2005 CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION To Propose the Revision of the 1987 Constitution. TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS SESSION NO. 17 December 13, 2005

Transcription

1 2005 CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION To Propose the Revision of the 1987 Constitution TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS SESSION NO. 17 December 13, 2005 OPENING OF THE SESSION At 10:34 a.m., the Presiding Officer, Commissioner Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr., called the session to order. The session is called to order. NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PRAYER Everybody is requested to please rise to join in the singing of the national anthem. [Singing of the national anthem] Please remain standing as the Honorable Angelo Abarico will lead us in prayer. COMMISSIONER ABARICO. Our Dear Heavenly Father, Creator of the Universe and everything therein, Who guides the destinies of men and nations, we implore the Divine Guidance as we strive to finish this task assigned to us by our country and people and the national leadership. Heavenly Father, You have witnessed our strivings and struggles even amidst conflicting views and differences. But with Thy Divine Intervention, we are very hopeful and optimistic that we shall be able to finish our task in the spirit of unity and solidarity, reflecting the wisdom of our people, and the genius of our race. Heavenly Father, this morning please continue to guide us and inspire us to continue doing our arduous task for nation-building. All these things we implore, in the Name of our Lord, Thy Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Amen. SUSPENSION OF SESSION Session suspended. It was 10:38 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 10:54 a.m., the meeting resumed. 1

2 Session is resumed. Floor Leader. COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT Mr. Chair, I move that we approve, on third and final reading, the Committee Report on the Form of Government. No objection? Is there any objection to the approval? The gentleman from COMMISSIONER ESPINA. We go to it section by section. No, we have already COMMISSIONER ESPINA. Article by The Form of Government? This is the Form of Government. This is the third and final reading. We have approved this on second reading already. COMMISSIONER ESPINA. Are we in plenary? Yes, of course. COMMISSIONER ESPINA. I have no problem if it gets approved. My problem only is I made reservation to speak against it. But I know that we have already practically decided in favor of the shift. I just want that our thoughts be recorded on this very important and vital issue. I made reservation several plenaries ago. The Floor Leader. Do you think this is? Mr. Chair, this is the third and final reading. The only thing to do here is to approve or disapprove, unless we suspend the rules to allow Commissioner Espina to deliver his speech. COMMISSIONER ESPINA. To explain my vote. 2

3 Ah, you want to explain your vote? COMMISSIONER ESPINA. I want to explain my vote against the motion. Okay. COMMISSIONER ESPINA. But I will accept the decision of the body. I just want to explain my vote because this is a very vital issue. COMMISSIONER ROMUALDO. Chairman, may I request that the Honorable Commissioner Gerry Espina be allowed to explain his vote. Thank you so much. SUSPENSION OF SESSION Session suspended. It was 10:56 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 10:57 a.m., the meeting resumed. The session is resumed. The distinguished Floor Leader. Mr. Chair, I reiterate my motion to approve on third and final reading, the Committee Report on the Form of Government. And I also move that we recognize Commissioner Espina to explain his vote. No objection? The gentleman has two minutes. COMMISSIONER ESPINA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak against what I feel is the consensus of the majority of those who are here today. I am against the shift to the parliamentary system because of the apprehensions I had mentioned several times already that it could lead to chaos because of the possibility of frequent elections, which have been experienced in countries where they have the parliamentary system of government. Especially because the Filipinos seem to have the Latin character of being highly personalistic and emotional, even, especially so on political and partisan issues. Mr. Chairman, it has been argued that we should adopt the parliamentary system because most countries in the world today have the parliamentary system as their system of government. I say this is more a product of history, rather than a merit of the system itself. I say it is a product of 3

4 history, because many of the countries having parliamentary system today were former colonies of England, and therefore when they became independent, they patterned their system after their mother country, in the same manner that the Philippines patterned our system after that of our mother country, the US which has a presidential system of government. I remember reading that the sun never set on English soil. That s how vast the colonies of England was, during that time, and when these countries became independent, they followed the system of government of the mother country, not because of the merit of it as a system, but because of historical ties and tradition, which made them closer to their motherland. This morning, in the newspaper, the result of a survey was published, saying that over 60% of our people are against the shift to the parliamentary system. This, to me is a clear position of our people. While 35% is published to be against amendment, a bigger percentage is against the shift to parliamentary, which is above 60% nationwide. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the day will not come that our people will blame this Commission for opening the door to chaos in our political system, more particularly in the stability of our political leadership. While the formula provides that no vote of no confidence may be done during the first year, the argument being that by having that provision we can avoid frequent elections, it is, to my mind, the key to the possible abuse of the leader within the parliamentary system because within one year he cannot be held accountable, he cannot be removed from office. It is like saying Okay, you can be corrupt for one year. We will not call a vote of lack of confidence. That, to me, is against national interest. If we are to adopt in our system a mechanism for political accountability, this, Mr. Chairman, and the other arguments I have presented convinced me that we should instead abolish the Senate, have only one legislative body but maintain the presidential system of government, improve the mechanism so that impeachment can be realized and the tenure of a president who is, clearly, a corrupt and abusive president. The solution is not to abandon the present system but to improve on it, Mr. Chairman. And, finally, I would like to request, this is not a motion, I would like to request that this body agrees to commission a survey by two well-known survey firms, Pulse Asia and Social Weather and make the result of such survey a guiding light to us all on the question as to whether we should shift from the present presidential to the parliamentary system. This is very important in the face of what has been published, that Pulse Asia, in a survey conducted during the month of October, found out that over 60% of the respondents do not approve of the change from presidential to parliamentary system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to speak my mind on this very fundamental issue and I hope that all of us will not be blind to the potential danger, especially the political chaos and instability, which I am confident will happen if we adopt the parliamentary system. Thank you. I move that we recognize Commissioner Villanueva to explain his vote. Ano bang boto mo? COMMISSIONER ABARICO. I would also like to explain my vote. Commissioner Villanueva. 4

5 COMMISSIONER VILLANUEVA Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course, my vote is against the shift from--- The gentleman has two minutes to explain his vote. COMMISSIONER VILLANUEVA. Mr. Chairman, I honestly believe, and up to now I am convinced, that we need not shift or we need not change the form of government. What is simply needed is an improvement of what we have in the presidential form of government. And that is why my proposal was for a modified unicameral, unitary presidential form of government. You will remember that, when we started convening after we have made the consultations, I warned this assembly that it is dangerous to insist that the findings of the consultation, a process which is flawed, is a shift to parliamentary. Now we see a scientific process by which they were able to determine from the people their inclination. And it is very clear that more than 60% of the people are against a shift from the presidential to parliamentary form of government. My only desire standing here and explaining my vote is to forewarn this Commission that insisting on our findings, based on the consultations, that 70% of those we consulted voted in favor of the shift, might be a move that will mislead the leadership of this country to believe something that is not correct. If we convince the leadership that our findings, based on a very flawed process, is actually the basis of our decision. When you have two processes, one done in a very flawed manner and one done scientifically, well, I don t have to tell you what to believe. But Pulse Asia survey is a scientifically conducted survey and it shows that more than 60% of the people are against a shift to the parliamentary. Thank you. Majority Floor Leader. May I vote that we recognize Commissioner Abarico to explain his vote? The Honorable Commissioner Abarico is recognized. Two minutes. COMMISSIONER ABARICO. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Listening to the eloquent speech of our distinguished colleague, Gerry Espina, I was almost tempted to change my vote. I share his misgivings and his apprehensions, Mr. Chairman, about this shift to parliamentary form of government. But, as he has submitted, this is the wave of history, sweeping the globe. And who are we to stand in the path of the forces of history, Mr. Chairman? While we oftentimes fear the unknown, we should have the courage, Mr. Chairman, to change for the better if there is reasonable ground for that change. I also want to comment that before, Mr. Chairman, we were told not to take a stand on this shift until we have consulted the people in the provinces, in the regions. But now, after the consultation showed the participants in these consultations were in favor of a shift, we are told that the consultation was defective. But, Mr. Chairman, that is beside the point. Now we are about to vote. I am on the side of historical change for our country, hoping that it will be the best for our country and people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I vote yes. 5

6 The distinguished Floor Leader. I move that we recognize Commissioner Catan to explain his vote. Commissioner Catan has two minutes. COMMISSIONER CATAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to bring out a few points of my explanation of why I vote Yes to the parliamentary system under the report of the Committee. I m holding here, Mr. Chairman, a piece of history. Sometime in March 18, 1972, I spoke in favor of the parliamentary form of government. That is about 33 years ago. And, also, like now what I am doing, explaining my vote, why I voted for parliamentary form of government. I d just like to bring out an important issue. I was really very proud of the 320 delegates. We had the time just to touch on and deliberate on the form of government. It took us three months. And so it was really a very exhaustive study. I have also the committee reports. I m privileged to be able to keep because, as you know, Marcos tried to change our reports but I was able to keep them, the committee reports. Very exhaustive! And I believe that you may have friends there, even probably a son or relatives that were members of that 1973 ConCon. And I d like to also say that I had the privilege also of being with our good friends here; maybe five or seven or us. But this is something that I would like to tell you, that the method that we used was very exhaustive. We had all the time, the process was really correct. And the idealism of the ConCon delegates, also, it cannot be less than what I experienced and observed here. So I will not go along that the process that we are doing here is not exhaustive. The process that we had in 1972 was very exhaustive. And I also remember, Mr. Chairman, when I was not yet a member of this august body, I attended the deliberation and there were many, many good talks both in favor and against. I m tempted to say -- I would like to adopt all those that spoke in favor for parliamentary form of government, I think, as it was relevant in 1972, it is still as relevant now. So, as one who would like to try something that has yet to be delivered, it is all right for us, it is very safe for us, to try now this parliamentary form of government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Floor Leader. I move that we recognize Commissioner Calisin--- SUSPENSION OF SESSION Session suspended. Session suspended. It was 11:13 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 11:13 a.m., the meeting resumed. 6

7 Session is resumed. I move that we have a roll call vote. We will now go on a nominal voting. The Floor Leader may please call the roll for nominal voting. Those who would like to explain their votes, you may explain. You have two minutes to explain your vote. Only two minutes. Abarico has already voted. Abueg. Yes. Abueva. CHAIRMAN ABUEVA. Yes. Acevedo. Absent. Adamat. COMMISSIONER ADAMAT. Yes. Amin. Angeles. COMMISSIONER ANGELES. Yes. Apostol. Azurin. Bautista. Bello. Bengzon. Bengzon? COMMISSIONER BENGZON. Yes. Bian. Bondoc. Calisin. COMMISSIONER CALISIN. Yes. I ll explain. The gentleman has two minutes. 7

8 COMMISSIONER CALISIN. Thank you, thank you your honor. According to that paper of Commissioner Bondoc as traditionalist as coined by Commissioner Pedrosa, I think it s also unfair airing this over to the entire archipelago of the Philippines by the media without giving justice to those who are (silent) to explain also the sentiments of those who conducted, going around the archipelago, the consultations. In the Bicol Region, I was the team leader for four provinces, namely Catanduanes, Sorsogon, Albay and Masbate. I and Commissioner Acevedo were part of the team. And in order that this be explained also fairly to the people, Commissioner Acevedo explained against federalism while I explained in favor of parliamentary federal. Both of us there presented fairly to our audience and participants in the consultation. The result of the voting was 40 in favor of federalism and 13 only against federalism and the parliamentary was almost overwhelmingly won over the traditionalists who maintain presidential system. So, I think, the one that is explained there as the basis of why they are voting against federalism or parliamentary shift, quoting the survey of Pulse Asia and other survey agencies, is also questionable because they asked the people to vote. Were those people given clear explanation of what they voted upon, whether presidential, parliamentary, or unitary to federalism? In our consultation, the people who voted pro and anti were presented options before the voting, exhaustive discussion and explanation. The question is, were these people who voted and consulted by the survey agency, are these subjects, the product, which they voted upon, explained also and understood by them? That is why we have to be fair in this. But without, of course, a bias, this is fair, and even in my analysis as a professor of governance in the tertiary and also in the graduate school, in my analysis, there is already a necessity to shift from the present system to a parliamentary, from unitary to the federal. That is why my vote, your honor, is in favor of the shift. My vote is yes. May I move that we recognize Commissioner Bengzon? Commissioner Bengzon has two minutes. COMMISSIONER BENGZON. Good morning, Commissioners. I just want to make it on record why my vote is a resounding yes to the shift from presidential to parliamentary. I was asked this, also, yesterday on national TV and I would, again, reiterate why. Number one, the presidential system, historically has not worked for us. Maybe it s not suited to the Filipino psyche. That s a very general statement but that s how I feel. Number two, statistics-wise, there are more parliamentary systems that have been stable and have not overthrown more than the presidential. That s one thing going for us. Number three, the Filipino psyche is so much that everything is personal. This thing about checks and balances -- I think, since the time the presidential system has been instituted, we have actually brought it to the level of being adversarial. We need a unifying factor in the sense that the executive and legislative would sit as one, make the laws and implement it. Therefore the parliamentary system has that answer. To get us out of our woes, we need a unifying factor to lessen the gridlock. I was also asked what was my reaction to the recent Pulse survey? In all these things, I always say, popularity is different from governance. So therefore---and I said The Commission and the Congress have not started the information drive yet. We have consulted the people but we are 8

9 still making our output. We will go on information drive. And survey results, depending on the type of questions, will always change in a matter of time. And, number 4, by the way which was not also said here, in that very survey result, it says there, 53% also of the population did not know what parliamentary system is and what presidential system is or what the hell charter change is. So I told the ANC anchor people, I ll bat for that 53% and probably go on an information drive. So, to get us out of our woes, we need a system. The Presidential system has not worked for us, it is not suited to our psyche. This is our only chance to get us out of this rut we re in right now. So let s give this system a chance. That s my vote. Chua. Dee. Duavit. COMMISSIONER DUAVIT. Yes. Fernandez. COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I vote yes and the very reason why I am voting for yes is that in any kind of system there are advantages and disadvantages. As mentioned already by Commissioner Espina, the fear of having a parliament is that parliament may be dissolved anytime. But experience has shown us that in Philippine politics there is always a compromise. Even in this hall, where Members have different views, we still find time and still we solve our problems, which I believe will also be done in parliament. So with the fusion of the executive, legislative, represented by all the districts in the Philippines, we could go faster with more advantages rather than disadvantages. Mr. Chairman, I vote yes. Distinguished Floor Leader. Garcia. COMMISSIONER GARCIA. Yes. Gonzalez. The lady has two minutes. Please proceed to explain your vote. COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. After arriving in the house at 12:30, midnight, I thought I would write a little something so that we can finish our job today. The matter of charter change is of great value to every Filipino and I thank our respectable, much battered, Lady President, for gathering together this group of 55 individuals from diverse professions to discuss ideas for a proposed future Constitution in a Consultative Commission mandated by Executive Order 453. The sincerity and commitment of 9

10 each member of this Commission cannot be overemphasized considering that it has only approximately two and a half months to do a good job of advice after consultations with a representative group of people through the whole nation, Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. I did lead the team for the CALABARZON and I think the mandate is clear. When we talked about federalism, it was a resounding yes. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a big job to do and the days are running short. We cannot keep on talking and not be able to come out with a very decisive yes to federalism, Philippine-style. I am proud to be, at this point--- (Commissioners saying mamaya pa yan ) Ah, mamaya pa ba ang federalism? (laughter from the Body) Akala ko eh gusto ko i-rush na natin itong federalism, parliamentary and federalism. Aabot din diyan. COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. O sige. Hintayin natin ito ngayon. So, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I won t go beyond this but I want to say and give a resounding Yes for parliament. (Applause) Mr. Floor Leader. Jimeno. Jurado. The gentleman has two minutes to explain his vote. COMMISSIONER JURADO. Mr. Chairman, I m voting yes for the shift to a parliamentary system and my reason is this. We need to remove the structural basis of this block or what is called gridlock that s obstructing our development. I have in my mind a picture of two super highways intersecting each other. In such intersection, Mr. Chairman, the possibility of head-on collision is ever-present. Of course, if the drivers are good drivers, thoughtful of the other drivers on the highway, the possibility of a collision is lessened. Similarly, if traffic signals are put on top, those signals would reduce the possibility of collision. But the possibility of the collision exists because there is a structural basis for that collision because the highways intersect. Consider an alternative situation. The highways do intersect but one at another level and the other at the lower level. In other words, there is an overpass. In a situation where there is an overpass, regardless of the recklessness or the carelessness or goodness of the drivers, there will be no possibility of a collision. Why? Because the structural basis has been removed. Now, a parliamentary system, Mr. Chairman, removes the structural basis of gridlock. We convene the parliament in which the legislative and executive powers are merged in one institution with the opposition serving as--- looking over the shoulders of that government. Then, the gridlock will be removed, progress will be faster, decisions will be faster and clearer and we 10

11 can move forward faster. That is the reason why I am voting for a parliamentary system. Thank you. Distinguished Floor Leader. Lagdamayo. (numerous Commissioners say Lagdameo ) Lagdamayo is English, Lagdameo is Spanish. (laughter from the Body) COMMISSIONER LAGDAMEO. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, vote Yes. But please let me explain. I ve been a student of political science on my own for a long time. I wrote out my reasons in a paper which, I believe, has been distributed to everybody a week ago entitled Why the Presidential Form is Prone to Ineffective Governance. I tried to lay down the theoretical basis for this as well as the philosophical basis and the actual consequences of what happens in a presidential form or system. And I ended that report, my paper, with a very strong statement: we must change now. I would like to attach that paper as part of my explanation in today s vote. So, Mr. Chairman, my vote is Yes. The Secretariat is requested to take note of inserting the written position of Commissioner Lagdameo to form part of today proceedings. Distinguished Floor Leader. Commissioner Lambino. Mr. Chairman, may I explain my vote? The gentleman has two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last Saturday, when we were done with the discussion on the Structure of the Republic, while on my way to San Fernando City, Pampanga, upon the invitation of Commissioner Liberato Laus, I made a phone call while driving along the North Luzon Expressway, because I failed to talk to the Honorable Chairman Abueva about the understanding that we had before with the Commission, with the Chairman of the Committee on Form of Government, that we are going to sit down to iron out the differences, as well as the proposed amendments that this representation would like to be considered by the Commission. And I suggested to the good Chairman that if we can have time to meet Sunday, that means the other day. I requested the good Chairman to please get in touch, if possible, with the good Chairman of the Committee on Form of Government, Chairman Angeles, and the other concerned leaders of this Commission and the members of the Committee on Form of Government, if we can meet on Sunday. And I told the Chairman that these are very important 11

12 matters that I have to discuss with you, because it does not only involve matter of style but very, very vital and important provisions of the proposed Constitution on Parliamentary, which the good Chairman said that he s going to try his best but he cautioned me that possibly Sunday would be difficult to contact and gather the people in Manila. And so I asked for Monday morning, 8 o clock. I was the one who asked Mr. Chairman, to meet with the Chairman, as well as the other leaders of this Commission so we can discuss the provision on the Form of Government, because I believe, Mr. Chairman, that of all the other equally important provision of the Constitution that we are going to propose, I do believe that these provisions on Form of Government covering the Parliament, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and the President, are the most important provisions of this proposed Constitution. And so yesterday morning, at 8 o clock, I arrived in this building and I saw Commissioner Lagdameo already around. And the Chairman was already here also, having his regular press conference, and a few minutes later, Commissioner Paterno arrived, and Commissioner Peña was around, and Commissioner Angeles also arrived, the Chairman, Commissioner Bautista arrived, and some other Commissioners. And in fact, others joined, including Commissioner Espina, Commissioner Villanueva, and others. Commissioner Betty Tabanda also came over to see what we are doing inside the room and trying to reconcile and to add on important provisions that we believe are to be included in these Articles. And we have come up with this draft report, which, during the contentious debates, Commissioner Paterno and I agreed that this is sort of a bicameral so-called committee trying to iron out differences. Although it s not bicameral, it may be a conference committee to iron out the details. And if we agree on this document, which we are going to submit on third reading, this will have the force and effect of the report that will be submitted for approval to this Body. But there is one very important point, Mr. Chairman, that we have not agreed. And this must be brought to the Committee before we are going to vote on this. And Commissioner Bengzon, Commissioner Lagdameo, can attest to this. And this is about the Commander in Chief power of the Executive. Our proposal, Mr. Chairman, is let the Body decide on this: to whom shall this power be exercised? Will it be the President, who is apolitical, the President who is not anymore a Member of the Parliament and a Member of the Party once he s elected as President, just like the Queen of England, just like the King of Thailand, who remain to be the Commander in Chief, and the Prime Minister shall exercise general supervision and administration of the Armed Forces of the Philippines? That is an important point. Mr. Chair, I just want to interrupt the gentleman, that we are approving the Committee Report, which was approved by this Body on Second Reading. He s trying to introduce something, which should not be considered anymore. The gentleman may please proceed to explain his point. Mr. Chairman, if you remember, the records will bear me out, that when we were discussing this Committee Report, and unfortunately I had somehow a heated argument with Commissioner Angeles when I brought this matter, in particular this Commander in Chief powers, as well as the pardoning powers, although the records will bear me out that in regard to the pardoning powers, it was approved that it will be exercised by the President. But in the Commander in Chief power, when we were discussing this, we were not able to agree on this, Mr. Chairman. And I believe that is a very important decision that we have to make here before we can vote 12

13 whether or not really we have to approve. Because if we are going to approve the Draft Committee Report, Mr. Chairman, that Draft Committee Report does not contain this provision. It does not contain the provision on question hour. It does not specifically contain on how the new Parliament that will be established, to be convoked after the dissolution of the Parliament. Those are the provisions, Mr. Chairman. We are not introducing here any amendment. These are the result of our discussion inside the conference room yesterday, Mr. Chairman. And that is one thing that we have not resolved, the Commander in Chief power, because this representation strongly believes that the President, who is apolitical and who is no longer a Member of Parliament when he is elected as such, should exercise that military power, just like the Queen of England, or the King of Thailand, or the other monarchs that are exercising this. What is the gentleman s vote? If we cannot agree on that particular premise, Mr. Chairman, then I cannot vote on this particular Committee Report. Abstain. Distinguished Floor Leader. Laus. Leviste. Lim. Lorenzana. COMMISSIONER LORENZANA. I will explain my vote. The gentleman has two minutes. COMMISSIONER LORENZANA. Gentlemen, I vote yes. But first I d like to address the issue of flawed process because this will hit right into the heart of this Commission and also particularly the position of the Secretary General that accusations are flying all over that we came up with the flawed process. There is no flawed process. I think what we have instead is the penchant for the Filipino not to be able to accept graciously defeat. On the other hand, that s why we have a flawed process, not on the process of the Commission itself, but as I have said, on the psyche of the Filipino. That s why no President has ever won here, or no President has ever lost, I mean, because they ve always said that they are cheated. And that, gentlemen, is what I think of how people consider this when they lose an argument. Let me bring you back also to the process where I have, from the start, said that Constitutionmaking is a question not only for advocates, but the question of leadership, too. That is a question of bringing one s belief and one s advocacy over the years, and advocacy where one does his homework to carry these things through. And that, I think is the lesson, one of the lessons we should learn today, that Constitution is also a question of leadership. Each of us in 13

14 our way has assumed certain leadership. We went out to the people not tabula rasa. We came out to them asking them what they want. But more importantly also sharing with them what we think they should have. This is what we call dialogue. In spite of all this, I think this Commission should be commended for what it has done for the past three months. And as any gambler would say, We made a good run for the money. So I vote yes. Thank you. (Applause) Distinguished Floor Leader. Magno. Marohombsar. COMMISSIONER MAROHOMBSAR. Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners, I am for the parliamentary form of government. The lady has two minutes to explain her vote. COMMISSIONER MAROHOMBSAR. Okay, I would like to explain my vote. I am for the parliamentary form of government. As explained earlier by those who are in favor of the parliamentary form, we have been under the presidential system for so many years, and where has it brought us? The country is now faced with so many problems. So I think it s very clear that the presidential system is not working for us. It s not anymore responsive to our needs and our problems. I have attended also several public consultations in the ARMM, and I have talked to representatives of varied sectors, political leaders, religious, and the academe, and the women, and majority are in favor of a shift to the parliamentary federal system because they believe that they will fare better under the parliamentary federal system. So I agree with their stand, and I am for a shift to a parliamentary form of government. Distinguished Floor Leader. Matula. Mendoza. Naval. COMMISSIONER NAVAL. Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to reserve my vote on this Form of Government, considering that Will you explain your vote, or submit a written explanation of your vote? COMMISSIONER NAVAL. Mr. Chairman, I am reserving my vote after I have explained why I am doing it, because I have read this Report of the Committee on the Form of Government as of 5:20 p.m., 8 December I found this Report to be incomplete because it does not have a provision on a very important matter, which should be in this draft Constitution. And this matter, Your Honor please, 14

15 is the term of office of those elected as Members of the Parliament after the Parliament has been dissolved. The gentleman has two minutes. COMMISSIONER NAVAL. The proposed provision on Section 4, found on page 17 of the Report, the second sentence of Section 4 reads as follows: The term of office of the Members of Parliament may be shortened in case of the dissolution of Parliament. In other words, the five-year term of office may be shortened if the Parliament is dissolved. And there is this Section 7 found on page 20 of the Report, which reads, If the motion is carried, the President shall, upon the advice of the Prime Minister, dissolve the Parliament within 21 days following the advice, and at the same time, call for an election of a new Parliament that shall be held not later than 60 days from the dissolution of the existing Parliament. Now these are two provisions, Mr. Chairman, on the dissolution of the Parliament and the election of a new Parliament. But there is nothing in this draft, in these proposed provisions, on how long will the new elected Members of Parliament be in office after they have assumed their office after their election. Now, there is here on page 17 a note after Section 4: Date of election to be reconciled with the proposal of the Committee on Suffrage, Electoral Reforms and Political Party Reform. But it will be noted, Mr. Chairman, that we have already approved yesterday on final reading the Report of the Committee on Suffrage, Electoral Reform and Political Party Reform. And there is nothing in that Report of the Committee on Suffrage about the election of the Members of Parliament after dissolution of Parliament. And there is also nothing in that Report of the Committee on Suffrage, which was already finally approved, on the term of office of the newly elected Members of Parliament after dissolution. Shall the newly elected Members of Parliament be in office for only the unexpired term or shall it be for the full five year-term? And furthermore, Section 7, Mr. Chairman, provided for the date of the election and assumption of office, which is after their election, the first and second Monday of December. Supposedly Parliament has been dissolved in the month of March, when will the election be held? It says here within 60 days from the dissolution of the existing Parliament. Now the election is within 60 days, March, April, May. Now the election is held in May. When will the Members of Parliament who were elected in May assume office? That is why, Mr. Chairman, with this deficiency in this Report, which I have pointed out, may I be allowed to reserve my vote on this Form of Government after this deficiency has been supplied by the Committee? Distinguished Floor Leader. Ortega. Ortiz-Luis. Paterno. COMMISSIONER PATERNO. Mr. Chairman, I vote yes, and may I explain my vote? 15

16 The gentleman has two minutes to do so. COMMISSIONER PATERNO. Mr. Chairman, I became a member of this Commission on the invitation of the President. I have no constituency with which to cast a vote other than the general thrust of this document. If I were elected as a member of the Constitutional Convention, I would stick out for my right to dissent even on details. But, Mr. Chairman, I do not have a constituency. I am merely in the position of a consultant or adviser and I really have to go with the wishes of the majority and what I sensed from the consultations. So I vote for this report, recognizing that it has its limitations, recognizing that we cannot be perfect in three months, recognizing that Congress still has to draft the final version of this document, and that it has to be subjected to a plebiscite. We are only one of a series of wheels in the process of Constitutional change. So, Mr. Chairman, I vote yes, recognizing the imperfections, but recognizing also the direction of this document is what is best for the people, in my judgment. Distinguished Floor Leader. COMMISSIONER ADAMAT. Commissioner Pedrosa. Commissioner Peña. COMMISSIONER PEÑA. Yes. COMMISSIONER ADAMAT. Commissioner Rodriguez. Commissioner Romualdo. COMMISSIONER ROMUALDO. Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to explain my vote? The gentleman has two minutes to do so. COMMISIONER ROMUALDO. Thank you, Your Honor. After reading the draft submitted before us by the Committee on Form of Government, there are so many salient points, important sections which are omitted or not placed therein. Now everybody says that if we go into Parliamentary system, there will be no more sort of checks and balances. And one of those that to me is very, very important provision in any Parliamentary system is the Question Hour, and that is not placed in the draft now. That s the weapon of ordinary Members of Parliament. So I don t know if we strictly follow the so-called parliamentary procedure. Your Honor, what will happen is we will be barred to introduce this very important provision. And then another point that we missed is when will be the dissolution of the Parliament convoked? And there was even a query or as part of his explanation of one of the Commissioners will there be service of the unexpired term of those members that will be dissolved? So those are, to me, very, very important fine points of a parliamentary system. Although there is a school of thought that on question hour, for instance, it may not be considered any more as substance. It may be considered as a procedure. So, hence, in the Committee on Style, the same may be deliberated therein. 16

17 Now there are still other provisions which, to me, are missing in a beautiful parliamentary system. According to Commissioner Paterno, we were given only two and a half months and of course the work could not really be perfect but as much as possible, Your Honor, these salient points of a parliamentary system are really a must to be there. So like Commissioner Lambino, I withhold my vote for the moment, thank you. Distinguished Floor Leader. Sarmiento. COMMISSIONER SARMIENTO. Last Wednesday, I attended a breakfast prayer meeting at Manila Hotel. What s the pleasure of the gentleman? COMMISSIONER SARMIENTO. I would like to explain, Mr. Chair, a very simple statement. The gentleman has two minutes to do so. COMMISSIONER SARMIENTO. I would like to quote the Archbishop of Iloilo, Bishop Lagdameo, when he said in that prayer meeting, that it s high time for us, and I would like to quote him and he said, It s high time for us to change and decide what is right even if it is not easy and even if it is not popular. So I m voting yes because I believe it is right for all of us. Thank you. Distinguished Floor Leader. Seno. COMMISSIONER SENO. Mr. Chair, we have been with the presidential system for quite some time. Only What s the pleasure of the gentleman? COMMISSIONER SENO. I just want to explain my vote. You have two minutes to do so. COMMISSIONER SENO. My vote, of course, is Yes for parliamentary. I just want to explain my vote. 17

18 Please proceed. Two minutes. COMMISSIONER SENO. We have been with the presidential system for quite some time and only to arrive at the end of the crossroads where we have to really chart our course from here on. We have gridlocks. We have problems which the presidential system has not resolved effectively. And there is an option that is given to us in the crossroads to forward or to just simply go ahead. I believe that this is the time for us now to adopt another system, and that is the parliamentary form of government. Thank you. Distinguished Floor Leader. Soriano. COMMISSIONER SORIANO. I vote yes, hoping and praying that this new system of government will work better for us. Distinguished Floor Leader. COMMISSIONER TABANDA. May I explain my vote, Mr. Chair? The lady has two minutes to do so. COMMISSIONER TABANDA. Thank you. Public accountability is a hallmark of a democracy. This is a primary reason why I m voting for the Parliamentary system of government. I look at it as a means by which public officials and political parties will be more responsive to governance. I also look at it as a means by which the constituency will take a more active role in government. However, I know I vote with great expectations. I hope that we will have truly a government, which will be responsive to the people. I hope that we will have principled political parties. I hope that we will have constituencies truly participating in governance. But I know that this may not happen. Besides, I am not completely convinced by the contents of the Committee Report. But I think that I should be able to transcend this and vote for the higher principle of parliamentarism. Mr. Chair, history will judge how we are voting today. History may say that we are not making the right decisions. But let it not be said that we did not vote with the best intentions. We are voting thinking, sincerely believing that this is the best for the country. It is with this vote that I say yes to parliamentarism. I can sleep soundly, confident that I have lived according to the expectations of the people and of my conscience, particularly. (Applause) Distinguished Floor Leader. Tendero. 18

19 COMMISSIONER TENDERO. Mr. Chair, I vote yes and let me explain my vote. The gentleman has two minutes to do so. COMMISSIONER TENDERO. I come here representing my constituency as unanimously chosen by the leadership of the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches to participate in this Constitutional Commission. I have consulted our people, I have consulted them, and they are with me in my vote of support of the Parliamentary system. There are three main reasons that we could elaborate. One is the electoral reforms. We are involved in voters education because we believe that as religious leaders, we should not be the ones who would be partisan but we should be involved in political exercise by educating people, because we believe that educating people on how to vote properly is more important than merely telling them who to vote for. And when we have mature electorate that will ensure good governance. And in this process that we have, by limiting the choices of the people in a certain locality in the choice of their leaders, then we can do away with the politics of personality and popularity because in that legislative district, the people will have a better way of evaluating their candidates. Secondly, its possible economic advantages. The economic conditions that we now have in this country and combined with the political entrenchment and political squabble that we have, do not lead towards good economic progress. Perhaps if we change into a Parliamentary system, it could be that we would be able to have the Parliament that is more effective in passing vital reforms that are needed for the good of this nation, as well as take away the political entrenchment that has happened among our people. We have also seen the present system has no effective mechanism in taking away erring national leaders. Perhaps the Parliamentary system will be able to effect that kind of change and bring some good economic advantage for this nation. And then finally, it would be because of, we would say, efficiency and effectiveness in governance. There s gridlock that has been explained and has been shown in the system that we now have. But possibly perhaps in the Parliamentary system, we will be able to have a fusion of this. I have said the other day that we, as a people, are used to live under the leadership of our parents, parents who are able to promulgate laws for their children, as well as execute these laws. It would be better if our national leaders would be working together as tandem, as parents working together in providing leadership for our people. And that could be providing that kind of effective governance. There s no perfect system of government. There s no perfect government. But perhaps by giving a chance to Parliamentary system, we can expect a better future for our people. That s the reason why we vote yes. (Applause) Teves. COMMISSIONER TEVES. Yes, with the request to submit a written explanation later. 19

20 The manifestation is duly recorded. Tirol. Varela. Anong vote mo? Hindi, form of government. COMMISSIONER VARELA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am for parliamentary but subject to certain conditions. But I m still looking at that possibility of Does the gentleman desire to explain his vote? COMMISSIONER VARELA. Yes. The gentleman has two minutes to do so. COMMISSIONER VARELA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. When we first discussed this issue we said that, one of the very important reasons why we are shifting to a parliamentary form of government is because the powers concentrated in the president are too vast. I can see here now that these powers are now being moved to Parliament. Of course there are reasons that we put forward -- the check and balance here would be probably in the maturity of the parties. But I feel that these will require some kind of development. In the meantime, as you notice even in some parliaments, for instance the Australian Parliament, there you have a minister, a prime minister but there are two bodies. There is an upper body and a lower body. The upper body normally does the check and balance. In this case, I feel that there should be some kind of a check and balance. That s the reason why I said possibly we can have some kind of an effective president that has some substantial powers. Floor Leader, Mr. Floor Leader, please. Yuchengco. Second round. Acevedo. Amin. Azurin. Bautista. What is your vote? You want to explain? COMMISSIONER BAUTISTA. Mr. Chairman I vote yes but may I be given 30 seconds to explain my vote? The gentleman may please do so. 20

21 COMMISSIONER BAUTISTA. I vote yes and in doing so I wish to concur in the explanation given by Commissioners Paterno and Tabanda, which I agree fully with. And I also just want to add that I think at this point in our history, we need a government that has less checks, more imbalance but greater accountability to the people. And I think that is why it is prudent at this point to adopt a parliamentary system of government. In voting yes however, I also hasten to add, that after all is said and done, and I think this is a truism which we are all well aware that it is not really in the form of government but it s in the people who do comprise that government. So I also encourage our people to be more, I would say, vigilant but also to be more discerning of the people that they elect to this new parliament. Thank you. Distinguished Floor Leader. Bian. Cariño. Chua. Dee. Jimeno. COMMISSIONER ROMAULDO. Mr. Chairman, how was my vote registered? Abstained. COMMISSIONER ROMUALDO. No. I did not say I was abstaining. Because you did not vote. COMMISSIONER ROMUALDO. But that is why I said at the proper time I will state my vote. Okay. Now is the proper time. Now. COMMISSIONER ROMUALDO. This is the proper time. After putting in my ten cent s worth, my observations on the draft that we are voting, now, Mr. Chairman, I voted way back in 1971 for parliamentary system because I really believed that is the answer to all the problems in a presidential system. With that your honor, my vote is yes. Recorded. Mr. Floor Leader. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. May I also know how my vote was registered? Your vote is also abstention. Let us finish the 2 nd round. Laus. Leviste. Lim. Magno. Matula. 21

22 COMMISSIONER MATULA. Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to explain my vote. The gentleman have two minutes to do so. COMMISSIONER MATULA. It s an honor on my part to vote yes on this occasion Mr. Chairman. And I remember Justice Holmes when he said there are three kinds of men, and may I add, women. Those who want to make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened. I understand all of us belong to the first group -- that we want to make change for the better of our country. All of us have dreams to make our people prosperous and our society just and humane. I understand that under the presidential form of government as we have now, gridlock and slow process of decision making is attendant. And this presidential form of government, as Winston Churchill said, will bring us forward with our back to the future. Mr. Chairman, I vote yes because we understand that in a democracy the government must govern with the free and continuing consent of the people. I believe that a parliamentary form of government is more responsive to such a democratic system. Mr. Chairman, all of us have dreams. I remember a woman who said the future belongs to those who believe in their dreams. I vote yes, Mr. Chairman. Distinguished Floor Leader. Mendoza. Ortega, Victor F. COMMISSIONER ORTEGA. May I explain my vote Mr. Chairman. The gentleman has two minutes to do so. COMMISSIONER ORTEGA. Exactly 34 years ago, I voted for the parliamentary system when we were at the Constitutional Convention. And it was based on extensive studies, a whole year of studies, not just by the members of the Constitutional Convention but UP Law Center, the Ateneo, the Retired Jurists Association, the IBP, and so many other organizations and everything on all of those studies pointed to the fact that the parliamentary form is definitely a better form. I was convinced then. And since then to this day, the more I see the problems of the bureaucracy of our present government, the more I am convinced that a parliamentary form will do better for our country. I am for change if change is for the better. And I can assure you this is now for the better if we change to parliamentary. So I vote yes Mr. Chairman. Mr. Floor Leader 22