-
Vol. 3 Tuesday, March 22, 2011 No. 65a
Congressional RecordPLENARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE 15th CONGRESS,
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:00 p.m., the session was resumed with DeputySpeaker Lorenzo
R. Tañada III presiding.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The session isresumed.
The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, may we have a few minutessuspension of
the session.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The session issuspended.
It was 4:00 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:10 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The session isresumed.
The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. BANAL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.I would like to take this
opportunity to acknowledge the
presence of the members of the Philippine Veterans Legionor PVL
headed by Atty. Salvador Princesa as the NationalCommander, with
Commander Ricardo Madayag, CommanderPablo Valdez and Commander
Teodorico Calica, the guestsof Congresswoman Herminia B. Roman.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please rise.(Applause) Welcome
to the House of Representatives.
REP. BANAL. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, we would like toacknowledge
the presence of the members of the VeteransFederation of the
Philippines headed by Col. Emmanuel V.De Ocampo as President, with
Col. Francisco San Miguel,Congresswoman Beth Santos, Congressman Ed
Pilapil,Justice Manuel Pamaran, Orestes Lopez, Agapito
Perez,Melosino Respecio, Atty. Jose Maronilla and Ret. Col. CesarP.
Pobre, all guests of Congresswoman Herminia B. Roman.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please rise.(Applause) Welcome
to the House of Representatives.
What is the pleasure of the Lady from Bataan?
REP. ROMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a questionof personal
and collective privilege.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). What is thenature of the
personal and collective privilege?
REP. ROMAN. To bring to the Body’s attention theplight of our
veterans, especially the World War II veterans.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Lady has10 minutes.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. ROMAN
REP. ROMAN. First of all, I would like to thank our Dep.Majority
Leader for allowing me to speak and to deliver thisprivilege speech
to commemorate the Araw ng Kagitinganon April 9, 2011.
Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen:Good
afternoon!On April 9, 2011, we will be celebrating the 69th
anniversary of the Araw ng Kagitingan. Although April 9
iscommonly associated with the Fall of Bataan, this day
alsocommemorates the Fall of Corregidor and the Victory ofBesang
Pass.
Ang Araw ng Kagitingan ay handog natin sa alaala ngating mga
beteranong lumaban at nagbuwis ng kanilangbuhay upang tayo ay
makinabang sa natatamasangkapayapaan ngayon. Sa nagdaang mga taon,
ang kasaysayanng Pilipinas ay puno ng mga kuwento ng kabayanihan
atkatapangan, subali’t wala nang hihigit pa sa nangyari saBataan at
Corregidor noong panahon ng IkalawangDigmaang Pandaigdig. Dito sa
dalawang lugar na ito, naroonang puwersa ng USAFFE at ng mga
Pilipino. Ang Corregidorang ikalawang islang pinaka-napinsala sa
pagbomba ng mgaHapon, kasunod ng Malta. Ang pinsalang nadulot dito
aysiyang nagsisilbing paalala sa atin sa kabayanihan ng
mgabeteranong Pilipino at ng mga sundalong Amerikano.
Ang Bataan ay laging maaalala na simula ng DeathMarch. Nang
sumuko ang puwersa na pinangungunahan niMaj. Gen. Edward P. King,
mahigit na 75,000 mga Pilipino atAmerikanong sundalo ang pinilit na
maglakad ng 112kilometro mula sa Mariveles, Bataan hanggang sa
CampO’Donnell sa Capas, Tarlac. Di lamang sa kasaysayan ngPilipinas
pinapahalagahan ang Death March, kundi pati rinsa kasaysayan ng
Estados Unidos. Tinuturing ito na isa sapinakamalagim na karanasan
ng Ikalawang Digmaang
-
2 TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011
Pandaigdig. Sa 11,796 na mga sundalong Amerikano, 600hanggang
650 ang hindi nakarating sa Camp O’Donnell. Sa67,000 mga sundalong
Pilipino naman, 5,000 hanggang 10,000ang nasawi bago makarating sa
Camp O’Donnell. Ang mgasundalong nabanggit ay namatay dahil sa
sakit, gutom, init,pagod at pagkauhaw, sa hindi nagagamot na mga
sugat at sakamatayan sa kamay ng mga mananakop. Napakahirap
isipinang malagim na paghihirap na dinanas ng mga sundalo napuno ng
pag-aalinlangan sa kinabukasan habang sila aynaglalakad sa loob ng
matagal na panahon patungong CampO’Donnell.
Ang Laban sa Besang Pass noong ika-14 ng Hunyo,1945 ay naganap
sa Ilocos Sur na pinangunahan ng mgaFilipino Northern Luzon
Guerillas. Ang Besang Pass anghuling malakas na lugar na
pinanghahawakan ng mgaHapones sa ilalim ni Gen. Tomoyuki Tamashita
na kilala bilang“Tiger of Malaya” na siyang sumakop sa Singapore
atMalaya. Ang Besang Pass ay bahagi ng “triangular defense”ni
General Yamashita sa Norte, kasama ng Balete Pass atVillaverde
Trail, upang bantayan ang paligid ng Ifugao,Benguet at Nueva
Vizcaya. Ang labanan sa Besang Passang naging daan sa pagkatalo,
pagkahuli at pagdakip kayGeneral Yamashita noong Setyembre 2,
1945.
As the Representative of the First District of Bataanand as the
Chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairsand Welfare, gusto
kong ipaabot sa inyo at ipadama angkalunus-lunos na sitwasyon ng
pamumuhay ng ating mgaWW II veterans. This tribute would afford us
not only theopportunity to rekindle our memories of the courageous
andheroic deeds of the Filipino veterans during the past war,but
also to highlight the plight of the remaining veteranswho are still
alive and with us today.
Today we are honored to be joined by some of theseheroes. Allow
me to tell you their stories. These veterans,who were then young
men in their teens and twenties,responded to the clarion call to
defend our country whenWorld War II reached our soils.
Pvt. Teodorico Calica was only 16 years old when hewas inducted
in 1943 under D Company, 1st Battalion of the121st Infantry. Now
84, he vividly remembers the time whenhis group, a team of five
young men, received orders todemolish the communication lines
between Bauan, La Unionand Baguio City. At that time, the Japanese
troops underGen. Yamashita were retreating towards Baguio and
theCordilleras. In the midst of darkness, Pvt. Calica climbed
thetelephone post to cut the wires. After cutting the wires,
aJapanese soldier resting along the roadside noticed him.
Thesoldier stood up, shouted and started shooting towardsCalica.
With several shots flying in his direction, Pvt. Calicajumped off
the post and fell on a thick branch of a bushbefore hitting the
ground. He crawled as fast as he couldaway from the Japanese
soldier. It was already dawn whenhe rejoined his team, proudly
holding a couple of meters ofthe telephone wires.
Pvt. Ricardo Madayag was only 22 years old when hejoined C
Company, 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment. Heremembers the
battle in Kiangan, Mountain Province whenholding on to his gun, he
crouched behind the stone wall.During the shootout, he thought he
felt the sting of an insect.Not minding the pain, he continued
exchanging fire with theenemy atop a tree, finishing 50 rounds of
the Thompsonsemi- automatic. But after 30 minutes of fighting and
when
the pain was too much to bear, only then did he realize thathe
was wounded on his left knee. Pvt. Madayag wasawarded the Purple
Heart and the Philippine LiberationAward.
Diosdado Galvez Albeto, now 87, was 19 years old in1943. He was
a member of the reconnaissance guerillas.Surviving hunger, he
experienced rolling in knee-deep water.His wet clothes literally
dried on his back. Nang mapaligiransila ng kaaway, hindi niya
naisip ang kaniyang pamilya,bagkus inisip niya na makatulong sa
pagpapalaya sa atingbayan. For him, serving is an honor.
Sgt. Mariano Laron Eslao was assigned to the 2ndEngineering
Construction Battalion. Sgt. Eslao was only 21when he was assigned
in Mauban, Quezon. He distinctlyrecalled that as a prisoner of war
(POW), he was beaten witha bayonet by the Japanese soldiers. To
quench his hungerand thirst, he was forced sometimes to drink his
own urine tosurvive. When I saw him last year in one of our
committeemeetings, Sgt. Eslao was almost totally blind and could
hardlyhear. A few months back, he suffered a stroke and had
sincebecome bedridden. But his wife relayed to us that
everytimeSgt. Eslao hears of an upcoming committee meeting
inCongress, he somehow musters enough strength and energyto attend
the meetings to articulate the urgent needs,frustrations and
aspirations of the veterans. He thrived onthe meager pension he got
from the Philippine government,and a certain percentage of his
disability pension from theUS government to cover his daily needs
and medical healthcare expenses. The situation of Sgt. Eslao
mirrors the livesof our veterans today. Today, Sgt. Eslao is not
with usanymore. A true soldier that he was, he never quit
butcontinued to fight to the end to witness and enjoy the
sweetvictory of heroism for his fellow veterans. As I speak, it
isnot far-fetched that some of our World War II heroes lie ontheir
deathbeds. Marami na ang natulad kay Sgt. Eslao.
Staff Sgt. Avelino Reyes was also in his teens when thewar broke
out. The 16-year-old sergeant belongs to “I”Company, 2nd Battalion
of the 31st Infantry Regiment. Sgt.Reyes recalled the first time he
held a rifle, he felt powerfuland proud to be part of the regiment.
But when it was time touse the rifle, his hands trembled and his
fingers were clammy.Survival instincts got the better of him. He
was surprisedwith the jolt he felt after the first shot. As the
days of fightingcontinued, he got used to his rifle which became
his constantcompanion. At the end of the war, Sgt. Reyes was
awardedthe Philippine Liberation Award.
Staff Sgt. Avelino Reyes is with us today. He resideswith his
relatives in Sta. Rosa, Laguna as his house wasgutted by fire in
2006. Now 84, he goes to the Taguig VeteransCenter once a week for
his check-up. He spends an averageof P400 a day for living
expenses, including medicines.
Staff Sgt. Luis Macapagal Avendano was only 24 whenhe joined the
“M” Company, 3rd Battalion, Hunters-ROTCGuerilla. He stays with his
relatives in Sta. Rosa, Laguna ashe does not have his own house.
Now, at 92, he has to endurethe hour-long travel to the Veterans
Clinic in Taguig for hisweekly check-up. He is suffering from
asthma, cough andarthritis. He spends, on the average, P500 per day
for hisfood and medicines, and has accumulated debts which
mayremain unpaid beyond his lifetime.
Sgt. Juan Garing Beloncio II, now 90 years old, servedfor four
years, four months and 12 days under the 61st Infantry
-
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011 3
Regiment. He is a recipient of the Philippine Liberation
Medal.He cannot walk anymore. Since his monthly old-age pensionof
P5,000 is not enough for his daily sustenance, he onlybuys half of
the prescription.
Mr. Speaker, these stories are just part of the 28,638stories of
living World War II veterans in the Philippineswho are confronted
with similar concerns in the twilightyears of their lives. This is
the face and the circumstance ofour World War II veterans. Mr.
Speaker, a World War IIveteran expects nothing else from our
government but whatis rightfully his. By virtue of Republic Act No.
6948, he isentitled to the old-age monthly pension of P5,000,
whichroughly amounts to almost P167 a day. How can one surviveon
this amount, more so, the veterans who are already intheir eighties
and nineties, whose essential and medicalexpenses average P400 a
day? One wonders on hisdetermination to live and to survive despite
his financialpredicament.
My dear colleagues, it is sad to note, however, thattoday, the
Philippine government has not fulfilled itsobligations and has a
debt to these veterans. As of March2011, a total of 1,169 World War
II veterans have not beenpaid their old-age monthly pension. In
1994, Republic ActNo. 7696 was passed which provided for the
totaladministrative disability or the TAD pension,
grantingadditional P1,700 to veterans upon reaching 70 years
andabove. Sadly, it was only in 2010 that a portion of the
TADpension was paid to the veterans amounting to P140,000
perveteran. According to the PVAO, the summary of unpaidpension
obligations under this pension amounted toP20,625,540,700. Since
the government has acknowledgedthe TAD pension obligations and has,
in fact, made partialpayments, the government should endeavor to
pay theremaining balance to the veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened and frustrated whenI read in
the newspapers the very disturbing scandal thatwas splashed in the
trimedia about the “pabaon” system ofthe AFP generals. Nalulungkot
ako na ang milyun-milyongsalapi na nalustay ay maaari sanang
ipamahagi upangmakabili ng pang-araw-araw na gamot ng mga
beteranongkatulad nina Sgts. Reyes, Avendano and Belonio; ng
mgabeterano na umalis upang lumaban na walang pabaon atbumalik na
walang pasalubong. Mr. Speaker, if slush fundscould be created for
the military brass, and if such funds areeasily disbursed for
personal purposes, is it not high timethat the favor be shifted to
our veterans, our foot soldiers,who stood as our country’s first
line of defense against ourenemies? How can we encourage our youth
to serve ourcountry if they see how we treat our veterans?
Mr. Speaker, we need to provide the funding and actwith urgency
on the loss which deals with our veterans,especially our World War
II veterans, who are dying as Ispeak today. As the saying goes,
“Aanhin pa ang damokung patay na ang kabayo.” Dito sa Kongreso,
marami patayong magagawa para sa ating mga beterano. Pinaka-unadito
ay ang pagbibigay ng pondo upang mabayaran angmga utang sa kanilang
mga benepisyo. I thank all mycolleagues who have worked so hard to
secure the benefitsfor our WWII veterans and who are still working
on theenhancement of these benefits. We still need your
support.
Mr. Speaker, this Representation has filed a billincreasing the
burial assistance of our veterans from P10,000
to P20,000. This bill passed on Third Reading in Congressand is
now in the Senate. Umaasa ako na maisasabatas ito salalong madaling
panahon upang magkaroon sila ngassurance that they will have a
decent burial when they goback to their Creator. Our request for
the much-neededsupport and appropriation is consistent with
ourconstitutional mandate in Section 7, Article XVI,
whichprovides:
The State shall provide immediate and adequatecare, benefits,
and other forms of assistance to warveterans and veterans of
military campaigns, theirsurviving spouses and orphans. Funds shall
beprovided therefor and due consideration shall begiven them in the
disposition of agricultural lands ofthe pubic domain and, in
appropriate cases, in theutilization of natural resources.
Clearly, the State has a mandate and its obligation isdirect and
immediate. Out of the same provision, the Statepassed Republic Act
No. 6948, AN ACT STANDARDIZINGAND UPGRADING THE BENEFITS FOR
MILITARYVETERANS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS. Section 1
thereofprovides:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Stateto help
foster the socio-economic security and generalwell-being of the
country’s veterans in recognition oftheir patriotic services in
times of war and peace for thecause of freedom and democracy; for
the attainment ofnational unity, independence, and
socio-economicadvancement; and for the maintenance of peace
andorder, in keeping with the goals of the government andthe
aspirations of the people.
We strongly feel that the cited constitutional mandateand
statutory declaration are being undermined and theirefficacy
eroded, citing the fact that long-standing claims forsupport and
assistance have been conveniently ignored andset aside.
Di naman tayo inaasahan na magsakripisyo gaya ngkanilang
pagsakripisyo sa Death March ngunit bilang mgaKinatawan ay dapat na
patuloy nating ipaglaban angkanilang mga karapatan. Ibigay kung ano
ang nararapat, dilamang sa suportang pananalapi kundi higit sa
lahat aymabigyan ng tunay, makabuluhan at may dignidad
napagpapahalaga ang mga bayani ng ating bayan. We are the“cradle of
noble heroes”— “duyan ng magiting,” sabi ngasa ating Pambansang
Awit. We must endeavor to give thesebenefits despite the obstacles
and meager resources at hand.Many of our unsung war heroes who
perished in the DeathMarch and who lie beneath the fields of
Bataan, Tarlac, Leyteand Pangasinan resisted to the bitter end,
gave their all, andperished into the dark of the night. For the few
left who arestill with us today, stuck in the quagmire of poverty
anddeprivation, existing on the benevolence of relatives,neighbors
and friends, it is not yet too late for us to take careof them.
Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, letus give
honor to our veterans. Let us remember the sweat,blood and tears
they sacrificed that we might live today toenjoy the boon of
liberty and freedom.
-
4 TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011
Maraming salamat po.Mabuhay ang mga beterano! Mabuhay ang ating
bayan!
(Applause)
REP. MERCADO-REVILLA. Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). What is thepleasure of the
Lady from Cavite.
REP. MERCADO-REVILLA. I would like to ask if theLady from Bataan
would yield to a few questions?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). If she sodesires.
REP. ROMAN. Yes, but I promised our Majority Leaderto give me
time just to deliver my privilege speech, that Iwould not yield to
any interpellation because I do not wantto take more time from our
usual business. If you have anyquestion, Representative
Mercado-Revilla, Mr. Speaker,maybe you can send it to my
office.
REP. MERCADO-REVILLA. Yes, I would just like to makea
manifestation, Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please proceed.
REP. MERCADO-REVILLA. I would like to congratulatethe Lady from
Bataan for giving her insights and her heart toour veterans. I am a
member of the Sons & DaughtersAssociation, Inc. of our Veterans
Federation of thePhilippines . My father is a World War II veteran
who passedaway in 1998. My mother is a recipient of my father’s
pension.I would like to reiterate that the benefits should be given
toour veterans who have fought for our country during WorldWar II.
I would like also to extend my support to whateveramendments that
we should do for R.A. No. 6948 and for thefull implementation of
R.A. No. 7696 on the TAD pensionobligation. There are a lot of
members of the Sons &Daughters Association of our Veterans
Federation who wouldlike to benefit from this TAD pension
obligation and alsofrom the existing pension. I would like to hear
and see theday when our veterans would be given an increase in
theirpensions habang sila po ay nabubuhay pa sa mundong ito.
Marami pong salamat, Mr. Speaker. (Applause)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Gentlemanfrom Pangasinan
is recognized. What is his pleasure?
REP. BATAOIL. Mr. Speaker, may I also make a shortmanifestation
in relation to the privilege speech deliveredearlier.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please proceed.
REP. BATAOIL. Mr. Speaker, may I also join the
honorableCongresswoman of Cavite in congratulating the
honorableCongresswoman of Bataan for bringing into our midst oneof
the concerns very close to my heart. Having been a memberof an
institution which is a pillar in the preservation ofdemocracy,
peace and order in our country, I would also liketo support the
manifestation, the suggestions, of the
Congresswoman of Bataan. I myself am a nephew of a veteran,and I
was named after my late uncle, the late Third Lt. LeopoldoM.
Bataoil, who died in Orani, Bataan. Mr. Speaker, his bodywas never
recovered up to this date. From the time he wasdeclared a casualty
in Bataan up to this date, I exerted effortsto recover his body
when the Provincial Commander in theLady’s province, then Police
Sr. Supt. Abner Cabalquinto, wasthe Provincial Director. But our
efforts were in vain. To date,my concern for the veterans still
burns in my heart, that thebenefits and remunerations due them
should be given withoutdelay, including the improvement of the
Veterans MemorialMedical Center, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I congratulate the honorable Congresswomanof Bataan.
Thank you very much. (Applause)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Dep.Majority Leader is
recognized.
REP. BANAL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.May we refer the speech of
the honorable
Congresswoman Roman to the Committee on Rules.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Is there anyobjection?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved.
The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. BANAL. Yes. I would like to take this opportunityto
acknowledge the presence of a few more guests. Wehave here the
guest of Congressman Sonny P. Collantesfrom the Third District of
Batangas: the Mayor of Cuenca,Batangas, Hon. Edmund Remo.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please rise.(Applause) Welcome
to the House of Representatives.
REP. BANAL. Then, may we acknowledge the presenceof the visitors
of Hon. Roilo S. Golez from the Second Districtof Parañaque City:
Mr. David Ordoñez, Mr. Roger Cardinal,and 31 other friends from St.
Martin De Porres ParishCommission on the Family.
.THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please rise.
(Applause) Welcome to the House of Representatives.
REP. BANAL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.May we likewise acknowledge
the presence of students
from San Beda College Graduate School of Business whoare on a
study tour.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please rise.(Applause) Welcome
to the House of Representatives.
REP. BANAL. Lastly, may we acknowledge the presenceof Political
Science students under the subject Politics andGovernance of the
Diliman Technology Institute headed byProf. Ma. Floran Tan, guests
of Hon. Al Francis C. Bichara.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please rise.(Applause)Welcome
to the House of Representatives.
The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.
-
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011 5
REP. BANAL. Mr. Speaker, may we now recognizeCongressman Aurelio
“Dong” D. Gonzales Jr. who wishes torise on a question of personal
and collective privilege.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). What is thepleasure of the
Gentleman from Pampanga?
REP. GONZALES (A.). Mr. Speaker, I stand on a questionof
personal and collective privilege.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). What is thenature of the
personal and collective privilege?
REP. GONZALES (A.). The nature of my speech, Mr.Speaker, is
regarding the engineering interventions forearthquake damage
mitigation.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Gentlemanhas 10
minutes.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. GONZALES (A.)
REP. GONZALES (A.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.My dear colleagues:I
rise on a matter of personal and collective privilege
and with a clear sense of understanding of the importanceof why
I am submitting this matter to this august Bodyat this very moment,
maybe a crucial one if you will, mydear colleagues. We are all
aware of the context, a sadand foreboding one, even if that may be
interpreted asbeing alarming. If that may be the case, Mr. Speaker,
sobe it. Let it not be said that I did not rise when the timecalled
for it.
First, it was Haiti, then Chile, and then followed by
NewZealand, and most recently, Japan. Only God knows whatand who is
next. Today, in fact, the Philippines may be thenext. In fact, in
the heat of the debates on the impeachmentlast night, we did not
even feel the Session Hall shake whenQuezon City was hit by an
intensity 3.0 earthquake. But wehave an idea of what to do and what
could possibly happenif we did not do what we should have done,
like beingprepared, being pro-active now before a strong
earthquakeof killer magnitude hits us.
Japan’s experience is a lesson on the rear-view mirror.There is
no substitute to being prepared. If even thebest prepared country
like Japan can still sustainenormous damage and loss, imagine, Mr.
Speaker, whatnot being prepared can bring. As we know, my
dearcolleagues the Philippines, like Japan, is in the
so-calledPacific Ring of Fire, the home of fault-lines
andearthquakes. As we know as well, about a kilometer fromwhere we
sit or stand is the well-known and highly-dreaded West Valley
Fault.
As I stand before you, many questions race through mymind like
any citizen concerned about his safety and that ofour family. I
wonder whether this building, which we callhome, can withstand a
powerful earthquake. How safe isthis very building where we are
right now if an earthquake ofstrong magnitude shakes us? As an
engineer, my dearcolleagues, Mr. Speaker, I ask myself what factor
of safetywas used in designing this building which opened in 1978
ormore than 30 years ago. When was the last structural audit
conducted to check its structural integrity, Mr. Speaker? I
donot wish to sound like a doomsayer but we should allremember that
at one time every year, all the leaders of thecountry gather in
this august hall to hear the President’sState of the Nation
Address. As experts now agree thatthere is a strong possibility of
a magnitude 7.2 earthquakestriking Metro Manila, but exactly where
and when that couldhappen, only God knows. The other question I ask
myselfis, what if this dreaded earthquake strikes during the
SONA?Will the building hold, protecting our country’s leaders,
orwill the Filipino people suddenly find themselves orphans?During
their most desperate times, Mr. Speaker, while cynicsmay say “good
riddance,” I think many of us would beconcerned about the line of
succession.
A natural calamity like an earthquake can be like someof us,
Congresspersons, late or early. But unlike all of us,the coming of
an earthquake can be a real danger to our livesand safety. Having
said that, I have some proposals forconsideration, Mr. Speaker.
The first and the most crucial one which, to some extent,is
already being undertaken: there should be a mandatorystructural
audit of all public buildings and essentialinfrastructures,
especially and as priority, those built before1992. We can start
right here with our own BatasangPambansa.
Mr. Speaker, as a licensed civil engineer, I stand oncompetent
ground when I say that a structural audit of ourpublic buildings
and other infrastructures is timely andnecessary. I set the year
1992 as the baseline year becausethat year was suggested by civil
and structural engineers asthe reference point when more stringent
design andconstruction codes took effect and where ductility of
thestructure is considered in the design. Last week, I had
abrainstorming session with officers of the Association
ofStructural Engineers of the Philippines, the ASEP, who allagreed
that a structural audit will tell us which buildings needto be
retrofitted because of possible structural weaknesses.I met them
again this morning, Mr. Speaker, together with theofficers of the
Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, the PICE,and they
expressed their willingness to lend their expertiseso that this can
be undertaken. This is important as wecontinue to strengthen our
disaster preparedness plans. It iscrucial that we include in the
equation, critical/essentialstructures such as hospitals, schools
and bridges which needto remain standing because they serve as the
first and thelast lines of defense during calamities. The
retrofitting willdefinitely require funds and could be expensive,
but this willfar outweigh the cost of not doing anything and just
waitingfor a disaster to strike. Besides, the cost of retrofitting
willcost less in most cases. Moreover, it will minimize loss
oflives. For this purpose, my dear colleagues, governmentagencies
must include in their budget submissions toCongress, the cost
needed for the structural audit and therequired retrofitting when
necessary.
Next, we also need to look at the civil engineeringcurriculum
being used in our schools and see if it is updatedand current. We
have to be sure that our curriculum beingused by civil/structural
engineering students conforms withor at least approximates the one
being used in Japan andother countries so that present and future
building designswill be done with the end in view of being able to
withstandstronger earthquakes. Of particular import is to
determine
-
6 TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011
whether subjects such as earthquake engineering and
bridgeengineering are to be considered core subjects or
electives.The curriculum review is important because the
conceptslearned by the students and their correct applications
arecrucial in designing stronger structures in the future. I
havealready filed the necessary resolution for this purpose andhope
that the appropriate committee can call for a hearing ofconcerned
government agencies even during our recess.
Third, we need to check if our infrastructures haveenough factor
of safety to overcome a higher magnitudeearthquake. This needs to
be done so we can determinewhether the factor of safety in
infrastructure designs needsto be upgraded, and whether existing
structures need to bereinforced to ensure that our buildings will
become morestructurally sound. We need to know whether
structuralanalysis and design analysis requirements are present
andare being implemented. We need to know the worst casescenario
should an earthquake with a magnitude greater thanmagnitude 7.0 hit
us. Should we upgrade our structuraldesign so that better and safer
columns, beams andfoundation sizes, enough number of rebars,
deeperfoundations and more properly-spaced columns become
thestandard rather than the exception?
We may also need to have a separate design code forlow-cost
housing units. Many houses built in resettlementcommunities are not
compliant with the Building Code. It isso wrong to say that because
they are built cheaply, wecannot expect strength and durability,
Mr. Speaker. That iswhy I include, as a proposal, the same
structural audit forlow-cost housing units which we know are now
builtaccording to the Building Code but under different levels
ofstandards and technical requirements as mandated by BatasPambansa
Blg. 220. Low-cost housing units are one of themost vulnerable
structures that we need to mitigate, if notprevent, the potential
damage to relocation communities inthe aftermath of a strong
earthquake. After all, it is the poorwho suffers the most,
especially in times of calamities. Hence,there may be a need to
have a separate code for these typesof houses, Mr. Speaker.
My dear colleagues, I submit that these proposals/solutions are
all engineering interventions and, as I havesaid, are meant to
strengthen and complement existingdisaster preparedness plans. And
because I believe and knowthat we have the technology and
capability to do these, Isee no reason we should not. By way of a
reasonablereminder, Mr. Speaker, better safe than sorry.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon to all of you.(Applause)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Dep.Majority Leader is
recognized.
REP. BANAL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.I move to refer the speech of
the Honorable Gonzales
(A.) to the Committee on Rules.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Is there anyobjection?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved.
REP. BANAL. May we acknowledge the presence ofthe guests of Hon.
Reena Concepcion G. Obillo of 1 Ang
Pamilya Party-List, Princess Kiram of Kristiano’t Islam
RepormangAagapay sa Mamamayan; Cedric Alvarez of Alyansa
ngResponsableng Paggawa ng Pilipinas; and Edgar Guardian.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please rise.(Applause) Welcome
to the House of Representatives.
REP. BANAL. May we also acknowledge the presenceof the guests of
Ako Bicol Party-List Representatives fromSorsogon State College:
Mrs. Marisusan Gaudilla, Mrs. HelenLara, Mrs. Salisa Estur, Fatima
Jane Estur and Gabriel Solano.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please rise.(Applause) Welcome
to the House of Representatives.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
REP. BANAL. I move for a few minutes suspension ofthe session,
Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The session issuspended.
It was 4:53 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:55 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The session isresumed.
The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up theUnfinished
Business.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Is there anyobjection?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved.
CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 4146Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume theconsideration
of House Bill No. 4146 and ask that theSecretary General be
directed to read only the title of saidmeasure.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Is there anyobjection?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved.
The Secretary General is directed to read only the titleof House
Bill No. 4146.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 4146,entitled: AN ACT
PROVIDING FOR THESYNCHRONIZATION OF THE ELECTIONS AND THETERM OF
OFFICE OF THE ELECTIVE OFFICIALS OF THEAUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM
MINDANAO(ARMM) WITH THOSE OF THE NATIONAL AND OTHER
-
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011 7
LOCAL OFFICIALS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSEREPUBLIC ACT NO. 9333,
ENTITLED “AN ACT FIXINGTHE DATE FOR REGULAR ELECTIONS FOR
ELECTIVEOFFICIALS OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIMMINDANAO, “ AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Dep.Majority Leader is
recognized.
REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary statusof the bill is
that it is in the period of sponsorship and debate.
I move that we recognize the Sponsor, the Hon. ElpidioF. Barzaga
Jr., and the Hon. Rodolfo B. Albano for hisinterpellation.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Sponsorof the bill,
Congressman Pidi Barzaga, is recognized andlikewise, the Dep.
Minority Leader, Congressman RudyAlbano.
REP. ALBANO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Many would wonder why I
stood up when I am not from
Mindanao. But the questions that I am supposed to askfrom the
Sponsor have been aptly asked by CongressmanBalindong very
extensively and so, I will refrain frominterpellating the
distinguished Sponsor except for the factthat I cannot understand
this bill.
The committee report was submitted ahead of theconsultation done
by the Congressmen in the affected region.Then, I cannot understand
why there was a certificationwhen there is no emergency or calamity
in the region. So, Ihope that the next bill that we will take up
will be arranged insuch a way that the committee report will not be
ahead of theconsultation, and that there should be an existing
calamityor emergency before the certification.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Theobservations of the
Gentleman from Isabela are noted.
REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). CongressmanBarzaga is
recognized.
REP. BARZAGA. May I respond, Mr. Speaker, regardingthese two
issues poised by our distinguished colleague fromIsabela.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please proceed.
REP. BARZAGA. Firstly, Mr. Speaker, insofar as theprocedure is
concerned, the records will show that there hasbeen a committee
report coming from the Committee onSuffrage and Electoral Reforms
and a committee reportcoming from the Committee on Muslim Affairs,
providingthat a majority of all the Members of both Committees
haveapproved House Bill No. 4146. However, after the submissionof
these two committee reports to the Rules Committee, ourcolleagues
coming from Mindanao have requested for apublic consultation and it
is on this basis, upon the requestof our colleagues, that the
President granted their request
for this public consultation. Insofar as certification
regardingthis bill, I think I have to answer this thoroughly
becausedeliberations in this House would be considered by
theSenate, and possibly by the Supreme Court, in the eventthat the
constitutionality and validity of House Bill No. 4146,if enacted
into law, will be questioned before the highesttribunal.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Constitution isvery
explicit in granting the President the right to make acertification
regarding bills which the President considers ofnational emergency.
There have been jurisprudence to thiseffect. First, I would quote
the decision of the SupremeCourt in the case of Tolentino vs.
Secretary of Finance. Inthat particular case, the issue that was
brought before theSupreme Court was the constitutionality of
Republic ActNo. 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded
Value-AddedTax Law. In that particular case, like House Bill No.
4146, thesame was certified by the President of the Philippines
asurgent under his power in Section 26, paragraph (2), ArticleVI of
the Constitution. The ground for its certification as anational
emergency is the growing budget deficit.
According to the petitioners, the growing budgetdeficit is not a
national emergency since it is happeningnot only in the Republic of
the Philippines but in all localgovernment units. The Supreme Court
rejected the petitionof the petitioners. Moreover, in that
particular case, thepetitioners also argued that when there is a
certificationcoming from the President, it only means that in
suchcertification of a bill by the President, the requirement
ofthree readings on separate days and of printing anddistribution
can be dispensed with, which is supported bythe weight of
legislative practice. The Supreme Court wascategorical in saying in
that particular case, that as long asthere is a certification,
there is no need for three-day readingas mandated in the
Constitution and provided for in theRules.
Finally, and this is very important, and I quote:
The sufficiency of factual basis of thesuspension of the writ of
habeas corpus ordeclaration of martial law under Article VIII, or
theexistence of national emergency justifying thedelegation of
extraordinary powers to the Presidentunder Article VI, is subject
to judicial review. Basicrights of individuals may be at hazard,
but thefactual basis of presidential certification of bills,which
involves doing away with proceduralrequirements designed to ensure
the bills are dulyconsidered by Members of Congress,
certainlyshould elicit a different standard of review.
Finally, in the newspapers, there has always been anallegation
that there is no national emergency which wouldwarrant the
President to certify as urgent House Bill No.4146. Apparently, many
are forgetting the problems pertainingto Mindanao. Certainly, the
peace and order situation wouldbe a national emergency which would
warrant the Presidentto exercise his functions or authority under
the Constitution.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Dep.Majority Leader is
recognized.
-
8 TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011
REP. BANAL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.May we now recognize the Hon.
Antonio L. Tinio of
ACT Teachers Party-List.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). TheRepresentative from the
Party-List ACT Teachers isrecognized for his interpellation of the
Sponsor.
REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Will the honorable Sponsor
yield to a few questions?
REP. BARZAGA. Willingly, Mr. Speaker.
REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.The previous interpellator,
the Honorable Albano
touched on the issue of the certification of House Bill No.4146,
and the honorable Sponsor has elucidated relevantjurisprudence
regarding the power of the President to declareor to certify a bill
as urgent. Is it not correct, Mr. Speaker, thatHouse Bill No. 4146
is one of the priority bills of the Aquinoadministration?
REP. BARZAGA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it,this is one
of the 23 priority measures coming from the Officeof the
President.
REP. TINIO. Of the 23 priority measures, this is so farthe only
one that has been certified as urgent. Is that notcorrect, Mr.
Speaker?
REP. BARZAGA. I fully agree, Mr. Speaker, insofar asthe question
is concerned.
REP. TINIO. As the Sponsor mentioned earlier, the effectof
certification is to fast-track the way through the processesin our
House, meaning to say, once a bill is certified as urgentby the
President, it is no longer required to go through therequired
number of readings. Is that not correct, Mr. Speaker?
REP. BARZAGA. That is the provision under theConstitution. That
is the jurisprudence on the matter. Thatstatement coming from my
colleague is absolutely correct.
REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.The relevant constitutional
provision—in other words,
the certification of a bill as urgent is not a trivial matter
becauseit will precisely entail the short-circuiting of the whole
processof lawmaking, which is precisely designed to enable
fullknowledge and participation of the public in matters whichare
of public concern. Article VI, Section 26 of theConstitution
states:
….when the President certifies to the necessityof its immediate
enactment to meet a public calamityor emergency.
In other words, a constitutional requirement ofcertification of
a bill as urgent by the President would be ifthere is a public
calamity or public emergency. Is that notcorrect, Mr. Speaker?
REP. BARZAGA. That is absolutely correct, as provided
for under Section 26, paragraph (2), Article VI of thePhilippine
Constitution.
REP. TINIO. Now, Mr. Speaker, may I know if thePresident who,
like each one of us here, has sworn to upholdthe Constitution, has
complied with this particularrequirement in certifying House Bill
No. 4146 as urgent?
REP. BARZAGA. It is my humble submission, Mr.Speaker and my dear
colleagues, that the President hasabsolutely complied with the
mandate of Section 26,paragraph 2, Article VI of the Constitution
providing that acertification of the President can be made in the
event thatthere is a necessity for the immediate enactment of a law
forthe purpose of meeting a public calamity or emergency.
REP. TINIO. May I know then specifically the publiccalamity or
public emergency that is to be addressed throughthis bill that has
been certified as urgent?
REP. BARZAGA. The best evidence, Mr. Speaker, mydear colleagues,
would be the last paragraph of the letteraddressed by the President
to the Speaker, dated March 14,2011, providing as follows, and I
quote:
…to address the urgent need to protect andstrengthen ARMM’s
autonomy by synchronizingits elections with the regular elections
of nationaland other local officials, to ensure that the
on-goingpeace talks in the region will not be hindered, andto
provide a mechanism to institutionalize electoralreforms in the
interim, all for the development, peaceand security of the
region.
REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor.Let me just try
to comprehend the reasons given by the
President as read by the honorable Sponsor. So it has to dowith
the peace talks. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
REP. BARZAGA. Yes, as provided for in this lastparagraph of the
certification made by the President.
REP. TINIO. The other reasons are electoral reforms andreforms
in general in the ARMM?
REP. BARZAGA. Yes.
REP. TINIO. If I will paraphrase it very loosely, is
thatcorrect, Mr. Speaker?
REP. BARZAGA. To paraphrase? Pardon?
REP. TINIO. If I were to paraphrase it very loosely, isthat
correct, Mr. Speaker?
REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, it is not loosely. Whenyou make a
certification, you just say that it is for a nationalemergency or a
national calamity. As a matter of fact, in thatcase of Tolentino
vs. Secretary of Finance which happensalso to be a certified bill,
the ground made by the Presidentfor his certification was a growing
deficit to justify a nationalemergency. According to the
petitioners in that case, that
-
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011 9
phrase “growing deficit” is not a national emergency becausethat
is practically deficit in all local government units. Thisargument
made by the petitioners was not sustained by theSupreme Court in
holding that the phrase “growing deficit”as a ground for
certification under the Constitution wouldnot amount to a national
emergency.
REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor.For the record,
I hope that our colleagues, during the
voting on this bill, will take this into consideration.
Acertification of a bill by the President as urgent is, as I
said,not a matter that is to be taken lightly since it will involve
theoverriding of the normal constitutional processes in theHouse.
Therefore, we should be watchful and mindful thatthis will not be
abused.
Now, let me move on, Mr. Speaker.
REP. BARZAGA. May I just respond.
REP. TINIO. Please do, distinguished Sponsor.
REP. BARZAGA. Personally, on the basis of the committeehearings
which I conducted, as well as the public consultationswhich we
underwent in Mindanao, coupled with the newsappearing in the media,
I think, indeed, there is nationalemergency insofar as ARMM is
concerned. Just yesterday,we read in the newspapers and heard over
the radios that theAbu Sayyaf again kidnapped businessmen. Two
weeks ago,we heard the news that there was bombing in Sulu. For
aperiod of 21 years, there is no stability in the peace and
ordersituation insofar as Mindanao and ARMM provinces areconcerned,
and because there is no stability in these ARMMregions, at present,
there are peace negotiations taking placebetween the government and
the MILF. If there is no nationalemergency, all these things would
not be happening.
Finally, let me remind, Mr. Speaker, that my dearcolleague,
Congressman Tinio, was present in our publichearing in Cotabato
City. We arrived at Davao City in theearly morning, and we traveled
for a period of five-and-a-half hours from Davao City up to
Cotabato. We wereaccompanied in the airplane by a colonel coming
from theDepartment of National Defense, and when I asked him
thereason he was with us, he said, “I have to coordinate all
yoursecurity in your travel during the five-and-a-half hours.”From
Davao City up to Cotabato City, we were escorted bypolicemen and
military officers. However, when we reachedMaguindanao, our police
escorts disappeared for noapparent reason. There were men in
fatigue uniforms alongthe road, and our companion, Col. Dela Torre,
had to call theheadquarters to find out whether or not these
persons inmilitary uniforms are members of the Armed Forces of
thePhilippines. Along the way in Maguindanao, I personallysaw
persons carrying firearms, who were not in militaryuniforms but in
their malongs. When we were alreadyconducting the hearing—and we
started the hearing at twelveo’clock—at two o’clock in the
afternoon, we were advisedby the military to stop the hearing
because it would be toodangerous to travel at night. If the Members
of this Congress,accompanied by military soldiers, cannot go to a
place, thenI do not think that there will be no national emergency.
It isquite fortunate that Congressman Tinio was present and
hewitnessed all that I am saying right now.
REP. REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker; thank you,Mr.
Sponsor.
If I may just remark, I think that the very proposal fromthe
executive to postpone the elections in the ARMM iscontributing
greatly to the actual instability in the region atthe moment. But
let me move on to another point.
Regarding the rationale, why is the Aquinoadministration and why
are the administration’s allies inCongress pushing for House Bill
No. 4146?
Some weeks ago, Presidential Spokesperson EdwinLacierda, in the
Philippine Daily Inquirer, was quoted assaying that House Bill No.
4146 is necessary because “in hisview, ARMM”—the A-R-M-M— is “a
failed experiment” anda “failed sub-state.” May I ask, Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Sponsor: dothe Sponsors of this bill share this view of the
presidentialspokesperson which, if it is safe to assume, is also
the viewof the President?
REP. BARZAGA. I would subscribe to the view on thebasis, Mr.
Speaker, my dear colleagues, of the results of thecommittee hearing
as well as the public consultations whichI have witnessed.
REP. TINIO. In other words, it is clearly the view of theAquino
administration that the ARMM is a failure andtherefore, this
measure, House Bill No. 4146, is necessary.
Now, again, in the Inquirer last week, March 15, a certainRonald
Llamas was extensively quoted on this issue andRonald Llamas is the
Political Affairs Secretary of the Cabinet,a member of the Cabinet.
He is also a prominent member ofthe Akbayan Party. Secretary Llamas
cited several reasonsor justifications for the postponement of
elections andthe appointment of OICs in the ARMM, and if the
Speakerand the Sponsor will bear with me, I will just quote someof
his reasons. He said:
...postponing the ARMM elections would help thenational
government reshape regional politics andremove the lingering
influence of the Ampatuanclan...
...the Aquino government’s plan to push electoralreforms,
including cleaning up the Commission onElections’ registration
records, which they called an“Ampatuan ‘voters’ list.”
Furthermore, Llamas said: “The postponement will allowthem to
conduct a forensic audit,” meaning an inquiry intothe regional
government spending that would cover a longperiod of prior fund
disbursements. So, these are some ofthe reasons—cleaning of the
voters’ records and otherreforms, as well as the conduct of a
forensic audit on the useof funds of the ARMM. Finally, may I add,
the Sponsorhimself in the previous session when he first defended
thisbill, was quoted as saying that reforms in the ARMM canonly
start with the approval of House Bill No. 4146.
Now, my question is, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Sponsor, isthis really
true? Can these reforms, electoral andadministrative governance
reforms, really take place onlyafter the postponement of
elections?
REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague, we
-
10 TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011
have to look at the actual situation which transpired insofaras
the ARMM is concerned. The ARMM came into legalexistence 21 years
ago. Notwithstanding the billions of pesoswhich the government has
allocated and has given to theARMM officials, there has been no
development insofar asthe ARMM is concerned. As a matter of fact,
Mr. Speaker,my dear colleague was present when we heard in
practicallyall the venues of public consultations that the four
provincesin the ARMM remain to be the poorest provinces in
theentire Philippines. Therefore, after assessing everything,most
are in agreement that the ARMM happens to be a failureand for which
logically and reasonably, there must bechanges in order that
reforms could be made.
REP. TINIO. Wala pong duda na kailangan ng mgapagbabago sa ARMM
pero ang sinasabi ninyo po ba, G.Sponsor at Mr. Speaker, ay sa
kasalukuyan, inutil angPresidente? Wala ba siyang magagawa ngayon
paramapatupad ang mga reporma sa ARMM, paglilinis ng voters’list,
at mga iba pang reporma sa eleksyon sa ARMM katuladng pag-audit ng
pondo ng ARMM? Hindi ba niya magagawaang mga ito ngayon? Ang
sinasabi ninyo po ba ay inutilsiya at nakatali ang kanyang mga
kamay ngayon kayakailangan pang ipasa ang House Bill No. 4146? Iyan
po baang sinasabi ninyo, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor?
REP. BARZAGA. Definitely, the President is not inutile.As a
matter of fact, I think that it would be unparliamentaryto state or
to describe the highest elective official in thePhilippines to be
that. In any event, let me state that insofaras cleansing the
voters’ list is concerned, what is thesituation? The COMELEC cannot
do this, and that is whywe are advocating biometrics para mawala na
ang mga flyingvoters sa ARMM. Genuine reforms can start only
onceHouse Bill No. 4146 has already been approved and becomesa
law.
REP. TINIO. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, hayaan ninyopong basahin
ko ang Article V, Section 1 ng Organic Act,Republic Act No. 6734,
as amended by Republic Act No.9054, under Inter-governmental
Relations, at tinatalakay porito kung ano ang kapangyarihan ng
Presidente in relationto the ARMM. Ang sinasabi po rito:
In addition to other acts which he or she mayimpose under the
Constitution and this OrganicAct, the President may suspend,
reduce, or cancelthe financial blocks or grants in aid, funds
forinfrastructure, and other forms of assistanceintended for the
autonomous region: (1) if theregional government fails to account
for the fundsand financial assistance released to it by the
centralgovernment or national government, within onemonth from the
end of every quarter in which thefunds and financial assistance has
been released;or (2) when measures for the protection
andenhancement of the civil, human, political orreligious rights of
the lumads, Christians and otherminorities in the autonomous region
ordained bythe Constitution and this Organic Act, are notrespected
or are violated or are not implementedwithin one (1) year from its
enactment.
Tama po ba na nakasaad ito sa Organic Act ng ARMM?
REP. BARZAGA. It is expressly stated in Article V,Section 1 of
the Organic Act.
REP. TINIO. Yes. Is it not also correct that the Presidentmay
also suspend the regional governor for a period notexceeding six
months for willful violation of the Constitution,this Organic Act
or any existing law that applies to theAutonomous Region? Tama po
ba iyon, Mr. Speaker, Mr.Sponsor?
REP. BARZAGA. The law is very explicit, as theGentleman has
stated. That is provided for under this specificprovision which he
have just quoted.
REP. TINIO. At ang mga batas na ito ay may bisa nangayon, hindi
po ba?
REP. BARZAGA. Definitely, because this was enacteda long, long
time ago.
REP. TINIO. Sa madaling sabi po, hindi pa ba sapat
angkapangyarihan ng Presidente alinsunod sa mga batas na itopara
ireporma at isaayos na ang ARMM?
REP. BARZAGA. Considering that the ARMM has beenin existence for
21 years and considering further that thisprovision has been in the
law for a very long period of time,I must admit that this provision
on this power of the Presidentwould not be sufficient to make the
necessary reforms whichPresident Aquino envisions for the ARMM.
REP. TINIO. Sa palagay ko po, ang problema ay hindiang batas
kundi iyong political will. Malinaw na sapat naang
kapangyarihan—kayang i-withhold ng Presidente angpondo ng ARMM,
kaya niyang magsuspinde ng regionalgovernor. Nasa kanya ang mga
kapangyarihang ito. Malinawna walang hadlang sa Pangulo para
maipatupad ang mgareporma ngayon. Kaya huwag tayong maniwala, mga
kasama,na kailangan pang kanselahin ang eleksyon para maipatupadang
reporma ngayon. Iyon po ang isang punto, Mr. Speaker.
Now, let me move on to another point. Sa House BillNo. 4146, ang
description po sa bill ay synchronization, athinahabol nito ang
synchronization of elections, tama poba?
REP. BARZAGA. Yes. It is expressly provided in thebill itself,
House Bill No. 4146.
REP. TINIO. At ang ibig pong sabihin nito ay sa halipna sa
Agosto 2011 ang eleksyon, ito ay gagawin sa Mayo2013, tama po
ba?
REP. BARZAGA. Yes, it is in Section 1 of House BillNo. 4146.
REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr.Sponsor.
Kaya ang tawag po nito sa bill ay synchronization. Perohindi po
ba mas tama na tawagin itong cancellation of electionrather than
synchronization of election? Kung sa nakaraang
-
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011 11
administrasyon, di po ba ang tawag dito ay “NO-EL, “ dahilwalang
eleksyon na magaganap sa Agosto na katulad ngnakatakda sa umiiral
na batas? Hindi po ba tama na angaktwal na epekto ng bill na ito ay
mawawalan ng eleksyon saAgosto, tama po ba?
REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, I cannot subscribe tothe view that
the elections would vanish. It is not acancellation of the
elections insofar as the ARMM isconcerned. It is merely a
postponement. When we speak ofcancellation of elections, there will
be no more elections.When we speak of postponement, there will
still be electionsbut we are just changing the date.
REP. TINIO. Sa akin pong pagtingin at sa pagtingin ngmarami rin
sa ARMM, batay nga sa mga konsultasyon napareho nating dinaluhan,
ay ito ay kanselasyon ng eleksyon.Sa probisyon din ng House Bill
No. 4146 ay bibigyan ngkapangyarihan ang Presidente na mag-appoint
ng mga OIC.Ngayon, ang tanong po, saan po manggagaling ang
mandatong mga appointees ng Presidente gayong hindi sila ihahalalng
mga pamumunuan?
REP. BARZAGA. Of course, the authority will comefrom the
President inasmuch as the President will be the onemaking the
appointment. Under House Bill No. 4146, weexpressly grant the
President the power to appoint OICs.
REP. TINIO. Of course, pag tinanong ko, saan ponanggaling ang
mandato ng Presidente ay, ano po ang sagotnatin?
REP. BARZAGA. It is very basic, from the basicprovision of the
Constitution which states that “sovereigntyresides in the people
and all government authority emanatesfrom them.” Insofar as this
basic principle is concerned, wehave a representative type of
government. Although theultimate powers belong to the people,
although sovereigntyis inherent in them, they do not actually
exercise the powersof the President regarding the
appointment.Representative—the people would merely choose whowould
be their representative, and to whoever therepresentative they
would choose to be, they will give thepowers, including the power
to appoint. Undoubtedly, thePresident has that power because the
people, in the lastelections, have given him the trust and
confidence to rulethe country, including the power to appoint.
REP. TINIO. Of course, ibinoto rin po si Presidente ngmga
mamamayan sa ARMM, tama po ba?
REP. BARZAGA. Yes. With more reason that when thepeople in the
ARMM voted for the President, their votesonly showed that they have
trust and confidence in him,thus delegating their power to him,
which power includesthe power to appoint.
REP. TINIO. So, President Aquino got an overwhelmingmandate in
the ARMM in the last election, is that correct,Mr. Speaker, Mr.
Sponsor?
REP. BARZAGA. Yes, there is no dispute about that.
REP. TINIO. Pero hindi ho ba sinasabi rin ng Kinatawanna bilang
isang justification para sa bill ay hindi pomapagkakatiwalaan ang
eleksyon sa ARMM? Kung gayon,puwede na rin po natin sigurong
sabihin, following his logic,na hindi mapagkakatiwalaan ang mandato
ng Presidente saARMM, tama po ba?
REP. BARZAGA. We are not saying that we cannottrust the
elections in the ARMM. What we are saying isthat there are certain
electoral reforms to be made insofar asthe ARMM is concerned.
REP. TINIO. Ang pinupunto ko lang po rito ay nakikitanatin ang
mga contradiction sa argumento ng mga proponent.Sa isang banda,
sinasabi na kailangang i-postpone angeleksyon dahil hindi na
mapagkakatiwalaan at corrupt angeleksyon sa ARMM. Nguni’t kapag
tatanungin na natinkung saan nanggaling ang mandato ng Presidente
para mag-appoint ng official sa ARMM, aba ay sasabihin din nila
nananggaling ang kanyang mandato mula sa eleksyon nanaganap sa
ARMM. Kaya tila selective lang yata angproblema ng eleksyon sa ARMM
kung paniniwalaan natinang mga Sponsor.
REP. BARZAGA. What I have been saying, Mr. Speaker,is very
clear. We trust the elections in the ARMM but inspite of the
results in the ARMM elections, like all theelections in the
Philippines, including Luzon and Visayas,there must be electoral
reforms and one of them is theapplication of biometrics.
REP. TINIO. Okay. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, pupuntanaman ako sa
usapin ng autonomy. Of course, isanghistorically sensitive issue
ang autonomy sa MuslimMindanao. Ang isang mabigat na problema para
sa akin saproposal ng House Bill No. 4146 ay mawawala na anganumang
autonomy sa ARMM. Hindi ba kayo sumasang-ayon doon, Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Sponsor?
REP. BARZAGA. I would not agree to that, Mr. Speaker,my dear
colleagues. My basis would be what transpired inthe past. Nagkaroon
tayo ng postponement ng mga halalansa ARMM for five times already.
Noong nagkaroon ngpostponement ng limang beses, kailanman ay hindi
sinabi ngating mga kababayan na nawala ang autonomy sa ARMM.Kaya
kung ipagpapaliban natin ang halahan sa ngayon, byparity of
reasoning, the postponement of the elections, likethe postponement
in five previous instances of the electionsin ARMM, would not
result in the loss of autonomy.
REP. TINIO. Tama po kayo, five times na na-postpone,but I was
not referring to postponement. Ang tinutukoy ponatin ay ang
provision dito for appointment by the Presidentof the officials in
the ARMM. Sa nakaraan po ba ay nangyarina ba iyan doon sa limang
beses na na-postpone ang electionsa ARMM, kung saan nag-appoint ang
Presidente ng mgaofficials?
REP. BARZAGA. This is the first time.
REP. TINIO. In other words, it is unprecedented. Ngayonlamang po
ito mangyayari.
-
12 TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011
REP. BARZAGA. Yes. But it does not mean that themere fact that,
there had been no such instances in the past,there could never be a
new procedure.
REP. TINIO. Yes, which is why I am now saying that thisHouse
Bill No. 4146 will destroy the essence of autonomyand substitute
direct rule in the Muslim Mindanao with thatof Malacañang. May
debate pa ba roon, Mr. Speaker, Mr.Sponsor?
REP. BARZAGA. There is no provision in theAutonomy Law
prohibiting the President from making anyappointment. I will be
willing to give a copy of theAutonomy Law to my dear colleague and
to tell if there isany provision prohibiting the President to make
anyappointment insofar as officials in the ARMM areconcerned.
REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, peromay kopya
na ako ng Autonomy Law at napakaraming mgaprobisyon doon ang
nagsasabi na ihahalal ng mgamamamayan mismo ng ARMM ang kanilang
governor, vicegovernor at mga Mambabatas.Kaya wala tayo
talagangmahanap na probisyon na nagbabawal sa Presidente na
mag-appoint dahil may probisyon na dapat ihalal sila. Hindi poba,
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor?
REP. BARZAGA. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
REP. TINIO. Okay.
REP. BARZAGA. I have discussed exhaustively duringthe previous
interpellations that the President has the powerto appoint.
REP. TINIO. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker, Mr.Sponsor.
Huling punto na lang po. Precisely, on the power toappoint ng
Presidente, sa palagay ko ay isa ito sa mgapinakamapanganib na
probisyon ng panukalang House BillNo. 4146. Mr. Speaker, Mr.
Sponsor, mayroon po bangprobisyon sa Konstitusyon ng Pilipinas na
nagbibigay ngkapangyarihan sa Presidente na mag-appoint ng mga
opisyalsa posisyong dapat na inahahalal o elective post? Mayroonpo
bang probisyon? At kung mayroon, pakibasa po.
REP. BARZAGA. Insofar as the power of thePresident to appoint
officials, including the officials inthe ARMM, and to justify the
power granted to thePresident of the Philippines insofar as the
appointment ofARMM officials is concerned under Articles 41and 46,
letme state my legal authorities. First, in the case of Menzonvs.
Petilla decided by the Supreme Court, and let me statebriefly the
facts.
REP. TINIO. Mawalang galang na po, Mr. Speaker, Mr.Sponsor. Ang
tanong ko po ay kung mayroong probisyonsa Konstitusyon. Sa
Konstitusyon po at hindi po iyongjurisprudence.
REP. BARZAGA. There is no provision in theConstitution.
REP. TINIO. Okay.
REP. BARZAGA. But I have to specify that wefollow the basic
rule. Whatever is not prohibited, itpermits. The Consti tut ion
does not prohibit thePresident from making appointments in the ARMM
andin the absence of any such prohibition, then we followthe rule
that what the law does not prohibit, it permits.There are also the
so-called residual powers of thePresident provided under the
various cases decided bythe Supreme Court, and which are part of
Americanjur isprudence. There is a lso a provis ion in
theAdministrative Code regarding the power of thePresident to make
an appointment, and there are alsocases authorizing the President
to make an appointmentif there is a vacancy in any elective
office.
REP. TINIO. Kaya, una, malinaw po sa sagot ninyo, Mr.Speaker, na
walang anumang probisyon sa Konstitusyonang nagbibigay ng
kapangyarihan sa Presidente na mag-appoint ng opisyal sa isang
elective post. Malinaw po ito.Klarong-klaro ang sinabi ninyo, Mr.
Speaker.
Pangalawa, sinabi ninyo na wala namang nagbabawalsa Konstitusyon
na mag-appoint si Presidente ng opisyal saARMM. Tama po. Walang
probisyon dahil ang nakasaad naprobisyon sa Konstitusyon ay
kailangang sundin ngPresidente at lahat ng opisyal ng gobyerno ang
Organic Actsa Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. Sa OrganicAct,
wala ring anumang probisyon na nagbibigay ngganoong kapangyarihan
sa Presidente. Iyong hulingbinanggit…
REP. BARZAGA. At wala ring…
REP. TINIO. Iyong binanggit ninya po na residual power,again,
nasa Constitution po ba ng Pilipinas ang so-calledresidual powers
ng Presidente?
REP. BARZAGA. Okay.
REP. TINIO. Mayroon po ba? Is that phrase statedanywhere in the
Constitution of the Philippines?
REP. BARZAGA. If the power to appoint is expresslygranted under
the Constitution, it will not be a case of residualpower; it would
be a case of expressed power. When wespeak of residual powers,
those are the powers belonging tothe President which are not
expressly granted under the lawor under the Constitution, kaya nga
po tinatawag natingresidual powers. Kapag nasa Saligang Batas na
iyan o saano mang batas, hindi na residual power iyan, that would
bean expressed power granted by the law. Kaya sa SaligangBatas,
kapag sinabi nating may power ang Pangulo, thatpower is no longer a
residual power but an expressed power.I think all the lawyers would
agree to what I have said rightnow.
REP. TINIO. In fact, hindi po ako lawyer pero sa ilangresearch
na ginawa ko, ang residual power po ay nasaAdministrative Code.
Tama po ba?
REP. BARZAGA. Yes, that is why I stated a while ago
-
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011 13
that under the Administrative Code, there is the power
underSection 20, Article VII, and I quote:
Residual Powers. - Unless Congress providesotherwise, the
President shall exercise such otherpowers and functions vested in
the President whichare provided for under the laws and which are
notspecifically enumerated above, or which are notdelegated by the
President in accordance with law.
REP. TINIO. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker, Mr.Sponsor.
Kaya sa madaling sabi, ang panukalang batas na ito
namagkakansela ng eleksyon sa ARMM at lalabagin ang mgafundamental
na demokratikong karapatan ng mgamamamayan sa ARMM ay ibinabatay
lamang, hindi saanumang probisyon ng Konstitusyon, hindi rin sa
OrganicAct, kundi sa isa lamang kataga na matatagpuan
saAdministrative Code. Tunay na nakababahala po angproposal na ito.
Para sa akin, maihahalintulad ko ito sakalakaran ng nakaraang
administrasyon kung saan angpalaging linya ay hindi naman
ipinagbabawal saKonstitusyon, “puwede nating ilusot.” Nakakalungkot
naang administrasyon na ito na nagsasabing “tatahak samatuwid na
landas,” sa pagkakataong ito ay nais dumaan samga shortcut.
REP. BARZAGA. I beg to disagree.
REP. TINIO. Ang mga na-shortcut ay ang mga probisyonmismo ng
Konstitusyon.
REP. BARZAGA. I beg to disagree to that statement. Iwould like
to quote Section 16 of Article VII, the last sentenceof the first
paragraph:
The Congress may, by law, vest theappointment of other officers
lower in rank in thePresident alone, in the courts, or in the heads
of thedepartments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
The Constitution expressly authorizes enacting a lawauthorizing
the President to make an appointment, and thatis what is being done
in House Bill No. 4146. Pursuant to thelast sentence of Section 16
of Article VII, we are attemptingto enact a law to give powers to
the President to appointOICs in the ARMM and therefore, our act
right now, assumingHouse Bill No. 4146 would become a law, is only
in compliancewith this provision. There is no unconstitutionality
orillegality insofar as the grant of Congress to the President
tomake the appointment of OICs is concerned.
REP. TINIO. I would agree with you fully, Mr. Speaker,Mr.
Sponsor, except for the fact that there is already anexisting law
which governs election and the selection ofofficials in the ARMM.
Kung wala po sanang Organic Actng ARMM, di walang problema. Puwede
tayong gumawang batas na bibigyan siya ng kapangyarihang
mag-appoint ng mga opisyal, kaso mayroon ngang OrganicAct.
REP. BARZAGA. Let me answer.
REP. TINIO. Ang problema ay hindi ito dinadaan satamang proseso.
May mga probisyon doon para saamendment ng Organic Act kung
kinakailangan, nguni’t hindiito sinusunod.
REP. BARZAGA. Let me answer that point in very simpleterms.
First, there is no provision in the Organic Actpreventing the
Congress of the Philippines from granting tothe President the power
to make any appointment. It is veryclear—there is no provision in
the Organic Act preventingCongress from enacting a law giving the
President the powerto appoint.
Second, even assuming arguendo that there is aprovision in the
Organic Act providing that the Congress ofthe Philippines cannot
enact a law authorizing the Presidentto make appointments in the
ARMM, that provision in theOrganic Act, assuming it is present,
will be unconstitutionalbecause of the last sentence of Section 16,
Article VII.Definitely, in the event that there is a conflict
between theOrganic Act and the Constitution, the provisions of
theConstitution would prevail.
REP. TINIO. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker, Mr.Sponsor.
Dahil tinapik na ako ng ating honorable Majority Leader,siguro
ay ire-recap ko na lang ang ilang mga punto na sanaay bigyang
konsiderasyon ng mga kasamahan natin sapagboto natin sa House Bill
No. 4146.
Una, mga kasama, sa palagay ko, malinaw po na hindikailangan
i-postpone ang eleksyon sa ARMM paramagpatupad ng mga
kinakailangang reporma sa ngayon.Sapat na sapat ang kapangyarihan
na binibigay ng batassa Presidente para magpatupad ng mga reporma
ngayon.Pangalawa, malinaw po na pagkansela sa eleksyon angunang
layunin ng House Bill No. 4146. Paglabag po itosa batayang demokrat
ikong karapatan ng mgamamamayan sa ARMM. Paglabag din ito sa
pinaka-idealng autonomy para sa mga kapatid natin sa ARMM, saMuslim
Mindanao. At muling panunumbalik angkolonyal na relasyon, ang
direktang paghahari ngMalacañang sa ARMM. Pangwakas, mapanganib
angHouse Bill No. 4146 dahil hinihiling sa atin sa Kongresona
bigyan ang Pangulo ng kapangyarihan ng diktador,kapangyarihan na
mag-appoint ng mga opisyal sa mgaposisyon kung saan dapat direktang
hinahalal ng mgamamamayan ang mga opisyal.
Dahil sa lahat ng mga kadahilanang ito, hindi ko pomaaaring
suportahan ang House Bill No. 4146, at sana ayganoon din ang maging
pananaw ng ating mga kasamahan.
Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker. Maraming salamat po,Mr.
Sponsor.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The FloorLeader is
recognized.
REP. GOMEZ. Mr. Speaker, may we now recognize Rep.Mohammed
Hussein P. Pangandaman from the First Districtof Lanao del Sur for
his interpellation.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Gentlemanfrom Lanao del
Sur, Congressman Pangandaman, isrecognized for his
interpellation.
-
14 TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011
REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, goodafternoon. Before I ask
questions to the honorable Sponsor,let me first enlighten all of
us, as briefly as possible, aboutthe series of events that
transpired and why we are all heretonight to discuss this important
matter in our hands. Themost important things that had happened
started during thejoint committee hearing of the Committee on
Suffrage andElectoral Reforms and the Committee on Muslim Affairs
heldlast month. That meeting, the purpose of which was todeliberate
on House Bill No. 4146, did not have a positiveresult when the ex
officio Members of both Committeeswanted to immediately pass in the
committee level the saidbill, which led to a walkout of our fellow
MuslimCongressmen.
After this, the President of the Republic of the
Philippinesinvited the Members of the Committee on Muslim
Affairsand the Committee on Mindanao Affairs to Malacañang
todiscuss the matter, and the meeting ended with thePresident’s
recommendation that a public hearing orconsultation be conducted to
get the opinion or hear thevoices of the people from Mindanao. It
was agreed that aconsultation would take place in Cotabato City
because it isthe seat of the ARMM government. However, during
thenext joint committee meeting, both Committees involvedagreed
that there would be three public hearings—first inCotabato City,
second in Marawi City, and lastly, inZamboanga City.
After that meeting, I personally approached thecommittee
secretariat and asked if I could go to all the threepublic
hearings. The secretariat told me that I could onlychoose one and
for obvious reasons, I chose to be presentin Marawi City hearing.
Hence, I can only speak on what hadhappened during the time I was
present thereat. After all thethree public hearings, the two
Committees scheduled anotherjoint committee meeting to discuss the
future of House BillNo. 4146 and the things that happened during
the three publichearings conducted in Mindanao, which now leads me
tomy series of questions.
Based on my observations on the last joint committeehearing that
was held last March 15, Honorable Tinio movedthat the joint
committee hearing be deferred since the Memberswere not yet
provided with the committee report or even theminutes of the
meeting on the public hearings conducted inCotabato City, Marawi
City and Zamboanga City. The ex officioMembers of the joint
committee, who were surprisingly present,voted against the
deferment of the said hearing even whenthere were no committee
reports or even minutes of theprevious meetings—minutes of the
meeting regarding thepublic hearings, consultations conducted in
the three cities—yet to be submitted. Thus, the motion of Honorable
Tinio wasdenied and the hearing proceeded.
Please put on record that most of the votes to deny themotion of
Honorable Tinio came from the ex officio Memberswho were present in
our joint committee meeting. It is quiteastonishing that, whenever
there is voting required of thejoint committees, they are around or
present. They evenhave the audacity to vote for the meeting to
proceed evenwithout the copies of the committee report being
furnishedto the Members.
Mr. Speaker, honorable Sponsor, in your humble opinion,why are
the ex officio Members present only when voting isrequired in the
joint committee meetings?
REP. BARZAGA. Actually, everything had beenrecorded. Insofar as
committee hearings are concerned, as Ihave stated earlier, there
had been a committee reportpreviously approved by the members of
the Committee onSuffrage and Electoral Reforms as well as the
Committee onMuslim Affairs. Unfortunately, before there could be an
actualvoting, insofar as House Bill No. 4146 is concerned, therewas
a walk-out by some of our colleagues from Mindanao.
It is on that basis that we had consultations made. Thenwhen we
were discussing the results of the publicconsultations, there was a
heated debate and ultimately, amotion to adjourn was made, which
motion has been approvedby the majority. But insofar as the Rules
of the House isconcerned, considering that I witnessed all the
proceedings,I would honestly say, Mr. Chairman, my dear colleague,
thatwe have not violated any of our House Rules in the handlingof
House Bill No. 4146.
REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Is that so, Mr. Speaker,honorable
Sponsor? The way I see it, I think it is a commonpractice during
committee meetings that we have to befurnished with a copy of these
committee reports becausethey contain very vital and crucial
information when we willbe deliberating on the passage of House
Bill No. 4146. Myobservation during our last committee meeting last
March15 is that most of the Members present requested that theybe
furnished copies of these committee reports.Unfortunately, we did
not receive any copies of the committeereports, and to my surprise,
during our last session lastWednesday, I just found out that the
committee reports werealready available with the Secretariat. In my
opinion, Mr.Speaker, honorable Sponsor, I think wala ho tayong
orasbasahin ang contents po ng committee reports dahil ongoingna ho
ang session last Wednesday.
REP. BARZAGA. Actually, the committee reports havealready been
submitted to the Rules Committee long beforewe made the public
consultations. What we did not havelast March 15 happens to be the
outcome of the publicconsultations held on March 10, March 12 and
March 13.
REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, you mean
to say that the contents of that committeereport which was dated
March 15, ito po ang natanggapnamin last Wednesday?
REP. BARZAGA. Yes. That is in the record of theproceedings
insofar as public consultation is concerned.
REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). So it was dated March15? But our public
consultations were conducted last March10, March 12 and March 13.
Ibig ninyo pong sabihin,honorable Sponsor, na bago po natin gawin
iyong publicconsultation ay nauna na po ang committee report?
REP. BARZAGA. I am referring, my dear colleague, Mr.Speaker, to
the committee report on House Bill No. 4146.
REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, I was
referring to the committee report of the publicconsultations which
were held in Marawi City, Cotabato Cityand Zamboanga City from
March 10 to March 13.
-
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011 15
REP. BARZAGA. There is no committee report insofaras the public
consultation is concerned. We just submitteda document on the
series of public hearings on House BillNo. 4146 proposing the
synchronization of the ARMM andthe mid-term elections in 2013 with
provisions on theappointment of officers-in-charge. In this
document, welisted all the persons who spoke, all the associations
whichpresented their position papers, and it is part of the
recordsinsofar as House Bill No. 4146 is concerned.
REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, I want to
address the same question because hindipo ninyo sinagot ang tanong
ko kanina. I was referring tothe committee report, dahil po noong
March 15, two daysafter our series of public hearings which were
held inMindanao, ito po ang hiningi ni Congressman Tinio mula
saCommittee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms and Committeeon
Mindanao Affairs. We had a joint committee hearing atang hiningi
namin ay ang committee report po ng publichearing. Ang ipinagtataka
ko lang po, bakit ang isinasagotpo ng ating honorable Sponsor ay
iyong committee reportpo noong March 15.
REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, basedon our Rules,
insofar as bills are concerned, there should beonly one committee
report. If any member of the committeeis not satisfied with our
committee report, a remedy isprovided for under the Rules that the
person who votedwith the majority has the right to file a motion
forreconsideration. Considering that this committee report hasbeen
with the Rules Committee as early as March 2, 2011,and nobody moved
for its reconsideration, it could no longerbe returned to the
Committee on Suffrage and ElectoralReforms or to the Committee on
Muslim Affairs, and none ofthese Committees could make another
committee report. Ithink we can be enlightened by the Rules
Committee insofaras this issue is concerned.
REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, simple
lang po ang tanong ko kanina. Last March15, we had the joint
committee hearing. It was moved by oneof the Members that “bigyan
ho kami ng kopya.” Myquestion is, bakit po hindi na-approve iyong
request naminna i-defer ang committee meeting dahil wala pa pong
availablena committee report, at ang committee report na iyon
wasonly available during the session last Wednesday? Ganoonlang po
kasimple ang tanong ko, Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor.
REP. BARZAGA. Unang-una, mayroon na tayongcommittee report dated
March 2, 2011 coming from theCommittee on Suffrage and Electoral
Reforms and theCommittee on Muslim Affairs. Under our Rules, as
long asthis committee report has not been reconsidered, either
ofthe two committees cannot make any new committee report.At most,
what we can report out of the public consultations,would be the
results of the public consultations which weremade on March 10,
March 12 and March 13; Thursday,Saturday, Sunday, respectively. The
following Tuesday, ortwo days after our last public consultation,
we had a meeting.According to the secretariat group that
accompanied me,considering the time contraint, they were not be
able to
prepare the transcripts of the proceedings regarding thepublic
consultations. Since there was already a motion toadjourn, and all
the other motions presented by those whoare opposed to House Bill
No. 4146 were defeated, then wehave no other alternative except to
attach the results of ourpublic consultations to the main records
of House Bill No.4146. In that hearing on March 15, I emphasized
that wehave to act on this House Bill No. 4146 because this is
apriority measure coming from the President. Our sessionwould end
on March 23, and this still has to be referred tothe Senate in the
event that the same would be approved inthe House of
Representatives.
REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Another question, Mr.Speaker, honorable
Sponsor, do you believe that thepostponement of the ARMM elections
via House Bill No.4146 is of transcendental importance to the
public at large?
REP. BARZAGA. That is my position. Otherwise, Iwould not be
standing here if I do not believe in the wisdomof the bill which I
am defending.
REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). I agree with you, Mr.Speaker, that the
issue at hand is of transcendentalimportance to the public at
large. But I disagree that the fateof the ARMM will be decided by
the people who are noteven within the scope or under the
jurisdiction of the same.
Let this issue be resolved by the Members. Of the jointcommittee
members, let not our votes be naturally overriddenby the supreme
number of the ex-officio Members who, Ireiterate, are mostly not
from the ARMM or even fromMindanao.
REP. BARZAGA. Let me answer it this way, Mr. Speaker,my dear
colleague. Based on the records, there have beenseveral laws
postponing the elections in the ARMM. I thinkeverybody would agree,
insofar as the previous laws areconcerned, they were approved not
only by the Membersof Congress coming from the ARMM but by majority
of theMembers of the House. We have to consider also the basicrule
that insofar as the enactment of laws is concerned, evenif the bill
is of local application only such as naming a nationalstreet in a
particular place or naming a public high school, allof us would
deliberate and would vote on that bill. That isthe procedure
insofar as the enactment of the laws isconcerned. Therefore, the
mere fact that House Bill No. 4146would concern only the ARMM does
not mean that only theARMM has the sole prerogative and only the
ARMMCongressmen have the sole power to decide on the fate ofthis
bill.
REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, I agree
with you that the elections in the ARMMwere postponed several
times. In fact, we had eightpostponements, but the President never
appointed an officer-in-charge and all the incumbent elected
officials of theARMM were only on a hold-over capacity.
REP. BARZAGA. I fully agree to that, but let me state,Mr.
Speaker, elections in the ARMM had been postponedeight times. Of
course, whenever there is a postponement orwhen a law has been
enacted for that, it is our desire or our
-
16 TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011
vision that there will be improvement and that is the reason
weare postponing the elections. Unfortunately, notwithstandingthat
elections had been postponed in the ARMM, there hasbeen no
significant change insofar as the lives of the people inARMM are
concerned. Based on this experience, I think it wouldbe but proper
on the part of the executive to make a newmechanism and to provide
measures which, in the final analysis,might solve the problems in
the ARMM.
REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, that is
precisely the reason in all the bills where theMuslim people are
our intended beneficiaries, it should bethe Representatives of the
Muslim community who aresupposed to deliberate, scrutinize and vote
first on the sameat the committee level. If the bill shall pass the
committeelevel, that is the only time the Members of this House
cantake cognizance of it; hence, we have the Committee onMuslim
Affairs. The reason I am telling this, Mr. Speaker,honorable
Sponsor, is that based on my experience, in theseries of committee
hearings and public consultations, sinceoutnumbered po ang mga
Muslim Congressmen dito sa mganasabing komite, parang nawalan po
kami ng boses, nawalanpo kami ng karapatan para po mag-decide sa
fate ng ARMM.Mr. Speaker, honorable Sponsor, we both know that
becausewe were together during this series of public hearings.
For the information of the Body, Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor,
based on my observations in the committee hearingheld last March
15, 2011, when the joint hearing proceeded,Representatives
Datumanong and Jaafar claimed that thesaid public hearing conducted
in Cotabato City, Marawi City,and Zamboanga City is just a
“consuelo de bobo” becausethe ex-officio Members wanted to proceed
with the jointhearing even before the copy of the committee report
on thesaid public hearings in Mindanao was furnished to theMembers
of the joint committee for approval. Mr. Speaker, isit not
preposterous to proceed with the joint meeting withoutknowing what
we are supposed to deliberate upon? Therewas no committee report
submitted last March 15, 2011 yet,not even the minutes of the said
public hearings. How arewe supposed to make an intelligent vote on
the issue athand if we do not have those pertinent documents?
For my part, I was present only during the public hearingheld in
Marawi City and I can only speak for what transpired onthat day.
How would I know what happened during theconsultations in Cotabato
City and in Zamboanga City if we arenot provided with the requested
documents last March 15, 2011?As you all know, the joint hearing
proceeded and naturally, thevotes of the Committee on Muslim
Affairs were dominated byex-officio Members, regardless of its
outcome whether for oragainst House Bill No. 4146. Also, I want to
define the meaningof “public hearing” –meetings held by committees
where thepublic, lobbyists, legislators and state agency
representativesmay speak or register for or against the
proposal.
The purpose of a legislative public hearing is to obtainpublic
inputs on legislative decisions on matters of policy.Do you agree
with me, Mr. Speaker, honorable Sponsor?
REP. BARZAGA. Definitely, Mr. Speaker, my dearcolleague, I agree
with your assertion.
REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Thank you, honorableSponsor, Mr.
Speaker.
As we all know, dear colleagues, the Committee onSuffrage and
Electoral Reforms and the Committee on MuslimAffairs jointly
conducted a series of public hearings inCotabato City, Marawi City
and Zamboanga City that tookplace last March 10, 12 and 13, 2011,
respectively. Thepurpose of these hearings is to know directly the
opinionsand sentiments of the people who will be greatly affected
ifthis House Bill No. 4146 shall be enacted into a law. I
attendedone of these three consultations, particularly the
publichearing conducted in my district in the city of
Marawi.Therefore, as I said earlier, I can only speak for
thecircumstances that occurred during that consultation. Theessence
of a public hearing is for the sentiments of the publicto be heard
in a proper forum.
Mr. Speaker, honorable Sponsor, last week, we werefurnished
copies of the committee report here, inside theplenary. We were not
given ample time to read the said report.Fortunately, due to lack
of time, House Bill No. 4146 will beagain tackled today and
included in the Order of Business. Ihave scrutinized the committee
report o