Congressional Record. 2 Tuesday, June 9, 2015 No. 71h Congressional Record 16th CONGRESS, SECOND...

Vol. 2 Tuesday, June 9, 2015 No. 71h

Congressional Record16th CONGRESS, SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:00 p.m., the session was resumed with Deputy Speaker Carlos M. Padilla presiding.

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

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). The session is suspended.

It was 4:00 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 4:33 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). The

session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader, the Hon. Arthur R.

Defensor Jr., is recognized. REP. DEFENSOR. Good afternoon, Mr.

Speaker. We are in receipt of a message from the Senate

informing the House that the Senate, on June 1, 2015, passed with amendments House Bill No. 3750, entitled: AN ACT SEPARATING THE CITY OF BATANGAS FROM THE SECOND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT OF THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS TO CONSTITUTE THE LONE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF BATANGAS.

We have been advised that the Committee on Local Government, through its Chairperson, Hon. Pedro B. Acharon Jr., who is the Sponsor of House Bill No. 3750, as well as the authors of this measure, has no objections to the amendments introduced by the Senate. So, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with our Rules, I move that we concur with the Senate amendments to House Bill No. 3750.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). Is there

any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The House concurs with the Senate version.

REP. DEFENSOR. Also, Mr. Speaker, we are in receipt of another message from the Senate likewise informing the House that on June 1, 2015, it passed with amendments House Bill No. 4769, and this is entitled: AN ACT CONVERTING THE MUNICIPALITY OF GENERAL TRIAS IN THE PROVINCE OF CAVITE INTO A COMPONENT CITY TO BE KNOWN AS THE CITY OF GENERAL TRIAS.

We have been advised that the Committee on Local Government, through its Chairperson, the Hon. Pedro B. Acharon, Jr. who is the Sponsor of House Bill No. 4769, as well as the authors of this measure, has no objections to the amendments introduced by the Senate. So, Mr. Speaker, I move that in accordance with our Rules, we concur with the Senate amendments to House Bill No. 4769.

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

REP. DEFENSOR. Also, Mr. Speaker, we are in receipt of another message, likewise from the Senate, informing us that it passed on June 1, 2015, with amendments, House Bill No. 4400, and this is entitled: AN ACT NAMING AS THE “PRESIDENT CORY C. AQUINO AVENUE” THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL ROAD WHICH COMMENCES AT THE JUNCTION OF THE ILOILO-DUMANGAS COASTAL ROAD IN BALABAGO, JARO DISTRICT, ILOILO CITY, THEN FOLLOWS A GENERAL WESTWARD DIRECTION ALONG THE FLOODWAY’S SOUTH BANK TOWARDS BUHANG, JARO; TACAS, JARO AND UNGKA II, PAVIA, THEN TRAVERSES SOUTHWARDS TO THE MANDURRIAO DISTRICT, ILOILO CITY-PAVIA- SAN MIGUEL TRI-BORDER, AND ENDS AT THE ILOILO-ANTIQUE ROAD, NEAR THE CENTER OF AREVALO DISTRICT, ILOILO CITY.

We have been advised that the Committee on Public Works and Highways, through its Chairperson, the Hon.

2 TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2015

Ronald M. Cosalan, who is the Sponsor of House Bill No. 4400, as well as the authors of this measure, has no objections to the amendments introduced by the Senate. So, in accordance with our Rules, Mr. Speaker, I move that we concur with the Senate amendments to House Bill No. 4400.

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

The House concurs with the amendments proposed by the Senate.

REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker.

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

REP. DURANO. We have some guests in the gallery, Mr. Speaker.

First, let us acknowledge the presence of the Ateneo Law School and the University of Santo Tomas debate teams: Pearl Simbulan, Patrick Cocabo, Aw Lapuz, Leonardo Camacho, Michael Villanueva, Ayzeris Ong, Richard Uy and Kim Dompor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). Please rise.

REP. DURANO. They are guests of the Hon. Rodolfo T. Albano III and Hon. Lea S. Paquiz.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). The guests of the Honorable Albano and the Honorable Paquiz, the members of the debating teams of the Ateneo and UST, are welcome to the House of Representatives. Thank you.

REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker, we have also guests of Hon. Sherwin N. Tugna, the members of the Philippine National Prayer Breakfast Foundation, Inc., headed by Bishop Bernie Malitao.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). The guests of the Honorable Tugna headed by Bishop Malitao are welcome to the House. Thank you. (Applause)

REP. DURANO. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, we have the guests of Hon. Eleanor C. Bulut-Begtang, from the municipality of Kabugao, province of Apayao, headed by Mayor Joe Amid.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). The guests of the Honorable Bulut-Begtang, headed by the mayor of the municipality of Kabugao, welcome. Dios ti agngina apo.

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


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

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary General read the following House Bill and Resolutions on First Reading, Communications, Subpoena Duces Tecum and Committee Reports, and the Deputy Speaker made the corresponding references:

BILL ON FIRST READING

House Bill No. 5838, entitled:“AN ACT SEPARATING THE POLO NATIONAL

HIGH SCHOOL – MALANDAY ANNEX, CITY OF VALENZUELA FROM POLO NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, CONVERTING IT INTO AN INDEPENDENT NATIONAL H I G H S C H O O L T O B E K N O W N AS MALANDAY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representative Gatchalian (W.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION

AND CULTURE

RESOLUTIONS

House Resolution No. 2147, entitled:“A RESOLUTION URGING THE COMMITTEE

ON GOOD GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY TO INVESTIGATE, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, THE BUREAU OF FIRE PROTECION’S ALLEGED BID TO BUY P2.58 BILLION WORTH OF FIRE TRUCKS FROM AN ALLEGEDLY UNQUALIFIED SUPPLIER AND WHICH AMOUNT IS P251 MILLION MORE THAT THE LOWEST BIDDER”

By Representative CasteloTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2148, entitled:“A RESOLUTION URGING THE COMMITTEE

ON HEALTH TO INVESTIGATE, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, THE RECENT REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DOH) THE ALARMING RATE OF NEW HIV CASES BRINGING THE NUMBER TO 560 IN APRIL 2015”

TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2015 3

By Representative CasteloTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2149, entitled:“A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, INTO THE UNABATED GOLD MINING OPERATIONS IN BARANGAY TAMBIS, MUNICIPALITY OF BAROBO, PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL SUR”

By Representative GarayTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2154, entitled:“A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES CONFERRING THE CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF ACHIEVEMENT TO MR. HENRY SY, SR. FOR HIS OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN BUSINESS AND CONSIDERABLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE GROWTH OF THE PHILIPPINE ECONOMY”

By Representative OlivarezTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

ADDITIONAL COAUTHORS

The list of additional coauthors is reflected in Journal No.71, dated June 9, 2015.*

COMMUNICATIONS

Resolution dated 6 March 2015 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Province of Bohol, expressing gratitude to Congress for the enactment of Republic Act No. 10653.TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND

MEANS

Letter dated 9 March 2015 of Heidi L. Mendoza, Commissioner, Officer-in-Charge, Commission of Audit, transmitting copies of the 2013 Annual Audit Reports on the national government agencies listed in Annex A:List of CY 2013 Annual Audit Report 1. Department of the Interior and Local

Government2. Philippine National Police3. Office of the Civil Defense4. Armed Forces of the Philippines General

Headquarters5. Philippine Army

6. Philippine Air Force 7. Bureau of Immigration 8. Bureau of CorrectionsTO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Letter dated 30 March 2015 of Atty. Susan L. Pace-Donalvo, Director IV, Regional Director, Office of the Regional Director, Commission on Audit, Regional Office XII, Cotabato City, transmitting a copy of the 2014 Annual Audit Report on the accounts and operations of the Sultan Kudarat State University, pursuant to Section 1, Article XI-D of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Section 43 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Notice of Resolution dated 6 April 2015 of Joffre Gil C. Zapata, Executive Clerk of Court III, Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, on Case Number SB-11-CRM-0306 (People of the Philippines vs. Paulino Salvador C. Leachon, et. al).TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE

Letter dated 16 April 2015 of Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Executive Secretary, Office of the President, Malacañang, transmitting two (2) original copies of Republic Act No. 10660 which was signed by His Excellency, President Benigno S. Aquino III, entitled:“AN ACT STRENGTHENING FURTHER

THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, FURTHER AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS AMENDED, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

TO THE ARCHIVES

Letter dated 22 April 2015 of Vicente S Aquino, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Governor, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, transmitting their report on the Public Sector/Public-Guaranteed Private Sector Foreign Loans approved by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas in the First Quarter of 2015, pursuant to Section 20, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.TO THE COMMITTEE ON BANKS AND

FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES

Letter dated 24 April 2015 of Amando M. Tetangco, Jr., Governor, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, transmitting the Second Semester 2014 Status Report of the Philippine Financial System, pursuant to Section 39 (c), Article V of Republic Act No. 7653.TO THE COMMITTEE ON BANKS AND

FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES

* See ANNEX (printed separately)


Letter dated 28 April 2015 of Atty. Susan L. Pace-Donalvo, Director IV, Regional Director, Commission on Audit, Regional Office XII, Cotabato City, transmitting a copy of the 2014 Annual Audit Report on the accounts and operations of the Cotabato City State Polytechnic College, pursuant to Section 2, Article XI-D of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Section 43 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Letter dated 29 April 2015 of Janette Loreto-Garin, MD, MBA-H, Secretary of Health, transmitting the First Annual Consolidated Report on the Implementation of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012.TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Letter dated 12 May 2015 of Voltaire T. Gazmin, Secretary, Department of National Defense, transmitting a copy of the 2014 Year End Report of the Revised Armed Forces of the Philippines Modernization Program, pursuant to Republic Act No. 7898, as amended.TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE

AND SECURITY

Letter dated 13 May 2015 of Atty. Sheila U. Villa, Regional Director, Commission on Audit, Regional Office IV-B, transmitting copies of the Annual Audit Reports on the following Water Districts for the year ended 31 December 2013:1. Naujan Water District, Oriental Mindoro;2. Pinamalayan Water District, Oriental

Mindoro;3. Pola Water District, Oriental Mindoro;4. Sablayan Water District, Occidental Mindoro;5. Odiongan Water District, Romblon; and6. Romblon Water District.TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

Pursuant to Section 151, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives transmitting the Subpoena Duces Tecum dated 19 March 2015 of Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas, Director, General Investigation Bureau-B, Field Investigation Office, (GIB-B, FIO I), Office of the Ombudsman, re: FF-C-14-0098, requesting the submission of clear and certified true copies of the latest Personal Data Sheet (preferably with picture), Oath of Office and updated Service Record pertaining to Congressman Francisco T. Matugas of the 1st District of Surigao del Norte.

Pursuant to Section 151, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives transmitting the Subpoena Duces Tecum dated 19 March 2015 of Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas, Director, General Investigation Bureau-B, Field Investigation Office, (GIB-B, FIO I), Office of the Ombudsman, re: FF-C-14-0403, requesting the submission of clear and certified true copies of the latest Personal Data Sheet (preferably with picture), Oath of Office and updated Service Record pertaining to Congressman Lorenzo R. Tañada, Jr. of the 4th District of Quezon.

Pursuant to Section 151, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives transmitting the Subpoena Duces Tecum dated 21 April 2015 of Cora J. Marzan, Branch Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 39, on Criminal Case No. 14-07802-CR for Perjury.

Pursuant to Section 150, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives transmitting the Subpoena Duces Tecum dated 28 April 2015 of Joselito P. Fangon, Assistant Ombudsman, FIO II, re: CPL-C-12-0107, requesting the submission of clear and certified true copies of the 6 December 2011 Report of the Committee on Muslim Affairs on the 2011 Hajj Operation in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

Pursuant to Section 150, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives transmitting the Subpoena Duces Tecum dated 5 May 2015 of Citadel L. Cosmiano-Trasmontero, Assistant Special Prosecutor I, Office of the Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman, re: SB-15-CRM-0016 to 0024, requesting the submission on or before 5 May 2015 of a certified true copy of the Oath of Office and Personat Data Sheet of former Congressman Constantino G. Jaraula.

Pursuant to Section 151, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives transmitting the Subpoena Duces Tecum dated 8 May 2015 of Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas, Supervising Director, Lifestyle Check Panel, Office of the Ombudsman, re: CPL-C-08-1594, requesting the submission of clear and certified true copies of the updated Service Record, Certificate of Yearly Compensation, Allowances, Remunerations and Bonuses received for CYs 1997-2007, and the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth (SALN) for CYs 1997-2007 pertaining to Gemma Mojica Dela Rosa, Supervising Legislative Staff Officer II.


Pursuant to Section 150, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives transmitting the Subpoena Duces Tecum dated 12 May 2015 of Atty. Alfred Yann G. Oguis, OIC, Field Investigation Office, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas), re: OMB-V-C-13-0327, requesting the submission of clear and certified true copies of the following documents of Ms. Aida M. Morsen:Latest personal data sheet;Latest appointment and/or oath of office;Updated service record; andSalary grade certification.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Report by the Committee on Natural Resources (Committee Report No. 764), re H. No. 5845, entitled:“AN ACT REVERTING FISH PONDS

WHICH HAVE BEEN UNUTILIZED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS TO FOREST LANDS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 43 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 705 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED FORESTRY REFORM CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES”

recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill No. 5289

Sponsors: Representatives Matugas and VillaricaTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Natural Resources (Committee Report No. 765), re H. No. 5846, entitled:“AN ACT DECLARING THE PROVINCE OF

MARINDUQUE A MINING-FREE ZONE”recommending its approval in substitution of House

Bill No. 5566Sponsors: Representatives Matugas and ReyesTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Natural Resources (Committee Report No. 766), re H. No. 5847, entitled:“AN ACT SIMPLIFYING THE PROCEDURE

IN THE DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LANDS, AMENDING SECTION 24 OF COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 141, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ‘THE PUBLIC LAND ACT’ ”


Sponsors: Representat ives Matugas and Romualdo

TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Health and the Committee on Appropriations (Committee Report No. 767), re H. No. 5851, entitled:“AN ACT UPGRADING THE SOUTHERN

ISABELA GENERAL HOSPITAL IN SANTIAGO CITY, PROVINCE OF ISABELA, INTO A TERTIARY GENERAL HOSPITAL TO BE KNOWN AS THE SOUTHERN ISABELA MEDICAL CENTER AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”


Sponsors: Representatives Eriguel and AggabaoTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Health and the Committee on Appropriations (Committee Report No. 768), re H. No. 5852, entitled:“AN ACT UPGRADING THE WAO DISTRICT

HOSPITAL IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF WAO, PROVINCE OF LANAO DEL SUR AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3607, ENTITLED ‘AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE GENERAL HOSPITAL IN EACH OF THE MUNICIPALITIES OF BAYANG, TAMPARAN AND WAO, ALL IN THE PROVINCE OF LANAO DEL SUR, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS THEREFOR’ ”


Sponsors: Representatives Eriguel and AdiongTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Natural Resources (Committee Report No. 769), re H. No. 5853, entitled:“AN ACT DECLARING AS AGRICULTURAL

LAND PORTIONS OF FORESTLAND LOCATED IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, PROVINCE OF AKLAN, A M E N D I N G F O R T H E P U R P O S E PROCLAMATION NO. 1064”


Sponsors: Representatives Matugas, Haresco and Aggabao


Report by the Committee on Justice, the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Ways and Means (Committee Report No. 770), re H. No. 5855, entitled:“ A N A C T R E O R G A N I Z I N G A N D


M O D E R N I Z I N G T H E N AT I O N A L BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI), AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR”

recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill Nos. 215, 634, 640, 1101, 1146, 2590, 3088, 3271, 3284, 3733, 3946, 4293, 4556 and 5304

Sponsors: Representatives Tupas, Ungab, Quimbo, Escudero, Nograles, Rodriguez (R.), Hofer and Aumentado


Report by the Committee on Basic Education and Culture (Committee Report No. 771), re H. No. 5856, entitled:“AN ACT RECOGNIZING THE GERMAN

E U R O P E A N S C H O O L M A N I L A , INCORPORATED AS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ON INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER AND PROVIDING FOR MECHANISMS ON THE GRANT OF CERTAIN PREROGATIVES CONDUCIVE TO ITS GROWTH”

recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill Nos. 663 and 3947

Sponsors: Representatives Cojuangco (K.), Sarmiento (C.) and Dela Cruz


Report by the Committee on Basic Education and Culture (Committee Report No. 772), re H. No. 5857, entitled:“AN ACT RECOGNIZING THE CANADIAN

AMERICAN EDUCATION FOUNDATION, INC. AS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER AND PROVIDING FOR MECHANISMS ON THE GRANT OF CERTAIN PREROGATIVES CONDUCIVE TO ITS GROWTH”


Sponsors: Representatives Cojuangco (K.) and Romulo


Report by the Committee on Legislative Franchises (Committee Report No. 773), re H. No. 5859, entitled:“AN ACT RENEWING FOR ANOTHER

T W E N T Y- F I V E ( 2 5 ) Y E A R S T H E FRANCHISE GRANTED TO THE PEOPLE’S BROADCASTING SERVICE, INC. UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7477, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT 9213”


Sponsors: Representatives Teodoro and MadronaTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Revision of Laws (Committee Report No. 774), re H. No. 5860, entitled:“AN ACT DECLARING MAY 15 OF EVERY YEAR

A SPECIAL NONWORKING HOLIDAY IN THE ENTIRE PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL NORTE TO BE KNOWN AS ‘ADLAW NAN PROBINSYA NAN SURIGAO’, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7553, ENTITLED ‘AN ACT DECLARING JUNE NINETEEN OF EVERY YEAR AS A SPECIAL NONWORKING HOLIDAY IN THE PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL NORTE, TO BE KNOWN AS ADLAW NAN SURIGAO DEL NORTE’ ”


Sponsors: Representatives Primicias-Agabas and Matugas




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



At 5:04 p.m., the session was resumed with Deputy Speaker Giorgidi B. Aggabao presiding.

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

The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, let us acknowledge the presence of our guests. This is the Asia Leadership Trek delegation, headed by Mr. Samuel Hung Soo Kim. He is the President of the Center for Asia Leadership Initiatives. (Applause) He is accompanied by Mr. Faustino John Lim, co-chair of the Asia Leadership Trek Center for Asia Leadership Initiatives.

They are specifically the guests of our honorable Speaker, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., and Hon. Dakila Carlo E. Cua.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). We


have very distinguished guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, around 30 of them, students from Harvard University. We thank you for your visit and you are most welcome to the House of Representatives. Thank you very much. (Applause)

REP. DEFENSOR. Also, Mr. Speaker, we have the guests of the Hon. Jeffrey D. Khonghun.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). You

may take your seats, Your Honor.

REP. DEFENSOR. This is a delegation of barangay officials from Barangay Aningway-Sacatihan, and they are headed by the punong barangay, Eddie De Guzman.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). To the guests of the Honorable Khonghun, you are most welcome to the House of Representatives. Thank you very much for your visit. Thank you. You may take your seats, ladies and gentlemen, thank you. (Applause)



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

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

It was 5:06 p.m.


At 5:22 p.m., the session was resumed with Deputy Speaker Carlos M. Padilla presiding.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). The session of the House is resumed.


ROLL CALL

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we call the roll.


The Secretary General will please call the roll.

The Secretary General called the roll, and the result is reflected in Journal No. 71, dated June 9, 2015.*

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. The Speaker is present.

The roll call shows that 211 Members responded to the call.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). With

211 Members present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum.

The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that

we take up items under the Calendar of Business, specifically bills on Third Reading.




NOMINAL VOTING ON H.B. NO. 5791ON THIRD READING

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we vote on Third Reading on House Bill No. 5791 and direct the Secretary General to read the title of the measure, and call the roll for nominal voting.

I so move.


Thereupon, the Secretary General read the title of the measure, printed copies of which were distributed to the Members on June 3, 2015, pursuant to Section 58, Rule X of the House Rules.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5791, entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FREE PUBLIC WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS, TERMINALS, PARKS AND PLAZAS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

The Chair directed the Secretary General to call the roll for nominal voting. Thereafter, pursuant to the Rules of the House, a second roll call was made. The result of the voting on Third Reading* on the aforesaid measure is reflected in Journal No. 71, dated June 9, 2015.



APPROVAL OF H.B. NO. 5791ON THIRD READING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). With 211 affirmative votes, no negative vote and no abstention, House Bill No. 5791 is approved on Third Reading.




I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5794, entitled: AN ACT MANDATING THE CONSERVATION OF GABALDON AND OTHER HERITAGE SCHOOL BUILDINGS NATIONWIDE, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.






REP. NOEL. Mr. Speaker, I move that we vote on Third Reading on House Bill No. 5582 and direct the Secretary General to read the title of the measure, and call the roll for nominal voting.

I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5582, entitled: AN ACT RENEWING THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO RADIO VERITAS-GLOBAL BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INCORPORATED TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN FOR RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL PURPOSES RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED SEVENTY-FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-NINE TO ANOTHER TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS.







I so move.


Thereupon, the Secretary General read the title of the measure, printed copies of which were distributed



to the Members on June 3, 2015, pursuant to Section 58, Rule X of the House Rules.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 4421, entitled: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF MALITA, PROVINCE OF DAVAO OCCIDENTAL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.







I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 4894, entitled: AN ACT CONVERTING THE VILLAFUERTE-PEÑA HIGH SCHOOL IN BARANGAY PONGLON, MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOSE, PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR INTO A NATIONAL TECHNICAL-VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL TO BE KNOWN AS JUAN C. PEÑA NATIONAL TECHNICAL-VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.

The Chair directed the Secretary General to call the roll for nominal voting. Thereafter, pursuant to the Rules

of the House, a second roll call was made. The result of the voting on Third Reading* on the aforesaid measure is reflected in Journal No. 71, dated June 9, 2015.






I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5784, entitled: AN ACT RECOGNIZING THE CURRENT THIRD DISTRICT ENGINEERING OFFICE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR AS THE SECOND DISTRICT ENGINEERING OFFICE OF THE PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.









I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5792, entitled: AN ACT CONVERTING THE TALISAY DISTRICT HOSPITAL IN TALISAY CITY, PROVINCE OF CEBU INTO A GENERAL HOSPITAL TO BE KNOWN AS THE TALISAY CITY GENERAL HOSPITAL, INCREASING ITS BED CAPACITY FROM TWENTY- FIVE (25) TO TWO HUNDRED (200) BEDS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.







I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5795, entitled: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL IN BARANGAY GULOD, QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA TO BE KNOWN AS GULOD NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.







I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5796, entitled: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL IN BARANGAY NAGKAISANG NAYON, QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA TO BE KNOWN AS NAGKAISANG NAYON NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.

The Chair directed the Secretary General to call the roll for nominal voting. Thereafter, pursuant to the Rules









I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5797, entitled: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL IN BARANGAY GREATER FAIRVIEW, QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA TO BE KNOWN AS WEST FAIRVIEW NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR .







I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5798, entitled: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL IN BARANGAY KALIGAYAHAN,QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA TO BE KNOWN AS SUSANA D. VARGAS NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.







I so move.


Thereupon, the Secretary General read the title of the measure, printed copies of which were distributed



to the Members on June 4, 2015, pursuant to Section 58, Rule X of the House Rules.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 2814, entitled: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A ONE-STOP GOVERNMENT LAND TRANSPORT SERVICES PROCESSING CENTER IN SAN JOSE CITY, PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.







I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5779, entitled: AN ACT GRANTING THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION THE AUTHORITY TO MONITOR AND INVESTIGATE NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, FOUNDATIONS, AND SIMILAR INSTITUTIONS.







I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5780, entitled: AN ACT HONORING FILIPINO CENTENARIANS, GRANTING THEM ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES, AND DECLARING THE TWENTY-FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER AS A NATIONAL DAY OF RESPECT FOR CENTENARIANS.






REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we vote on Third Reading on House Bill No. 5790 and



direct the Secretary General to read the title of the measure, and call the roll for nominal voting.

I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5790, entitled: AN ACT PROMOTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ON THE PURCHASE OF MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICES BY ALLOWING CONSUMERS TO UNLOCK THE MOBILE WIRELESS DEVICES PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE LOCK-IN PERIOD UNDER THE MOBILE COMMUNICATION SERVICE CONTRACT.







I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5831, entitled: AN ACT ENHANCING THE CURRENT TAX SYSTEM BY IMPLEMENTING MEASURES THAT ENSURE TRANSPARENCY IN THE MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING OF TAX INCENTIVES GRANTED TO GOVERNMENT AND NONGOVERNMENT ENTITIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.







I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5842, entitled: AN ACT MANDATING A TWO THOUSAND PESO (P2,000) ACROSS-THE-BOARD INCREASE IN THE MONTHLY PENSION WITH CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT OF THE MINIMUM MONTHLY PENSION UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 12 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1161, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1997.”

The Chair directed the Secretary General to call the

roll for nominal voting. Thereafter, pursuant to the Rules









I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5799, entitled: AN ACT ESTABLISHING AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN BARANGAY TAÑONG, CITY OF MARIKINA, METRO MANILA TO BE KNOWN AS TAÑONG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.

The Chair directed the Secretary General to call

the roll for nominal voting. Thereafter, pursuant to the Rules of the House, a second roll call was made. The result of the voting on Third Reading* on the aforesaid measure is reflected in Journal No. 71, dated June 9, 2015.






I so move.



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5822, entitled: AN ACT PREVENTING THE PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION BY REGULATING THE PROVISION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, BROKERING, FINANCING, AND TRANSPORTING SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF TRADE IN STRATEGIC GOODS.





REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up bills on Second Reading.


CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 5845ON SECOND READING

PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we



consider House Bill No. 5845, contained in Committee Report No. 764, as reported out by the Committee on Natural Resources.

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

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

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

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

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5845, entitled: AN ACT REVERTING FISH PONDS WHICH HAVE BEEN UNUTILIZED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS TO FOREST LANDS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 43 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 705 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED FORESTRY REFORM CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that the

Explanatory Note of the Bill be considered as the sponsorship speech on the measure.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, there being no Member who wishes to interpellate, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we

open the period of amendments. However, there being no Committee or individual amendments, I move that we close the same.



REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we approve House Bill No. 5845 on Second Reading.

VIVA VOCE VOTING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). There is a motion for the approval of House Bill No. 5845 on Second Reading.

As many as are in favor, please say aye.

SEVERAL MEMBERS. Aye.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). As many as are against, please say nay.

FEW MEMBERS. Nay.

APPROVAL OF H.B. NO. 5845ON SECOND READING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). The ayes have it; the motion is approved.

House Bill No. 5845 is approved on Second Reading.




REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Bill No. 5847, contained in Committee Report No. 766, as reported out by the Committee on Natural Resources.




With the permission of the Body, and since copies of the measure have been previously distributed, the

* See MEASURES CONSIDERED (printed separately)


Secretary General read only the title thereof without prejudice to inserting its text in the Congressional Record.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5847, entitled: AN ACT SIMPLIFYING THE PROCEDURE IN THE DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LANDS, AMENDING SECTION 24 OF COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 141, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE PUBLIC LAND ACT.”


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Explanatory Note of the Bill be considered as the sponsorship speech on the measure.


REP. DEFENSOR. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate.

.THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). Is

there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.


.THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). Is there


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of amendments. However, there being no Committee or individual amendments, I move that we close the same.



VIVA VOCE VOTING





FEW MEMBERS. Nay.







REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Bill No. 5856, as contained in Committee Report No. 771, as reported out by the Committee on Basic Education and Culture.




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

T H E S E C R E T A R Y G E N E R A L . H o u s e B i l l N o . 5 8 5 6 , e n t i t l e d : A N A C T RECOGNIZING THE GERMAN EUROPEAN SCHOOL MANILA, INCORPORATED AS A N E D U C AT I O N A L I N S T I T U T I O N O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L C H A R A C T E R A N D PROVIDING FOR MECHANISMS ON THE G R A N T O F C E RTA I N P R E R O G AT I V E S CONDUCIVE TO ITS GROWTH.







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


.THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). Is

there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.



REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we approve House Bill No. 5856 on Second Reading..

VIVA VOCE VOTING





FEW MEMBERS. Nay.







REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Bill No. 5857, contained in Committee Report No. 772, as reported out by the Committee on Basic Education and Culture.





THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5857, entitled: AN ACT RECOGNIZING THE CANADIAN AMERICAN EDUCATION FOUNDATION, INC. AS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER AND PROVIDING FOR MECHANISMS ON THE GRANT OF CERTAIN PREROGATIVES CONDUCIVE TO ITS GROWTH.













VIVA VOCE VOTING




THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). As many as are against, please say nay. (Silence)





REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up the following local bills contained in the Calendar of Business for Thursday and Friday.


OMNIBUS CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL BILLS ON SECOND READING

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move for the omnibus consideration of the following local bills on

Second Reading:1. House Bill No. 5846, contained in Committee

Report No. 765;2. House Bill No. 5851, contained in Committee

Report No. 767; 3. House Bill No. 5852, contained in Committee

Report No. 768;4. House Bill No. 5853, contained in Committee

Report No. 769; and 5. House Bill No. 5860, contained in Committee

Report No. 774.


REP. DEFENSOR. For these bills, Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider the respective Explanatory Notes of the Bills as the sponsorship speeches thereon.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, there being no Member who registered to interpellate, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate.




REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we approve aforesaid measures on Second Reading.

VIVA VOCE VOTING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). As many as are in favor of the approval of the bills enumerated in the omnibus motion, please say aye.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). As many as are against, please say nay. (Silence)



OMNIBUS APPROVAL OF LOCAL BILLSON SECOND READING


Therefore, said bills, pursuant to Section 57 of the Rules of the House, are considered approved on Second Reading.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up an additional matter on Second Reading; this is a national bill, Mr. Speaker.




REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Bill No. 5855, contained in Committee Report No. 770, as reported out by the Committees on Justice, Appropriations, and Ways and Means.





THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5855, entitled: AN ACT REORGANIZING AND MODERNIZING THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI), AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR.






REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, there being no Member who registered to interpellate, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of amendments, individual and likewise that of the Committee.


INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to move for the approval of an individual amendment which has already been approved by the Chairman of the Committee. The amendment is that Section 13 of the Bill shall read as follows: SEC. 13. USE OF NBI CLEARANCE FEES. - AN ANNUAL AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THIRTY PERCENT (30%) OF AND CHARGEABLE AGAINST THE ACTUAL COLLECTIONS OF NBI FROM CLEARANCE FEES SHALL BE APPROPRIATED FOR THE NBI MODERNIZATION FOR THREE (3) YEARS, BUT IN NO CASE SHALL THE SAID ANNUAL APPROPRIATION EXCEED ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION PESOS (P150,000,000.00).

I so move, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). Is there any objection to the proposed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we close the period of amendments.





REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move for the approval of House Bill No. 5855, as amended, on Second Reading.

VIVA VOCE VOTING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). There is a motion to approve House Bill No. 5855, as amended, on Second Reading.




FEW MEMBERS. Nay.

APPROVAL OF H.B. NO. 5855, AS AMENDED, ON SECOND READING


House Bill No. 5855, as amended, is approved on Second Reading.



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


It was 6:08 p.m.


At 6:10 p.m., the session was resumed.



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


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

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

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

BILLS ON FIRST READING

House Bill No. 5839, entitled:“AN ACT AUTHORIZING WIRE TAPPING

IN CASES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4200 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ‘AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES’ ”

By Representative Belmonte (V.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON DANGEROUS

DRUGS

House Bill No. 5843, entitled:“ A N A C T P R O V I D I N G F O R T H E

RESTRUCTURING OF THE FISCAL REGIME FOR MINERALS AND MINERAL PRODUCTS AND QUARRY RESOURCES”

By Representative PadillaTO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND

MEANS

House Bill No. 5844, entitled:“AN ACT GRANTING THE AVOCADO

BROADBAND TELECOMS INC. A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT THE PHILIPPINES”

By Representative MadronaTO THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE

FRANCHISES

House Bill No. 5848, entitled:“AN ACT DECLARING HOT SPRINGS LOCATED

IN BARANGAY PILI, MUNICIPALITY OF SAPAD, PROVINCE OF LANAO DEL NORTE AS A TOURISM DEVELOPMENT SITE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representative Dimaporo (A.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON TOURISM

House Bill No. 5849, entitled:“AN ACT ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL HIGH


SCHOOL IN BARANGAY INUDARAN I (ONE), MUNICIPALITY OF SAPAD, PROVINCE OF LANAO DEL NORTE TO BE KNOWN AS THE INUDARAN I (ONE) NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representative Dimaporo (A.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION

AND CULTURE

House Bill No. 5850, entitled:“AN ACT PROMOTING RAIL REFORMS IN

THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF R.A. NO. 4156 ENTITLED ‘AN ACT CREATING THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, PRESCRIBING ITS POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES, AND PROVIDING FOR THE NECESSARY FUNDS FOR ITS OPERATION”

By Representative Sarmiento (C.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT

ENTERPRISES AND PRIVATIZATION A N D T H E C O M M I T T E E O N TRANSPORTATION

House Bill No. 5854, entitled:“AN ACT ESTABLISHING AN ARBORETUM

I N T H E P R E M I S E S O F T H E COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF KOLAMBUGAN, LANAO DEL NORTE TO BE KNOWN AS THE KOLAMBUGAN ARBORETUM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representatives Dimaporo (I.) and Dimaporo (A.)

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

House Bill No. 5858, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING HILAITAN – MANI-

AK – TRINIDAD PROVINCIAL ROAD OF THE CITY OF GUIHULNGAN IN THE PROVINCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL INTO A NATIONAL ROAD”

By Representative IwayTO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

AND HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 5861, entitled:“AN ACT TO AMEND ARTICLE THREE

HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE, BY PROVIDING HIGHER PENALTY WHEN

THE OFFENDED PARTY IS RIDING ON AND/OR WITH BICYCLE ALONG BIKE LANE DULY ESTABLISHED BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND/OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT WHERE SUCH BIKE LANE IS LOCATED”

By Representative Nava (P.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF

LAWS

House Bill No. 5863, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING THE HULO

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN BARANGAY HULO, CITY OF MANDALUYONG INTO AN INTEGRATED SCHOOL TO BE KNOWN AS HULO INTEGRATED SCHOOL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representative GonzalesTO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION

AND CULTURE

House Bill No. 5864, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING THE ENTIRE STRETCH

OF LAKAMBINI – PALCA PROVINCIAL ROAD AND THE PALCA – ANGANG – MALUMMIN – SAN LUIS MUNICIPAL ROAD IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF TUAO, CAGAYAN INTO A NATIONAL ROAD AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representative Bello (S.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

AND HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 5865, entitled:“AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE NATIONAL

SECURITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representative FuentebellaTO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE

AND SECURITY AND THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY


CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 5811 Continuation


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume the consideration of House Bill No. 5811. Kindly direct the Secretary General to read the title of the Bill.




The Secretary General is directed to read the title of the said Bill.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5811, entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE BASIC LAW FOR THE BANGSAMORO AUTONOMOUS REGION, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9054, ENTITLED “AN ACT TO STRENGTHEN AND EXPAND THE ORGANIC ACT FOR THE AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO,” AND REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6734, ENTITLED “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO.”


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary status of the bill is that it is still in the period of sponsorship and debate.

Mr. Speaker, to sponsor the bill, I move that we recognize the Lady from the First District of Maguindanao, the Hon. Bai Sandra A. Sema.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). The Lady from the First District of Maguindanao, the Hon. Bai Sandra A. Sema, shall take the floor to sponsor the said House bill.

REP. SEMA. The Committee is ready, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). Thank you, Your Honor.


REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). What is the pleasure of the Gentleman from the First District of Zamboanga City?

REP. LOBREGAT. I would just like to manifest that before the session was suspended yesterday, I was on the floor interpellating the Chairman.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). Therefore, the Gentleman will continue.

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes, but I am willing to, more or less, give way so that two of our colleagues can interpellate, and then I will, more or less, ask that after two of our colleagues have interpellated, I will continue

my interpellation with Chairman Rufus Rodriguez, if that is possible, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). Subject to the Rules of the House and the recommendation of the Committee on Rules, the request is granted.

REP. DEFENSOR. To interpel la te , Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Lady from GABRIELA Party-List, the Hon. Luzviminda C. Ilagan.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). The Lady from the Party-List GABRIELA, the Hon. Luzviminda C. Ilagan, shall take the floor to interpellate the Lady from the First District of Maguindanao and Cotabato City. Please proceed, honorable Lady from the GABRIELA Party-List.

REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good evening to the Speaker, honorable colleagues and to the honorable Sponsor.

May I know if the honorable Mme. Sponsor is ready to submit to some clarificatory questions.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). What is the pleasure of the Lady from the First District of Maguindanao and Cotabato City?

REP. SEMA. This Representation is ready, Mr. Speaker, to receive interpellations from the Lady, the champion of women, Hon. Luzviminda C. Ilagan.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Padilla). The Honorable Ilagan, you may now start with your interpellation.

REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Mme. Sponsor, during the public presentation of

the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro on October 7, 2012, the President called the ARMM, the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, “a failed experiment.” He stated his conclusion as follows, and I quote:

The ARMM is a failed experiment. Many of the people continue to feel alienated by the system, and those who feel that there is no way out will continue to articulate their grievances through the barrel of a gun. We cannot change this without structural reform.

Now, may I know, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, does the Sponsor agree with the statement of the President that the ARMM is a failed experiment?


REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, this Representation believes that the ARMM is not the embodiment of the agreement entered into by the government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Moro National Liberation Front. But to say that it was a failed experiment would render all the gains of the peace process of the ARMM unable to attain. And I would like to say that, partly, the ARMM has helped in establishing relative peace in the area of autonomy but it did not, in totality, address the basic conditions that we needed for the autonomous region to become a region that operates under genuine autonomy.

REP. ILAGAN. So, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, could it be that this particular opinion or point of view was taken because there is a perception or belief that the ARMM, partly or wholly, failed to bring structural reforms that we needed in our island? Do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor?

REP. SEMA. The ARMM, as I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, is a product of the negotiations between the MNLF and the government that started with the signing of the Tripoli Agreement after Martial Law was declared by President Marcos against our people in Mindanao. After the 1976 Tripoli Agreement, under President Ramos, we signed the 1996 Final Peace Agreement that became the basis of the Organic Act, and now R.A. No. 9054, but the other party to the agreement did not fulfill or did not feel that it was the embodiment of what they agreed on.

Presently, we can say that both the MNLF and the MILF do not subscribe to the ARMM as the manifestation of the genuine autonomy that they have settled for, considering that they have struggled and launched the armed struggle in the name of independence.

REP. ILAGAN. So, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, with your declaration, could it be because the ARMM failed to address the root causes of our problems? And so, would the Sponsor be able to enlighten us as to the root causes of the problems in Mindanao, as declared by many of our co-Mindanaoans who say that, maybe, the BBL would not be able to address the root causes of the problems of Mindanao?

So, would the Sponsor have an idea as to what these root causes being mentioned by many of the sectors are?

REP. SEMA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Bangsamoro problem started with the coming of conquerors, with the coming of the Spaniards where our people fought hard. They were able to repel the attacks because there

was already an existing government during that time, what we now call the “Sultanate of Maguindanao” and the “Sultanate of Sulu.”

After the Treaty of Paris where Spain sold the Philippines, including the areas which they were not able to subjugate, our people continued that valiant struggle. In 1968, on March 18 to be exact, trainees from the Sulu Archipelago were trained by the people of President Marcos to attack Sabah. When they were discovered, they were massacred. This started the new struggle launched by the Moro National Liberation Front.

So, when you ask us what the BBL is going to address, it is going to be the historical injustices that were committed against the Bangsamoro. And how is the BBL going to address that? First, there is the transitional justice system, which is already included in this law, as well as others already included in the normalization process, where a group of experts are tasked to research, coordinate, and make recommendations so that the injustices committed against the Bangsamoro people will be addressed, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ILAGAN. Thank you for the answer, Mme. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Sponsor mentioned “injustice.” The word “injustice” can sum up all of the manifestations regarding the problems that confront us or the Moro people in Mindanao. But the word “injustice” is so complex that today, it has three main senses. One sense is the injustice to the Moro identity, another sense is the injustice on the Moro political sovereignty, and the third is the injustice to their economic development. So, I believe, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, that understanding this injustice in its three senses is crucial in the making or in the crafting or arriving at a decision regarding the proposed BBL, if we wish for the Bangsamoro Basic Law to finally resolve the Moro problem. So, a big part of my interpellation, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, will deal with this injustice mentioned by the Sponsor in its three senses, particularly on whether or not this BBL Ad Hoc version has addressed them.

Let me start with the injustice on the Bangsamoro identity. According to Moro historians, the subjugation, the violent assimilation, and integration of the Moro peoples into the mainstream body politic without regard for their historical and cultural makeup is an injustice to the Bangsamoro’s religious, cultural, and political identity. To the Bangsamoro people, this violation of their religious, cultural, and political identity is a very sensitive issue. Now, how will the BBL Ad Hoc version address injustice to the Bangsamoro identity?


REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, thank you for that question.

The BBL will address the issue of injustice done to the identity of the Bangsamoro people primarily by the name itself of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region. It only means that we recognize that there are Bangsamoro people and that they are entitled to enjoy a Bangsamoro Autonomous Region. The BBL is very clear on that, Mr. Speaker.

On the second issue of injustice to their political life, while we do not anymore enjoy that kind of government, the Sultanate, our people have already slowly accepted the kind of political organizations that we now have. As a matter of fact, this Representation is evidence that we already are part of this general or the Philippine system.

On the third issue of economic development, the BBL will address this, first, by the mere grant of a block grant that will spell the difference between the ARMM that we now have and the proposed Bangsamoro government where funds will be now concentrated on the enumeration or the priorities of the Bangsamoro government. It shall not be anymore Congress which will define what the priorities of the Bangsamoro government are, but it will be the parliament that will prioritize the funds that are necessary to make the Autonomous Region operable, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, in crafting this Bill, there are three main guiding documents, although we also have the annexes and other references, but principally, there are three guiding documents: the 1987 Constitution, the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro, and the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro. Of course, there are other documents which I mentioned earlier but these three are the main references, and these three have to be referred to and, as much as possible, harmonized, in order to give effect to the agreement reached between the GPH and the MILF.

Now, it appears that the committee only considered the Constitution but not the CAB and the FAB. The result is a BBL which is too concerned with constitutionality but far removed from the spirit of the CAB and the FAB. Now, that is my observation, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor. May I know your reaction.

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, the MILF wanted the

moon, the stars and everything. But because the BBL has to subscribe to the delimitation of the Constitution, I think they have to content themselves with the rays of the sun.

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, my

basis for such an observation is the deletion in the Ad Hoc version, written off in the Preamble, of the phrase,

and I quote, “as stipulated under the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro.”

Now, the CAB is a child of the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro, so when we deleted the CAB, written off in the Preamble, we also disregarded the FAB. So, may I know why this was removed, Mr. Speaker.

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, I share your sentiment

but since this BBL was submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Bangsamoro, we have to subject ourselves to the rule of the majority.

REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mme.

Sponsor. In addition, Mr. Speaker, to the deletion of, I quote,

“as stipulated under the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro,” which also effectively disregarded the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro, this Representation, using the analysis of the Bangsamoro study group, has also counted no less than 30 direct violations of and inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro. Now, actually, the count would be more since this is only an initial reading of the notes of the Bangsamoro study group.

So, let us go to some specifics, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, of my observation that the Ad Hoc version is far removed from the spirit of the CAB and the FAB and the original BBL, thereby disregarding the Bangsamoro demand for respect of their identity. Take, for example, the word “Bangsamoro” as used in the Ad Hoc bill and as used in the original, as based on the FAB and the CAB. I am particularly referring to Article I, Section 2. The Ad Hoc Committee version of the draft BBL uses the term “Bangsamoro Autonomous Region” as the name of the political entity that the bill seeks to create. In the original bill, the word used was “Bangsamoro” only.

The FAB, the CAB, and the original bill used “Bangsamoro” to convey a political entity embodying a nation within a State. Now, this “Bangsamoro” assertion of, I quote, “a nation within a state,” is precisely to correct the injustice to the Bangsamoro identity. Now, the Ad Hoc bill added the words “Autonomous Region” to Bangsamoro in order to convey that the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region is a political subdivision of the Philippine state, in contrast to the use of “Bangsamoro” in the original version to convey a nation within a State. In view of these different meanings, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, there is now a disconnect between the original bill, as based on the FAB and the CAB, and the Ad Hoc bill. Is there any reaction from the Sponsor?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, as stated under Section

2, Article l, the name of the political entity under this Basic Law shall be the Bangsamoro Autonomous


Region. In the original one, it was only referred to as “Bangsamoro.” I think this was included in order to make reference to the region. And as I have said earlier, this was voted and the majority prevailed on this.

REP. ILAGAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the majority voted on this. So, it appears that the Ad Hoc Committee defines political entity in terms of being a subdivision of the State, while the original version contemplated of political entity intimately connected with sociological meaning, with emphasis on cultural identity and of being a nation. What is wrong with the idea of a political entity based on the concept of a nation, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, I share the sentiment of my esteemed colleague, but as it is now, it is already enshrined here in this particular provision that it shall be referred to as the “Bangsamoro Autonomous Region.”

REP. ILAGAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker. So, if I may pursue this line of questioning, what is the difference, what is the significance of the words “Autonomous Region” which the Committee added? Are we trying to convey that, as contemplated in this draft Bill, this Bangsamoro is a political entity no greater than the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao?

REP. SEMA. As far as this provision is concerned, it will appear that way, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ILAGAN. So, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, there are those who say that if we put the words “Autonomous Region,” to Bangsamoro, the resulting whole phrase “Bangsamoro Autonomous Region” becomes an oxymoron, that to be consistent with autonomous region, it should be “Moro Autonomous Region.” How would the Sponsor react to this, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, the Bangsamoro, as originally obtained here, refers not only to the political subdivision but also to the people. But since this was already decided in the Committee level, I would say that this stays in the meantime.

REP. ILAGAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, but I would like to focus on this because as I pointed out earlier, we want to correct the injustice on the Moro identity. In insisting on using “Bangsamoro Autonomous Region” with emphasis on the “Autonomous Region,” defined as a regional subdivision of the State, we are in fact changing the meaning of “Bangsamoro” as used in the FAB, CAB, and in the original bill. The content of this changed meaning is that we, just like

what the Spanish and American colonizers and previous governments did, are actually perpetuating the forced integration and assimilation of the Bangsamoro into the main body politic, consequently denying them the status of a nation within a State which deserves to be a political entity enjoying a parity of esteem. In short, Mme. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, we are actually perpetuating the injustice on the Bangsamoro identity.

REP. SEMA. I fully agree with that, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to enjoin my distinguished colleague that this particular provision can still be amended.

REP. ILAGAN. Oh, thank you, Mme. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Let me now go to another question. Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, how do you define self-determination?


REP. SEMA. I move for a one-minute suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker.


It was 6:40 p.m.




The Lady from the First District of Maguindanao is recognized.

REP. SEMA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Self-determination, as defined, is self-governance

under the concept of autonomy.

REP. ILAGAN. Thank you.

REP. SEMA. And it is also here in the Preamble.

REP. ILAGAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor.So, self-determination is the core principle and the

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples also defines the right to self-determination as the right to freely determine political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, mainly through self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs. So, that would be self-determination. To state in other words that UN Declaration, the principle of the right


to self-determination is, and I quote, “the right to chart their political future through a democratic process.” Now, if that is the meaning of self-determination, why was Article I, Section 3 also removed? How can we claim to giving the Bangsamoro full autonomy when the Committee deleted the core principle of the right to self-determination?

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

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker.

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

REP. SEMA. The deletion of the words “chart their political future through a democratic process” was in the substitute bill that says:

The purpose of this Basic Law is to establish a political entity, provide for its basic structure of government in recognition of the justness and legitimacy of the cause of the Bangsamoro people and to secure their identify and posterity and allow for meaningful self-governance.

The charting of their political future is already subsumed in the word “self-governance,” Mr. Speaker.

REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mme. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. And so, that very important principle, an assertion to identify, the right to self-determination, was deleted and in its place is now self-governance.

So, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, may I move to the second injustice—the injustice to the Moro political sovereignty. The second injustice that our history has inflicted on the Bangsamoro is the injustice to their political sovereignty. The Moro people can claim rightfully that unlike other ethnic inhabitants in the country, they never submitted to the succession of Spanish and American colonial rulers of our country whom they fought to maintain their native political structure and territory, and that they have never joined the independence movement against the US because they were independent in their own right. Despite this injustice, they recognized that they could no longer wholly reclaim what was theirs in the past. According to their spokesperson, using the pen name Salah Jubair, and may I quote:

The Moros are not asking for the whole Mindanao, because circumstances have superseded some facts of history. They just want a parcel of it, especially where they predominate. This will enable generations after them to live in peace and piety, as Islam enjoins all believers. The indigenous peoples, whom the Visayans call Lumads may opt to join their blood-brothers, the

Moros, and they are welcome. After all, the two peoples are inseparable in the history of Mindanao and Sulu. Is this too much a price for peace, development and prosperity for all?

So, to repeat, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, they have recognized that circumstances had superseded their claim to political sovereignty that is why they have entered into these peace negotiations with the GPH. What they want now is merely the recognition of that injustice and to give that part of Mindanao where they predominate. Such parcel of Mindanao, the Bangsamoro territory, is very intimately intertwined with their demand for recognition as a nation within a State which must have self-rule and be accorded with parity of esteem.

So, my next series of questions, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, will be about the Bangsamoro territory, the asymmetrical relationship between the GPH and the Bangsamoro, and the issue of reserved powers.

On the Bangsamoro territory, that is Article III, Section 1, the Ad Hoc version changed the word “territory” used in the original bill to “geographical areas.” And, the geographical areas are now just the land mass without the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial, alluvial, and aerial domains. Now, I have heard the discussions of this in the Committee hearings. But for purposes of laying down the premises, may the Sponsor give me the favor of explaining once more the reason for changing the term from “territory” to “geographical areas,” Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor.

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, the term “territory” was replaced with “geographical areas” of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region because according to our Chairman, the term “territory” has an element of a state.

REP. ILAGAN. So, Mme. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, in changing the term “territory” to “geographical areas,” was the Ad Hoc Committee or the Chair, as quoted by the Sponsor, avoiding a particular meaning of territory?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, much as we would like to retain it, this Representation has already made an omnibus motion for the retention of all the provisions as submitted, but as I have also said earlier, we have a process in the Ad Hoc Committee and this is the result of that process.

REP. ILAGAN. And voted by the majority, Mme. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker.

So, in replacing the term “territory” with “geographical areas,” are we not, in fact, castrating the territory of the Bangsamoro? What good is having jurisdiction over the land mass if the Bangsamoro cannot have jurisdiction over the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial, alluvial and aerial domains found over or in that land mass?


REP. SEMA. It could mean that way, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, territory, as defined by the British dictionary, is the geographical domain under the jurisdiction of a political unit. As such, it is not a stand-alone feature of a state. Territory alone cannot confer the status of a state. For an entity to become a state, it must possess all the features of a state—population, territory, government, and sovereignty. Thus, a people occupying a definite territory will not rise to the category of state if it does not have a government. Even if it has a government, again, it will not rise to the status of a state if it has no sovereignty. Is this not correct, Mme. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our distinguished colleague for clarifying and for defining and for making our colleagues here also understand and, as stated again, I share her sentiment.

REP. ILAGAN. So, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, when we change “territory” to “geographical areas,” there are indications. Would the use of the term “territory” result in the political separation of Bangsamoro from the Philippine state? What harm, political or otherwise, would that word “territory” inflict if we use it in the original version? What violation of the Constitution would be committed if we retain the word “territory” as agreed upon by the GPH and the MILF?

REP. SEMA. There is no, I think, violation, Mr. Speaker, but again, we have a process, and this is the result of that process.

REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor.

The MILF has publicly proclaimed that it is no longer after cessation, that it is no longer after having over certain Moro areas and it has backed up that statement with overt acts such as entering into negotiations with the GPH and in observing a ceasefire for four years now.

The BBL itself contains an unequivocal statement that, and I quote: “The Bangsamoro territory shall remain part of the Philippines.” Moreover, the fact that the MILF has submitted its demand for an autonomy to this Congress is the best proof that it is no longer after cessation. So, is the Ad Hoc Committee not taking this public declaration of the MILF for its commitment value, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor?

REP. SEMA. Again, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the sentiment and this is the result of the process.


Now, in Republic Act No. 9054, let me ask the term used because the term used in Republic Act No. 9054, as can be found in Article II, is “regional autonomous area and seat of government.” But Article IX on Fiscal Autonomy of the same Act uses the term “territorial jurisdiction.”

Now, in my next series of questions, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, I would like to ask the Sponsor to answer my questions with a simple “yes” or “no” only, so we can be categorical in our premises. So, just “yes” or “no,” Mme. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker.

First, does the province of Tarlac have a territory?

REP. SEMA. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ILAGAN. Thank you. Does the province of Misamis Oriental have territory?


REP. ILAGAN. Yes. Does the city of Cagayan de Oro also have territory, Mme. Sponsor?


REP. ILAGAN. The municipality of El Salvador in Misamis Oriental has territory too?

REP. SEMA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are LGUs, yes.

REP. ILAGAN. Yes, true. And does the barrio or the barangay of Macasandig have a territory, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor?


REP. ILAGAN. So, the provinces, the cities, the municipalities, the barangays, LGUs, as mentioned by the Sponsor, I have mentioned, they have territories because it is territory which separates one political unit from another. The territory of Tarlac separates it from Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Zambales and Pangasinan. The territory of El Salvador separates it from Alubijid. The territory of Misamis Oriental separates it from Cagayan de Oro City and vice versa. And the territory of Macasandig separates it from the barangay of Nazareth.

In fact, our Local Government Code mentions our provinces, municipalities and cities and barangays and political subdivisions as imbued with territorial jurisdictions, right, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor?



REP. ILAGAN. So, if Misamis Oriental and Cagayan de Oro can have their territories, why can the Bangsamoro not have its territory? If a barangay such as Macasandig can have a territory, why can the Bangsamoro not have a territory?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, my answer to that, again, would be, we have a process and that the result of that process is what we have now. I think also that people are so sensitive about the issue of Bangsamoro that they do not want to leave it to the imagination—the connotation of a territory.

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, in insisting on the term “geographical areas” instead of “territory,” what message are we trying to send across? Are we trying to convey to our Muslim brothers and sisters that the Bangsamoro has geographical areas but no territory; that they do not deserve to have a territory because territory tends to secession? Is this the message that the Ad Hoc Committee and this Congress want to send to the public?

In the voting in the Committee, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, the Makabayan bloc fought for the return of the word “territory” used in the original version because of the danger behind the use of the term “geographical areas” because it can easily lend itself to the branding of Bangsamoro, so prevalent in the popular culture as not deserving to have territory because they are Moros.

In effect, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, more than fighting for the return of the word “territory” as used in the original bill, we fought against the branding that hid behind the words “geographical areas.” What is the branding that we are opposed to, that we are fighting for? Moros are pirates, Moros are kidnappers, Moros are counterfeiters, Moros are traitors, Moros are terrorists. In the case of this Ad Hoc version of the Bill, we have only changed those stereotypes in the popular culture to Moro secessionists. As pirates, as kidnappers, as terrorists, words that we have opposed, they do not deserve a territory. Are we not in fact pandering to this anti-Moro theme in our popular culture, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, the use of the word “Bangsamoro” and the kind of exchanges or the kind of branding, as my colleague here was referring to, is really hurting us. But instead of blaming anyone, personally, I am blaming the failure of education to include the history of the Bangsamoro people so that the rest of the Filipino nation would feel or would understand who we are. But to go back to the particular provisions that my esteemed colleague is referring to, I would like to say that we have to leave it at that. I have to leave

that to the collective wisdom of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker.


At this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to manifest that we cannot build peace by enacting an autonomy law loaded with such language that panders to popular prejudices toward our Muslim brothers and sisters. We cannot enact genuine autonomy for the Bangsamoro if we start with calumniation and distrust of our brothers and sisters.

The Makabayan bloc would like to put on record, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, lest the point is missed, it is such distrust, which, more than anything else, is jeopardizing the peaceful settlement of the Moro problem in Mindanao. The original BBL Bill was based on the CAB and the FAB. It must be emphasized that the CAB and the FAB were the products of the peace negotiations between the GPH and the MILF.

As they say, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, distrust is a bird that always comes home to roost. In watering down this Bill, far removed from the spirit of the CAB and the FAB, because of distrust, we are actually putting on trial the commitment of the GPH to deliver its end of the negotiations. It sends the signal that this GPH cannot be trusted in peace negotiations because whatever commitment it will sign, there is always its Congress which can be relied upon to use constitutional consistency and fitness to trim any peace agreement down to the narrow confines of popular prejudices against our Moro brothers and sisters.

In watering down this Bill because of distrust, this Congress is actually holding a mirror to the sincerity of the GPH in dealing with political movements that seek to address, through negotiations, the root causes of the armed conflicts that have so divided this land, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor.

Let me proceed to my next line of questioning. On the change from central to national government, Mr. Speaker, the FAB, the CAB and the original version of the BBL have clearly established that the relationship between the Bangsamoro and the GPH is one that is asymmetrical. Does the Ad Hoc Committee’s BBL version still adhere to this asymmetrical relationship, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor?


REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, if the BBL Ad Hoc version truly, truly adheres to the asymmetrical relationship established in the FAB and the CAB, why did the Committee delete the words, “parity of esteem” in the Preamble, Mme. Sponsor?


REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, regarding the term “asymmetric,” the Committee included the definition of asymmetric, and I quote:

…Asymetric relationship refers to the relationship between the National Government and the Bangsamoro Government as an autonomous region, as provided under Section 15, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, wherein, the autonomous regions are granted more powers and less intervention from the National Government compared to other territorial and political subdivisions.

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, to establish my premises, the asymmetrical relationship in the FAB, the CAB and in the original version embodies the particularity of the autonomy and self-government that the Bangsamoro seeks to achieve. It embodies the demand of the Bangsamoro not to be treated merely as an ordinary, local government unit or regional subdivision of the GPH, but rather as an autonomous, political entity that enjoys a parity of esteem. That parity of esteem is the political expression of their sociological demand to be treated as a nation within a state.

In the FAB and the CAB, such demand for parity of esteem has been emphasized several times as being anchored on the recognition of the justness and the legitimacy of the cause of the Bangsamoro people. This is the appreciation of this Representation of the significance of the asymmetrical relationship that the FAB, the CAB and the original bill seek to establish between the Bangsamoro and the GPH. Does the Sponsor not agree with this, Mr. Speaker?

REP. SEMA. I fully agree, Mr. Speaker, and again I would like to enjoin our colleague to include this, if she may, in the period of amendments, Mr. Speaker.


One articulation among many others of that asymmetrical relationship is the use in the original version of the term “central government” whenever the context speaks of the relationship between the GPH and the Bangsamoro. But the Ad Hoc Committee changed that term in all the four corners of the Bill to “national government.” Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, may I know why?

REP. SEMA. The change from central to national is because the Constitution always refers to the national government as “national.”

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, how do we reconcile the change when in fact the term “central

government” has been used 85 times in Republic Act No. 9054 without resulting in a separate Moro state?

REP. SEMA. That is the contention, Mr. Speaker, of the Committee.

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, in addition, every authority devolved or granted to the Bangsamoro has been qualified by the phrase and I quote, “within the framework of the Constitution and national sovereignty as well as the territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.” This makes the BBL Ad Hoc version a most ponderous writ because of the innumerable repetition of such qualifying phrase. If it is the belief of the Committee that repeating for so many times the qualifying phrase, “within the framework of the Constitution,” will prevent the Bangsamoro from spinning into secession, then the Committee is gravely wrong. Such repetition will and cannot prevent secession because when discriminated and oppressed people decide to secede, they do not consult the Constitution; and certainly if the Bangsamoro people decide to secede in the future, they will not consult the BBL as to how its provisions are worded. My point, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, is that the change is an attack on the asymmetrical relationship established in the FAB, the CAB and the original bill. Specifically, it rejects the idea of parity of esteem. It reverts to the old arrangement in which the Bangsamoro is treated just as another regional subdivision of the GPH. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, we are not recognizing the justness of the cause of the Bangsamoro people.

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, I share that sentiment, but again, what we have here is the result of a process.

REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor. On the reserved powers of the central government, in the many dictionaries, this Representation has consulted that the common definition and feature of autonomy is in the term “self-government” which was mentioned earlier by the Sponsor or even “self-governance.” This means that autonomy is in the direction of transferring the powers of a central authority to a political entity in order to make the latter capable of self-government. Is that not right, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor?

REP. SEMA. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ILAGAN. Such that the more powers the central authority transfers to a political entity, the better for autonomy. Is that right, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor?


REP. ILAGAN. So, such that the lesser the powers


transferred to the political entity, the lesser is the autonomy, or there would be no autonomy at all, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor.


REP. ILAGAN. Now, the original version of the BBL listed nine reserved powers of the central government but in the Ad Hoc version, the reserved powers of the central government have been expanded to 14. In fact, the BBL Ad Hoc Bill has more reserved powers for the central government than the reserved central powers under Republic Act No. 9054. The net effect of this expansion is the diminution of the powers transferred to Bangsamoro. How can these polar effects of expansion of the reserved powers of the central government, on one hand, and the diminution of the transferred powers for the Bangsamoro, on the other hand, serve the interest of genuine and full autonomy? Now, we have more powers for the central government. And as the Sponsor agreed, Mr. Speaker, the lesser powers transferred to the political entity would mean lesser autonomy.

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, as stated earlier, I agree with her sentiment.

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, let me now go to the injustice to Moro economic development. The third injustice that our history inflicted on our Moro brothers and sisters is economic injustice. Arguably, this economic injustice cuts the deepest wound on the Moro society. It followed the loss of their political sovereignty. They lost 80 percent of their ancestral domains to cadastral survey, land registration and titling, creation of agricultural colonies, declaration of public lands, and settlements for immigrants from Luzon and the Visayas.

These programs of the central government consolidated its Regalian ownership and control of our lands at the expense of the Moro people. But while the Manila government and its favored elite groups burst in wealth and power from the exploitation of the natural resources in Mindanao, our Moro brothers and sisters were left behind and they were down in the lowest tier of Philippine society in all dimensions of human and socioeconomic development.

Today, the Bangsamoro areas are the poorest in terms of income, education, social amenities and infrastructure. The response of the central government to this injustice is the establishment of an Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. That brings us back to the October 7, 2012 speech of the President, declaring the ARMM as a failed experiment because of the concentration of political power in a few, and warlordism, corruption and

worsening poverty among the Bangsamoro. I must add, Mr. Speaker, the lack of redistribution of wealth in Bangsamoro society.

Before I go to my questions regarding economic injustice, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, let me first measure whether this Bill has the kind of structural reforms necessary to address the root causes of the Moro problem, so that it would not become another failed experiment. Where in the BBL are the provisions for dismantling warlordism in Bangsamoro and redistributing political power to the basic masses? Where in the BBL are the provisions for asset reforms and redistributing economic wealth in order to uplift ordinary Bangsamoros from poverty? Where in the BBL are the provisions that will ensure that the Bangsamoro people will have decent employment and livelihood? And where in the BBL are the provisions that will ensure the Bangsamoro people of housing and basic social services?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, it is under the normalization process in the CAB, and if I may quote:

Normalization is the process through which the communities affected by the decades-long armed conflict in Mindanao can return to a peaceful life and pursue sustainable livelihoods free from fear of violence and crime. It involves the transition of the MILF’s Bangsamoro Islamic Armed Forces to a peaceful civilian life which includes putting their weapons beyond use. It also involves the redress of unresolved legitimate grievances and rehabilitation of conflict-affected areas. The process of normalization has three main components: security aspect; socio-economic development; and transitional justice The security aspect of normalization includes: policing, decommissioning of MILF forces and weapons, redeployment of the Armed Forces of the Philippines from within the conflict-affected areas, and the disbandment of the private armed groups or PAGs. The security aspect of normalization will take into account the needs of the communities involved.

Socio-Economic Development Program will be undertaken for the rehabilitation, reconstruction and development of the Bangsamoro. In particular, socio-economic programs will be instituted to address the needs of the BIAF members, internally displaced persons or IDPs, and poverty-stricken communities.

Transitional justice mechanisms will also be put


in place to address the legitimate grievances of the Bangsamoro people, correct historical injustices, and address human rights violations, with the end-in-view of healing the wounds of conflict.

Mr. Speaker, the BBL is not the be-all and end-all, but it will start the process of healing; it will start the process of addressing the historical injustices. That is why I have said earlier that the MILF wanted the moon and the stars, but because we are delimited by the Constitution, they only have to enjoy the rays of the sun, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, what is wrong with aiming for the sun, the stars, the moon? It is precisely why we have all these aspirations to avoid another failed experiment. The provisions mentioned, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, will not dismantle warlordism. These provisions are already present in Republic Act No. 9054. And what did we get? In 2009, we woke up in shock at the gruesome news of the Ampatuan massacre.

In the penultimate hearings of the Committee, we have tried to introduce amendments. The Makabayan bloc tried to introduce amendments for genuine land distribution because, precisely, this Bill has neither asset reforms nor provisions on redistribution of wealth.

We also introduced amendments for nationalist industrialization because this Bill has no provision against foreign exploitation of the natural resources in Bangsamoro areas. But those amendments were, as you said, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, voted down by the Majority.

Now, let me continue, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor. Are there provisions in the BBL that will spare the Bangsamoro people from the predatory activities of generation companies under EPIRA? Are there provisions in the BBL that will spare them from the ravaging effects of periodic oil price increases under the Oil Deregulation Law?

Now, if such provisions for dismantling warlordism, redistributing political power and economic wealth, and protecting our people in the Bangsamoro from EPIRA and the Oil Deregulation Law are nowhere to be found in the BBL Ad Hoc version, how can we say that it is any different from ARMM, the failed experiment? Where are the structural reforms that will make the difference in ensuring that the BBL will succeed and not fail like the ARMM?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, as a Moro, the only thing that we wanted is for the war to stop. While the MILF and the MNLF had signed an agreement and not all of it were implemented, I think we need to learn from the history of the MNLF and the government that this

time, we need not only the two parties to support or to comply with their agreement, but we need everyone to rebuild that region to help it recover.

While I agree with my most esteemed colleague, as far as this Moro is concerned, that I want this BBL because I want the war to stop, if it takes only a small BBL to make the war stop, then I agree, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, the injustices continue and the MILF picked up on where the MNLF left. So, to make a long history short, the GPH and the MILF entered into peace negotiations to find a political settlement to the armed conflict, to the war in Muslim areas. These peace negotiations went through tough bends in the road, but in the end, it produced the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro, the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, and the Bangsamoro Basic Law drafted by the Bangsamoro Transitional Council.

Now, there are many things in these three or four documents that GABRIELA does not necessarily agree with totally. For sure, generally speaking, they need to be sharpened if we must give genuine self-determination to the Moro people and definitely put the guns of the MILF to disuse. But since the GPH has put its signature on these documents, I would like to measure the GPH for the promises and the commitments it has given in the negotiating table. Now, this is important, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, because there are other armed movements in this country seeking peace negotiations with the GPH, and the treatment of the Executive and this Congress on the BBL, to me, is a barometer of how the GPH can be trusted or not trusted to sit in the negotiation table and address the root causes of the armed conflict, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor. So, I have some more questions.

The Ad Hoc BBL version entirely changed the provisions of Article VII, Section 8, such that the authority to explore, develop and utilize the natural resources within the Bangsamoro has practically reverted to the central government, and what is given to the Bangsamoro is merely regulatory power of control and supervision. What is the rationale for this change, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor? The authority to explore, develop and utilize used to be with the Bangsamoro Basic Law original version. Now, we are merely giving regulatory power of control and supervision.

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, the Regalian Doctrine states that the state owns the natural resources.

REP. ILAGAN. So, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, it is the Regalian Doctrine that has been used as the basis for minimizing the power.


REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote Article XII, Section 2:

All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, x x x…

and so on and so forth, Mr. Speaker.


The authority to explore, develop and utilize the natural resources within the Bangsamoro is very crucial to its full autonomy. I would say, it is the flesh and bones of autonomy in the Bangsamoro. Without such power, the Bangsamoro cannot chart its own internal economic development and there is no autonomy to speak of. Economic development will continue to be planned, programmed and implemented from and by the central government.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, the development of the Bangsamoro will continue to be an imposition, and not just a result of Bangsamoro self-determination. Is this our idea of full autonomy in which the internal economic development in Bangsamoro will continue to be imposed by the central government? How is this almost wholesale change in Article VII, Section 8 supposed to serve full autonomy, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, sus ta inab le

development and social justice are the foundational economic policies in the BBL. It will be the Bangsamoro government that will spell out the specific programs that will target the protection mentioned, Mr. Speaker.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend

the session, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Without objection, the consideration of House Bill No. 747 …

REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker, just to suspend.

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

It was 7:31 p.m.


At 7:34 p.m., the session was resumed with Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. presiding.

THE SPEAKER. The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker, we have very distinguished guests in the gallery, and may we acknowledge their presence. We have in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, former Senator, Hon. Leticia Ramos-Shahani who has just been awarded earlier, Mr. Speaker. We have in the gallery, former President, Hon. Fidel V. Ramos, (Applause) Assistant Secretary Lila Ramos-Shahani, Hon. Ranjit Ramos Shahani, and Mr. Chanda Ramos Shahani, and other members of the family, Mr. Speaker. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER. Yes, we acknowledge, first of all, the presence of former Senator Leticia Shahani, to whom we have just awarded Resolution No. 200, as well as her family, foremost of whom is former President Fidel V. Ramos.


THE SPEAKER. So, perhaps we should invite them in front so that I could reenact the giving of the award to Senator Shahani and, in the meantime, I would like to suspend the session to allow everyone to meet them.

The session is suspended.

It was 7:36 p.m.


At 7:46 p.m., the session was resumed with Deputy Speaker Giorgidi B. Aggabao presiding.



DESIGNATION OF MEMBERS TO THE BICAM. CONF. CTTEE.

REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker, before the interpellation by the Hon. Luz Ilagan resumes, I


move that we designate the following as members of the Bicameral Conference Committee on the disagreeing provisions of House Bill No. 4147 and Senate Bill No. 2280 on Strengthening the Probation System, namely: Reps. Giorgidi B. Aggabao, Evelina G. Escudero, Marlyn L. Primicias-Agabas, Xavier Jesus “XJ” D. Romualdo, Leni Gerona-Robredo, Barry Gutierrez, Silvestre “Bebot” H. Bello III, and Cinchona Cruz-Gonzales.


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

The Members nominated are so designated. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

RECONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF H. RES. NO. 1051

REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we reconsider the adoption of House Resolution No. 1051 to introduce some perfecting amendments thereto.


Please proceed.

COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

REP. DURANO. I move that we introduce the following amendments:

1. As to the resolutory clause, on page 3, delete lines 25 to 30 and replace with the following paragraph: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TO RECOGNIZE THE LIFELONG AND INVALUABLE CONTRIBUTION OF THE LEGENDARY LABOR LEADER ATTY. DEMOCRITO T. MENDOZA OF THE TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP) IN SHAPING AND ADVANCING THE PHILIPPINE LABOR MOVEMENT AND FOR TIRELESSLY WORKING TO DEFEND AND UPHOLD THE INTEREST OF THE FILIPINO WORKING CLASS”; and

2. The title shall read as “RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE LIFELONG AND INVALUABLE CONTRIBUTION OF THE LEGENDARY LABOR LEADER ATTY. DEMOCRITO T. MENDOZA OF THE TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP) IN SHAPING AND ADVANCING THE PHILIPPINE LABOR MOVEMENT AND FOR TIRELESSLY WORKING TO DEFEND AND UPHOLD THE INTEREST OF THE FILIPINO WORKING CLASS.”


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


ADOPTION OF H. RES. NO. 1051, AS AMENDED

REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we adopt House Resolution No. 1051, as amended.


House Resolution No. 1051, as amended, is hereby adopted.


REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I move that the Hon. Luz Ilagan be recognized.


The honorable interpellator may please proceed.

REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor. May I continue.

So, we were talking about the authority to explore, develop and utilize natural resources which, I believe, is very crucial to the full autonomy to be enjoyed by the Bangsamoro. But that has been removed, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, because now, we are left with mere regulatory power of control and supervision. So, the ARMM failed because it was not empowered to explore, develop and utilize natural resources. By deleting the authority to explore, develop and utilize, the Bangsamoro is now on the same footing with the ARMM of Republic Act No. 9054.

How can we now say that this BBL is different from ARMM, and that it will not suffer the same fate as ARMM? Now, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, I cannot understand the rationale for this.

Two weeks ago, this Chamber approved on Second Reading RBH No. 1 which proposes changes in our Constitution in order to welcome with wide open arms foreign exploitation, development and utilization of our national patrimony and natural resources sector. We vehemently oppose changing the Constitution to remove this protectionist provision. Now, it is beyond me that our colleagues could have no qualms about allowing foreign investments to exploit, develop and utilize our national patrimony and natural resources, but cannot extend the same act of liberality to the Bangsamoro people. Certainly, between those foreign interests and the Bangsamoro, the latter, the Bangsamoro, definitely deserves more right to exploit, develop and utilize our


natural resources than those foreign interests. Do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor? If we can open up our economy 100-percent to foreign investors, why can we not give the same right to our Bangsamoro brothers and sisters?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, under Section 8 on Natural Resource, it states, and I quote:

The Bangsamoro Government shall have the authority, power, and right to the control and supervision over the exploration, utilization, development, and protection of the mines and minerals and other natural resources within the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in accordance with the Constitution and the pertinent provisions of this Basic Law except for the strategic minerals such as uranium, petroleum, and other fossil fuels, mineral oils, and all sources of potential energy, provided that the Bangsamoro government shall be consulted.

So, Mr. Speaker, not all, but there are only exceptions that were returned to the reserved powers of the state, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ILAGAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, those are strategic minerals. So, the Bangsamoro has very little control over them or none at all.

So, may I move on to the BBL Ad Hoc version which inserted in Section 6 of Article XIV the proviso that “The National Government shall continue to levy taxes in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region.” I have two questions regarding this, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor.

First, since, in case of conflict between the taxation powers of the central government and the Bangsamoro, the taxation powers of the central government will prevail, is this not an act of undermining the taxation powers that the BBL granted to the Bangsamoro?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, under Section 9, letter (k) it says there, and I quote:

Where all taxable elements are within the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region, taxes under letters (a) to (d) above shall no longer be imposed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue of the National Government. The Intergovernmental Fiscal Policy Board shall promulgate rules on the determination of taxable elements in relation to taxes (a) to (d) above and on the sharing of revenues from the collection of such taxes where the taxable elements are found within and outside of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region. Any dispute between the Bangsamoro Government and the National Government arising from the

imposition of taxes under (a) to (d) above shall be addressed by the Intergovernmental Fiscal Policy Board.

REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mme. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Second question, if the central government continues to have the power to levy taxes in the Bangsamoro, will it not create a situation susceptible to double taxation like a business will be taxed by both the central government and the Bangsamoro?

REP. SEMA. That is the same situation with the local government, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ILAGAN. Okay. Thank you, Mme. Sponsor.Another issue, I am about to end. Is not having a

Wali as titular head of the Bangsamoro Government more rational and more consistent with the Bangsamoro political culture and structure than having as titular head the President who is a non-Bangsamoro? So, Mme. Sponsor, is not having a Wali as the titular head more consistent with the Bangsamoro political culture?

REP. SEMA. We would like to have the Wali under the parliamentary form of government, Mr. Speaker.

But, again, the process where we have to subscribe and respect the collective wisdom of the Committee, Mr. Speaker, has to prevail.


Finally, what is the rationale for providing just one, single reserved seat for women, the same as for the youth sector in the Bangsamoro parliament?

Mme. Sponsor, the Magna Carta of Women requires at least 40 percent of women in the decision-making positions in our government.

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, that is only under the reserved seat where one slot is intended for women, but it does not preclude women leaders from participating in the electoral process of the Bangsamoro Government or even applying in the different appointive position within the Bangsamoro regional government, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ILAGAN. Of course, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, women will participate, but my point is, if there is only one reserved seat, will this not be reduced to mere tokenism that we have only one seat for women when actually, the Magna Carta provides that we should have more, in terms of positions, seats given to women, Mme. Sponsor?

REP. SEMA. Mr. Speaker, presently, in the ARMM, there are many women elected into different offices and,


yes, we recognize that the Magna Carta is enjoining more women participation, but we believe that women in the autonomous government can stand side-by-side with men in the electoral process, Mr. Speaker.


From the answers that this interpellation has yielded, the BBL does not carry the structural reforms necessary to address the root causes of the Moro problem, the root causes of the poverty of the Bangsamoro peoples and the root causes why the Moro areas are the most depressed in terms of socioeconomic development.

Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, the dilution of the provisions of the original BBL has rendered this BBL proposal similar to the ARMM, so what is the difference?

This BBL measured in terms of genuine autonomy is, in fact, worse than the ARMM and will only repeat the failure of the ARMM. We want genuine autonomy for the Bangsamoro people to eradicate, as the Sponsor has said, the injustice that history has caused to these people of our nation. So, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor, I believe, there is so much that could have been done for this proposed law, but we failed to provide it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mme. Sponsor.

REP. SEMA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the esteemed colleague for her explanation and for her education, but as I have always stated, we have to respect the collective wisdom of the Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you. The Honorable Ilagan has yielded.



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


It was 8:01 p.m.




The Asst. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. ALVAREZ (F.). Mr. Speaker, to continue with the sponsorship, I move that we recognize the Chairman,

Cong. Rufus B. Rodriguez, and Cong. Celso L. Lobregat for his interpellation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro, the Hon. Rufus Rodriguez, is recognized to sponsor the measure and the Gentleman from Zamboanga, the Hon. Celso Lobregat, is recognized to resume his interpellation. The Gentlemen has the floor.

Please proceed.

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee be willing to continue our interpellation which was abruptly cut yesterday?

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Mr. Speaker, very gladly, to the distinguished Gentleman from Zamboanga City.

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we were about to go to specific provisions of the Basic Law for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region. So, I will go straight to the point. This will lead me now to the Preamble. The Preamble, the third paragraph, says:

Affirming the distinct historical identity and birthright of the Bangsamoro people to their ancestral homeland and their right to self-determination—beginning with the struggle for freedom of their forefathers in generations past and extending to the present—that will secure their identity and posterity, and allow for genuine autonomy and meaningful self-governance.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, allow me to quote the Philconsa position paper on House Bill No. 4994, page 9 of 74 pages, which is on the board, on the screen:

In the North Cotabato case, the Supreme Court ruled that the people’s right to self-determination should not, however, be understood, as extending to a unilateral right of secession. A distinction should be made between the right of internal and external self-determination. A right to external self-determination, which in this case takes the form of assertion or the right to unilateral secession, the court ultimately held that the population had no right to secession as the same is not under colonial rule or foreign domination nor is it being deprived of the freedom to make political choices and pursue economic and social and cultural development. Indigenous people have rights amounting to what is discussed above as internal self-determination.


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

Unfortunately, under the Preamble, it does not talk about internal self-determination. It just says, “self-determination,” Mr. Speaker. So, the right to external self-determination takes the form of the right to secession and the right to declare independence. There is a clear distinction between internal self-determination and external self-determination.

Mr. Speaker, looking at the Supreme Court decision, the two ingredients that give rise to the right to external self-determination is colonial or foreign domination and the suppression of rights and freedoms.

Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that there is a big difference between internal self-determination and external self-determination, and what make the difference are: one, colonization or foreign domination; and two, that the rights and freedoms are being suppressed?

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Yes, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, there is a vast difference between external self-determination and internal self-determination. As you correctly observed, as cited in the case of the MOA-AD in the North Cotabato case, which cited the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of in Re Secession of Quebec. In this particular case, clearly, there are now only three instances where there can be external self-determination: first, there is colonial rule; second, it is not under a clear colonial rule but it is under foreign domination; and, third, deprivation of its people of its political choices, and then economic and social development.

Not one of these three is found here. First, the Bangsamoro is not under colonial rule. Colonial rule ended in 1946 for the entire country. Second, the Bangsamoro is not under any foreign domination. While there is no colonial rule, there is no country that is tinkering or providing or controlling what is happening in the Bangsamoro, none. And third, there has been no deprivation of their political choices because Republic Act No. 6737 was enacted by our Congress and then Republic Act No. 9054 was enacted, so they were given political choices. They were given economic and social development.

That is what we have, so how can they invoke external self-determination?

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, and this is the clincher, why the words “self-determination” will be fully constitutional, it is because—before this section, the second paragraph states, “Within the framework of this Constitution and national sovereignty as well as the territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.” How can we interpret the third paragraph of self-determination as external?

REP. LOBREGAT. I will show the Gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Okay, please.

REP. LOBREGAT. I will show the Gentleman and I will point it out to him.

It is in the Preamble, the phrase “beginning with the struggle for freedom of their forefathers in generations past and extending to the present.”

So, therefore, the rights, the struggle for freedom is extending from past generations to the present.

Who is the present? Who is the one suppressing the rights? Is it now the Philippine government or is it the Christian settlers? The one that is suppressing the right clearly implies that that struggle for freedom and deprivation of freedom of the Bangsamoro continues to the present. Again, I say, who is depriving the Bangsamoro of their freedom? Again, the Philippine government, the settlers, or who?

Now, Mr. Speaker, you tie this up now to Section 3, Purpose—Article I, Name and Purpose, Section 3, says, “Purpose. – The purpose of this Basic Law is to establish a political entity, provide for its basic structure of government in recognition of the justness and legitimacy of the cause of the Bangsamoro x x x.”

What is the cause of the Bangsamoro? What is their justness? What is their legitimacy? When were these causes done?

Furthermore, you tie this up now to Section 1, Article II, Bangsamoro Identity, it says, “Bangsamoro People. – Those who at the time of conquest and colonization were considered natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao x x x.”

So, you now talk of deprivation of freedom, you talk of colonization, you talk of conquest. And you tie this up further to Section 1, Article IV, General Principles and Policies, and there it says:

Self-Governance. – In the exercise of its right to self-determination, genuine autonomy, and meaningful self-governance, the Bangsamoro people are free to pursue its political, economic, social and cultural development.

Wow, Mr. Speaker, you look at the decision of the Supreme Court, and you tie up all these provisions together, you have just completed the case for the Bangsamoro to acquire the right to external self-determination, the right to secede and the right to declare independence.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the MILF has always said they no longer want independence, they do not want to secede, and we can grant them that. But, with what we have placed in the law, we are now completing the formula for anybody or any group in the future to say it is in the law that our rights are being suppressed


up to the present. Beginning from the struggle of our forefathers, there was colonization.

So, why are we going to take a chance? Let us correct the Preamble and say define, yes, they are entitled to internal self-determination and take away the phrase “struggle for freedom” and take away “the justness and legitimacy of the cause of the Bangsamoro.”

What is the cause of the Bangsamoro, and what is this justness, and what is this legitimacy, Mr. Speaker?

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, the answer to the question of the honorable distinguished Representative from Zamboanga City is in Section 15 of the Constitution. Section 15 of the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, provides:

Section 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

That is why, we have used Section 15 in our Preamble because whatever is stated there, it is clear whether it is only stated self-determination, these are all qualified by what the Constitution says, that there can be autonomous regions but they should be within the framework of this Constitution and its national sovereignty and national territory. How can there be internal self-determination, how can there be external self-determination when external self-determination means moving away from a territory, moving away from a sovereignty? How can that be? The construction, interpretation of our Preamble, how can we construe that this self-determination will be external when it is clear that all of this, the entire Bangsamoro Autonomous Region Basic Law is within the Constitution and not only the Constitution, but the national sovereignty as well as the national territory? It can never pertain to external self-determination because of what is stated in the Preamble that is reflective of and repeats our Constitution. So, there is no need. That is why when that was brought out by Philconsa, we did not agree because we know as lawyers, we know as legislators, that we have already included in the Preamble this phrase, so there is no need. If you put there internal, it is a redundancy, a surplusage, surplusagium non nocet. It should not be there.

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, Republic Act

No. 9054 mentioned the Constitution several times. Although it mentioned the Constitution several times, there was a provision in Republic Act No. 9054 that was declared unconstitutional. So, it does not mean to say that if you put in the law, within the framework of the Constitution, if a certain provision is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, you talk so much about the Constitution. Do you know that in the entire agreement with the Bangsamoro, the Framework Agreement, the Annex on Transition, the Annex on Power Sharing, the Annex on Wealth Sharing, the Annex on Normalization, the Addendum on Bangsamoro Waters, the CAB, the affirmation of the Constitution was not even mentioned once, not even mentioned once?

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Those are the agreements of the Executive but not the present Bangsamoro Autonomous Region substitute bill. We saw, Mr. Speaker, precisely the point of Congressman Lobregat. In the original form of the Preamble, it only mentions “in consonance with the Constitution.” That does not provide what we want to have in our Preamble, that is why we have changed the original version that state only “in consonance with the Constitution.” We have removed that, we have changed that to reflect the words of the Constitution of our founding fathers, the fundamental law of the land in our Constitutional Commission by now stating within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as the national territory of the Republic of the Philippines. That is why that will qualify the third paragraph on self-determination because the third paragraph of self-determination pertains to a Preamble and a law that will now be within the Constitution, the national sovereignty and the national territory.

Secondly, there are three conditions as stated in Re Secession of Quebec as cited by the MOA-AD case, that have not been met because the Bangsamoro is not under colonial rule. Number two, the Bangsamoro is not under foreign domination and, third, there has been no deprivation of political choices, they have been electing their leaders, they have been for a long, long time, they have been electing all their officers in the Bangsamoro. They have their own social, economic development through the government, giving them every year billions and billions of money for them to achieve socioeconomic development, Mr. Speaker. So, therefore, we are not going to accept what the Philconsa is saying that we should qualify self-determination because that is already qualified by the words “within the Constitution,” Mr. Speaker, as well as the national sovereignty and territory.

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, what is wrong by being very definite and in saying not only “self-


determination” but “internal self-determination”? What is wrong with taking away “recognizing the struggle of their forefathers for freedom in past generations up to the present,” Mr. Speaker? Who is suppressing their rights for freedom up to the present? Tell me, who?

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

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). At present, Mr. Speaker, it means that even up to now there is a desire to get more political autonomy. There is a desire to get more fiscal autonomy. This is what the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region is going to give them. That is why that is a statement, that is part of their history and their struggle. The reason we have a BLBAR is because precisely we want now to correct all, all the historical needs that they have which were not given.

REP. LOBREGAT. So, …

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Mr. Speaker, this is just the same as, you know, requiring that “contiguity by land.” How can we put there contiguity by land when everything—in all the dictionaries, legal and common dictionaries, “contiguity” is always by land? Now, why will you put “internal self-determination” when it is clear that “self-determination” is already within the national sovereignty and the national territory? It is a surplusage; it is unnecessary for us to put there.

REP. LOBREGAT. I will get to that, Mr. Speaker. I will get to that point. But we are still on the point of the Preamble.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Yes, that is right.

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, like I said, what is the problem in being more definite and saying “internal self-determination” and taking away that phrase “struggle for freedom of their forefathers in generations past and extending to the present,” Mr. Speaker? The term “self-determination” is not found in the CAB, is not found in the four Annexes, is not found in the Addendum and is not found in the Framework Agreement. All of a sudden, it appears in the draft Bangsamoro Basic Law. The phrase, “the struggle of their forefathers in past generations, for freedom in past generations up to the present,” is not found in the CAB, in the FAB, in the four annexes. So, what is the problem if it is not found in the Agreement? Why are you vehemently opposing and defending that we do not define “self-determination” and we do not take out certain phrases that may lead to an interpretation of “external self-determination”?

Mind you, Mr. Speaker, even in the MOA-AD, the MOA-AD never used the word “self-determination.”

It only said “self-governance.” The MOA-AD never even said “recognizing the struggle for freedom of their forefathers in the past generation extending to the present.” If it did not appear in the MOA-AD, it did not appear in the CAB, FAB, four Annexes. Mr. Speaker, please help save the dismemberment of this Republic by hopefully agreeing to take out these words, these phrases in the Preamble. Mr. Speaker, I have made my point.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Let me just answer that, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Irrespective of whether the words in this Basic Law have not been found in the Annexes, in the Agreements, it is the collective wisdom of Congress not to accept the words that they are given or to add words which are not stated in the Bangsamoro Framework Agreement. The problem, I am being asked of what is the problem in why not putting internal self-determination. The problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is that it is as if we still do not believe our Constitution. It is already stated in the second paragraph that it is within the framework of the Constitution and the national sovereignty and territory, and yet, we are still going to say, to put it there, to be sure. The Constitution is already very clear. So, two reasons, we seem as if we do not believe and we do not know our Constitution. Secondly, as if we do not know simple English, Mr. Speaker. Those are the two reasons. To put it there would mean that we do not know and we do not believe in the Constitution, and we do not know simple English, because the simple English means we are within the Constitution, and we have national security and a national sovereignty, and a national territory. How can there be external self-determination if there is one sovereignty? How can there be internal self-determination if there is one territory, and nothing can be carved out of that? That is why the reason is just the problem of putting “internal” there. We are not going to accept that because we are clear in our Preamble that this is within the Constitution and the national sovereignty of one nation, one government.

So, that is the reason why.

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, in the MOA-AD, I said, it was not even mentioned, “self-determination” was not mentioned, but the Supreme Court made it a point to discuss “self-determination” in the North Cotabato case. You mean to say that the Supreme Court does not know its Constitution when the Supreme Court ruled in the North Cotabato case that the people’s right to self-determination should not however, be understood as extending the unilateral right of secession? A distinction should be made between the right of internal and of external self-determination. It is the Supreme


Court itself saying, make a distinction. All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I hope you will help in saving the dismemberment of this Republic.

If you will allow me, I will go to another point.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Mr. Speaker, I just want to be able to reply to that.

REP. LOBREGAT. If you want me to continue, I will continue.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Now, let me just answer because you have a statement, and so, I would say, precisely, in the case of North Cotabato, citing the case of in Re Quebec, Quebec was found not to be under colonial rule; Quebec was found not to be under foreign domination; and Quebec has been found not to be deprived of their political, economic and social rights. That is why, in that case, it clearly provides us the distinction that if they have none of this, like in the case of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, which has been there after 1987, 1989, clearly it cannot cover the self-determination, and in this Preamble, it cannot cover external self-determination. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are saying that the MOA-AD case was struck down because it was of associative states, and when there are two associative states, one is a sub-state, because of the associative relationship. In the case of the Federal Republic of Micronesia, Federated States of Micronesia which was called a sub-state later on, according to the Supreme Court, if you have sub-states like the Federated Republic of Micronesia, it is a step—an associative state, because Micronesia started as an associative state of the United States, and the Federal Republic of Micronesia. If we have associative states, there are two states: one is a sub-state, and then this can lead to secession and independence, like what is now the Federal Republic State of Micronesia which is now independent of the United States. But that is not the intention here, we have made sure that it is not anymore associative, it is asymmetrical, which is defined under the provision on asymmetrical relations.

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes, Mr. Speaker, you are talking about the proposed law for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region, but the bases for that law are all the agreements that have been signed. In all the agreements that have been signed, it is repeatedly mentioned, stated and restated that all agreements will be implemented and an exit document would only be signed if all agreements are implemented. That is what our panel agreed on. That is why I am saying that the basis of this law is a product of negotiations between two parties and there can be interpretations and misinterpretations because unlike the Final Peace Agreement with the MNLF, it says that any interpretation or misinterpretation of this

agreement shall be within the realm of the Philippine Constitution and national laws.

Unfortunately, our negotiators agreed to put in the CAB, list down all past agreements and say all these agreements will be implemented in an executive document and an exit document would only be signed if all agreements have been signed. That is why I am saying, Mr. Speaker, let us be précise, let us make sure that there is no room for misinterpretation, because unlike the Final Peace Agreement with the MNLF that says any interpretation shall be ruled within the realm of the Philippine Constitution, and existing laws, in this agreement, there is none. That is my point, Mr. Speaker, let us help save the dismemberment of this Republic. If we are finished with that point, I will continue, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Mr. Speaker, I will just therefore state that the basis of this law is the Constitution. It is not the CAB nor the annexes, it is the Constitution because regional autonomous regions are based on the Constitution. The seven sections are the bases of any organic law for the Cordillera and the other autonomous region, not the CAB and the FAB. These are just secondary sources. The basis of this Bill is Sections 15 to 21 of Article X of the Constitution because this is the fundamental law. That is why we are trying, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that this agreement will be within the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, may I know from Congressman Lobregat what are these unconstitutional provisions, because in the Preamble, we have shown that this will be constitutional because following the words of the Constitution, the phrase states, “within the framework of this Constitution as well as the national sovereignty and the national territory of the Republic of the Philippines.”

REP. LOBREGAT. Okay, if you want to go to that point, Mr. Speaker, allow me to show an interview on February 3 and you talked about certain unconstitutional provisions.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Please proceed, Mr. Speaker.

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes. Audio, please.



It was 8:44 p.m.





REP. LOBREGAT. We need more audio, please.(Audio visual presentation)

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, that was February 3. February 3 was the day after the AFP and the PNP did not submit their reports. After February 3, Mr. Speaker, you and I were invited in the TV show called “Mornings” with Pinky Webb.

(Audio visual presentation)

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, on February 3, there were six provisions, on April 21, it became eight. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, with firmness and conviction, this is further reflected in the Chairman’s working draft that was distributed to the Ad Hoc Committee members on May 13. The following powers were added to the list of reserved powers of the national government. The Chairman added banking as a reserved power of the national government; he added energy as a reserved power of the national government; he added national, regional and local elections as reserved powers for the national government; he added auditing, civil service, human rights, the powers of the Ombudsman and land registration. What happened, Mr. Speaker? Similarly, other provisions related to the additional powers of the national government were deleted from the concurrent powers. Land registration was deleted from the concurrent and was put in the reserved. Human rights or humanitarian protection and promotions was also deleted from the concurrent and put in the reserved. Auditing is out from the concurrent powers and put in the reserved. And so with the civil service which is out from the concurrent powers and put in the reserved. These were all deleted from the concurrent powers.

All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, on that fateful Monday, May 18, we received a copy of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman’s working draft, which was later adopted as the Committee’s reference document, and later adopted as the Committee has approved House Bill No. 5811. There was a complete reversal and turnaround. The following were removed from the reserved powers of government: energy was removed; national, regional, local elections were removed from the reserved powers of the national government; auditing was removed from the reserved powers and put under concurrent; civil service was removed; human rights was removed; land registration was removed. Most of these were transferred to the concurrent powers and elsewhere. What happened? Why? Who? When? Where? Can you please enlighten this Representation, Mr. Speaker?

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Yes, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

First of all, thank you for putting my face on the screen. I always like to look at my own face on TV and on the screen. Thank you very much.

REP. LOBREGAT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). We gave that interview and that is accepted. We have a Chairman’s draft which we distributed to all members. That was on a Tuesday of that week before the voting. As the Gentleman was aware, our consolidated proposals were so voluminous, and for every section there were six to seven proposed amendments, so how can we proceed to have smooth deliberations on the Bangsamoro Basic Law? When I released the Chairman’s draft which I made on my own, our Vice Chairmen called up and asked for a meeting and I obliged. We met together with the Speaker in one of the places here in Quezon City. They asked me, “While you can also propose your own language or deletions, can you not also hear the Vice Chairmen in our own proposals which, while it may not delete entire sections, may have amendatory language that will conform, that will make the questionable provisions conform with the Constitution?” Seeing our Vice Chairmen who also have good ideas coming from the recommendation of the Peace Council, whom we have heard together with you, I would not be able therefor to dictate, as a Chairman could not dictate, no Chairman dictates any proceedings. That is why we have Vice Chairmen, we cannot meet all the Ad Hoc Committee members but we have the Vice Chairmen who proposed these words of wisdom, which this Chairman adopted. That is why with the eight provisions, two were deleted because the Vice Chairmen agreed to do so, and the six other provisions were amended. So may I ask our distinguished colleague, with the six remaining provisions that were not deleted, but were amended, I would like to read it one-by-one and check whether they are still unconstitutional.

REP. LOBREGAT. Okay, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). We go to the first one, Mr. Speaker. The first one is auditing, Article XII on Fiscal Autonomy. Here is the language of the provisional provision which I said should be deleted and which the Vice Chairmen said, “Let us not delete. Let us have an amendatory language.”

Let us proceed. The previous provision states:

All public funds of the Bangsamoro are subject to auditing. For this purpose, a Bangsamoro Commission on Audit, with the


acronym, BCA, in capital letters is hereby created. It shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, x x x all accounts xxx

I wanted this to be deleted because as is, this will be unconstitutional. What did our Vice Chairmen propose which I accepted to be part of the working draft? May I ask Congressman Lobregat to state categorically whether this new provision, which is now in the substitute bill, will be unconstitutional.

Okay. “Section 2. Auditing:

There is hereby created an internal auditing body,” not anymore a Bangsamoro Commission on Audit, “with procedures for accountability over revenues and other funds generated within or by the region from external sources. This shall be without prejudice to the power, authority, and duty of the Commission on Audit to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenues and the use of funds and property owned and held in trust by any government instrumentality, including government-owned or-controlled corporations.

Mr. Speaker, can you tell us if this will be unconstitutional when we have removed the Bangsamoro Commission on Audit and they are merely given the authority to have an internal audit which is being done in all agencies under our Republic Act? The reason we put this here is that we abolished the ARMM, including its internal auditing body in the said region. So, please, kindly tell us what constitutional provisions are we going to violate with these words of wisdom from our very wise Vice Chairmen.

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, Mr Chairman, before I answer that, you said you met with the Vice Chairmen. Is that correct?

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

REP. LOBREGAT. On February 3, you said, “Mayroon na kaming consensus.” Are you mean saying that the Vice Chairmen were not included in the consensus that you mentioned? The Vice Chairmen were present, most of them were present in all our committee hearings.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). There was still no Chairman’s draft on February 3, how can they react on that?

REP. LOBREGAT. There should not have been a Chairman’s draft. Nobody authorized you to make a Chairman’s draft. You were a technical working group by your own self. In fact, the Committee rejected the

creation of the technical working group. That is why when you came up with a Chairman’s working draft, I said, “Baka, siguro, ito ang working draft ni Chairman, kasi maraming provision, ito ang gagamitin niya parang guide.” Pero hindi ang working draft na ia-adopt natin. Kaya nga, okay lang, kasi sabi ko, pati ako may guide ako. I have Celso, Congressman Lobregat’s guide in all the provisions to tell me, “Hey, when it comes to this provision, this is the amendment that you are going to propose.” That is my guide. But I was surprised when on May 18, there was already a working draft of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman. If the Vice Chairmen were consulted, ano kaming mga miyembro, bale-wala? We were not consulted even if we operate as a committee. So, why all of a sudden you did not even bother to tell the Committee? The Committee already twice rejected the creation of a technical working group and the Committee said, “We will tackle it as a whole,” no technical working group. But be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, …

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). I just, I just …

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Precisely, Mr. Speaker, it is only a working draft, very clear and simple English. A working draft is something to be worked on by all the members of the Committee, and that is the reason it is a working draft. It is not the substitute bill, and that is why it was therefore the one that was being used.

Now, my question is, what words here are unconstitutional? Can we go to that? What are unconstitutional in Section 2 on Auditing?

REP. LOBREGAT. Okay, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Can we know that?

REP. LOBREGAT. Okay, Mr. Speaker, can you just go through and then after that, I will answer, because I do not want to preempt and answer. I want—you tell me, okay, you have changed this to this, and then I will answer.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). No, we are saying that in this interpellation, it will now be a clear presentation by Congressman Lobregat of the unconstitutional provisions.

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). And in what—one that is in contention is the Commission on Audit. So, we go one by one so that we will not be confused.

REP. LOBREGAT. Okay, the Commission on Audit.


REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). So, let us go one by one. So, what is the unconstitutional provision with the words of the Vice Chairmen?

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Chairman, I have been a City Mayor.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Yes, okay.

REP. LOBREGAT. Perhaps, local governments have internal audit units. But there is a law on the creation of the internal audit units. So, why do you even have to say that audit is now a concurrent power? You see, why can you not leave the audit in the reserved power of government to make sure that there is no—There is an equivocal statement that a constitutional body like the Commission on Audit is there under the reserved powers of the national government, and if you want to put a word, the creation of an internal audit per republic act so and so, so be it, but do not put audit under concurrent powers.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, if you want …

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). So, what is unconstitutional in this?

REP. LOBREGAT. I will explain that later, Mr. Speaker. That is my …

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). No, let us go now, because …

REP. LOBREGAT. No, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). … we leave this and we go to another provision, if you can state …

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, …

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R. ) . … why i t i s unconstitutional.

REP. LOBREGAT. … you are preempting me because I will show you now, okay. The changing of the words will not make certain provisions constitutional. That is why, you say, you have changed the word of the Commission on Audit. You will say you have now taken out elections …

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Yes, but here, let us go, because, Mr. Speaker, …

REP. LOBREGAT. Like I said …

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). … there are six of them.

REP. LOBREGAT. Okay, if you, …

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). So, let us go one by one.

REP. LOBREGAT. If you ask me, if you will not accept my answers, so be it, but I said, what is unconstitutional there is you took auditing from the reserved powers of government and you put it under concurrent.

If you do not accept my answer, …

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Because …

REP. LOBREGAT. I will explain later.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). To answer that, it is because it is concurrent, because precisely this internal auditing body is created by this law, and precisely it will be a body that will be working within the Bangsamoro; but, of course, subject to…

The reason it has to be here, Mr. Speaker, is that we have abolished the ARMM. In fact, the ARMM has been abolished including the—so there is already an internal audit there. But because you abolished that, you have to place back in the law that there should be an internal auditing body. Furthermore, it is clearly provided here, that is why this can never be unconstitutional because Republic Act No. 3456 is about internal audit, granting all agencies of the government, including local governments, and because the autonomous region is a local government, they have the right. That is the case of Kida vs. COMELEC, when it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the autonomous region is a local government.

So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, we say that unless Congressman Lobregat would see that there is here an unconstitutional provision, because when the Supreme Court will take a look specifically on what is unconstitutional, you have to go through the words found in the Bill, or in the law.

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). You cannot depart from that by other arguments. You should be able to specify which of these provisions, sentences, phrases, are in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. That is what constitutionality is all about. So that if the good Congressman would like to just proceed to another point, but ...

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). ... the point now that there is no clear, specific violation of any provision of the Constitution when he said that this is unconstitutional. When you say something is unconstitutional, you cite


a constitutional provision that is violated. That is what constitutional construction is.

REP. LOBREGAT. I will lead to that.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Okay.

REP. LOBREGAT. But like I said, okay, we talked about Commission on Audit. What is the next that you ...

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Let us go, because you do not want to cite yet the constitutional provisions.

REP. LOBREGAT. Okay, sige.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Let us go now to the electoral body.

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Now, once again, I said I am for deletion.

REP. LOBREGAT. I agree.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). I was for deletion, because standing alone, it will be unconstitutional, but the Vice Chairmen had this good proposal that was also the proposal of the peace council. And now, it is now here in, yes here, the Bangsamoro Electoral Code, Section 9, second paragraph. In the second paragraph, Mr. Speaker, in the original House Bill No. 4994, here is what it states, “There is hereby created a Bangsamoro Electoral Office”—in capital letters—“which shall be a part of the Commission on Elections x x x.” There is a statement there that is part of “and which shall perform the functions of the Commission on Elections in the Bangsamoro” which I find unacceptable, so did my Vice Chairmen.

So now, I would like to read to Congressman Lobregat what is now the provision and kindly tell me, Congressman Lobregat, what is unconstitutional about this? Instead of that previous provision, it now says here, Mr. Speaker, “There is hereby created a Bangsamoro Electoral Office which shall be the Regional Office of the Commission on Elections,” a regional office of the Commission on Elections, “and which shall perform the functions of the Commission on Elections in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region.”

Therefore, how can this be questionable when it is now merely what the regional offices now do in the ARMM and that this electoral body is merely the regional office? Do you not think, distinguished colleague, that these words of wisdom of the Vice Chairmen will make this provision constitutional?

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, the Commission on Elections, COMELEC, is a constitutional body.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Correct.

REP. LOBREGAT. So, therefore, you cannot legislate what they are going to do, what offices they are going to create; it is up to them. We should not meddle with the functions and responsibilities of any constitutional body. And, why should the Bangsamoro have its own election code? Why are their elections different? Will they be handled differently in the Bangsamoro? We should have one election code, not a special election code for the Bangsamoro.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Well, the Bangsamoro.

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, I am not yet finished.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Okay, please proceed.

REP. LOBREGAT. Do you recall every time there was an election in the Autonomous Region, it would be the autonomous region’s vote that would be anxiously awaited to determine who comes out as Senator number 11, number 12? Do you recall the elections of 2004? In this Hall, during the canvassing, I was present. What were the results of the elections in the ARMM? And everybody was just saying there was a protest, they would just say, noted, noted, noted. Why, why should the Bangsamoro have its own electoral code? And why should we dictate that the Bangsamoro Electoral Office, if you read even further, it will be the one to recommend the rules of elections and the plebiscite shall emanate from this Office? The COMELEC constitutional body will have to wait for any and all recommendations of the regional office of the COMELEC which we are creating by this law. Mr. Speaker, let us learn from the lessons of the past. Let us not be as the Senate Mamasapano report says, “Let us not be guilty of a wanton excessive optimism.”

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Mr. Speaker, precisely, the Bangsamoro Electoral Code shall clearly provide and shall be correlated to national election laws—it shall correlate. The reason there has to be a Bangsamoro Electoral Code is that for the first time, there will be a parliamentary system in the region. That is why these peculiarities would require that there should be a Bangsamoro Electoral Code to fit into a parliamentary system but the requirement is you have to correlate with the national laws. So, therefore, clearly, both the Bangsamoro Electoral Office being merely a regional office, if you are a regional office of the COMELEC, you are subject to the control, jurisdiction, supervision of the COMELEC en banc—that is why it becomes a regional office not a stand-alone electoral office, Mr. Speaker.


For the electoral code, it shall be correlated with the national laws. Therefore, this will meet the requirements of preserving our national Omnibus Election Code and likewise the powers of the COMELEC en banc.

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, I really cannot convince you and neither can you convince me. So, let us proceed to the next topic because I still believe that we have to learn from the lessons of the past and we should not meddle and tinker around with the responsibilities, duties and functions of a constitutional body.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Then we go to Civil Service.

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Civil Service, Mr. Speaker, provides under concurrent powers, it says here, “There is hereby created”, in capital letters, “a Bangsamoro Civil Service Office that shall develop and administer a professional civil service corps, without prejudice to the power, authority and duty of the national Civil Service Commission.” It is already included there but we wanted to make sure that this will really be under the Civil Service Commission and that is why we have then stated that:

There is hereby created a Civil Service Office for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region, not only for the Bangsamoro, but for the Autonomous Region that shall develop and administer a professional civil service corps, without prejudice to the power, authority and duty of the Civil Service Commission.

So, it is very clear that this Civil Service Office shall be within the absolute power, authority and duty of the Civil Service Commission. What is now the unconstitutionality of this?

REP. LOBREGAT. How many more provisions before I give …

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). You just answer. What is the unconstitutionality?

REP. LOBREGAT. Okay, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, again just like COA, why did you remove it from the reserved powers of government and put it under the concurrent? Why, considering that the Civil Service is a constitutional body, so their functions should be under the reserved powers of government, not under the concurrent powers?

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Now, precisely the Civil Service will be holding office in that Bangsamoro

region. We have to be very clear that this office is in the Autonomous Region and it is very clear that even if it is in the Autonomous Region, Mr. Speaker, it is under the control, supervision and authority of the national Civil Service Commission. So, there is nothing unconstitutional about this because the supreme power of the national constitutional body, the Civil Service Commission, is undiluted. They can change anytime whatever is the action of the Civil Service Office. They can change whatever is the decision of that regional office. That is precisely the power of a national constitutional body.

REP. LOBREGAT. So, let the national constitutional body create whatever office they want to create and give that office whatever functions it wants. We should not legislate.

So, next, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Yes, let us go to the next. Sorry that I am now interpellating you because we just wanted really to have the constitutional aspects.

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes, yes.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). I am just sorry that I should be the one asked. But I have just asked some questions, so I will not do that again.

So, the next one that I have said to be deleted is this particular statement. Can you imagine a statement, Mr. Speaker, in the original Bill which I said should be entirely deleted, and here it is: “The Bangsamoro Government shall have primary disciplinary authority over its own officials and employees.” Immediately, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales wrote to us, and I agreed with her, that is why I said, delete it. But here are the words of our Vice Chairmen and what is now the present provision of the substitute Bill. I will read it, Mr. Speaker: “The Bangsamoro shall have disciplinary authority over its own officials and employees.” No more, “primary” because all local government officials have that authority.

Our distinguished colleague was a mayor, undefeated Mayor of Zamboanga City, undefeated Congressman of Zamboanga City, future Senator of this Republic, he would know that a local government has disciplining authority—the governor, the mayor—over the employees but not primary. So, we removed “primary” and then it further states—here is the clincher, that is why this is now fully constitutional—the next sentence now reads:

The disciplining authority of the Bangsamoro over its own officials and employees is without prejudice to the constitutional powers, duties and authority of the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate any act or omission of any public official, employee or office or agency.


Clearly, we have preserved the power of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales and, furthermore, we have included the powers of the Ombudsman in the reserved. If I may read to you now, what is now the present Bill, it is now stated, “Reserved Powers” and number 7 is “Powers of the Ombudsman.”

So, I am not going to ask you anymore what is unconstitutional about this.

REP. LOBREGAT. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker.Mr. Chairman, simply rewording the provisions

as recommended by the Peace Council or by the Vice Chairman will not suffice, and I will tell you the reason.The Constitution itself intentionally withheld some of these legislative powers from the Autonomous Region. This has been noted in the book written by Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. The book is entitled, The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers, and you can find this in Bernas 1995, page 757.

More specifically, Fr. Bernas was citing the excerpts from the 1986 Constitutional Commission, found on page 557 their deliberations on August 20, 1986. In the discussion between Mr. Davide—I understand, Mr. Davide later on became Chief Justice Davide, and Chief Justice Davide later on became the Chairman of the Peace Council…

So, next slide.I will read:

August 20, 1986.

MR. PRESIDENT: All right, we will defer the voting then. Commissioner Davide may please proceed.

MR. DAVIDE: Since we have enumerated these powers for the Autonomous Region, would such powers include the following: National Defense and Security, Foreign Relations or Foreign Trade, Customs and Tariff, Quarantine, Currency, Monetary Affairs, Foreign Exchange, Banking and Quasi-Banking, the External Borrowing, Post and Communication, Air and Sea Transport, Immigration and Deportation, Citizenship and Naturalization, and General Auditing.

Mr. Nolledo, the Chairman then, said:

MR. NOLLEDO: No, they belong to the national government.

MR. DAVIDE: I thank the Commissioner for that answer. In other words, not even the Organic Act can grant legislative power over the matters I enumerated.

I enumerated, I read what was enumerated by Mr. Davide, then Chief Justice Davide, and then Chairman Davide of the Peace Council. Again,—

MR. DAVIDE: In other words, not even the Organic Act can grant legislative power over matters I enumerated.” Meaning to say that the Organic Act cannot so provide.

MR. NOLLEDO: No, Madam President, it cannot.

MR. DAVIDE: Thank you very much.

Mr. Nolledo, again, said:

MR. NOLLEDO: These powers belong to the national government. They are exercised traditionally, constitutionally and legally by the national government.

So, if you asked me before, what is the unconstitutionality—that is why I said I will answer when you finish, because all these powers enumerated are powers that belong to the national government; they cannot, they cannot be concurrent powers.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Well, where is the provision there? Where is the statement about the disciplining authority? That is my question.

Does the enumeration include that there should be …

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, …

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). … the Bangsamoro should not have a disciplining authority with public officials?

REP. LOBREGAT. How can the Constitutional Convention talk about the Bangsamoro when they were talking about the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao? The Bangsamoro is a new creation. So, you cannot find this Constitution talking about the Bangsamoro.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). No, about the …

REP. LOBREGAT. But it is very clear in this discussion that Mr. Davide wanted to make sure that even the Organic Act cannot give such powers to the Autonomous Region. And it says, enumerated, where is now auditing? You took it out from the reserved and you put it to concurrent.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Are we going back to


auditing? How about going first to the disciplining authority? Is there any prohibition, because we are now talking about the prohibition of disciplining authority.

REP. LOBREGAT. Are you talking about the Ombudsman?

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Yes. Is that not included there?

REP. LOBREGAT. I have just cited a discussion in the Constitutional Commission that says which powers cannot be granted to the Autonomous Region. Among these powers are Air and Sea Transportation. Among these powers are General Auditing, Quarantine. Among these powers are Tariff and Customs.

So, you have violated or the law is violating certain powers that you took out from the reserved powers and you put it to the concurrent powers. So, please, all I am asking is to put it back in the reserved powers and then we will have no problem.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Before we go back to the enumeration, so it is clear that there is no prohibition on the Bangsamoro Government from having disciplining authority over its own employees and officials, right?

REP. LOBREGAT. You are talking about one power which is the Ombudsman?

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Which is the disciplining authority. So, there is no problem here so you want to go back to all the statements but auditing. Let me answer that.

REP. LOBREGAT. I am talking about…

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). In the case of IBP vs. Zamora, year 2000, 354 SCRA, 289, it says, that the members’ opinion in Constitutional Convention is valuable but not binding in the interpretation of the constitutional provisions. These are not binding and this is the case of IBP vs. Zamora. Clearly, while you can cite that it is valuable, it can give us insights, but ultimately, it will be decided in accordance with the facts of the case and the relevant circumstances. That is why the clear statement in the case of IBP vs. Zamora, I wonder if this is our Minority Leader Zamora, but it says, “members’ opinion,” what you have read are members’ opinions—Davide, Nolledo, all of those—but members’ opinion as decided by the Supreme Court in Constitutional Convention proceedings is valuable but not binding in the interpretation of constitutional provisions.

Second, Mr. Speaker, here, in the case of the Administrative Code of 1987, it is not correct that Congress cannot legislate on constitutional commissions especially when you make just one office, the regional office, an electoral office, regional office and internal auditing office under the supervision of the COA because the Administrative Code of the Philippines of 1987, or EO No. 292, provides, and by law, the details on the organization of constitutional commissions, including the creation of regional offices. Now, if this law allows the organization of a constitutional commission, including the creation of a regional office, our Bill can, therefore, state and create offices that will become their regional offices. That is a clear provision of the Administrative Code, that is why in matters of administration, in matters of organization, it is the law, not the Constitution, it is the law and this is the Administrative Code of 1987 where I have a book that is now used by Law students called the Administrative Code of 1987, Annotated, which provides details on the organization of constitutional commissions, including how to create regional offices and what are the powers of regional offices. So, clearly, for these two reasons, Mr. Speaker, what has been enumerated by the good Gentleman cannot govern and cannot rule in the case of IBP vs. Zamora and in the case of the Administrative Code of 1987.

REP. LOBREGAT. Mr. Speaker, I have here in front of me the Supreme Court decision on the MOA-AD case and, Mr. Speaker, proceedings of the Constitutional Commission are even cited when they made the decision. It says, whether Section 28 is self-executory, and the Record of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission so disclose:

MR. SUAREZ. And since this is not self-executory, this policy shall not be enunciated or shall not be enforced until after Congress so provided.

MR. OPLE. I expect it to influence the climate of public ethics.

Then, it cites further other passages, the following disclosure, after Hilario Davide Jr. sought clarification on the issue:

MR. DAVIDE. I would like to get some clarification on this. Mr. Presiding Officer, did I get the Gentleman correctly as having said that this is not self-executory? It would require a legislation by Congress.

MR. OPLE. Yes, originally x x x.


Then, in another passage of the Supreme Court decision, they now cite another discourse between Ms. Rosario Braid and Mr. Ople. So, you say, they are not binding. But even the Supreme Court goes back to these excerpts and based their decisions on these excerpts, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, precisely in the case of IBP vs. Zamora, it says, it is valuable. If the Supreme Court wishes to cite it, they cite it. Then there are also cases where these were also cited by the Supreme Court, which said, “No, it is not binding because that is what the ruling is. It is valuable, it can help. But ultimately, the Supreme Court decides and the justices, because Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes says that the law is nothing but what the judges says; it is in his book, The Common Law. What is stated by the commissioners is not law. It is what the judges say it is, because according to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the life of the law has never been logic, it is experience. That is why—you see there is a citation there, but did it state there that these are binding? They cite it but then they decide that it can be used. In many cases when litigants would cite Constitutional Commission records, they say “No.” It is not, it is only persuasive, valuable but not binding. That is the clear pronouncement of this case.

So, Mr. Speaker, therefore, it does not help that you cite a case that it has found some proceedings valuable because ultimately, it is the court that will decide. In many instances, the courts will be the ones that will interpret what the law is.

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes, Mr. Speaker, you said it is valuable.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Valuable, yes, not binding.

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes, valuable but it should be more valuable than the opinion of the Vice Chairmen. Well, let us put it this way, Mr. Speaker. They are the framers of the Constitution and whatever they discuss should be based on records, not on what they say now, because we can have the framers of the Constitution come here. With respect to then Chief Justice and Chairman Davide, it was he who clarified that these powers belong to the national government; and even the Organic Act as stated by Mr. Nolledo cannot grant these powers to the Autonomous Region which you now call Bangsamoro.

REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Mr. Speaker, there is no monopoly of wisdom by the Supreme Court justices. In fact, sometimes in many cases there had been differences in the findings of Supreme Court justices. They are completely of different views. That is why

I would say that my Vice Chairmen have also the right to interpret what they believe in what it says. I always believe that my Vice Chairmen likewise studied this particular bill and came out with these provisions which they took out from the context of unconstitutionality and brought to the realm of, the inside the constitutional zoo.

REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, my apologies for the interruption.

REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). If I may interrupt the proceedings.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, my apologies for the interruption and with the indulgence of the two Gentlemen.

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

SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 5811

REP. DEFENSOR. The consideration of House Bill No. 5811 will resume tomorrow at 10 o’clock in the morning. It is already late in the day, Mr. Speaker. I am constrained to move for the suspension of the consideration of House Bill No. 5811, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ATIENZA. We support the manifestation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection to the suspension of the consideration of House Bill No. 5811? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

House Bill No. 5811 is suspended for consideration until tomorrow.


RATIFICATION OF CONF. CTTEE. RPT. ON H.B. NO. 5610 AND S.B. NO. 2486

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, we are in receipt of the Bicameral Conference Committee Report reconciling the disagreeing provisions of House Bill No. 5610 and Senate Bill No. 2486.

May I ask that the Secretary General be directed to read only the titles of the measures.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is


there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.*

The Secretary General is directed to read only the titles of the measures.

With the permission of the Body, and since copies of the Conference Committee Report have been previously distribu ted, the Secretary General read only the titles of the measures without prejudice to inserting the text of the report in the Congressional Record.

TH E S ECRETA RY G EN ERA L. H ous e Bill No. 5610, entitled: AN ACT ALLOWING FOREIGN VESSELS TO TRANSPORT AND CO-LOAD FOREIGN CARGOES FOR DOMESTIC TRANSSHIPMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. and Senate Bill No. 2486, entitled: AN ACT ALLOWING FOREIGN VESSELS TO TRANSPORT AND CO-LOAD FOREIGN CARGOES FOR DOMESTIC TRANSSHIPMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that we ratify the said Bicameral Conference Committee Report.

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

the motion is approved. The Bicameral Conference Committee Report is

approved.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). There is a motion to ratify the disagreeing provisions on House Bill No. 5610 and Senate Bill No. 2486.

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mr. Speaker.

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


REP. DEFENSOR. I move that we suspend the session until tomorrow at 10 o’clock in the morning.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is suspended until tomorrow at four o’clock, I am sorry, at 10 o’clock. Let that be, 10 o’clock in the morning.

It was 9:35 p.m.

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

of the House of Representatives at www.congress.gov.ph AZB/GIC 06172015/1525


Congressional Record. 2 Tuesday, June 9, 2015 No. 71h Congressional Record 16th CONGRESS, SECOND...

Documents

Transcript of Congressional Record. 2 Tuesday, June 9, 2015 No. 71h Congressional Record 16th CONGRESS, SECOND...