sites and landmarks in line with the objectives of the educational tour or field trip;

Second, submission of medical clearance by the students to show capability of students to undertake the activity;

Third, advance and proper coordination with local government units with appropriate clearance and memorandum agreement;

Fourth, engagement of tour operators and tour guides as well as travel and tour operators duly accredited by the Department of Tourism;

Fifth, briefing and debriefing program before and/or after the activity. Briefing shall include precautionary measures and risk assessment procedures with the students together with their parents or guardians;

Sixth, information to the CHED Regional Offices concerned; and

Lastly, that prior consultation with parents and stakeholders be had.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, the CHED memorandum includes a three-page checklist for compliance by the higher education institution. Now, the question is, have these guidelines been complied with by the Bulacan State University? As I have earlier mentioned, Madlum Cave is considered an extreme outdoor adventure. I would like to repeat: “extreme outdoor adventure.” How can three teachers possibly ensure the safety of the 180 minors who participated in the trek? Had there been prior coordination and briefing made?

As additional recommendations, Mr. Speaker and my dear colleagues, I would like to submit the following for the consideration of the Committee on Higher and Technical Education:

First, certification by the CHED as a prerequisite in the conduct of educational tour or field trip. Hence, a “No CHED authority, no field trip” policy;

Second, non-allowance of the conduct of the school activity if not pre-approved or submitted one month before the start of the academic year;

Third, consideration of the roadworthiness of the vehicles to be used during the activity;

Fourth, consideration of weather conditions and if possible, no tours or trips on extremely rainy months;

Fifth, specification as to teacher-to-student ratio;Sixth, presumption of regularity in the performance of

official duties shall not be used as a defense; andLastly, Mr. Speaker, accountability of higher learning

institutions should be raised.In conclusion, I hope that we have all learned our lessons.

Extraordinary diligence is really required in these instances. I employ, Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, our role in ensuring that this will not happen again and never again. So, let us put an end to these senseless loss of lives and injuries to our

children and our youth. Let us ensure that these educational tours and field trips are not only fun, but as well as substantive learning will be experienced by them.

Thank you, and good day to all.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Privilege Hour has expired. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. DEFENSOR. Yes, Mr. Speaker. But before that, I move that we refer the speech of the Honorable Relampagos to the Committee on Rules.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion to refer the speech of the Hon. Rene L. Relampagos to the Committee on Rules is approved.

REP. DEFENSOR. I move that we formally terminate the Privilege Hour, Mr. Speaker.


The Privilege Hour is terminated.The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. DEFENSOR. Before we proceed, Mr. Speaker, allow me to acknowledge the presence of some guests in the gallery, the guests of the Hon. Jeffrey D. Khonghun. They are the punong barangays from the municipality of Subic, Zambales.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The guests of the Honorable Khonghun, may we ask that they please rise. Puwede po ba kayong tumayo so that you will be acknowledged by the House. (Applause)

Thank you.The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, likewise, we have here the guests of the Hon. Samuel D. Pagdilao: Abigail Aricheta, Marilyn Lapitan, Regina Castelone, Concepcion Del Valle, Ret. PNP Col. Supronio Catapang, Bobby Cortez and Limneo Misalucha.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Will the guests of the Honorable Pagdilao please rise so that you will be acknowledged. Maaari po kayong tumayo. (Applause)

Maraming salamat po sa inyong pagbisita. Thank you very much.


CONSIDERATION OF R.B.H. NO. 1Continuation

PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume the consideration of Resolution of Both Houses No. 1, and that the Secretary General be directed to read again the title of the Resolution.



The consideration of the Resolution of Both Houses No. 1 is in order. The Secretary General is hereby directed to read only the title of the said measure.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. Resolution of Both Houses No. 1, entitled: RESOLUTION OF BOTH HOUSES PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN ECONOMIC PROVISIONS OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PARTICULARLY ON ARTICLES XII, XIV & XVI.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that as Sponsor, we recognize the Gentleman from Cavite, the Hon. Elpidio F. Barzaga Jr.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Gentleman from Cavite, the Hon. Elpidio F. Barzaga Jr. is recognized to continue sponsorship of R.B.H. No. 1. You have the floor, Gentleman.

REP. DEFENSOR. For the interpellation, Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Gentleman from BAYAN MUNA, the Hon. Neri J. Colmenares.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Hon. Neri J. Colmenares is recognized for his interpellation. You have the floor, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I start my interpellation, just a clarificatory

question, Mr. Speaker. I intend to interpellate our colleague, Congressman Barzaga, with regard to his sponsorship speech. I also would like to interpellate Cong. Milen Albano-Garcia, with regard to her sponsorship speech. What is our procedure here? Do I ask all the questions with Congressman Barzaga, or do I shift to Congresswoman Milen with regard to her sponsorship speech, Mr. Speaker?


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Chair declares a one-minute suspension of the session.

It was 5:48 p.m.




In reply to the query of the Gentleman from BAYAN MUNA, the Chair has been informed that it will be the Honorable Barzaga who will respond to all the questions of the Honorable Colmenares, and he will be assisted by the Honorable Garcia-Albano.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, all the sponsorship speeches of the distinguished Sponsors, which we will refer to during the interpellation, will be answered expertly, I am sure, by Congressman Barzaga.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Both speeches, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Please proceed.

REP. COLMENARES. Magandang hapon, Congressman Barzaga. I am very happy that we meet again during this period with regard to a very, very important issue which is Charter change.

Sa first slide lang, it seems, from the Resolution itself, that the opinion of the authors, the Sponsors, is that the restrictive provisions of the Constitution is causing the various economic problems that we are encountering today, and that in fact, it is clear, it says in the Resolution, “Whereas, in order to realize the benefit of inclusive growth, the restrictive provisions in the Philippine Constitution which hampers the flow of foreign capital investment, must be lifted.” From this provision, Mr. Speaker, let us just level off for a while. The intention of the Sponsors, therefore, is that these restrictive provisions, which Congresswoman Albano-Garcia mentioned in her speech as biased in favor of the Filipinos, should be liberalized so that foreign capital, foreign investments will freely come into the country. Am I correct in that assumption, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. That is a very correct assumption, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you. In the sponsorship speech of—well, this was actually by

Cong. Mylene J. Garcia-Albano. She said, “However, SWS economic indicators reveal”—she was discussing the GDP growth in the country and the growth in the economy of the country, which President Aquino has actually hammered in his previous State of the Nation Addresses, that in the growth report and it says, according to the Sponsors:

However, SWS economic indicators reveal that despite the 7.2 percent GDP growth in the last quarter of 2013, the trends of poverty, hunger and joblessness has been flat for several years. Twelve point five million of our countrymen are jobless.

May we ask, Mr. Speaker, what the distinguished Sponsor thinks is the reason for this poverty, hunger, joblessness of our countrymen despite the 7.2 percent growth which the Aquino government has frequently mentioned in their public pronouncements, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Firstly, Mr. Speaker, we have to admit that unemployment in our country is actually increasing. As a matter of fact, in the survey conducted from June 27 up to June 30, the employment rate among Filipinos at least 18 years of age, is 25.7 percent or 11.5 million Filipinos in March 2014; and 25.9 or 11.8 million individuals in June 2014. Of course,


we must also admit that there has been an increase of seven percent in our GDP. Unfortunately, this seven-percent increase would not be sufficient in order to provide employment to all our Filipinos. How do we address the problem pertaining to employment? Necessarily, we must have more businesses, we must have more factories, and in the process, we must have more capital. Unfortunately, this much-needed capital cannot be sourced from local sources and indeed, we have to have foreign direct investments. In short, we have to create an atmosphere in the Philippines where foreign direct investments coming from foreign investors will be welcome and their investments would be protected.

We have the restrictive provisions under the Constitution of 60-40, allotted to Filipinos is 60 percent and 40 percent only to foreigners. Unfortunately, inasmuch as my interpellator happens to be a lawyer, he would fully agree with me that no foreign investor, as a rule, would invest only 40 percent in a business enterprise, considering that insofar as corporations are concerned, the rule of majority or at least 51 percent is necessary. Now, because of this constitutional prohibition, in some cases, in order to circumvent the provision of the Constitution, there are certain foreign investors who are using dummies, making it appear that Filipinos are the true owners of 60 percent of the corporation when, in truth and in fact, they are not. It is for this reason that the advocates of Charter change are really pursuing the change in the restrictive economic provisions.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The distinguished Sponsors are proposing the opening-up of the economy to foreign investors, FDIs. We, for our part, believe that this opening-up of the economy will destroy and cripple the local economy—our farmers who are producing agricultural products, our local businesses and industries. It seems that the Sponsors think otherwise, and I am sure they have studied the economic implications of all these proposals, Mr. Speaker.

May I ask therefore then—sa GDP growth, ibig sabihin dumami ang ating produkto. What is the reason employment did not pick up and in fact, unemployment increased? What is the reason for that, Mr. Speaker? Is there something that President Aquino was not telling us? He keeps on mentioning the fact that there is this GDP growth, but he does not state the fact that there is growing unemployment and, in fact, if we were to follow the sponsorship speech, as regards poverty, hunger and joblessness in the country. How can it be, Mr. Speaker, that there is a growth but that growth did not include employing our poorest of the poor?

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that the Charter change, the change embodied in our proposal, will be merely the inclusion of the phrase UNLESS PROVIDED BY LAW. Meaning to say, the moment that these provisions would be approved, it does not automatically mean that we are opening our natural resources to foreigners or foreign investors. There must be a law to be implemented by Congress. In other words, we just want to have Congress a certain leeway, some sort of flexibility if, in the future, they think that it is necessary to open our natural resources and other businesses for foreigners.

Second, assuming, for the sake of argument, that indeed the Charter change was successful, and assuming further that Congress is already contemplating a law opening

our natural resources or agricultural lands to our foreign partners or to foreign investors, based on the experience of our Asian neighbors, there were plenty of foreign direct investments when they allowed ownership or participation, the majority of the ownership or participation of foreign investors insofar as their natural resources and other public lands are concerned.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, that is what I have been saying earlier. It is true that there was an increase of seven percent. Unfortunately, that seven-percent increase in our economy will not be sufficient to answer all the need for the employment of our fellow Filipinos and, therefore, does it mean to say, Mr. Speaker, that we shall just stand idly and watch the sufferings of our fellow Filipinos and do nothing? I think that, as legislators and as true-bloodied Filipinos, we must be proactive and, therefore, we think of ways and means where we can improve the economy, where we could have more businesses, more foreign capital, in such a way that we can reduce unemployment in our country.

REP. COLMENARES. Mr. Speaker, thank you. However, President Aquino kept on harping about this growth, that the government is in the right track towards economic salvation, and that the recipe of this government towards economic development is a correct path. Mr. Speaker, are you saying that the President is wrong in his assessment in that there is really a need for Charter change, or is the President himself in fact supportive of Charter change to open the economy up?

REP. BARZAGA. I think, Mr. Speaker, the reasoning is misplaced. Indeed, as I have mentioned a while ago, there was really an increase of seven percent. Of course, the President will not be saying that we are in the wrong economic path because definitely, there was an increase. What I am saying is that seven percent or even 10 percent will not solve the problem pertaining to unemployment. We have to have more factories. We have to have more businesses and therefore, we need capital. Unfortunately, these restrictive economic provisions, which were incorporated as early as the 1935 Constitution and which have been in existence for 79 years, have not improved the economic aspect of businesses insofar as agriculture and factories are concerned and therefore, it is in this context that we are sponsoring this Charter change.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are many aspects of the economic problems mentioned by the distinguished Sponsor during the sponsorship speech. One of these, of course, is the restrictive provisions in the Philippine Constitution. The other is that there are monopolistic activities of rich Filipino elite which also hinder the exercise or the freeing of the economy from burden, Mr. Speaker. May we know who are these monopolistic oligarchs that the distinguished Sponsor mentioned who hinder the economic development of this country and thus, it necessitates the need for a Charter change, especially in the economic provisions of the country’s Constitution, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we do not have the list. However, let me state what would be the record.


REP. COLMENARES. Could we cite just an example? It seems that the…

REP. BARZAGA. No, no, I am not complete yet, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Okay, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. The richest one percent of Filipinos accounts for 60 percent of the total gross domestic product whose income—the income of the top 150,000 families equals the income of the bottom six million. Moreover, the wealth increase of the 40 richest families in the Philippines, according to Forbes Asia in 2011, is 76 percent of the absolute increase in GDP, way above that of Thailand at 33.37 percent; Malaysia, 5.6 percent; and Japan, 2.8 percent. Therefore, based on these figures and if we open our eyes to the existing realities, there are only a few families who actually control the basic industries or the basic utilities in the Philippines. MERALCO, for example, is a monopoly. When it comes to telecommunications, we have only three telecommunication companies: Globe, Smart and Sun Cellular. These monopolies are actually not healthy in a democracy like the Philippines.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would not the entry of foreign investors also result in this monopoly, Mr. Speaker, considering that they have a far larger capital than many of our local business people, Mr. Speaker? Would that not create a worse situation where there is still a monopoly, but this time around, the monopoly is composed of foreigners who do not care one whit about the Filipino people as long as they earn profit from their investments in the country, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. Well, I do not think so, Mr. Speaker, because insofar as foreign investments are concerned, I do not think that there will be a monopoly.

REP. COLMENARES. May we know the basis for that, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. There will always be free competition. There are more foreigners who have the necessary capital, unlike the elite Filipino businessmen who are only a few insofar as their number is concerned.

REP. COLMENARES. So, there is no study whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. There is a study. For example, let us take the case of MERALCO.

REP. COLMENARES. Mr. Speaker, the question is: is there a study that the entry of foreign investors will not result in a monopoly here in the country when we allow them to enter our economy?

REP. BARZAGA. Based on the experience of our Asian neighbors, no monopoly has been created when foreign investors were allowed.

REP. COLMENARES. Mr. Speaker, I wish to contest that. In poorer Asian countries, the huge investors in mining, the huge investors in public utility, the huge investors in oil—they monopolize trade. In fact, Mr. Speaker, how do you call the three big oil companies in the country today? Are they not monopolies in the same manner since they monopolized the entire oil industry here, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. Well, that is the problem, Mr. Speaker. No less than my distinguished interpellator has stated that there are only three oil companies in the Philippines. Unfortunately, inasmuch as the provision is reserved only for Filipino citizens insofar as oil exploration is concerned, definitely, no Filipino corporation could compete with these three oil companies. On the other hand, if we allow foreign investors, there will be competitors. There will be competition insofar as the oil industry is concerned and, therefore, if there is competition, necessarily there will be a lowering of prices and better quality.

REP. COLMENARES. I do not see any rule or law, Mr. Speaker, that prohibits Shell, Caltex, Petron or any other big oil firms from investing in our country. I do not see any connection there. The fact is, they are allowed in here and they monopolized the oil industry. You mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that one of the provisions that we are going to revise is on the issue of land. You did mention lands kanina and just to confirm, under the Philippine Constitution, you would like foreign transnational corporations or foreign investors to own land. Am I correct, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. As I have stated earlier, the constitutional change would be only that phrase UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes.

REP. BARZAGA. Of course, we cannot anticipate how the future Congresses will act on this provision in the event that—or where flexibility in Congress is concerned. As a matter of fact, I expect that if the succeeding Congresses would be dominated by the Makabayan bloc, this provision in the Constitution might not be exercised.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The situation today is that under the Constitution, foreign investors, transnational corporations or foreigners are not allowed to own lands. The proposal is that Congress may provide, am I correct, Mr. Speaker, two things: one, Congress may not act at all and maintain the constitutional prohibition with regard to foreign ownership of lands. Am I correct, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. Let me state the constitutional provision.

REP. COLMENARES. I am just asking, Mr. Speaker. It is possible…

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, do I not have the right to answer in a manner I want to answer? Or is my right to answer subject to the whims and caprice or desire of the interpellator?


REP. COLMENARES. Mr. Speaker, I am clarifying the question in case the Gentleman did not hear it. I am just saying that there are two things Congress can do here. One is to maintain the constitutional provision. That was just my first question. Of course, it is a yes because Congress may decide one way or the other. So, that is what I am just asking, Mr. Speaker, to abbreviate the discussion. But if the distinguished Gentleman wants to explain…

REP. BARZAGA. No, no, no. Let me answer it in this manner.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, okay, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Okay. Under the House Resolution, private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of public domain except by lease for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area, UNLESS PROVIDED BY LAW. Therefore, the Congress of the Philippines may decrease the limitation. On the other hand, if there will be a sudden change in the economic factors in the country, Congress, by virtue of the supervening circumstances at the time the discussion is made, if we really have a good economy, perhaps the 60-40 requirement may even be increased to 70-30 if the economy of the Philippines has already improved.

REP. COLMENARES. That is what I was trying to explain, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. That is what I want to emphasize— the basis of my answer.

REP. COLMENARES. The distinguished Sponsor did not get the question. I was referring to Section 7, Mr. Speaker, and Section 7, I would like a clarification from the distinguished Sponsor, says, and I quote:

Save in cases of hereditary succession, UNLESS OTHEWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of public domain.

That is in the Resolution, Mr. Speaker. What does this mean, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. What has been read by my dear colleague is very self-explanatory, most especially since my dear colleague happens to be a lawyer. In any event, let me clarify this to satisfy the desire of my interpellator. Section 7 provides that, under the present Constitution, private lands cannot be acquired by foreigners or foreign corporations except by hereditary succession. In the event that the Charter change will push through and will be approved in a plebiscite, then Congress, by virtue of this Charter change, can enact a law providing otherwise, meaning to say, that corporations or even foreigners can acquire private lands in the Philippines.


REP. BARZAGA. Of course, in the law, they can provide the stipulation that the land to be acquired by them shall be only used for their businesses.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. That would be the restriction that can be imposed by Congress for the purpose of protecting our national interest.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, that would include, of course, agricultural lands, other lands for, you know, commercial purposes. Am I correct, Mr. Speaker? Of course, equality says that what the Filipinos can buy, of course, the foreigners can buy if Congress will decide so otherwise.

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, is my colleague referring again to Section 3 of Article XII, or is he already referring to Section 2 of Article XII in order to have a meeting of minds insofar as the question and the answer are concerned?

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am still referring to Section 7.

REP. BARZAGA. Section 7?

REP. COLMENARES. Ayon po sa Konstitusyon natin, sabi po ninyo, bawal ang foreign corporations o investors na mag-own ng land, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. Tama po. Ngayon, pag puwedeng mag-provide ang Congress ng batas na pinapayagan na ang mga foreigners na magmay-ari ng lupa, tama po ba na puwedeng gawin iyon ng Kongreso kapag mapasa ang Resolusyon na ito?

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, ang tinatanong po ba ni Congressman Colmenares ay iyong private lands o ibang klase ng lupa?

REP. COLMENARES. Private lands muna po.

REP. BARZAGA. Private lands?

REP. COLMENARES. Opo.

REP. BARZAGA. I have given the answer, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. They are allowed?

At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Giorgidi B. Aggabao relinquished the Chair to Rep. Jorge “Bolet”Banal.

REP. BARZAGA. In the event that this Charter change will be approved, then Congress would have the flexibility, would have the necessary elbow room in order to enact a law allowing foreigners to own private lands but subject to restrictions. Of course, we know that the Congressmen and the Senators, puwede nilang ilagay, “bagamat kayo ay binibigyan ng aming batas ng karapatan para magmay-ari ng pribadong lupa, ang puwede ninyo lamang bilhin at ariin ay iyong kinakailangan para sa inyong negosyo.” Puwede rin nilang ilagay, “kung saka-sakali lang at hindi tumatakbo ang inyong negosyo, you have to surrender that private land to the government.”


Third, private lands are immovable. They cannot be transferred from the Philippines to America.

Higit sa lahat, kapag ginawa nang negosyo ang lupang iyan, then it becomes industrial or commercial in character and so, local governments would profit from them paying the real estate tax which is higher if the land is classified as industrial or commercial, as compared when it is classified as agricultural.

REP. COLMENARES. So, in that case, in that situation, Mr. Speaker, halimbawa, may isang panginoong maylupa, may-ari siya, say, ng ilang 20 hectares na lupa, puwede nang ibenta ang lupa sa foreigners if this law is passed, Mr. Speaker. Tama po?

REP. BARZAGA. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, na ang ginamit na mga salita ng ating kaibigan ay puwede nang ipagbili. Of course, when we speak of “ipagbili,” a contract of sale, it presupposes that there will be willingness on the part of the seller to sell it.


REP. BARZAGA. In other words, the government does have the right to expropriate the property and give it to foreigners.

REP. COLMENARES. Tama po.

REP. BARZAGA. Kung ang mga kababayan natin, sa tingin nila, ayaw nilang ibenta ang lupa, kahit na mayroong ganitong probisyon sa Saligang Batas o may ganitong probisyon sa batas na ginawa ng ating Kongreso, nonetheless, the foreigner or the foreign corporation cannot acquire private lands in the Philippines.

REP. COLMENARES. Sakop po ang agricultural lands sa proposal na ito. Malinaw po iyan. Ngayon, ang sabi po ninyo kanina, puwedeng maglagay ang Kongreso ng restrictions pero puwede ring hindi maglagay ang Kongreso ng restrictions. Tama po ba? We cannot bind the next Congress on what they will do with the law, Mr. Speaker. Am I right?

REP. BARZAGA. It is a basic truism for the Members of Congress and even for lawyers that we cannot pass irrepealable laws. In the same manner, we cannot dictate upon future Congresses on how they shall legislate because we know that they have the sole legislative power and that is always being addressed to the wisdom of future Congresses.


REP. BARZAGA. Second, it would be an insult to say that future Congresses would be enacting laws which would be detrimental to the Filipino people.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, at iyong sinabi po ninyo kanina, actually, na the Congress may pass a law with restrictions, hula-hula lang po iyan. Tantiya ninyo lang iyan pero you do not really know for a fact that the Congress will provide such restrictions. Iyon po ang punto dito kanina.

REP. BARZAGA. Ang punto po rito, Mr. Speaker, is that nobody can predict the future.


REP. BARZAGA. Nobody can predict what future Congresses will do. Nobody can predict—it is even possible that the future Congresses might not exercise this power to legislate.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Kaya nga po ang sabi ko, itong Charter change, this is not self-executing.


REP. BARZAGA. Kahit na ito ma-approve, we are not yet opening our natural resources, our lands to foreigners. It is necessary that there must be an implementing law.


REP. BARZAGA. We are just giving flexibility to Congress and the Senate to enact the necessary legislation demanded by the circumstances in order that we can improve the lives of our fellow citizens.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, pero tingnan natin, Mr. Speaker, mula sa ilang hearings na ginawa ng Komite hanggang sa Resolusyon, hanggang sa sponsorship speech, the opening up ng ekonomiya ang pinag-usapan. Kaya ang sinasabi dito ngayon na depende ito, sa totoo lang, set na po ang framework. Itaga man sa bato, kapag napasa ang Cha-cha na ito, sigurado, ang Congress ay magpapasa ng batas opening up the economy. Why? The fact speaks for itself. They have always been saying “restrictive kasi, dapat ito buksan kasi biased in favor of Filipinos.” Dapat buksan. After all these battles, pagdating pala sa ganoong sitwasyon, hindi naman pala bubuksan. That is of no moment.

Ang problema natin dito, Mr. Speaker, hindi ba magiging sentro ng lobby groups ang Kongreso? What if one corporation lobbies here, “gawin ninyo kayang 100 percent diyan.” Then another corporation next year will lobby for something else. Another transnational corporation will say, “Open up ninyo ito.” Would Congress not be in the center of huge economic interest groups lobbying in Congress to the detriment of the interest of the Filipino people, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, that would be an insult to the Members of future Congresses because as legislators and as public officials, our primary aim, embodied in our hearts and in our minds, will be the welfare of our fellow citizens. Kung sa tingin ng Kongreso na susunod sa atin ay kinakailangang mag-enact ng batas para mapagbigyan ang mga foreigners na mag-invest sa Pilipinas at sa kanilang tingin iyon ang kinakailangan para umunlad ang buhay ng ating mga kababayan, they will do that. Ang sinasabi, sa umpisa pa lamang, ang pinag-uusapan dito ay economic provisions, that is true sapagkat kapag pinag-usapan natin ang political provisions ng ating Saligang Batas, sigurado, sinasabi naman namin na hindi ito kasama dito.


Third, in the latest survey made by Pulse Asia last March, 44 percent are in favor of Charter change insofar as economic provisions are concerned, and only 19 percent are against it. This is the first time, ito ang kauna-unahang pagkakataon na pinag-uusapan ang Charter change at malaking segment ng ating population ang pumapabor dito.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that these proposals for Charter change will be subject to a plebiscite. Kung sakaling papayagan ito ng nakakarami sa ating mga kababayan sa isang plebisito, then Congress could make the necessary legislation. After all, it has the consent of the majority of the Filipino people. Kung saka-sakali naman na sa plebisito ay ayaw nila, e di hindi maa-approve itong Charter change.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Nabanggit ninyo iyong political amendments at we are glad for the assurance of the distinguished Sponsor na hindi kasama dito and in fact, kung titingnan nga naman ang Resolusyon, wala dito iyong term extension or kaya, mga political amendments katulad ng pagtanggal ng term limits. But the Majority Leader, we heard him in public saying that no one can stop a Member of this Congress during the period of amendments from standing up and saying “The Constitution says na ang term limit ng Presidente ay isang six-year term lang unless otherwise provided by law.” Hindi ba puwedeng-puwede iyan sa period of amendments? Puwedeng-puwedeng may tumayo dito at magsabi, “Ang term ng Member ng Congress, tatlong terms lang siya, three-year period per term unless otherwise provided by law.” The Majority Leader publicly said that you cannot control a Member of this Congress from standing up and proposing such amendments. As you mentioned kanina at na-mention din during the committee hearings, of course, pagbobotohan naman iyan at kung manalo ang boto diyan, talagang posibleng mangyari iyan dito. The distinguished Sponsor, of course, can certify that he will vote against such a proposed amendment, but he would surely be defenseless and helpless if more than a majority of this Congress will approve such a political amendment. So, nagpapasalamat kami sa assurance na iyan pero kung mayroong gagawin na ganyang political amendment, hindi iyan masasagkaan ng distinguished Sponsor dahil iisa lang po ang boto ng distinguished Sponsor.

At this juncture, Rep. Banal relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Giorgidi B. Aggabao.

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, mukhang mali at maling-mali ang pananaw ng aking kaibigang si Attorney Colmenares. Totoo po na lahat tayo rito ay puwedeng magsalita at puwedeng tumayo. Kung sakaling dumating ang pagkakataon during the period of amendments at sabihin ng Kinatawan ng Caloocan City, “we want to include a change insofar as the political situation is concerned,” definitely, there will be no division of the House. Iisa lamang po ang sasabihin ng mga beteranong Mambabatas dito. Sasabihin nila, “Congressman Erice, you are out of order sapagkat ang pinag-uusapan natin ay iyon lamang resolution pertaining to Charter change on economic provisions. Kung mayroong resolution regarding change in the term limit, under our Rules, dadalhin muna iyan sa Committee on Constitutional Amendments, doon

pag-uusapan at pagkatapos, kung ma-approve doon ay saka pa lamang dadalhin sa plenaryo. We are sending the wrong information to our countrymen.


REP. BARZAGA. Hindi po puwede na sa discussion nitong Charter change on economic provisions ay magsisingit tayo ng isang provision which is not related to the subject matter of this House Resolution. Siguro sa amendments, puwede nating sabihin, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW na gamitin ito ng Kongreso within five years or 10 years. That is germane, that is related, that is relevant to the subject matter; but for an entirely new provision for Charter change outside of these economic provisions, the Chair can rule it motu proprio out of order.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, Mr. Speaker. In that case, even the Majority Leader may be wrong then.

REP. BARZAGA. No, he is not wrong.

REP. COLMENARES. The distinguished Sponsor did not follow through his answer: “Congressman Erice, you are out of order,” but if more than a majority of the Members of this Congress say, he is not out of order,” then his proposal is valid. Can the distinguished Sponsor stop that? No. This Congress is ruled by votation. I do not think that, if majority of the Members of this Congress will say, “Congressman Erice is in order and his proposal is valid,” it cannot be stopped by the distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. In any case, if the distinguished Sponsor believes that he can assure, then that is the prerogative of the distinguished Sponsor. In our case, we do not see that assurance. There were statements made by the leadership in the House about the fact that political amendments will not be pursued during these economic provisions deliberations, however, there were also public statements by other Members of this House who say otherwise, kaya sa amin, it is not comforting. It is not comforting, the assurance that a mere point of order will derail political amendments, especially since, Mr. Speaker, we believe that this is a serious attempt. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we will meet that in any case here precisely because we are on the economic provisions. Commissioner Monsod, a Member of the Constitutional Commission, I heard him say this morning, and he was advising the Members of Congress, if I heard him right, “Cha-cha, do not tinker with the economic provisions.” He said, and I quote here, “the four or five requirements from the foreign investors: better infrastructure, including, of course, other infrastructures such as roads; peace and order; eradication of corruption; and strong regulatory regime.”

What is the opinion of the distinguished Sponsor with regard to the comment of Commissioner Monsod, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, could I request again my dear friend to restate the question?

REP. COLMENARES. There was a statement from a Member of the Constitutional Commission which drafted the 1987 Constitution. He was disagreeing with the move to


amend the Constitution. He said, “What the foreign investors actually need and want is not those amendments in the Charter.” I am not saying he is right or he is wrong, I am just asking the Sponsor what he thinks of this. He said that the foreign investors are saying that they would need infrastructure. They would need better peace and order. They would need the eradication of corruption. They would need a strong regulatory regime. Not one of those amendments has any impact on corruption; it has no impact on peace and order at all. So, he is practically saying that that is useless—I mean, if I were to quote him. But that was the meaning as I interpreted it to be. He was saying that it is not even necessary. What he was saying, “Eradicate mo iyong corruption. Gandahan mo ang peace and order. Iyong regulatory system mo naman dapat may kaunting consistency, hindi iyong papaling-paling ang regulatory regime mo, and of course, may infrastructure.” What does the distinguished Sponsor say of that comment from the Member of the Constitutional Commission?

REP. BARZAGA. The advocates of Charter change have been always saying, have always been reminding and warning everybody that this Charter change is not an instant cure to the problems of our country. It is not a silver tray which will place our countrymen in a much better position. Charter change alone will not be sufficient to achieve all the necessary progress which we are envisioning for the country but, at the very least, we have to present an atmosphere, an economic climate which would be conducive to attract foreign investors.

Aside from this Charter change, based on the studies coming from the World Bank group, it is necessary that the host economy—they are considering the following factors: of course, the host economy, its market size and location; availability of natural resources; macroeconomic performance; infrastructure quality; labor and production cost; quality of governance and institutions; and policies and regulations of host countries regarding foreign direct investments.

On top of that, we have to legislate laws which are necessary and which would be needed by our foreign investors. We have to enact the Anti-trust or Competition Law. We must enact a law pertaining to fiscal incentives rationalization. There must be a law providing incentives for management and transparency. We have to enact the Consumer Protection Act, the Land-Use Policy, the Freedom of Information Act and the WhistleBlowers Protection Act. We have also to make amendments to the Central Bank Charter, the Build-Operate-Transfer Law, the Cabotage Law, the EPIRA, the Sandiganbayan Law, and the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act.

This is not an instant remedy but we have to start somewhere, and I think this change in the economic provisions of our Constitution is a much-needed step in order that we can start the ball rolling so that our dream and aspiration of bringing progress to our country would be achieved.

REP. COLMENARES. Nabanggit ninyo po ang EPIRA. Kaya nga kanina napag-usapan natin iyong isang worry ng ating kababayan na baka maging sentro ang Kongreso ng various powerful and rich lobby groups. Iyong EPIRA, noong ipinasa iyan, dati ang sabi ay ito na ang magpapababa ng presyo ng kuryente. Ano ang nangyari sa atin? Lalong tumaas ang presyo ng kuryente. Oil Deregulation Law, ang

sabi ay ito na ang magpapababa ng presyo ng gasolina, ito ang magpapaunlad sa atin. Ngayon, may sinasabi na naman tayo, this time, not a law but a Charter change, at ang sabi natin, ito ay hindi panacea, but this will create jobs, this will create development. Kasi ito iyong problema natin. Baka na naman po mapariwara tayo katulad noong nangyari doon sa EPIRA, doon sa Oil Deregulation Law at iba pang mga economic laws na ipinasa natin na nagpapahirap pa lalo sa mamamayang Pilipino. Iyon po ang concern dito. There is a promise but there is no factual study of the outcome. In fact, the factual study of the outcome shows na kapag binuksan mo ang ekonomiya mo ay lalong masisira ang lokal na industriya at lokal na negosyo, mga magsasaka mo, at mga agricultural products mo. Iyon po ang concern dito sa ngayon.

REP. BARZAGA. Insofar as the EPIRA is concerned, of course, I have been always saying that laws are dynamic, they are always subject to change. In the event that we shall enact a law, and the desired purpose would not be achieved, then we have the power to amend, modify or even repeal that law. It is always a work in progress. Therefore, if my dear colleague feels that there has to be amendment of the EPIRA, then we have to amend the law.


REP. BARZAGA. Let me add, for example, why we have to open public utilities to foreign ownership. Insofar as electricity is concerned, of course, we have been hearing that there will be brownouts during summer next year. In the case of electricity, we need to increase our generation capacity to address the rising demand for power and to back up the country’s growing economy with high quality and reliable energy supply. Nationwide, the expected additional capacity until 2030 is close to 13,000 megawatts, but only 1,800 megawatts have been committed. The country needs investment to improve its generation capacity. More investments are also needed to strengthen the transmission and distribution infrastructure and for the interconnection of the island grid. It is estimated that the aggregate investment opportunity is about US$25 billion until 2030. Yet, this is the sad part of the study. Electricity rates in the Philippines are said to be among the highest worldwide. It is ranked ninth highest in the world, siyam sa pinakamataas sa buong mundo, at pangalawang pinakamataas sa Asia, next to Japan. The biggest component, 65 percent of the overall retail tariff, is the generation component.

We need to address the scarcity of investments in renewable energy in order to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels that make the cost of producing and delivering electricity high. The country needs resources to discover cheap domestic fossil fuel alternatives and newer efficient technologies. Iyan po ang estado ng elektrisidad dito sa Pilipinas. Laging tumataas, laging may mga pass-on charges. Therefore, what remedy can we do, considering that the investment necessary is US$5 billion? Hindi ba dapat ibukas na natin ang electricity sa mga foreign investors at nang sa ganoon, kung magtataas ang MERALCO ay hindi na tatakbo ang ating mga kaibigan sa Korte Suprema in order to suspend the increase? Lahat naman tayo ay gumagamit ng kuryente. What Filipino company can invest $25 billion in order to increase our generation capacity?


REP. COLMENARES. If I may, Mr. Speaker, kaya tumaas po ang kuryente ay dahil na-privatize ito ng gobyerno. There are certain public utilities that the government should not let go or should not privatize. Kuryente, tubig, transportasyon, komunikasyon—these are utilities na dapat panghawakan, but because the government privatized these, kaya tumaas ang presyo nito. Ngayon, hindi lang siya ipa-privatize, ili-liberalize pa dahil papapasukin ang mga foreigners who do not care one whit about the Filipino people except that they want to earn profit. So, public utilities do not focus anymore primarily on public service but on profit, and public service is merely an afterthought. Iyon po ang problema diyan. Be that as it may, do the proponents believe or think or even consider the fact that selling our public utilities to foreigners could also be a security problem? Would it not be possible that a certain country like China, for example, in buying our public utilities here ay puwede niyang padapain ang buong ekonomiya ng Pilipinas with one massive blackout? Hindi ba puwedeng ganoon iyon? Do we not consider not only the impact of foreign investors on our very important lifeblood, public utilities, but also the security implications, Mr. Speaker? Because now, we are leaving these open to every Tom, Dick and Harry to own our public utilities.

Does it not forbode an ominous trend in our security aspect also because now they will control the energy industry, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, unang-una, iminu-mungkahi ng ating kaibigang Kinatawan na huwag na nating i-privatize ang electricity at ibigay na natin ulit sa pamahalaan. The hard truth, Mr. Speaker, is that normally, the government should not engage in business. Second, insofar as those private enterprises being run by the government, kahit na madali ang kanilang trabaho pero pinatatakbo ng gobyerno, sad to state, the results are very discouraging. Third, definitely, whether it is a foreign investor, whether it is a local investor, it is always subject to abuse. As a matter of fact, my colleague, Attorney Colmenares, our local provider for electricity, MERALCO, is a local corporation and yet, it is allegedly abusing its powers, and that is the reason the group of Congressman Colmenares filed a case against MERALCO before the Supreme Court. Definitely, anybody can make abuses, whether Filipinos or foreigners, but that does not mean that in the event that there will be abuse, there will be no remedy. Restrictions and other provisions can be provided under the law and, of course, we have the inherent power of the Supreme Court to make a judicial review insofar as any action of any person, any agency and any corporation, be it domestic or foreign, and take the necessary ruling and remedy.

REP. COLMENARES. Napag-usapan na po natin kanina na iyong restriction, it is neither here nor there in a sense kasi we do not know. Napag-usapan na natin kanina na puwedeng mayroon pero puwede ring walang restriction. So, hindi na siya factor actually, e. We cannot predict what the future Congresses will do. The question remains, Mr. Speaker, the Sponsors, sa tingin ninyo ba ay may security implications din na dapat ikonsidera sa pagbenta ng public utilities sa mga foreigners dito sa Pilipinas, lalo na at may mga issues tayo ngayong kinakaharap? Iyon lang naman. Is there a possibility na may security implications din ito na dapat ikonsidera ng future Congresses?

REP. BARZAGA. It depends on the future Congresses, and I am sure—and I believe that they will have the necessary wisdom to take into consideration the national interest, most especially if the security of the nation is concerned. Huwag nating isipin na iyong susunod na mga Kinatawan sa atin ay walang pagmamahal sa ating bayan at hindi pangangalagaan ang interes ng ating bansa. I think we are making the wrong assumption here.

REP. COLMENARES. So, ang sagot po ng Sponsor is “yes,” there may be security implications, but the future Congresses will make sure that there are restrictions in the law that will avoid such security implications. Tama po ba ako?

REP. BARZAGA. Definitely, and there are even security implications even if the one managing the electricity in our country happens to be a Filipino corporation. In both cases, the security risk is there.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Una, I do not know where the $25 billion study came from. Maybe I will ask for a copy of that study, but I have seen generation companies, they do not need $25 billion to put up a generation plant. Second, there are certain governments—the government may not get involved in business.

In France, government-owned iyong energy nila, 80 percent is owned by the French government and it has one of the lowest rates in the world. So, hindi foregone conclusion na porke gobyerno ang namamahala diyan ay incompetent na iyan, inefficient na iyan. In any case, kahit na incompetent, the solution is to trim down the inefficiency and the incompetency, punish the corrupt rather than ang solution ay i-sell na natin sa foreigners. Pupunta na po ako sa gist nitong aking interpellation, ang specific provisions. Ang problema po dito ng Sponsors is this: the Constitution seems to have a framework. It seems to have a framework na mayroon siyang mga restrictions talaga at sabi nga ng distinguished Sponsor, may bias siya in favor of Filipinos. Parang may ganoon ang basa ko dito sa philosophy. Ang problema dito sa UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, does this not counter the philosophy, the intent of certain provisions dito na huwag buksan ang certain portions ng ekonomiya at hindi puwedeng i-“unless otherwise” ng Kongreso ang Konstitusyon? Mayroon naman diyan, halimbawa, political dynasties are prohibited sa Pilipinas but, of course, this will be provided by law. Puwede naman iyan and Congress will provide a law to define a political dynasty, but not to “otherwise” political dynasty. Ibig kong sabihin, Congress cannot pass a law saying ang political dynasty ay hindi na bawal dahil ipapatupad ng Kongreso ang pilosopiya ng Konstitusyon with regard to dynasties.

Ngayon, ang “unless otherwise provided by law,” medyo babangga siya sa pilosopiya kasi. Iyon ang problema dito. For example, sa Section 11, sabi natin:

Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW; nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character ....


Ibig sabihin, ang Congress has an option later to say “hindi, 100 percent foreign-owned or 90 percent foreign-owned ang public utility na iyan.”

Next slide, please. Ang dugtong pa dito sa Section 11: “The State shall

encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general public.”

Iyan ang kanyang pilosopiya. Ngayon, ito ang proposed amendment ng Sponsors:

“UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, [T]the participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, ....”

Ang ibig sabihin ng Konstitusyon, ang iyong participation, foreigner ka, transnational ka, siyempre kung 40 percent ang iyong share sa equity, therefore, 40 percent lang ang iyong participation doon sa governing body.

Ang problema dito sa UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW at sa intensiyong bubuksan nito, ano po ang ibig ninyong sabihin diyan? I would like to ask, first, ano ang ibig sabihin ng UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW? Parang nagdi-disagree kayo na ang participation ng foreign investors shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital.

REP. BARZAGA. Unang-una, Mr. Speaker, dapat po nating isipin na ang Saligang Batas is not always permanent. Inasmuch as it is a creation of man, it is always subject to change because it is possible that there might be errors in the future or the provisions would no longer be applicable during the conditions existing at the time of the enactment of the Constitution. Sinasabi po ng Saligang Batas na puwede itong baguhin at nakalagay ang pagbabago rito. In other words, iyong mga probisyon na binanggit ng aking kaibigan, karapatan natin na baguhin iyan. As a matter of fact, kung ang nakalagay diyan ay 60-40, palagay ko, at hindi naman tututol at aaminin ng aking kaibigan, ay puwede natin gawing 70-30 basta nailagay natin iyong UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.

REP. COLMENARES. Ang tanong ko lang …

REP. BARZAGA. All provisions in the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, can be changed except if we shall be changing those provisions which are against the internationally-accepted norm, iyong tinatawag nating jus cogens. Kaya ang provision na iyan, Section 11, puwede nating tanggalin iyan at huwag na nating ilagay iyong UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. We remove the entire Section 11.

REP. COLMENARES. Salamat.

REP. BARZAGA. For as long as we comply with the process provided under the Constitution, we can do that. We can overhaul the provisions of the Constitution as long as the overhauling, as long as the change is in accordance with the manner provided in the Constitution.

Ang pinupunto po ng ating kaibigan ay hindi natin puwedeng baguhin iyang Article XII. Hindi natin puwedeng ilagay, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. I would say, and I think he would agree, as long as the amendatory process is in accordance with Article XVII, then the entire Article XII, Section 3 could be removed.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Linawin ko lang ang tanong, mukhang hindi nakuha,

na-deliver ko ang message, right?

REP. BARZAGA. Baka ho kayo ang hindi nakakuha sa sagot ko.

REP. COLMENARES. Ang nakalagay po sa Konstitusyon, ito po ang tanong ko, sabi sa Konstitusyon, “The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital ....” What is wrong with that? Why do we want to change that? That was the question, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Unang-una po, ibabalik ko na naman ang aking mga naunang…

REP. COLMENARES. What is wrong with that?

REP. BARZAGA. …sagot na kinakailangan we have to open the country for foreign investments. Pangalawa, sinasabi nila that is the principle provided for under the Constitution. That is the intention of the Constitution. Ang ibig ko pong sabihin ay may karapatan tayo na i-insert ang UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. Ang sabi ko po ay hindi lamang iyan ang ating kapangyarihan. Basta sinunod natin ang tinatadhana ng Saligang Batas para sa pag-aamyenda nito ay puwede nating alisin ang entire provision na iyan, mula sa “The State” up to “its capital. ” We can remove that because we can change any provision in the Constitution. Dito, hindi natin pinapalitan ang entire Section 11 at nilalagyan lamang natin ng UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. Iyon po ang sagot ko.


REP. BARZAGA. Kung may karapatan tayong ilagay ang UNLESS PROVIDED BY LAW, we also have the right to remove an entire provision or any article in the Constitution except those provisions which are considered under international law as jus cogens.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, Mr. Speaker, salamat. I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, pero hindi ko puwedeng alisan muna ang tanong hangga’t hindi masagot ang specific question. Ang nakalagay kasi diyan ay ang participation ng foreign investor sa governing body is proportionate to his share in capital. Kung 30 percent ang share niya, 30 percent din ang participation niya sa governing body. Is there something wrong with that? No. Kung 40 percent ang share niya, di 40 percent din ang share niya sa governing body. Is there anything unjust there? No. What the proponents would like to say is this: 10 percent lang ang share niya sa capital pero 100 percent ang participation niya sa governing body. Is


that correct? Why are we going to amend that provision, Mr. Speaker? The question is: what is wrong specifically with that provision, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes, it is very clear here that it is limited only to their proportionate share.

REP. COLMENARES. But you want to change it, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. No, no, no, no. Let me put it this way—let me complete my answer. What would be the proportionate share? What would be the maximum proportionate share of a foreign company insofar as public utilities are concerned?

REP. COLMENARES. One hundred percent.

REP. BARZAGA. It will be 100 percent.


REP. BARZAGA. If it is 100 percent, it is 100 percent. We can lower it to 80 percent.

REP. COLMENARES. That is already provided there, Mr. Speaker. If it is just 100 percent, so, it is just 100 percent share in the governing body. So, why change that? Kung may 100 percent na siya ng share ng capital, di 100 percent ang share niya sa governing body. What is wrong with that? Bakit ninyo gustong palitan iyan? Parang ibig ninyong sabihin na kahit 10 percent lang ang share niya sa capital, siya ang 100 percent na magko-control ng governing body? I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker. I do not think any one of us would agree to that. Why should we allow foreigners to control the governing body of our public utilities when, in fact, 10 porsiyento lang ang share niya sa capital? I do not see anything wrong with that provision and so, why are we even amending that, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. Based on the technical report which has been provided to me, this phrase UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW is necessary for consistency inasmuch as in most of the provisions it is 60 percent Filipino-owned and 40 percent owned by foreigners. In other words, we want to maintain to remove the 60-40 requirement, and that is the reason we have included the phrase UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.

REP. COLMENARES. It has already been removed, Mr. Speaker, ang 60-40 doon sa UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. Presuming that Congress passes a law na 100 percent ang puwedeng capital ng foreign investors sa public utility, may masama ba sa provision na iyan? Kasi ang sinasabi, ang magiging partisipasyon mo sa governing body ay 100 percent din. What is wrong with that? Why are we even changing that? Kasi naka-provide na iyon sa previous paragraph na ang 60-40 ay puwedeng maging 100 percent. So even if you delete that, hindi maaapektuhan kasi kapag pinayagan mo na ang foreigner na mag-own ng 100 percent, ang ibig sabihin diyan sa parte na iyan, he will also own the participation sa governing body na 100 percent din.

Ang problema kasi diyan, Mr. Speaker, is, puwede talagang mangyari na ang batas ay magsabi na 10 percent lang ang capital ng foreigner pero 100 percent ang share niya sa governing body. That is absurd.

That is the specific question, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, Section 11 is only partially reproduced. Let me state the entire provision of Section 11:

Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW x x x

Ang nakalagay po sa Saligang Batas, sa Section 11 right now...

REP. COLMENARES. Sorry, puwedeng balikan ang last slide?

REP. BARZAGA. ... iyong prangkisa or certificate for the operation of a public utility, we have the same limitation of 60 percent and 40 percent.

REP. COLMENARES. That is the one you quoted, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Yes. We continue ...

REP. COLMENARES. Mr. Speaker, i-clarify lang iyan kasi nakalagay diyan na 60-40 UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. Ang ibig sabihin, the law can provide na maging 100 percent ang foreigners and so, hindi na kailangang palitan iyong next paragraph because the next paragraph merely says na ang share mo sa governing body should be equivalent to your share in the capital. E kung 100 percent ang share mo sa capital, e di 100 percent ang share mo sa governing body. Why do we want to change that paragraph? There is nothing wrong with that. Tama lang iyon that your share in the governing body must be equal to your share of the capital. Pangit naman na 10 percent lang ang share ng foreigner pero 90 percent iyong share niya sa governing body. That is really absurd. Why do we even want to change that?

REP. BARZAGA. No, we just want to emphasize that there is also the provision UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW for consistency. Otherwise, it may...

REP. COLMENARES. Next slide, please.

REP. BARZAGA. ...create the impression na sa opening phrase, mayroon tayong UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW but mawawala iyong ...

REP. COLMENARES. Back to next slide.

REP. BARZAGA. ... UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW insofar as the last sentence is concerned.


REP. COLMENARES. Sige, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at that but I will look—my colleagues, please see that, “xxx UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, the participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share xxx” is very just, very normal, very reasonable, and our distinguished Sponsor wants to change that. I could not really take how absurd that would be in the future.

Anyway, can we go back to the first slide kanina, iyong “The Congress shall, upon recommendation” iyan, Section 10, Mr. Speaker. Iyon ang sinasabi ko kaninang philosophy, “The Congress shall, upon the recommendation of the economic...”—of the NEDA—“shall increase the percentages of capital owned by foreigners”—klaro iyan—“UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.” Tapos ang karugtong niya, “The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation ... of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.”

Paano ngayon magkakaroon ng batas na babangga sa next sentence? Kasi the moment you allow foreigners to own 100 percent of these enterprises, babangga ka na doon sa usual na “The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation of enterprises ... wholly owned by the Filipinos.” Ito iyong sinasabi kong babangga ka sa philosophy e.

So, Congress will now be haled to court every so often because it violated the next sentence. Incongruent iyong paglagay kasi ng probisyon.

Kung gusto talagang palitan, di huwag na iyong UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, tanggalin na ang buong paragraph na iyan, at palitan na talaga na puwedeng 100 percent, pati iyan tanggalin:

The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.

Hindi po ba, Mr. Speaker, na dapat tanggalin iyan if we wish to be consistent with the philosophy of the proponents that we should open up and encourage foreign investors, not Filipinos, in owning these enterprises?

REP. BARZAGA. Malinaw naman po ang sinasabi ng Saligang Batas:

xxx recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations xxx at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens xxx

Meaning to say, iyong recommendation, posible na 60 percent ang mga Filipino, 40 percent ang foreigners. However, in the last paragraph, puwedeng ilagay sa batas na hindi na 60-40, kinakailangan ito ay 100 percent Filipino-owned. So, what is wrong with that provision? Do we mean to say na kinakailangan hanggang 60 percent lamang?

REP. COLMENARES. Are you saying that the law may provide 100 percent Filipino or may provide 100 percent foreign? Is that what you are saying, right?

REP. BARZAGA. No, that is not because what I have been saying, and let me read Section 10:

The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. In other words, there would be flexibility on the part of

Congress to reduce or increase that capital participation.

REP. COLMENARES. Precisely.

REP. BARZAGA. However, Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by the Philippines. Meaning to say, puwede ring mag-enact ang Kongreso ng isang batas na 100 percent owned by Filipinos.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, pero puwede rin mag-enact ng batas na 100 percent foreign-owned. Sabi naman natin, it depends on the future Congress, hindi ba?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes.

REP. COLMENARES. The moment Congress enacts a law that says 100-percent owned by foreigners, babangga na siya ngayon sa next sentence at iyon ang tanong. Kasi ang batas na iyan is not a measure that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. It is a measure actually that encourages the capitalization of foreigners. Ganoon lang naman po ang punto na parang bumangga siya sa philosophy. But sige na, Mr. Speaker, I will go to the next slide. I would also want to finish the interpellation. Ito po, “Alienable lands,” Section 3. Sabi natin kanina, mga foreigners puwede naman, may batas that continues to, you know, ipagbawal pa rin sila. Pero puwede ring may batas na maaari silang mag-lease at ang nakalagay diyan, ang lease nila, ayon sa Constitution, ay 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years, but not to exceed 1,000 hectares in area UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. Ang ibig sabihin ay puwedeng magsabi ang Congress na—of course, puwede ring sabihin ng Congress na 100 hectares na lang pero puwede ring i-increase ng Congress, and based on the philosophy of the Sponsors, at i-open up ang bansa sa foreigners, definitely, towards the increase ang philosophy. So, puwede pong maging 2,000 hectares ang limitation diyan, tama po?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. Pero pansinin ninyo, kapag mga foreigners, puwedeng 2,000 hectares. Ano po iyong susunod, iyong citizens may lease not more than 500 hectares? So, hanggang doon na lang ang Filipino citizens, they can acquire not more than 12 hectares? Congress may provide by law for an increase in the leasehold of these foreigners, but Congress cannot provide by law the increase in the leaseholds of the Filipino citizens. Ang ibig sabihin ay tali ang Filipino sa 500 hectares or 12 hectares lang, pero ang foreigners puwedeng 2,000 hectares, puwedeng 3,000 at puwedeng 5,000 hectares.


Hindi po ba parang ang sama naman? Ang Filipino ay ipe-peg mo lang sa ganoon pero ang foreigner, puwede mong taasan iyong kanilang landholdings. Is this something that is good for the Philippines, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands unless otherwise provided by law. So, it is possible that a law might be enacted without…

REP. COLMENARES. Increasing.

REP. BARZAGA. It is possible that a law might be enacted where it does not specify that it is applicable only to foreign corporations.


REP. BARZAGA. It is even applicable to domestic corporations.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. Baka lang po kasi gusto ninyo ring dagdagan ng UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW ang last sentence. Iyon lang naman ang point ko po. Pero parang may unfairness dito na mayroon ka ngayong mga ganoong provisions na hindi nag-a-apply sa Philippine citizens.

Next slide, please. Napag-usapan na natin kanina iyan. Ito, educational institutions po:

Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions.

Iyon po ang nakalagay sa Constitution ngayon. Ano po ang interpretasyon ng distinguished Sponsor diyan na parang pini-peg ng ating bansa, ng ating Konstitusyon, ang ownership sa mga education institutions mainly to Filipino citizens, tama po ba?

REP. BARZAGA. Tama po iyon, and we have a reason for advocating this change in the Constitution. Let me state...

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, I will go to that po, if I may.

REP. BARZAGA. No, let me complete my answer. I think I have the right, Mr. Speaker, to explain…

REP. COLMENARES. I have not asked the question yet, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. …why I am saying “yes.” There has been a decline insofar as higher education in our country is concerned. There has been a reduction—for accountancy, ang pumapasa lamang po ay 37 percent; civil engineering ay 35 percent; marine engineering ay 23 percent. Ito po ang mga resulta sa board examinations. Ang pinakamataas

ay sa medicine na 58 percent. Out of the 500 universities which have been surveyed across the globe, only two in the Philippines were included. These two universities happen to be the University of the Philippines at No. 332 and Ateneo de Manila at No. 360. In contrast, those countries which have opened up to foreign investments their educational institutions, katulad po ng nasa Hong Kong, Singapore and China, were consistently in the top 50 universities for the past three years. The best universities in Asia, namely: University of Hong Kong was ranked 22nd in the world, and the National University of Singapore was in the 28th position. Tayo po ba, matutuwa na lamang na ang ating mga unibersidad dito sa Pilipinas ay pang No. 360 at No. 332, samantalang iyong ating katabing bansa na katulad ng Hong Kong at Singapore ay nasa 22nd and 28th positions? These are the problems confronting our educational system.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sana kung naghintay ang distinguished Sponsor ng tanong kasi hindi iyon ang tanong ko. I am not asking why you are wanting to amend that. Si Congressman Tinio siguro ang magtatanong niyan.

Ang tanong ko ay ang philosophy niyan. Sabi diyan i-reserve, hindi ba, i-reserve sa Philippine corporations, dapat 60 percent owned? Pero ang Congress, may poder naman pala ang Congress na magpasa ng batas kasi nakalagay naman diyan, “The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions.” So, Congress has the power under that provision, Mr. Speaker. What is the philosophy behind that provision?

REP. BARZAGA. Unang-una, simple lamang po. Ang nakalagay diyan ay 60-40 percent. Hindi na makapasok ang mga foreign investors sapagkat they want to a own majority of the shares of stock. E, kung ia-avail pa natin iyong second sentence, “The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino equity,” e di lalo nang papasok dahil imbes na 60-40 percent, gagawin nating 70-30, 80-20 or 100 percent.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. Tama kasi increase lang. Ang sabi ng Constitution ay huwag mong i-decrease, “The Congress may increase.” Tama po?

REP. BARZAGA. Kaya nga. Totoo iyon.

REP. COLMENARES. Tama. So, puwedeng 70-30, 80-20, 100 percent?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes.

REP. COLMENARES. Never lower than 60-40 percent.

REP. BARZAGA. 60-40 percent.

REP. COLMENARES. Tama. Go to the next slide, please.Ito po ang proposal ninyo. The same—

Educational institutions…shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.


So, based sa proposal ninyo, ang Kongreso ay puwedeng magpasa ng batas na nag-i-increase ng foreign capital. Ang ibig sabihin, hindi na 60-40 percent kasi puwedeng 80 percent foreigner, 20 percent Filipino. Tama po?

REP. BARZAGA. Tama po.

REP. COLMENARES. Tama. Hindi po ba siya babangga sa next sentence? E ang next sentence, ang sabi dito ay hanggang 60-40 percent ka lang. Sabi ninyo po kanina, the next sentence actually says na “huwag mong taasan ang 40 percent ng foreigner.” So, babangga sa Constitution iyong batas kasi ang pilosopiya, ang pinapalitan, ang ini-insert natin is a mechanical UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW that will actually counter that.

Look at the next sentence, Mr. Speaker? Which foreigner do you think will come in? The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in the citizens of the Philippines. On this proposal, there was a statement ng isang colleague natin, “this is really useless.” How can this not be kasi this is not the amendment that the Filipino people would want and it does not seem to jibe at all e may philosophy kasi sa susunod. Paano ngayon ii-increase ng Congress ang capital ng foreigner when in the next sentence, dapat lang, sabi ng Constitution, na i-increase niya lang ang Filipino equity? Iyan ang incongruity sa mga proposals diyan, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Let me answer, Mr. Speaker. Katulad nga ng sinabi ni Congressman Colmenares, assuming na maaprubahan ang Charter change, iyong UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, puwedeng gawin ng future Congresses na 70-30 percent ito. On the other hand, assuming that is already the law, 70-30 percent, puwede rin nilang baguhin without violating the Constitution because puwede rin namang taasan ang equity participation ng Filipinos, meaning to say, we can reduce the initial determination of the equity of the foreigners. Kung sa bagong batas 70-30 percent, after one year or two years, puwede na nilang gawing 50-50 percent. We have to remember that as lawyers, we have to construe the Constitution, or any law for that matter when it comes to its provisions, in such a manner that all provisions would be given effect.

REP. COLMENARES. Do you not find anything incongruent there, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. I do not think so.

REP. COLMENARES. The control and administration of educational institutions shall—baka naman gusto ninyo na ring tanggalin iyan? Hindi ba?

REP. BARZAGA. I do not know insofar …

REP. COLMENARES. Would a foreign corporation want to invest in an educational institution where the control and administration—I am not advocating this but I am showing, I hate to say this, the absurdity of the proposal. You are proposing an increased capitalization but you seem to have missed the sentence. Kami, ang posisyon namin—of course, education is very important dito sa Pilipinas and you cannot let foreigners control your educational institutions. We will

have a marketplace curriculum. There will no longer be any curriculum that will teach our children the values of nationalism and how it is to serve our people. Rather, it will be, you know, educational institutions run by foreigners to cater to their foreign markets, to cater to their industries, and we will simply be slave labor for them. But that is our opinion. I am just pointing out to you that the proposals have incongruencies in the whole scheme of things.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to go to the next slide. I think there are just three slides left. It says:

Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least seventy per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. So ang ibig sabihin, puwede naman pala na instead of

70 percent na Filipino owned, puwedeng 70-30 percent, puwedeng 50-50 percent, or puwedeng 100 percent foreign-owned. Ngayon, ang tanong ko po, at ito naman ang karugtong tungkol sa advertising industry. The same goes po for the media, ano. Iyong mga media owners dito ngayon shall be subject to the onslaught of foreign media corporations kasi bubuksan din siya sa foreign investors. Kung nag-wo-worry ang mga media owners dito ngayon, they should really worry because papasukin na tayo dito ng mga big media firms. Let us just go to that. Ang nakalagay sa proposal ninyo, if I am not mistaken, and we can read the Resolution again:

UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, the participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities … shall be limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof … So we are back again to the same issue on that sentence,

and there is nothing wrong with it, dapat, in a sense. Kung ano ang share mo sa inyong korporasyon na capital, di iyon din sana ang participation mo sa governing body. It seems that the proponents are proposing na puwedeng hindi ganoon. Puwedeng ang share niya is small, but his participation in the governing body is larger than his capitalization.

Are we saying that, because they are foreigners, they are better in governing our advertising industry, our media industry? Kahit na maliit lang iyong capital nila, magaling kasi sila mag-manage kaya bibigyan natin sila ng 100 percent participation sa governing body? I do not think that is fair, Mr. Speaker. I really cannot understand why the proponents are wanting to amend that particular part of the Constitution when, in fact, para sa akin, hindi ko nakita ang unjustness niyan.

REP. BARZAGA. Malinaw na malinaw naman po ang probisyon, Mr. Speaker. Based on the Corporation Law, kung ano ang iyong ownership, that will be your participating interest insofar as the board of directors is concerned.

REP. COLMENARES. So, why are we amending that?

REP. BARZAGA. We are not amending. We are just putting in the provision UNLESS OTHERWISE


PROVIDED BY LAW, sapagkat diyan nakalagay na 70 percent ang kinakailangan na Filipino citizens. Kung sakaling babaguhin natin at gawin nating 70:30, 70 ang foreigners at 30 ang Pilipino, ang ibig sabihin, ang participation ng foreigners would be only proportionate to their interest in the corporation, and that would be 30 percent. I do not see any contradicting provision insofar as Section 11 is concerned.

REP. COLMENARES. Mr. Speaker, you said it a while ago, the Corporation Code allows them participation to the extent of their capital. So, there is no need for Congress to provide a law. You said it a while ago. May batas na kasi. Natural na talaga iyan, Mr. Speaker, na kung ano ang share mo sa capital, iyon ang share mo sa governing body. So, why do we even need Congress to provide a law for that particular portion? Iyon lang naman ang tanong.

But it seems that kanina ko pa ito tinatanong pero hindi nasasagot, at least, to my satisfaction. In any case, that is really a very strange provision. Ang implikasyon sa akin niyan is this—kahit 10 percent lang ang capital niya, puwedeng Congress will provide, by law, na ang participation niya sa governing body is 90 percent o 100 percent.

Iyon ang medyo napakasama kasi parang ibinigay na natin sa kanila ang pag-open up. Ang papasok pala na capital maliit lang pero ang share niya sa pag-govern sa media o sa advertising na iyan ay 100 percent.

REP. BARZAGA. I think that would be an absurd legislation and that can be questioned before the Supreme Court …


REP. BARZAGA. … because that would be violative of the equal protection clause.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you are saying that that is an absurd legislation, if Congress will do that there could even be no need for that amendment. In any case, I will just go to the form, what we are doing now. The procedure, Mr. Speaker, I remember, Mr. Speaker, Congressman Barzaga, is that there are three ways of amending the Constitution. One, of course, is the constitutional convention. The second is the people’s initiative. The third is, well, we call it generally as constituent assembly. It is Congress, by three-fourths vote, amending the Constitution.

So, ngayon, ang interpretasyon diyan, of course, there are two interpretations diyan, ano. Ang una, sa constituent assembly, and I am referring to the constituent assembly where Congress is, of course, empowered to do that. They can propose amendments, the Senate and the House in joint session. That was the traditional concept. Iyan naman talaga ang alam natin noon. In fact, ang debate noon, oo, tama, joint session ang Senate at House pero voting separately ba o voting jointly? Mas doon ang debate, and I remember that particular procedure under that amendment.

Now, what we are following is something that was not there before. So, ito iyong bago. Ang sabi ngayon, both Houses need not convene jointly since they can pass the proposed amendments just like in passing a law, katulad ng

procedure natin ngayon. This is new to me because this was not what we—hindi ito ang nakasanayan natin before and, of course, traditions change. I remember, I think Congressman Barzaga was one of those proposing this a long time ago. I think that was during the time of Speaker Nograles and I seem to remember one of those proposing this was Congressman Barzaga saying, “No, no, we can amend the Constitution just like we are enacting a bill na hindi naman kailangan ng joint session.” So, am I correct in that assumption, Mr. Speaker, that Congressman Barzaga was one of those who proposed that, who had that opinion before many years ago, na it can be done with both Houses not jointly in session but separate sessions, tama po?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Speaker, and I relied my proposition based on the constitutional provision.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ang nangyari noong panahon ni Speaker Nograles ay hindi na-carry iyon. What was the reason before of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, kung bakit hindi nila nagustuhan o sa tingin nila ay hindi napapanahon iyong proposal noong panahon ni Speaker Nograles?

REP. BARZAGA. Actually, at that time, I think Charter change—the pulse of the public was against Charter change because they were thinking that insofar as Charter change at that time was concerned, there will be changes in the political provisions of the Constitution.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ang issue dito kasi ay hindi whether or not ang pulso ng publiko ay para sa Cha-cha kundi ang issue dito is, may ideya na brilliant si Congressman Barzaga that the Constitution can be amended through a proposal by both Houses sitting separately. Pero apparently, lone voice siya noon. Kakaunti lang sila noon na nag-a-advocate niyan, and hindi ang majority ang nag-a-advocate noon sa House kaya hindi na-carry ang proposal na iyon. Ang tanong ko lang, Mr. Speaker, ano ang reasons noon or, if you know, may rason ba bakit hindi naaprub ng House ang proposal noon that the Con-Ass can be done by both Houses in separate sessions?

REP. BARZAGA. Actually, I was not the one who decided it, and I think the pulse at that time of the Members of Congress was that they are against it. The Sponsors would not be able to get the required three-fourths of all the Members of the House.

REP. COLMENARES. So ang interpretasyon noon, Mr. Speaker, was dapat mag-joint session ang House at Senate at hindi na-carry ang proposal ni Congressman Barzaga na puwede ang separate sessions.

REP. BARZAGA. No.

REP. COLMENARES. Sa majority noon ng mga Members ng Congress, ang pinag-usapan noon is not whether or not the Senate and the House will have a joint session but okay na ang joint session. Ang pinagdebatehan noon, if I remember right, was whether voting separately or jointly ang House at Senate.


REP. BARZAGA. Actually, at that time, the interpretation adopted by the House is that insofar as Charter change is concerned, considering that the provision of the Constitution does not require separate voting, then voting can be made jointly but this was opposed by the Senate. According sa Senado, inasmuch as we are a bilateral body, kinakailangan ang voting natin ay separate; otherwise, kung joint, sa dami ng Members of the House na 292, walang magagawa kahit na mag- “No” ang 24 na Miyembro ng Senado. Insofar as the present Resolution is concerned, we are categorical, we are very explicit that it will be by voting separately.

REP. COLMENARES. Tama po. So at that time, sabi nga namin kanina, nag-agree naman kami ni Congressman Barzaga na hindi issue ang joint session, na pumayag ang Senado at pumayag ang House na joint session. Ang disagreement is, is it voting separately or jointly? Ang position ng House, “joint session tayo pero voting jointly.” Ang position ng Senate, “joint session tayo pero voting separately.” Doon nag-diverge ang House at Senate noong panahong iyon.

REP. BARZAGA. Actually, the joint session was the position of the House only. The joint session was never the position of the Senate because from the very start, ang sabi ng Senado, “separate voting tayo.”

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, actually…

REP. BARZAGA. So, there was no agreement between the Senate and the House. As a matter of fact, during the last Congress, very explicit ang sinasabi ng Senado, “we do not want any Charter change at this time.”


REP. BARZAGA. Unlike at present where we have a similar resolution filed by Senator Recto before the Senate.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you for the information. I did not know that. So, House lang pala ang may gusto ng joint session but voting separately pero ang Senado pala is thinking otherwise. Malinaw naman iyan sa speech ni Congressman Barzaga na there were two options then: one was that, first, the two Houses may come together in joint session for purposes of amendment; tapos iyong second option, siyempre, both Houses might decide to do it the way they pass ordinary legislations, like what we are doing now. So, nabanggit naman ni Congressman Barzaga, the distinguished Sponsor, that several years ago, he proposed the second method, meaning to say, itong ginagawa natin ngayon, but unfortunately, it was never acted upon. So, I am informed, he said, that at least the House of Representatives is considering this method.

So, ang tanong ko po, why are we doing this method? This is not in the Rules. This was not approved by the House. Why are we following this method? It was very clear from the distinguished Sponsor’s answer kanina that the position of the House is that it has to be a joint session. There was never any rule that I know of that says differently. The Rules of the House from the previous Congresses have always been the same until now, and the rule of the House has always been to interpret that rule as saying that the Senate and the House must have a joint

session. When did we change the rule, Mr. Speaker? I do not remember any discussion as to changing the interpretation. It seems that there is a new interpretation now being propagated in the Committee on Constitutional Amendments that says otherwise. Do we hear a majority of us agreeing to that kind of interpretation? That was the previous rule, Mr. Speaker. I do not see any change in the rules and I do not see why we are here. This is unconstitutional. We are following not only a rule that is not found in the Constitution, but a rule that is not found in the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, before I can intelligently answer the question of my distinguished colleague, may I know, just for the record, what rule has been changed.

REP. COLMENARES. The rule on…

REP. BARZAGA. He is saying that the rule has been changed. So, ang tinatanong ko po, ano bang regulasyon ang ating binago para naman masagot ko po nang maayos.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is the rule proposing amendments to the Constitution, and where Congress, nag-agree naman tayo kanina na Congress, can, of course, under our rules, propose amendments to the Constitution. Nakalagay naman iyan, just like you are passing an ordinary legislation, hindi ba? Ang interpretation diyan ng House has always been that it should be through a joint session. Ang disagreement lang naman talaga doon ay whether voting separately or jointly pero joint session ang position ng House noon. I was here during the time of Speaker Nograles. That was the big issue. The position of the House, and that was admitted by the distinguished Sponsor, was for a joint session. In fact, he mentioned in his speech that he proposed the second method but that was never acted upon. So, why are we following a rule that was not approved by the House?

REP. BARZAGA. The rules of the House are very explicit, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I have repeated the rules of the House during the committee deliberations.


REP. BARZAGA. Rule XX of the Resolution, Proposals to Amend the Constitution. Section 140:

The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its Members, may propose amendments to or revision of the Constitution. Section 141. Form of Proposals and Procedure for Adoption. - Proposals to amend or revise the Constitution shall be by resolution which may be filed at any time by any Member. The adoption of resolutions proposing amendments to or revision of the Constitution shall follow the procedure for the enactment of bills. Section 142. Constitutional Convention. - The Congress…

This is not applicable as nowhere in our rules is it required that there must be a joint session simply because, considering that the Senate is an equal Body, we cannot impose on the Senate any rule. Furthermore, the Constitution


under Article XVII does not require a joint session. It merely requires that Congress convene to propose amendments or revision of the Constitution subject to the condition that such amendments or revision must be approved by three-fourths of all the Members of Congress.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is correct, there is no provision here for a joint session.

REP. BARZAGA. Thank you very much.

REP. COLMENARES. There is no provision here for a joint session. Now, there was no provision for a joint session then, noong panahon na sinasabi ni Congressman Barzaga, the same rule, but Congress has decided that that rule means a joint session. In fact, Congressman Barzaga admitted in his sponsorship speech that he proposed the second method where the House and the Senate separately decide the proposal without a joint session, but that his proposal was not acted upon.

So, this is not the rule that we are saying now. In fact, he admitted in his speech, “I am informed that, at least, the House is considering this method.” Meaning to say, the House has stuck to its rule before that there must be a joint session. What the House may be doing now is that it is considering the method proposed by Congressman Barzaga, but the House has not decided to apply that rule.

So, why are we here, Mr. Speaker? Why are we applying a rule that is not the rule of the House? Walang joint session na nakalagay dito pero wala namang joint session na nakalagay noon. That was the opinion and the rule of the House.

REP. BARZAGA. It can never become a rule unless it is stated in the Rules of the House. The best evidence of our rules would be the Rules as printed and as approved by us on July 24. It is even possible that the Rules of the House of the Fifteenth Congress can be subject to change.


REP. BARZAGA. Kaya iyong sinasabi nating rule noong Fifteenth Congress …

REP. COLMENARES. There was no change, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. … ay hindi nangangahulugan na iyon din ang rule natin ngayon.

REP. COLMENARES. There was no change, Mr. Speaker, we have same words. What was the rule during the time of Speaker Nograles, the time of the—well, during the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fiftheenth Congresses, there was no Cha-cha. Now, the same words, there were no changes. So, how come there is now a change in interpretation, and did the majority of the Members of this House agree or vote to the change of interpretation?

That was the interpretation of all Members of the House before, the same rule read by the distinguished Sponsor. Everyone here agreed that it must be by a joint session, and even the distinguished Sponsor admitted that his proposal that both Houses decide separately on the proposal was not

acted upon. It is not the rule of the House, and his point was that the House is now considering this method. Meaning to say, it is not the rule. So, all these things we are doing now are not even in the rules of the House. That is what I am saying, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, ikaklaro ko lang po. Unang-una, iyon pong sinasabi niyang rule of the House na joint session ay wala sa present rules of the House, at wala rin sa …

REP. COLMENARES. Before.

REP. BARZAGA. … rules during the previous Congresses, this was consistent.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, you are right.

REP. BARZAGA. Pangalawa, ang sinasabi niya ay binabago ko ang interpretasyon ng rule of the House based on my interpretation in the previous Congress and to the present Congress. It is possible that I might be changing my interpretation, but I am changing my interpretation to make the realistic approach na as long as there is three-fourths of all the Members of the House approving it, that would be compliance with the law.

E, ang sabi ko nga, pati ang interpretation ng batas, ang Korte Suprema that has the power to interpret the laws, binabago nila ang interpretation. Tulad ng PDAF, sabi nila constitutional noong 1994, constitutional noong 1996, constitutional noong 2006. The final issue here, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not what we are doing is in accordance with the method prescribed in the Constitution for amending or revising it. Iyon lamang po ang final question.

REP. COLMENARES. Salamat po.

REP. BARZAGA. Naaayon ba sa Saligang Batas ang ating ginagawa na pagbabago ng ilang probisyon sa ating Saligang Batas?

REP. COLMENARES. The interpretation, Mr. Speaker, of the distinguished Sponsor was not approved by the House. So, the new interpretation must be approved by the House first. There is no approval of that interpretation. In fact, there was an admission that the House believed that Sections 140 and 141 require a joint session. So, I mean, I am sure each and every one of us has our own interpretation, and the distinguished Sponsor and I could have our own interpretation, but we cannot make it the rule unless it is approved by the House. I have not heard of any approval or votation on the part of the House to change that interpretation.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are following now. So, for me, this is really unconstitutional, but that is my opinion, Mr. Speaker. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court also said it. The Constitution did not say “joint session.” The Constitution did not say “voting separately,” but every one of the Constitutional Commissioners, even Justice Azcuna who was in favor of this resolution, said “Well, that was our intention pero hindi namin nalagay.” Now, kapag hindi siya nalagay kung joint or separate ang session, there are two possible interpretations. As any person, not necessarily a


lawyer, kahit sinong tao, which one will you follow, the one that was the intention of the Constitutional Commission or something that was not the intention of the Constitutional Commission? Even Justice Azcuna admitted that the intention of the Constitutional Commission was to place there that Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths by both Houses of Congress in joint session, but voting separately, may propose amendments. That was the intention. Ang sabi daw niya, “Manoy, lapse of old age or something, nalimutan nilang ilagay.”

It is clear that here, we have a constitutional provision that could be interpreted both ways and as far as I know, the actual interpretation should be, pupunta ka sa intent. The intent was very clear, admitted even by Members of the Constitutional Commission who agree with Cha-cha, who agree with this Resolution when they said, “iyon ang intention namin pero nalimutan namin, e.” So, I think it behooves Congress to follow the intent of the Constitution rather than an interpretation that was not even approved by this House. Iyon po ang punto ko doon, at hindi ko makita kung bakit we interpret it in a way that was not the intention of the Constitutional Commission. I do not see any jurisprudence or any legal argumentation to support a view that we should interpret it in a way that was not intended by the framers of the Constitution, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Am I now permitted to reply, Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague?

REP. COLMENARES. Yes po.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Please go ahead.

REP. BARZAGA. Unang-una, malinaw na malinaw naman po na sinasabi ng ating Saligang Batas under Article XVII na puwedeng baguhin ang ating Saligang Batas as long as there is approval of three-fourths of all the Members of the House. Tama po ba iyon?

REP. COLMENARES. Tama po. It could be interpreted both ways.

REP. BARZAGA. Hindi rin nakalagay sa Saligang Batas whether it would be voting jointly or separately.

REP. COLMENARES. Tama po. It could be both ways.

REP. BARZAGA. Okay. Ang sinasabi po ng ating kaibigang si Congressman Colmenares, sapagkat ang layunin ng mga Members ng Constitutional Commission ay magkaroon lamang ng unicameral body, noong matalo iyong unicameral body, through inadvertence, ay hindi nailagay iyong voting jointly. Tama po ba iyon?

REP. COLMENARES. Tama, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Sinasabi rin ng ating kaibigan na as a lawyer, wala siyang alam na jurisprudence?

REP. COLMENARES. Na nagsasabi na ang interpretasyon should be against the intention of the framers.

REP. BARZAGA. Mahirap po nating makita ang intention. In any event, I …

REP. COLMENARES. The intention is clear, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Okay.

REP. COLMENARES. It was admitted by the Members of the Constitutional Commission …

REP. BARZAGA. Okay.

REP. COLMENARES. … that the intention was to put in “voting separately” in the joint session. That was clear, and even Justice Azcuna who is in favor of this Resolution, admitted that that was the intention.

REP. BARZAGA. Unang-una, ito pong ating Saligang Batas, the 1986 Constitution, was ratified by an overwhelming majority. Kasama po sa na-ratify iyong constitutional provision na three-fourths of all the Members pero walang nakalagay na “voting separately” and “voting jointly.” Posible po na mayroong inadvertence pero noon pong ako ay nag-aaral ng batas, sa subject na Statutory Construction ay natatandaan ko po iyong isang prinsipyo, iyong tinatawag nating casus omissus. Meaning to say, a case omitted is to be held as intentionally committed. Kapag mayroong omission, the presumption is that it has been intentionally omitted. I would cite or quote the ruling made by the Supreme Court in the case of Francisco Chavez vs. Judicial Bar Council dealing with membership sa JBC. Nakalagay po sa Saligang Batas, one member lamang pero ang sabi natin, ang practice natin ay dalawa dahil isa sa House at saka sa Senado. Iyon po ay hindi rin nabago ng Members ng Constitutional Commission kasi one member lang ang nilagay nila coming from Congress based on the assumption that there will be only a unicameral body. Ano po ang sabi ng Supreme Court? Relying on the doctrine of casus omissus, a case omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted. The principle proceeds from a reasonable certainty that a particular person, object or thing has been omitted from a legislative enumeration. Pursuant to this, the court cannot, under its power of interpretation, supply the omission even though the omission might have resulted from inadvertence or because the case in question was not foreseen or contemplated. The court cannot supply what it thinks the legislature would have supplied had its attention been called to the omission as that would be judicial legislation.


REP. BARZAGA. E kapag sinabi po ng Korte Suprema: “A, ang kailangan dito joint session kayo.” Aba e, sasabihin natin sa Korte Suprema, “that is judicial legislation and that would be a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.” Dito po sa kaso ng Judicial Bar Council, ang pinag-uusapan po ay iyong membership na isa lamang ang manggagaling sa Kongreso. Sapagkat ang iniisip nga noon ng mga Members ng Constitutional Commission that it will be a unicameral body, kaya isa lang ang nilagay nilang Miyembro ng Kongreso. Pero ang sabi natin, “Inasmuch as we are a bicameral body,


the practice is one Member from Congress, and one member from the Senate.” E ang sabi ng petitioner: “violation iyan ng Constitution.” Ano ang depensa natin? “That is not the intent.” Pero sinabi ng Supreme Court that it will amount to judicial legislation. Kaya ang nangyari sa ngayon, on the basis of this decision, isa lamang ang Miyembro na nanggagaling sa Kongreso in spite of the fact that we are two, we have a bicameral body in our Congress. Kaya po, may jurisprudence dito.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, okay na. Mr. Speaker, yes.Well, there will always be a hundred nights of debating this, the presumption over the actual statement of the intent of the Constitution. Why do we deem it intentional when the framers of the Constitution say it was unintentional? So why do we use the presumption to say that, “oh, well, he omitted it,” so, we just deem it as intentional but they are saying it was not intentional. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I think the problem here is if we go up to the Supreme Court, that will be an issue; the fact that this is not the rule of the House now will also be an issue. That is an interpretation of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments.

Last na lang, according to the rule itself, it will pass as if parang bill, para siyang bill. May we know what is the Senate position now with regard to this particular Cha-cha, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. The Senate position is the same as the position of the House. As a matter of fact, the resolution, Resolution No. 1, in the Senate, is practically the same as Resolution No. 1 of the House. I have copies of this resolution and I am willing to provide a copy to my interpellator, Congressman …

REP. COLMENARES. Colmenares.

REP. BARZAGA. … Colmenares.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a copy of that resolution. In fact, I did remember the distinguished Sponsor as saying that the Senate also agrees with us, and the basis of the distinguished Sponsor are: one, not one of the Senators has publicly contested/stated that the course we have taken is unconstitutional; two, Senator Recto filed a resolution similar to our resolution; and three, the resolution has the same wording as ours, “RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, by a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its Members, each House voting separately, and pursuant to Article XVII of the Constitution. ”

The question, Mr. Speaker is, how can we deduce from these facts that the Senate agrees with us? The fact that no Senator has publicly stated that the course we have taken is unconstitutional means that they agree with us but sometimes, they just do not want to intervene in the affairs of the other House. Maybe they have their own opinions, but they just do not want to say you are doing something unconstitutional.

Second, the fact that a Member of the Senate filed a resolution means that the Senate agrees with us, but has the resolution been approved? The fact that the resolution has not been approved does not mean actually that the Senate agrees with us; otherwise, they would have approved the resolution.

Third, look at the wordings of our resolution, “RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, by a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its Members, each House voting separately.” If we agree that this is a separate session at hindi ito joint session, why do we even need to say, “voting separately”? It is not a surplusage? Of course, we are in a separate session now, we do not need to put in “voting separately” because we definitely have to vote separately because we are not in a joint session. But does not the fact that the Senate placed there, “voting separately” means that the Senate may interpret this as the Senate and the House in joint session but voting separately, because there is no need for the phrase “voting separately” if the Senate believes that this is not a joint session?

So, actually, Mr. Speaker, the very words of the Senate resolution, in fact, teaches us that the intention of the Senate may not be a separate session but actually is a joint session, otherwise they would not have placed there, “voting separately,” because that is an unnecessary phrase in the resolution, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Does Congressman Colmenares agree that insofar as the prayer is concerned, the prayer in the House as well as in the Senate would be the same?

REP. COLMENARES. I think so, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. Okay, it is the same. In the Senate, it is expressly provided, “RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, by a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its Members, each House voting separately, … to propose amendments to Article XII, Article XIV and Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.” Iyan po ang wording …

REP. COLMENARES. Are they the same, Mr. Speaker, the Senate and the House resolutions? Pareho po ba sila?

REP. BARZAGA. Practically the same.

REP. COLMENARES. No differences, so it is the same resolution?

REP. BARZAGA. It depends whether it is substantial or merely a clerical difference but insofar as substance is concerned, they are the same.

REP. COLMENARES. Mr. Speaker, sa Section 3 of the Senate resolution, kanina sabi ng ating House doon sa lease, ang Filipino citizens may not lease more than 500 hectares. Tinanong ko kanina iyon. Bakit natin na-peg diyan? Bakit natin na-peg sa 500 hectares para sa Filipino? Hindi ko alam, hindi ko na maalala ang sagot doon. But the Senate provides UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. So, tayo, iyong foreigner lang ang tinaasan natin ng leasehold pero ang Senate, both the foreigner and the Filipino ang tinaasan nila.

REP. BARZAGA. Well …

REP. COLMENARES. Kaya may difference ho talaga ang Senate at ang House, at hindi nila ginagamit iyong mga ilang questions ko kanina. May difference po. Ang tanong


ko po ay ganito: if this is going to be similar to, you know, like a bill, may bicameral committee hearing or meeting ba ito, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. Definitely.

REP. COLMENARES. They will be trying to reconcile?

REP. BARZAGA. In order to reconcile the provisions which are not the same, the provisions of the Senate as against the provisions of the House.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. That is expected, as what has happened.


REP. BARZAGA. As what you have pointed out.

REP. COLMENARES. Napaka-powerful, Mr. Speaker, ng bicameral committee. Pero pagdating dito at nasa bicameral committee na, halimbawa, na-resolve na nila at na-reconcile, may poder pa ba tayo to ratify it?

REP. BARZAGA. Definitely.

REP. COLMENARES. May we know…

REP. BARZAGA. Otherwise, if we will not ratify it by three-fourths vote of all the Members of the House, then I am sure that there will be issues presented before the Supreme Court that there has been no compliance with the requirement of a three-fourths vote of all the Members of Congress.

REP. COLMENARES. So, will we be allowed to interpellate if there are changes? Halimbawa, may binago sila sa ating proposal, are we allowed to ask questions?

REP. BARZAGA. I think the question would be addressed to the Majority Floor Leader. Unfortunately, I am not a member of the Rules Committee.

REP. COLMENARES. Actually, iyong karanasan natin sa ratification, it is just ratified by ayes and nays. Wala na siyang—siyempre tapos na iyan on Third Reading, na-debate na iyan and so, talagang ayes and nays na lang iyan.

REP. BARZAGA. Yes.

REP. COLMENARES. Approved na lang iyan upon ratification. Tama, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. A seasoned legislator like Congressman Colmenares could always stand and ask for a nominal voting because we are tackling a very important provision in the Constitution.


REP. BARZAGA. So, hindi puwede iyong ayes and nays. Dapat ilagay sa record kung sino ba ang pumapayag dito at

sino ang hindi. In the event that a motion would be presented by Congressman Colmenares, I would not only second his motion but I will also vote in favor of his motion.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am actually very sure that you will vote in favor of that

motion, although I am very sure hindi na siyempre normal na tradisyon natin dito ang ratification dahil mag i-interpellate na naman tayo, tatanungin natin iyong mga Representante sa Bicameral Committee kung bakit tayo pumayag doon at ano ba ang ibig sabihin noon? No, it is just a simple ratification. I would like to thank our distinguished colleague. I am sure we will be outvoted but it will be a good debate siguro doing that.

The problem is this: the Bicameral Committee is a powerful committee. We saw that in the Cybercrime Law. They have inserted so many provisions that are nonexistent in the bills of both Houses of Congress. So, ang tanong, hindi pa ba puwede sa Bicameral Committee, Mr. Speaker, na maipasok doon iyong term extension and other political amendments? I am sure you are going to say no, but can we really assure our people na doon sa bicam ay hindi maipapasok iyon? What is the basis of our assurance, Mr. Speaker, na hindi papasok iyong term extension sa bicam?

REP. BARZAGA. Unang-una, iyong term extension ay talagang hindi papasok rito sa Bicam because the term “extension” is entirely foreign. It is entirely separate and distinct sa Charter change na pinag-uusapan natin ngayon na economic provisions.

Pangalawa, malinaw naman ang ating rules. Kinakailangan na any resolution pertaining to change in the Constitution should be referred to the proper committee at ito ay sa Committee on Constitutional Amendments.

Three, assuming the worst scenario na pumasok iyan sa Bicam, that does not mean that we do not have any remedy. That does not mean na walang magagawa ang ating kababayan. We can always go to the Supreme Court and ask the Supreme Court to declare that insertion to be unconstitutional because we have violated our own rules insofar as making changes in the Constitution is concerned.


REP. BARZAGA. O kung hindi pa maniwala ang Supreme Court, alam naman ni Congressman Colmenares na puwede tayong mag-protesta sa kalye.


REP. BARZAGA. I think that will be a very unpopular move. Kung sino man ang mag-a-approve sa Bicam ng inclusion of political provisions in the Constitution, they might forget their being public officials. Definitely, they will not win.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the very candid admission of the distinguished Sponsor na posible ngang maipasok sa Bicam. Ang Bicam, in the case of Tolentino with regard to VAT, with the case of Cybercrime Law, mga alien provisions ang na-insert doon sa Cybercrime Law, so talagang napaka-powerful ng Bicam.


I would just like to end, Mr. Speaker, but there are two questions here. One is on the issue of economics. Is this really going to save our country? Is this going to be, in fact, crucial to our development?

The second issue is on procedure, which I have asserted and the distinguished Sponsor has ably defended, that it is unconstitutional on my part but in the distinguished Sponsor’s position, it is constitutional.

Let us go to the gist, to the essence of this thing. Our condition today of poverty has no relation at all to the Constitution. Our condition today of poverty is brought about by large-scale corruption, by this system where millions of farmers do not genuinely own their land, where millions of workers cannot have decent pay, where public service is privatized, where foreign transnational corporations come in and run aground our resources and still this concept of foreign development, foreign investor-led development, this has been done in so many decades. Notwithstanding the constitutional restrictions, they have managed to invest here with more than 60 or 40 percent. It has been done before. Lahat ng Presidenteng pumunta ng abroad, pagdating dito, ang sabi, “I brought with me $100 million worth of investments, or $1 billion worth of investments.” Kung iisipin mo, ang dami ng trillion dollars na naipasok dito, umangat ba ang buhay natin? Hindi. Kasi hindi iyan ang solusyon. Ang solusyon is a genuine land reform para ma-unleash ang potensiyal ng mga farmers natin, para maging viable economic factor sila sa lipunan. Walang bansa na nag-develop sa mundo na kalahati or more than half of its population are farmers na walang kapera-pera at grabe ang kahirapan.

Ang second na proposal ng Bayan Muna at ng Makabayan bloc always has been, nationalist industrialization, na dapat buhusan ng gobyerno ng kapital ang lokal na industriya—steel industry, large manufacturing industry, copper smelting plant. How can we develop, Mr. Speaker, ni pako hindi natin ma-produce? We do not have a steel industry. Ang national industrialization, dapat buhusan iyan ng lahat ng suporta, ang lokal na negosyo, lokal na industriya, iyon ang solusyon. We will not prohibit absolutely foreign investments, but we need an industrial-base. We cannot continue to be an agricultural country.

Simple lang iyan. By analogy sa amin sa probinsiya namin sa Negros, bakit tayo produce nang produce ng asukal? Para ibenta natin sa abroad at gawin nilang tsokolate, tapos ibebenta nila nang mas mahal. Bakit hindi mismo tayo gumawa ng factories na gagawa ng tsokolate at tayo ang magbenta sa kanila?

I dream of the day, Mr. Speaker, when we will be able to produce our own electric fan. But the way we are doing that, in a foreign investment-driven economy, we will never be able to produce our own electric fan because it will always be an assembly stage for us from these foreign investors.

Iyan ang mali dito sa foreign investor-driven economy, Mr. Speaker. We need a national industrialization and the government shall not be allowed to get away with it by saying “wala tayong kapital.” Hindi ito puwedeng sabihin ng gobyerno dahil may kapital ang gobyerno, Mr. Speaker, and there are trillions of pesos, if only these were used in support of local industries. Dati-rati mayroon pa tayong steel industry, at nakayanan naman pala natin, hindi ba? Kaya lang ayaw ng gobyernong na pakinggan iyong demand natin of a national industrialization.

So ngayon, bubuksan natin ang ekonomiya, and we are standing pat against it because this will cripple our economy, this will destroy our farmers, and this will destroy our local industries and local businesses, Mr. Speaker.

We implore our colleagues in the House of Representatives not to approve this Resolution because this will be the death of our local economy.

Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, distinguished Sponsor.

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, may I just make a very brief rejoinder.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Please proceed.

REP. BARZAGA. Unang-una, ito pong pinag-uusapan nating restrictive economic provisions ay nagsimula pa po ito noong 1935 Constitution. It was carried over in the 1973 Constitution at muling binuhay at na-retain noong 1986 Constitution. Mula noong 1935 hanggang sa ngayon, although we have given Filipinos the opportunity to develop our natural resources, to improve industries in the Philippines for a period of 79 years, walang pagbabago at tuloy na dumadami ang mga naghihirap sa atin. Katulad nga ng sinabi ni Congressman Colmenares, assembly plant lamang ang nangyayari sa Pilipinas when it comes to electric fans. E paano naman po magtatayo rito ng planta ang mga gumagawa ng electric fan kung sila mismo ay hindi makabili ng lupa at makapagtayo ng factory para sa pagma-manufacture ng mga electric fans? Our problem is that we do not have sufficient investments in the country and, therefore, we have to create an atmosphere, isang climate na attractive sa foreign investors, and one of the factors would be liberalizing the economic provisions. Base naman po sa studies, lahat ng bansa na katabi ng bansang Pilipinas na nagbigay ng attractive incentives like opening up their national patrimony to foreign investors, lahat po ng maraming bansa na nagkaroon ng maraming foreign direct investment ay nagkaroon ng reduction in poverty. Kaya ang tanong ko po: iyon bang paghihirap ng ating mga kababayan ay hahayaan na lang natin na dumami nang dumami at ma-satisfy na tayo sa seven percent growth samantalang mayroon naman tayong puwedeng gawin? Ang pinapaliwanag ko pa nga po, this is only to give some flexibility to future Congresses. Kaya sa tingin po namin ay napapanahon na para i-modify natin o baguhin ang restrictive economic provisions, and I wish to emphasize that 44 percent of the Filipinos are in favor of these proposals to change the Constitution, 19 percent lamang ang may ayaw, at iyong remaining 35 percent are still undecided.


REP. BARZAGA. Finally, ito naman po para maging effective ay kinakailangang aprubahan muna ng nakararaming Pilipino.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just one short point lang. Hindi problema ang Konstitusyon and therefore, ang pag-amyenda sa kanya ay hindi solusyon.

Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you, Gentlemen.


SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATIONOF R.B.H. NO. 1

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend the consideration of Resolution of Both Houses No. 1.


The consideration of Resolution of Both Houses No. 1 is hereby suspended.


CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. NO. 1396

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Resolution No. 1396.

May I ask that the Secretary General be directed to read only the title of the measure.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.*

The Secretary General is directed to read only the title of the measure.

With the permission of the Body, and since copies of the measure have been previously distributed, the Secretary General read only the title thereof without prejudice to inserting its text in the Congressional Record.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Resolution No. 1396, entitled: RESOLUTION HONORING AND COMMENDING THE COUNTRY’S OUTSTANDING POLICE OFFICERS

IN SERVICE (COPS) OF 2014 AWARDED BY THE METROBANK FOUNDATION, INC., ROTARY CLUB OF NEW MANILA EAST AND PSBANK.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we adopt House Resolution No. 1396 in consolidation with a similar measure, House Resolution No. 1407.

ADOPTION OF H. RES. NO. 1396


House Resolution No. 1396 is adopted, in consolidation with House Resolution No. 1407.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, we are in receipt of House Resolutions No. 1369 and 1370, commending certain awardees of the Metrobank Search for Outstanding Philippine Soldiers.

I move that these Resolutions be consolidated, House Resolutions No. 1369 and 1370 with House Resolution No. 1378 which we have adopted yesterday, August 26, 2014.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion for consolidation is approved.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn the session until next Monday, September 1, 2014.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The session is adjourned until Monday, September 1, 2014 at four o’clock in the afternoon.

It was 8:05 p.m.

Published by the Publication and Editorial Service, Plenary Affairs BureauThe Congressional Record can be accessed through the Downloads Center of the official website

of the House of Representatives at www.congress.gov.phddc/09032014/1759

* See MEASURES CONSIDERED (printed separately)

Documents

Congressional Record wednesday, august 27, 2014 resolutions house resolution no. 1386, entitled: “a resolution directing the house committee on health to conduct an