| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
[ VOL. I, July 07, 1986 ]
R.C.C. NO. 24
OPENING OF SESSION
At 5:14 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, opened the session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable Ma. Teresa F. Nieva.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MS. NIEVA: O good and loving Father, You created men and women as brothers and sisters, and as co-creators of the world. You gave the riches of creation for each and everyone's use so that we Your children made in Your image and likeness may live lives of human dignity.
Yours is the earth and the fullness thereof; we are only Your stewards. We humbly ask You to cleanse us from self-centeredness and pride, and empty us of greed and intolerance. Fill us with Your Spirit so that we may have the collective wisdom and courage to frame a Magna Carta that will lay the firm foundations for the building of a truly just and humane society.
Heavenly Father, we praise and thank You that like the Israelites of old, You freed us from slavery and bondage, and led us to the Promised Land.
Continue to protect us and guide us so that in the crucial days ahead we may be Your faithful instruments in securing to our people and our country the blessings of democracy under a rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, love, equality and peace.
All these we ask of You in the name of Your Son, Jesus Christ, and through the intercession of our Blessed Mother Mary. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
The President is present.
The roll call shows 42 Members responded to the call.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ALONTO: I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of the last session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the Assistant Floor Leader? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of the last session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the Assistant Floor Leader? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, I move that we now proceed to the Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we proceed to the Reference of Business? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolutions on First Reading, Communications and Committee Reports, the President making the corresponding references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 409, entitled:
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Proposed Resolution No. 410, entitled:
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Proposed Resolution No. 411, entitled:
To the Committee on the Legislative.
Proposed Resolution No. 412, entitled:
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Proposed Resolution No. 413, entitled:
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 414, entitled:
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Proposed Resolution No. 415, entitled:
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 416, entitled:
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Proposed Resolution No. 417, entitled:
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Proposed Resolution No. 418, entitled:
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Proposed Resolution No. 419, entitled:
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 420, entitled:
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 421, entitled:
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 422, entitled:
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 423, entitled:
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 424, entitled:
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Proposed Resolution No. 425, entitled:
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 426, entitled:
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 427, entitled:
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 428, entitled:
To the Committee on the Legislative.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from the Honorable Salvador H. Laurel, Vice-President and Minister for Foreign Affairs, recommending the restoration of the specific provision in the 1935 Constitution that the President shall have the power to appoint "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls."
(Communication No. 116 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Executive.
Letter from Mr. Potenciano M. Alcala, Sr. of KBakyas, Bacolod City, proposing provisions on free education up to high school level, land reform, the Sabah issue, among others.
(Communication No. 117 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Gonzalo (Lito) Puyat of Manila, requesting a constitutional mandate on youth and sports development.
(Communication No. 118 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Letter from Commissioner Mario D. Ortiz of the Commission on Elections, transmitting the draft of proposals on election matters discussed by the COMELEC en banc.
(Communication No. 119 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Letter from Mr. Antonio A. Lobitaña, proposing the elevation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to a constitutional body.
(Communication No. 120 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Letter from the Senior Citizens Government Retirees Association of Agusan del Norte and Agusan City, signed by Ms. Caridad V. Atega, proposing a presidential form of government, bicameral legislature, retention of the US bases, and limited autonomy of Muslim regions, among others.
(Communication No. 121 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Report of the "mini Con-Com" assigned to Iloilo City composed of President Cecilia Muñoz Palma, Commissioners Ma. Teresa F. Nieva, Efrain B. °Õ°ù±ðñ²¹²õ and Wilfrido V. Villacorta, entitled "Highlights of the Public Hearing held at the University of San Agustin Auditorium in Iloilo City on June 28, 1986."
(Communication No. 122 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from the Sangguniang Pangwika sa Edukasyon ng Pilipinas, with enclosures, signed by Mr. Alfonso O. Santiago, requesting that the Constitution be written and promulgated in the national language.
(Communication No. 123 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Style.
Letter from Mr. Oscar N. Rivera of San Miguel Village, Makati, Metro Manila, proposing the adoption of the jury system in our courts of law.
(Communication No. 124 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Judiciary.
Letter from Mr. Julian Makabayan ng Masa ng Pilipinas, urging various political, social and economic reforms.
(Communication No. 125 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Communication from Mr. Ismael P. Sevilla of Cofradia, Malolos, Bulacan, urging that the establishment of a cooperative society be made a national policy.
(Communication No. 126 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Letter from Mr. Norberto Cahete of Project 4, Quezon City, Metro Manila, requesting the inclusion of provisions on the role of science and technology in the attainment of national goals, among others.
(Communication No. 127 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Kilusang Mayo Uno signed by Mr. Roberto T. Ortaliz, requesting the extension of the period of drafting the Constitution and the holding of more public hearings.
(Communication No. 128 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from the Filipino Community Board of Sydney signed by Mr. Oscar R. Landicho, requesting the inclusion of a provision on dual citizenship.
(Communication No. 129 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from the Association of TOWNS Awardees signed by Ms. Corazon S. de la Paz, proposing as an additional sentence of Section 1, Article IV of the Constitution: "Women shall enjoy equal rights with men."
(Communication No. 130 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights, and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Mr. Teodoro Padilla, expressing deep appreciation to the Commission for adopting Resolution No. 5 expressing profound condolence on the death of Hon. Sabino Padilla, former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
(Communication No. 131 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Archives.
Letter from Management Trend Company of Tarzana, California, with enclosures, signed by Mr. David E. Phillippe, stating that the United States Constitution falls short of expressing acceptable goals for business and social conduct, pointing to inequities in the judicial system of the United States and suggesting a rule and code of conduct between human beings to avert the same problems.
(Communication No. 132 — Constitutional Commission of 1986?
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Kilusan sa Kapangyarihan at Karapatan ng Bayan (KAAKBAY) signed by Mr. Jose Mario C. Bunay and Ms. Lynn R. Enriquez, submitting proposals on science and technology.
(Communication No. 133 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Kilusan Sa Kapangyarihan at Karapatan ng Bayan (KAAKBAY) signed by Ms. Maria Teresa I. Diokno, submitting proposals on national economy and patrimony.
(Communication No. 134 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Communication from Mr. Benedicto Aza Gonzales of Capitol Bliss, Quezon City, proposing the incorporation in the Constitution of a provision on the Filipinization of the retail trade industry. Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Davide, Jr.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 11 on Proposed Resolution No. 234, as reported out by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Regalado.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 12 on Proposed Resolution No. 435, prepared by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong, Regalado and Maambong.
To the Steering Committee.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 5:33 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:36 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Lorenzo M Sumulong presiding.
(Communication No. 135 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The session is resumed.
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report No. 10 on Proposed Resolution No. 118, as reported out by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Davide, Jr.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 11 on Proposed Resolution No. 234, as reported [out by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Regalado.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 12 on Proposed Resolution No. 435, prepared by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong, Regalado and Maambong.
To the Steering Committee.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
At 5:36 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Lorenzo M. Sumulong presiding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The session is resumed.
The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 263
(Article on National Territory)
Continuation
MR. ALONTO: I move that we proceed to the voting on Second Reading of Proposed Resolution No. 263, the Article on National Territory.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer, parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Suppose the no vote prevails, what happens? We shall have no more provision on National Territory, or will the provision of the 1973 Constitution be deemed reinstated?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Will the Gentleman please repeat his point of inquiry?
MR. DE LOS REYES: If the no vote prevails, in other words, the proposal is rejected, does it mean that we will have no provision on National Territory as earlier proposed or is the provision of the 1973 Constitution on National Territory deemed reinstated since it was made the draft model?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): I suppose that if the voting on Resolution No. 263 results in more negative votes, then the resolution is disapproved.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Then we will have no provision on National Territory?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): No, because the 1935 or the 1973 Constitution has to be presented for incorporation in the new Constitution in order to be considered.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I submit, Mr. Presiding Officer.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 263
ON SECOND READING
(Article on National Territory)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): There was a previous motion to proceed to the voting on Second Reading of Proposed Resolution No. 263.
As many as are in favor of the resolution, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 27 votes in favor and 8 against.
Proposed Resolution No. 263, as amended, is approved on Second Reading.
MR. ALONTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
Per our knowledge and information, the last public hearing will be on July 12 and 13. However, some of the Commissioners have been receiving requests from other provinces such as Baler, Aurora, Zambales, Daet, Camarines Norte and Masbate for the holding of public hearings in those areas. May I know from the Chair if we are going to accommodate these requests? Secondly, who will handle the transportation expenses of the Commissioners in the event that we accommodate this request?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): I think we have to accommodate this request. I would rather refer this matter to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Hearings, Commissioner Garcia.
MR. GARCIA: I would like to suggest that if there are Commissioners who are willing to undertake the task of going to those respective provinces, we would like to receive those willing volunteers. Secondly, we would also like to request the Budget Committee of .the Commission if it is possible to ask for additional funds, or in the absence of such funds, we would like to request that those Commissioners who are going take the amount or the funds from their allowance.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Is the Commissioner satisfied?
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Insofar as the query raised by Commissioner Garcia is concerned, there is nothing in the budget that provides for these extra public hearings. However, the Committee could look into this and we could try to provide for these extra hearings. But we would have to know how much would be the amount requested.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 7
(Article on Citizenship)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. ALONTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we continue the period of amendments on Committee Report No. 4 on Proposed Resolution No. 7, the Article on Citizenship.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong) Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. ALONTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized to sponsor the amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission:
The sponsor is prepared to entertain amendments. May I request all those who desire to present amendments to register their turn with the Floor Leader. And I am asked to remind everyone that the proponent of an amendment has a maximum of five minutes to fight for his amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): According to the Rules, we have to begin with the committee amendments.
FR. BERNAS: The committee amendments have already been put in the committee report. Proposed Resolution No. 7, as amended by the Committee, is on the third page of Committee Report No. 4.
THE PRESIDING OFFICE (Mr. Sumulong): The first committee amendment is on line 7: Put a period (.) after the word "law."
FR. BERNAS: What is the amendment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Yes, the sponsor will submit the committee amendments.
FR. BERNAS: On line 7 of Proposed Resolution No. 7, page 2, put a period (.) after the word "law." Therefore, the sentence will read: "Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." Delete the rest of the paragraph starting with the semicolon ( ;).
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I just want to raise a point of parliamentary inquiry.
Considering that I have here a copy of Committee Report No. 4, and attached to it is Proposed Resolution No. 7, the provisions are already very clear. For example, the provision indicated by the honorable sponsor on paragraph 4 is very clear in Committee Report No. 4. The provision reads: "Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." I think the sponsor is reading the original copy of the proposed resolution of Honorable Davide which has been considered and reported out by the Committee with some portions deleted, and so, we are now in possession of the Article on Citizenship. I do not see any need, therefore to go back to the proposed resolution of Commissioner Davide. To save time, what we should do is to consider the proposed resolution as submitted by the Committee, not the proposed resolution as submitted by the author, Commissioner Davide.
FR. BERNAS: I completely agree with the Gentleman, and I submit to the ruling of the Presiding Officer. I was going to start with the committee report but I was told to go back by the Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then, in that case, Mr. Presiding Officer, may I suggest now to the sponsor to consider the Article on Citizenship as reported out by the Committee and not the original proposed resolution as filed by the author; otherwise, we will be going back to the deliberations of the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): So, we will take up the resolution as amended.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. So, we begin with Section 1.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Yes. We will consider all the committee amendments as already approved by the Committee. And, therefore, what is now before the Commission is the resolution as amended. Is that correct?
FR. BERNAS: Yes. Mr. Presiding Officer, after this committee report was formulated and after having listened to the Members of the Commission, the Committee is prepared to accept the recommendation that on line 9 of the first page of Resolution No. 7, as amended by the Committee, the word "ratification" be changed to ADOPTION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Is there any objection?
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I wish to be enlightened on what could be the difference between "ratification" and "adoption."
FR. BERNAS: There is no difference. The only wish that was expressed by those who wanted to use "adoption" was that it is a reversal to the 1973 version.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, I have to ask that question because in the previous amendments to the Constitution we really had two sets of facts: One, the COMELEC announcing the result that the Constitution is ratified, and then a proclamation by the President that the Constitution which was ratified be deemed adopted.
FR. BERNAS: I think that was because in that exercise, the decree calling for the plebiscite said that these amendments be effective upon the announcement of the ratification.
MR. DAVIDE: That may be proper if the Article on Amendments, for instance, on the new Constitution, will merely state that any amendment or revision of the Constitution shall be deemed ratified upon the votes of so many of the electorate as determined by the COMELEC after a plebiscite. But if it is not, I think "ratification" is the proper word.
FR. BERNAS: I submit that to the vote of the body. For the Committee, it is either way.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The amendment is on line 9. The word "ratification" shall be changed to ADOPTION.
As many as are in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised the hand.)
The results show 16 votes in favor and 11 against. So, the amendment to change "ratification" to ADOPTION is approved.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee has no further changes to make on the committee report.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be recognized for an amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I propose that on page 2, line 2, after the word "law," the following be added: NATURALIZATION OBTAINED BY EXECUTIVE DECREES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION IN THE MANNER AND WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW. FAILURE TO OBTAIN SAID CONFIRMATION SHALL BE A GROUND FOR REVOCATION OF SAID CITIZENSHIP. In other words, I am for the restoration of the Davide amendment.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee took this into consideration and the Committee does not amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I explain my amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer?
Many aliens succeeded in securing Filipino citizens a under liberalized naturalization laws created by presidential decrees. The basic rationale for the liberalization of the laws on naturalization was to absorb, among others, Chinese aliens who have resided in the Philippines for many years and preferred being Filipinos to being considered citizens or subjects of the People's Republic of China.
It should be remembered that the liberalized naturalization laws came about because of presidential decrees after our country severed its diplomatic ties with the Republic of China in Taiwan and established diplomatic ties with the People's Republic of China. Thus, the process of naturalization under presidential decrees was less demanding; we might even say accommodating. There were no searching inquiries on the motives of the applicants and their past activities to show their sincere desire to become Filipinos.
This amendment would only provide that future laws may be enacted in order to subject to judicial confirmation the naturalization of this class of Filipino citizens.
Mr. Presiding Officer, under the naturalization law, after an alien is naturalized, he is required to stay in the country, and when it is found that he transfers to another country and establishes his residence there, his certificate of naturalization may be cancelled.
In case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner and by virtue of the laws in force in her husband's country, she acquires her husband's nationality.
In other words, this amendment would serve to purify. We will go on some sort of a purifying process for those citizens who obtain citizenship through a liberalized method of naturalization by presidential decrees.
The reason given by the sponsor is that this will clutter our court dockets. I do not believe that this will unnecessarily clutter the dockets of our courts because future laws may simply provide for summary proceedings just to see to it that this class of citizens who obtained citizenship by naturalization through presidential decrees are really sincere in becoming Filipino citizens and are not out to take advantage only of the privileges of a Filipino.
That is all, Mr. Presiding Officer.
FR. BERNAS: May I be allowed to say a few words?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Yes, the sponsor has the floor.
FR. BERNAS: In opposing the amendment, we have several reasons. We begin with the presumption of regularity of official action. I do not think that it is the purpose of anybody to junk this principle that official action is presumed to be regular. Therefore, we begin with the presumption that those 29,722 adults who were naturalized through this process are validly citizens of the Philippines. And I do not believe in the proposed amendment if the intention of the proponent is to deny the validity of their citizenship.
Second, we do not make a distinction between natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens except in those instances when the Constitution itself makes a distinction. In this particular amendment, the intention is to refer to the Constitution to make a distinction between two classes of naturalized citizens — those judicially naturalized and those naturalized by decree, specifically, during what we might call the "open flood gate years." Should we make this distinction? I believe we should not; I say this principally for those who truly deserve Philippine citizenship. I ask the proponent not to compel them to go through a demeaning process of begging for citizenship again. One will probably say that the process will be summary, but what will be the nature of this summary procedure? We do not yet know. We do not know yet what future legislatures will consider summary procedure and whether or not it is the type that we envision. And even if indeed the provision is summary, we do not know how those who will implement it will actually behave.
Admittedly, there may be some who indeed are unworthy, but we have laws for them, and if they are not adequate, then they can be improved. After all, it is also a principle embodied in our jurisprudence that the grant of citizenship is never res judicata. It can always be reopened for valid reasons. But let us not reopen them en masse. Let us reopen only those cases where there is perceived evidence or grounds for reopening the case. For these reasons, I oppose the proposed amendment and that remedial measures be left to ordinary legislation within the limits of the Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer, one last word. Precisely, that is the amendment: SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION IN THE MANNER AND WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE LAW. In other words, we agree that it should be left to future legislation.
FR. BERNAS: But the basic opposition we have is to the reopening of all the cases en masse.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, no, we are not reopening. Future legislation shall decide whether we shall reopen or not. There is nothing in the amendment which says that those who obtain naturalization by decrees shall have their naturalization reopened. 343 2
FR. BERNAS: In which case, the amendment is unnecessary because the legislature can do it, anyway, even without that amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, but the purpose of this amendment is to express the intent of this Commission that future legislation should do that.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. In the opinion of the Committee, the matter is covered by Section 3 — "Philippine citizen — ship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law."
MR. DE LOS REYES: I respectfully submit that we put this to a vote.
FR. BERNAS: I would agree with the proponent of the amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I add something?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Are there any further remarks?
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I say something before we vote? The use of the word "confirmation" means that the naturalization is not complete and, as the sponsor says, this applies to all these naturalization cases by presidential decrees. It means that we will declare all of them now as not yet complete, and that is why judicial confirmation is needed. The added phrase "provided by law" only means that the way it will be confirmed will be provided by law.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am intending to propose a related amendment and in order not to go back and forth, considering that this is related to the proposed amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes, I wonder if the sponsor could just clarify certain points so that I do not have to propose an amendment to this particular section.
FR. BERNAS: The sponsor will make every effort to clarify.
MR. MAAMBONG: The wording here is "Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." I am intending to propose an amendment to the word "law," but to obviate that possibility, probably the sponsor could reply to some questions. I am referring now to the sponsor's Philippine Constitution, A Reviewer — Primer, which is the only book I can afford. The sponsor's other book is rather expensive.
Does the term "law" cover the Mass Naturalization Law provided in the Philippine Bill of 1902?
FR. BERNAS: Those naturalized under the Mass Naturalization Law of 1902 are covered not by paragraph 4 but by Section 1, paragraph 1 of the 1935 Constitution.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is clear enough. Does the term "law" cover the general law of naturalization through judicial process under the Revised Naturalization Law, Commonwealth Act No. 473, which was approved on June 17, 1939?
FR. BERNAS: It includes that but it also includes any other law.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am going to that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Does the term "law" apply to special naturalization law enacted by the old Congress or through a decree; for example, as the sponsor has stated clearly in his book, the republic act which made Father James Moran a citizen or a presidential decree which made Mr. Ronnie Nathanielz a citizen?
FR. BERNAS: That is included.
MR. MAAMBONG: The last point, Mr. Presiding Officer. Does this tern "law" cover a general law on naturalization which was applied in a summary manner through LOI No. 270, dated April 11, 1975, promulgated on July 9, 1975, and LOI No. 491, promulgated on December 29, 1976, by which a good number of aliens were naturalized not through the LOIs but through a decree?
FR. BERNAS: "By law," we mean here the decrees, not the LOIs referred to.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, I wanted that clarified because I seem to recall that there was a statement made here that there were aliens who were naturalized by letters of instructions, and that is not really a correct statement. The letters of instructions which I mentioned only created a special committee on naturalization which processed the applications and on the basis of its recommendation, decrees were issued by the President later on.
FR. BERNAS: I am in agreement.
MR. MAAMBONG: Finally, I have here the June 23, 1986 issue of the Malaya which says:
President Aquino has directed the justice ministry and the solicitor general's office to look into pending applications for naturalization by decree which were left unacted upon by the ousted Marcos administration.
The President's order was issued to Justice Minister Neptali Gonzales and Solicitor General Sedfrey Ordonez
The President told newsmen that depending on the results of the joint study, meritorious cases may be given due course and the rest mothballed until the Constitutional Commission drafting the new charter has laid down new policies and guidelines on naturalization of deserving aliens.
The June 30, 1986 issue of the Philippine Tribune practically contains the same thing. The question is that when one says "those who are naturalized in accordance with law," does this include those applicants who filed application for naturalization through the LOIs mentioned — LOI Nos. 270, 292 and 491? Probably, in a few days' time, President Aquino might act on the applications of previous applicants and when she issues a decree to this effect, will they be covered by the provision "Those who are naturalized in accordance with law," considering that the applications were filed during the time of President Marcos under a letter of instructions issued by the President, but this time, the decree would be issued by President Aquino based on those previous applications? Would they be covered by the term "law"?
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, I have no amendment to propose.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
FR. BERNAS: Incidentally, there are still 9,131 pending cases.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Are there any further remarks?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I just insert in the record the definition of naturalization.
Naturalization is the judicial act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with the privileges of a native-born citizen. It implies the renunciation of a former nationality and the fact of entrance into a similar relation towards a new body politic. (Volume 2, Am. Jur., p. 561, par. 188)
FR. BERNAS: May I just say that that is a definition of one type of naturalization. There is also direct naturalization by legislation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Will Commissioner de los Reyes kindly repeat the amendment he proposes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: My proposed amendment is to add: NATURALIZATION BY EXECUTIVE DECREES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION IN THE MANNER AND WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW. FAILURE TO OBTAIN SAID CONFIRMATION SHALL BE A GROUND FOR REVOCATION OF SUCH CITIZENSHIP.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong).: What does the sponsor say?
FR. BERNAS: We do not accept the proposed amendment and we submit it to a vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Those in favor of the amendment proposed by Commissioner de los Reyes, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 5 votes in favor and 30 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized for an anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
The proposed amendment is on line 1, page 2 of the amended resolution which consists in the insertion of Is the word JUDICIALLY between the words "are" and "naturalized," so that the entire paragraph would read: "Those who are JUDICIALLY naturalized in accordance with law."
FR. BERNAS: The Committee would rather leave that to the body.
MR. DAVIDE: Before it is left to the body for determination, may I be allowed to explain, Mr. Presiding Officer?
In the course of the interpellation by Commissioner Concepcion when we took up this proposal under a freewheeling discussion, and as stated earlier by Commissioner de los Reyes, naturalization is a judicial act because admission to Philippine citizenship is a matter of privilege. And the determination then of who should be considered or admitted as a Filipino citizen must be the prerogative of the court; hence, this proposal. We should prevent any other person from admitting an alien as a Filipino citizen to preempt a judicial function or authority. I submit, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Are there any further remarks?- Are we now ready to vote?
MR. RODRIGO: May I ask the proponent a few questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Gentleman from Bulacan, Commissioner Rodrigo, is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: In the 1935 Constitution, the provision is "Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." In the 1973 Constitution, the provision is exactly the same: "Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." Now, what is the reason for adding the word "JUDICIALLY" in the present Constitution?
MR. DAVIDE: I will answer that, Mr. Presiding Officer. The issue of naturalization by decree affected so many and, of course, it resulted in the admission of aliens as Filipino citizens without undergoing the rigorous process of presenting their qualifications for admission and providing them before a court.
We now would seek to prevent any further action by any other agency of the government to admit aliens by a mere decree or a letter of instructions. This proposed amendment is the only way we can prevent future actions of such kind as was done in the past regime.
MR. RODRIGO: If the amendment is approved, does this mean that those who were naturalized by the presidential decree of President Marcos will lose their citizenship?
MR. DAVIDE: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, because this; to be construed to operate prospectively.
MR. RODRIGO: Prospectively. So, this is not aimed at a particular group of persons?
MR. DAVIDE: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, but this is to govern future action. Henceforth, no naturalization can be done by decree, only by judicial action.
MR. RODRIGO: With that clarification, thank you very much.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I say a few words?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The sponsor is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: I would oppose although not very vigorously, the amendment for this reason: The background of the proposed amendment is the situation of the Marcos regime when legislation was in the hands of one man. The reason we had this mass naturalization by decree was because one man possessed legislative power. If we insure that legislative power will not be exercised by one person, then the abuses which resulted from the possession of this legislative power by decree will no crop up in the future.
For that reason, I prefer to leave the provision as it is and allow the legislature to naturalize directly.
I ask for a vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Those in favor of the amendment proposed by Commissioner Davide, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 14 votes in favor and 19 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Vice-President Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Section 3 states: "Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law." Will the sponsor agree to change the words "in the manner" to FOR ANY CAUSE? The reason is, the phrase "in the manner" speaks more of the procedural aspect, whereas 'FOR ANY CAUSE provided by law" will consider the substantial reason for either loss or reacquisition.
FR. BERNAS: In my understanding of this proposal, the word "manner" includes both substance and procedure. So, I would not accept the amendment.
MR. PADILLA: After that line "provided by law," will the sponsor consider this addition: CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION MAY BE CANCELLED FOR ANY OF THE CAUSES PROVIDED BY LAW AS GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF APPLICANTS FOR NATURALIZATION.
I will explain briefly. Section 18 of the Revised Naturalization Law, otherwise known as Commonwealth Act No. 473, provides for grounds for cancellation of a certificate of naturalization, but most of these refer to naturalization certificates obtained illegally or irregularly or for some other causes existing at the time of the application or during the proceedings for naturalization. Moreover, the Revised Naturalization Law provides grounds for qualification (Section 2) and for disqualification (Section 4). An applicant for a naturalization certificate must have all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications.
It may happen, Mr. Presiding Officer, that after an alien obtained a certificate of naturalization, assuming the regular procedure under the Revised Naturalization Law, he may, however, return to his old customs as an alien, such that he will not mingle socially with Filipinos or he will not send his children to our schools where Philippine history and other subjects are taught.
In other words, he might not have had the disqualification at the time of the application, but may acquire or go back to some cause for disqualification after he had secured the certificate of naturalization. So that in addition to the grounds under Commonwealth Act No. 63, we should recognize not only those under Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, but also the disqualifications for naturalization under Section 4.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, on general principle, I hold the proposition not to make a distinction except on those cases where the Constitution specifically makes a distinction between natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens.
The proposal to my mind, in effect, allows the legislature to create laws prejudicial to validly naturalized citizens, but not applicable to natural-born citizens.
I am opposed to that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. PADILLA: No, I am referring to the grounds presently provided for by the Revised Naturalization Law on disqualifications.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, but if the applicant passed the test with all regularity, then he enjoys that citizenship as firmly as a natural-born citizen does.
MR. PADILLA: Even if, subsequently, he returns to his old ways, would that have constituted disqualification?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, because those old ways could also be the ways of natural-born citizens, and yet we do not disqualify them.
MR. PADILLA: It is hardly possible that a natural-born citizen would have any of those disqualifications for naturalization.
FR. BERNAS: Some of the disqualifications are moral disqualifications; it is quite possible for natural-born citizens to be immoral.
MR. PADILLA: No, the disqualifications are not exactly on moral standards; they are more on social behavior.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, one of the qualifications is they must be of good moral character.
MR. PADILLA: That is a qualification, but the opposite is not mentioned among the disqualifications, I am now referring to disqualifications.
FR. BERNAS: I submit the matter to a vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: Was there a proposed amendment? I think the Vice-President was only asking if the sponsor would be amenable to such an amendment.
FR. BERNAS: No, I am not amenable.
MR. RODRIGO: I do not think the Vice-President has already proposed his amendment.
FR. BERNAS: Commissioner Rodrigo is correct.
MR. PADILLA: My questions are proposals for an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Will Vice-President Padilla please repeat his proposed amendment?
MR. PADILLA: The amendment is, after "by law" on Section 3, add: CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION MAY BE CANCELLED FOR ANY OF THE CAUSES PROVIDED BY LAW AS GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF APPLICANTS FOR NATURALIZATION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What does the sponsor say?
FR. BERNAS: The sponsor does not accept the amendment, and he asks for a vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Those in favor of the amendment proposed by the Vice-President, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 5 votes in favor and 19 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I propose a more basic amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: The 1935 Constitution has Section I (3) and (43 - the third paragraph refers to fathers and the fourth, to mothers. The 1973 Constitution joined them together. We have previously discussed that the situation of a Filipino man who marries an alien is somewhat different from that of a Filipino woman who marries an alien. I would propose that we return to the provisions of Section, 1 (3) and (4) of the 1935 Constitution, instead of Section 2 of the 1973 Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: Does the Vice-President mean Section 1, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the 1935 Constitution?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, Section 1, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the 1935 Constitution.
I would not argue against the demand for equality of sexes, but the situation of a Filipino man who marries an alien is sometimes quite different from the situation of a Filipino woman who marries an alien. As we stated during the period of interpellations, a Filipino wife usually accompanies her alien husband and they reside abroad. The child is born usually abroad and takes the surname of the alien father. On the other hand, a Filipino man who marries an alien usually resides in the Philippines. The child bears the surname of the Filipino father and is like any other Filipino born in the Philippines. Because of the merger of the provisions on the citizenship of the father and the mother in the 1973 Constitution, there is no provision for election by the child upon his reaching the age of majority. And that has given rise to many problems of dual citizenship, and it is quite strange that under the 1973 Constitution, paragraph 3 thereof, we make reference to:
Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty five.
I believe we have discussed this on several instances before, and I would not repeat further.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recognized for one question to the proponent?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I share the concern about the situation which would develop in the event the Commission approves the proposed resolution. But what happens to those born after January 17, 1973, because according to the proponent, the Honorable Bernas, he would limit the application of Section 3 only to those born on or before January 17, 1973? How would we consider their status, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. PADILLA: I suppose that period mentioned which does not appear in the law or in the Constitution has reference to the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. If the children were born after the adoption of the 1973 Constitution and before the adoption of the 1986 Constitution, their status would be determined by the laws and the Constitution then in force. In other words, even if we retroact or return to the 1935 Constitution, there would be no situation where we could disturb the status already acquired under the 1973 Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, Mr. Presiding Officer, even those born after January 17, 1973 and before the adoption of this Constitution could opt to elect Philippine citizenship under appropriate circumstances?
MR. PADILLA: No, because they were born after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, so the 1973 Constitution applies.
MR. SUAREZ: Meaning, if their fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines, automatically they also become Filipino citizens, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, because we cannot change that status anymore by any subsequent provision, even if it were included in the Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the clarification.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: The proponent is suggesting that we revert to the provision of the 1935 Constitution, his reason being that the situation of a Filipino woman who marries an alien is different from that of a Filipino man who marries an alien. He stated that normally the Filipino woman resides in the country of her alien husband, unlike a Filipino man who marries an alien who resides in the Philippines together with his alien wife. However, I know of an instance where a Filipino husband resides in the country of his alien wife. One example is that of my relative who, together with his alien wife, resides in his wife's country. May I ask the Vice-President's comment on this.
MR. PADILLA: There is always such a situation. If the husband is "under the saya," then he follows the wife. But it is the husband — especially a Filipino husband — who is the head of the family under the Civil Code, and who chooses the residence or domicile after marriage.
MR. SARMIENTO: What if the husband is not "under the saya"? They both love each other and they both decide to stay in that foreign place because of "greener pasture."
MR. PADILLA: That is all right. It will be covered -even by the 193 5 Constitution, that a child whose father is a citizen of the Philippines is a Filipino. Of course, under the American law on citizenship, the principle of jus soli is recognized, such that even if both parents are Filipinos if the child is born in the United States, that child has a right to American citizenship.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the Gentleman yield to a few questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: These provisions both of the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions are based on jus sanguinis, is that right?
MR. PADILLA: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: We want to follow this principle of jus sanguinis. There is a saying, which is a little naughty, that maternity is a certainty, paternity is an act of faith. So, 'it is surer that the blood of the mother is in the child than the other way around. So, is it not surer if we are to follow jus sanguinis, that is, giving the child of a Filipino mother Philippine citizenship?
MR. PADILLA: The fact of birth, definitely, is even a ground for recognition because the relation of maternity between mother and child is clear and even conclusive. As regards the father, the relation of paternity and filiation may not, as the Gentleman says, be very clear. But if they are married, that is not only disputable or prima facie but also conclusive. I recall Commissioner de los Reyes asked me before if this would discourage marriage because a child born of a Filipino mother not married to the father may not have legal paternity and filiation, so that the child adopts the citizenship of the mother.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I interpose vigorous objection to the proposal of the distinguished proponent. Despite the blandishments of purism in citizenship, there is read into that proposal a very distinctive trend towards discrimination against women. It is bad enough that the Constitution is replete in language and formulations with sexual connotations, and it is doubly tragic for us to constitutionalize this bias by way of a proposal after we have practically enshrined in unmistakable formulations the principle of jus sanguinis in the 1973 Constitution. This is, in fact, a recognition that women have made relative successes in terms of having recognition of their equal rights with men. For us to delete this provision would be retrogression, nothing less. I believe that we have the opportunity now to expunge the Constitution of all vestiges of sexual discrimination and of sexism.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I was warned that in proposing the 1935 Constitution, I would be misunderstood by the feminist movement for equal rights. But I am convinced that when the learned and illustrious delegates who framed the 1935 Constitution had that distinction made between fathers and mothers, they were not discriminating against the fairer sex. I do not believe that we can accuse them of discrimination, of inequality and other unfair criticisms.
I admit that the 1973 Constitution had changed or, rather, combined together "fathers and mothers." But I do not believe that such a change was an improvement over the 1935 Constitution, especially when we consider that there are some relevant differences in the case of a father marrying an alien and a mother marrying a foreigner. I believe in equal rights, especially before the law, but not necessarily in equality. But by the very nature of man and woman, there are certain differences that cannot be denied. One important virtue or attribute of a woman, we might say, is that she is the only one who can become pregnant and give birth to a child, not a man. Therefore, we must give our mothers, our wives, our sisters and our daughters due recognition, and even preferential respect.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be allowed to say something in defense of the Committee's proposal?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What does the sponsor say?
FR. BERNAS: We do not accept the proposed amendment.
The purpose of the committee report is to elevate the Filipino mother to a level of equality with the Filipino father. First, we do not wish to punish the Filipino mother and her child simply because she married an alien, in the same way that we do not punish the Filipino father and his child when he marries an alien. Second, the child has two options. In many cases, he will have dual citizenship — he may either choose the citizenship of his mother or the citizenship of the father. He should be allowed to choose. The choice must not be imposed on him. True, this can give rise to dual citizenship but the naturalization law can provide that the child with dual citizenship must make a choice within a certain period of time.
Finally, I think the principal argument against the existing provision is that these mestizos, if we may call them, may occupy positions reserved for natural-born citizens. But let us remember that a mestizo can be such because he is either the child of a Filipino father and an alien mother or the child of a Filipino mother and an alien father. Both of them are mestizos. If we want to exclude mestizos, then let us exclude all mestizos, including the children of Filipino fathers, and let us treat this in the appropriate article. For instance, if the Gentlemen really wants to be a purist about this, he can say in the Article on the President that the President must be a child of a Filipino mother and father. But let us not handle that here.
Therefore, I request a vote on this, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: For all of the protestations of the proponent of his belief in the ideals of sexual equality even as he would say that we should deny the status of citizenship to the children of Filipino mothers married to aliens, I would have to take exception to this monumental hypocrisy.
The issue here is, why do we have to discriminate against children of Filipino mothers who are married to aliens? It does not fit well with the idea of equality.
When the 1973 Constitution incorporated the phrase "or mothers," it was already a bonanza in terms of the manifold successes of women in their struggle for equality, and to deny the children of Filipino mothers this right now would be nothing less than oppression.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, in connection with the remark of the honorable sponsor that his proposed amendment does not seek to distinguish between the natural-born and otherwise, as far as I am concerned, a child born of a Filipino mother is a natural-born citizen, in the same way that a child born of a Filipino father is a natural-born citizen. The distinction is not intended to deny or deprive the children of Filipino mothers their status as natural-born.
In other words, the objection seems to give this interpretation to my proposed amendment which merely restores the wisdom of the Members of the 1935 Constitutional Convention — that a child born of a Filipino father is a natural-born citizen whereas the child born of a Filipino mother is not a natural-born citizen. That is not the intention of the amendment.
FR. BERNAS: May we know what the amendment of the Gentleman is?
MR. PADILLA: As stated, instead of Section 1 (2) of the 1973 Constitution, we revert to Section 1 (3) and (4) of the 1935 Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I suggest that we start with Section 1 (2) because it will not be necessary to move to Section 1 (3), if we settle Section 1 (2). Therefore, as I understand it, the proposed amendment is, Section 1 (2) should read: THOSE WHOSE FATHERS AND MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES. Is that correct?
MR. PADILLA: No, no; it is not correct.
FR. BERNAS: What is the Gentleman's amendment?
MR. PADILLA: Section 1 (2) of the 1973 Constitution should be amended to read as provided in Section 1 (3) and (4) of the 1935 Constitution, and I quote: "Section 1 (3). Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship."
FR. BERNAS: We do not accept the Gentleman's amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What is the pleasure of the Floor Leader?
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Concepcion would like to speak in favor of the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer, my remarks are not based on gender but I start from the assumption that we still want to protect our natural resources and the operation of our public utilities by reserving a big portion thereof to Filipino citizens. Contrary to the allegation that the amendment will result in inequality, perhaps it will result in equality, but adversely for the children whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Why? It is because the child whose mother is a Filipino but whose father is a foreigner has two choices, and may avail of them at different times for different purposes; whereas the Filipino will be left bereft of such choice.
Secondly, I think I can describe this better by referring to parity rights. We granted parity rights to the Americans but did they really have the same rights as the Filipinos? The Americans apparently have better rights than the Filipinos since they have the capital which the Filipinos do not have. The Americans are well-organized; we do not have that organization — wherever you go, the Filipinos always split. It is not perhaps the Americans but some other nationalities who are better organized or are better financed than the Filipinos. If the woman should follow the nationality of the husband, the husband cannot avail of the nationality of the woman in order to exploit our natural resources and operate public utilities. But if we maintain the citizenship of the woman — presumed from the very beginning to have retained her citizenship — then she is most likely to be exploited by the husband.
And that is true with respect to the child. The child will have two choices. When it suits him, he could invoke the nationality of his mother; but if it suits him in some other respect, he can invoke the nationality of the father. It is precisely against this inequality that I stand before this body tonight. Of course, I should like to point the Commission's attention to the need of correlating these provisions on Citizenship with the provisions on Natural Resources. Are we still requiring preferential rights for Filipinos in connection with the exploitation of our natural resources and the operation of public utilities?
If this Constitutional Commission will eliminate the preference for Filipinos, I would have no objection to the report of the Committee. But as long as we give some preference for the Filipinos to the aliens, I would prefer the amendment proposed by Commissioner Padilla. Why? I think it is no secret that before 1935, there was barely any petition for naturalization. As soon as the 1935 Constitution was approved, petitions for naturalization swarmed the courts of justice because of the provision that Filipinos shall have preference over the utilization and exploitation of natural resources. And that is still so now. Their petitions did not only swarm our dockets but they found themselves desirous to become Filipinos or else they would not have enjoyed the right of preference for Filipinos over the conservation and utilization of natural resources, and the operation of public utilities. However, since that policy was abandoned by the 1973 Constitution, how many of our former foreigners have sought naturalization either by judicial or some other process which has increased their predominance over the Filipinos? So that now, the list of the presidents of the Rotary club or the Lions club shows that the names are foreign names. The overwhelming majority of those who go to the movies, to the golf clubs and other clubs are of foreign parentage or foreign nationality, before at least.
So, it is precisely to prevent the Filipinos from being discriminated against that I favor the idea that only in case the father is a Filipino citizen should the child be considered a citizen of the Philippines. When the mother is a Filipino but she wants to follow the citizenship of her husband, let her say so. Let us not presume that he would want to do so. But remember, he is not likely to do that. In many cases, foreigners marry Filipino women precisely to enjoy the benefits of the national law.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I request a vote on the proposal.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer, before we take a vote, may I request clarification from the distinguished Vice-President?
Would his proposal requiring election upon reaching the age of majority make the newly born child a Filipino citizen or not? And would he be considered a citizen between the time of birth and the time of election of citizenship?
MR. PADILLA: What I would say is, after election that retroacts.
MR. GUINGONA: I see. Would the Vice-President propose a corresponding provision similar to the one found in the proposal of the Committee which says that
MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just those who elect Philippine citizenship shall also be say a word in reply to the remarks of Commissioner deemed natural-born citizens?
MR. PADILLA: I can agree to that.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: I just would like to say something in connection with what Commissioner Concepcion said with respect to the intention of some foreigners who marry Filipino women with the sole purpose of exploiting our natural resources, which inevitably affects the children.
I think we should remember that there are a lot of Filipino children born of Filipino mothers and foreign fathers who do not know any other country but the Philippines. They have no other friends but Filipinos and they have not known any other education but Filipino education.
It may be true in some instances, although not in all, that perhaps the intention of a foreigner in marrying a Filipino woman is to be able to pursue activities reserved for Filipinos by putting the business in the name of his wife. But we should also remember that in the pursuit of these activities, not only did that particular foreigner improve the economic situation in the Philippines, but also improved the lot of his Filipino wife and his children to a point that in the end such an alien becomes a Filipino and has become more of a Filipino than some other Filipinos.
So in that respect, it may not be fair to say, and it may not be fair to punish and discriminate against the children of a Filipino woman married to a foreigner, because those children are truly Filipinos, educated in the Philippines and who know no other country but the Philippines.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Is the Commission ready to vote?
MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong):Commissioner Concepcion has the floor.
MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just say a word in reply to the remarks of Commissioner Bengzon that we are not trying to punish anybody. Marriage has its own effects and we have to accept its effects. But the question is: Are we willing to give up the preference for Filipinos over our natural resources?
That is the point I would want to stress.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Chair now puts the amendment proposed by the Vice-President to a vote.
Those in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please do the same. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 10 votes in favor of the amendment and 29 against; the amendment is lost.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner °Õ°ù±ðñ²¹²õ be recognized to present an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Gentleman is recognized.
MR. TREÑAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I propose an amendment to subsection (3) of Article 1 which reads:
Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five . . .
I understand that the purpose of inserting this provision is to give a chance to those born of Filipino mothers on or before January 17, 1973. Am I right?
FR. BERNAS: Before January 17.
MR. TREÑAS: Yes, and this is merely a transitory provision.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. TREÑAS: Those who may not be lawyers or who may not really understand the purpose of incorporating this section in our new Constitution, by merely reading this where it makes reference to the Constitution of 1935 will, therefore, refer to paragraph (4) which says:
Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority elect Philippine citizenship. The proposed amendment is to make this provision clear by going directly to the purpose of this section, and shall read as follows: THOSE BORN BEFORE JANUARY 17, 1973 WHOSE MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND UPON REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY, ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I request that we defer consideration of this amendment until we settle the proviso in Section 4. If that is understood as retroactive, paragraph (3) of Section 1 will even become unnecessary.
MR. TREÑAS: It is all right.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Guingona be recognized to present an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I have two amendments to offer. One concerns naturalization, and the other is on the matter of dual citizenship. With regard to the first, I would like to add the following clause to lines 1 and 2, page 2 of the committee report. My proposed amendment shall read: THE EXECUTIVE SHALL HAVE NO POWER TO GRANT NATURALIZATION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE EVEN THROUGH DELEGATION BY THE LEGISLATURE.
In other words, Mr. Presiding Officer, I am removing any possibility of the executive granting citizenship by naturalization, and the reason is that we are framing a Constitution which is not only good for this generation but for many generations to come. It might be possible that in the future the legislature might delegate to the executive the power to grant citizenship, subject to restrictions.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee does not accept the amendment and would prefer to leave the matter of naturalization to ordinary legislation.
MR. GUINGONA: May I suggest to the honorable proponent that he throw it to the floor and put it to a vote.
FR. BERNAS: If the Gentleman insists, we have to throw it to the floor.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: We have no choice. May I ask for a vote on the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Those in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise the hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please do the same. (Several Member raised their hand.)
The results show 3 votes in favor and 26 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
The second amendment refers to the matter of dual citizenship and this is found in Section 2, starting with line 3, page 2. My proposed amendment would be: "Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens BY REASON OF WHICH THEY ACQUIRED THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE SPOUSE shall retain their citizenship, PROVIDED THAT AT ANY TIME WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE CELEBRATION OF THEIR MARRIAGE, THEY RENOUNCE THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR SPOUSES, OTHERWISE, THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP."
I would like to mention that this provision is almost a verbatim copy from the second alternative proposal of the UP Law Revision Project of 1970.
With the Commissioner's permission, may I just read some of the reasons I have advanced in connection with this particular amendment:
1. Citizens of the Philippines, including those of dual citizenship would be entitled to all rights and privileges of a citizen, including the right to be elected to the highest positions in the government.
2. Filipinos of dual citizenship would be subject to the jurisdiction of other states of which he or she is also a citizen and to which he or she would owe allegiance and would have the duty to serve and the duty to pay taxes . . .
3. It would be advisable for us to provide in the Constitution even indirectly that we uphold the theory of only one citizenship as proposed by the late Dr. Salvador Araneta, a 1971 Constitutional Convention delegate. Filipinos of dual citizenship could at best be suspected of divided loyalty as far as the countries of which they are citizens are concerned. At times even these countries may, in the future, come into conflict with one another.
Finally, the renunciation of one's citizenship under a foreign country, although the same may have no effect therein, would serve as an evident declaration of loyalty to our country.
FR. BERNAS: The matter of dual citizenship has relevance not just to Section 2 but also to paragraph 2 of Section I because the latter can also give rise to dual citizenship. But it is the position of the sponsor that the matter of dual citizenship be handled by ordinary legislation. It is perfectly within the competence of the legislative body to pass a law saying that those possessing dual citizenship must make a choice within a certain period.
Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, just a piece of information.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What is the pleasure of Commissioner Sarmiento?
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Guingona mentioned the 1970 UP Law Revision Project. However, a look at the 1970 UP Law Constitution Project would show that its proposal was not repeated in this 1986 UP Law Project. The proposal of the 1986 UP Law Constitution Project is a verbatim repetition of Section 2 as proposed by the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong). Is the body ready to vote?
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I understand that the amendment has not been formally proposed, so there is no need for a vote yet.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Villacorta be recognized to present an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to know if the Committee would consider the addition of a section that will give due recognition to the social dimension of naturalization. It is well-known that many aliens aspire for naturalization for reasons of convenience. The naturalization law of the country, unfortunately, does not provide for genuine cultural assimilation of naturalized citizens after they pass the probation test. I am not calling for a disqualification of these naturalized citizens who do not assimilate themselves. What I am proposing is a general principle that will reinforce cultural, economic and social assimilation as an ideal and which could be a basis for future legislation and serve as a behavioral norm that naturalized citizens and their families will always be conscious of. I would like the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights to consider the incorporation of the following provision based on the resolution that Commissioner Sarmiento and I have cosponsored: SECTION ______ NATURALIZED CITIZENS SHALL STRIVE TO ASSIMILATE THEMSELVES INTO FILIPINO ECONOMIC, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL LIFE AND RESPECT FILIPINO VALUES AND TRADITIONS.
I respectfully submit this proposal so that this mutual discrimination based on racial or ethnic ancestry, as well as its ugly consequencess could be reduced significantly in our society.
FR. BERNAS: If I read the Committee's mind right? the Committee would not accept that provision for the reason that the process of assimilation should precede naturalization rather than follow naturalization. The steps towards naturalization should be strengthened in such a way that before naturalization judgment is given, there should be an assurance that there has already been assimilation. As I understand the Commissioner's proposal, the assimilation will be after naturalization, which is quite late. Assimilation before naturalization can very well be provided by ordinary legislation, and I believe we are capable of creating a legislature which would be equally as concerned as we are with economic, social and cultural factors.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just reply? Our proposal would like to reinforce the assimilation process that precedes the conferment of naturalization. We know for a fact that even if a candidate for naturalization assimilates himself into the national cultural mainstream, what usually happens is that he forgets to follow through the assimilation process after being naturalized.
May I, therefore, request the proponent to ask for a vote on our proposal.
FR. BERNAS: I propose a vote on the subject.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Those in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 9 votes in favor and 23 against; the amendment is lost.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized to present a short amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I am now referring to Section 3 found on page 2, lines 7 and 8, which reads "Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law."
I intend to propose an amendment on the word "law." However, if the honorable sponsor could satisfy some of my questions on this point, then I will not proceed with my proposal.
First of all, I would like to know if, in the interpretation of the word "law," the Commissioner is referring to the denaturalization procedure under Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, which is the Revised Naturalization Law.
FR. BERNAS: I am referring to any denaturalization procedure which may be provided by law. This is not intended to canonize any existing law but rather to give authority to the legislature to pass future laws on this matter.
MR. MAAMBONG: Without prejudice to future legislation, may I just indicate some of the laws which may be covered by the term "law" under Section 3?
FR. BERNAS: Perhaps I could just make a general answer. If there are laws which are not yet repealed and are in existence, then they are covered by this term.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then, let us start with Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 which provides for denaturalization procedure. Could that apply in the present setting?
FR. BERNAS: If that has not yet been repealed, it still applies.
MR. MAAMBONG: It does not seem to have been repealed because it is still in the Commissioner's book. (Laughter)
FR. BERNAS: We can never tell what President Marcos repealed by decrees.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am referring to the 1983 edition of the commissioner's book.
I will proceed.
Commissioner Bernas' book also mentions Commonwealth Act No. 63 which was actually approved on October 21, 1936. The title of this Act reads: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED.
Would this be covered by the term "law" under Section 3 as far as loss or reacquisition of citizenship is concerned?
FR. BERNAS: As I say, if that Act has not yet been repealed either by the legislature or by decree during the years when it could be repealed by decree, then it is covered.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask this question in reference to Section I (7) of Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended. I am now referring to the book Citizenship, Naturalization, Immigration, and Alien Registration Laws, Annotated, published by the Central Law Book Publishing Company Incorporated, 1977, Third Edition.
Portion of the said Commonwealth Act provides for the loss of citizenship which states:
In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner, If by virtue of the laws enforced in her husband's country, she acquires his nationality.
Will this formulation of Section 1 (7) of Commonwealth Act No. 63 not be applicable anymore if we approve this provision on Citizenship under Section 2?
FR. BERNAS: As a matter of fact, I would say that that particular provision was already repealed by the 1973 Constitution.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that.
May I proceed to another law again mentioned in the Commissioner's book. It is RA 965, approved on June 20, 1953 which is entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY PERSONS WHO LOST SUCH CITIZENSHIP BY RENDERING SERVICE TO, OR ACCEPTING COMMISSION IN THE ARMED FORCES OF AN ALLIED FOREIGN COUNTRY AND TAKING AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE INCIDENT THERETO.
Offhand, would the Commissioner say that in the present setting this proposal will be covered by the term "law" under Section 3?
FR. BERNAS: Offhand, yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you. We will now proceed to RA 2630, which unfortunately is indicated in the Commissioner's book as RA 2639, approved on June; 18, 1960.
FR. BERNAS: I will have to tell my printer to correct the typographical error.
MR. MAAMBONG: The title of this RA 2630 is: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY PERSONS WHO LOST SUCH CITIZENSHIP BY RENDERING SERVICE TO, OR ACCEPTING COMMISSION IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES. Offhand, would this Act still be applicable in the interpretation of the word "law" in Section 3 under the present setting?
FR. BERNAS: As I said, the general principle I am going under is that the word "law" in that provision has reference only to laws which are still in effect. We can check later on which laws are still in effect.
MR. MAAMBONG: And all of these, without prejudice to future laws, are on loss or reacquisition of citizenship?
FR. BERNAS: Correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is my last question: It is not ,indicated anymore in the Commissioner's book but I have here P.D. No. 725, issued on June 5, 1975, which says: PROVIDING FOR REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO WOMEN WHO HAD LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE TO ALIENS AND OF NATURAL-BORN FILIPINOS.
Would this provision be considered again in the interpretation of the word "law" under Section 3 of the proposed Article on Citizenship?
FR. BERNAS; Again, we would consider it a law provided it has not yet been' repealed.
MR. MAAMBONG. In view of that reply, I will not proceed with my proposed amendment.
Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Suarez be recognized to present an amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. My amendment is very simple; it is the deletion of the proviso in Section 4, lines 12 to 13, which reads: "Provided, That those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with Section 1, paragraph 3 above shall also be deemed natural-born citizens."
FR. BERNAS: The Committee prefers to retain this proviso just to even things out in view of our approval of Section 1, paragraph 2.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
May I be allowed to discuss this matter?
I must confess that I had some agonizing moments before moving to delete this particular proviso because I do not want to be accused of discriminating against fellow citizens. I might be committing a disservice to them. However, I feel rather strongly that my personal sentiments should not prevail over the interests of the nation.
Let me cite an example. Under our Constitution, the President, Vice-President, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and members of the Commission on Elections are required to be natural-born citizens. So, if this provision would be approved, there will be frightening possibilities. We may have a President whose father is named Jack Reagan who is based in Washington, D.C. and is a member of the CIA. We may have a Vice-President -whose name may be Naburo Nakasone, based in Tokyo, Japan. We may have a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court whose father may be named Miguel Gorbachev, a member of the KGB in Moscow. We may have a Chair- man of the Commission on Elections whose father may be called Jose Deng Xiaoping who is based in Peking.
This matter involves national interest and security. We should not allow possibilities as frightening as these to be perpetrated in our Constitution. Our sentiment in this regard is rather very strong and so we are respectfully moving for the deletion of this particular proviso appearing in Section 4 of the Proposed Resolution on Citizenship.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What does the sponsor say?
FR. BERNAS: May I say a few words. I have already adverted to that problem earlier saying that certain offices should be occupied only by these very pure citizens. We can attend to that when we come to the proper provisions. For instance, when we are dealing with the qualifications of the President, we could have a provision stating that the President must be born of a Filipino father and mother. That is the appropriate place to put it in because that is where the problem is. That can be taken care of in those specific portions of the Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ. So, is the Commissioner suggesting that we defer consideration of my motion to delete?
FR. BERNAS: I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that even if we approve this proviso, it can still be attended to when we take up the pertinent provisions on the Executive, the Legislative, the Judiciary and the Commission on Elections especially when we start talking about the qualifications of those who will occupy those offices.
In other words, when we reach those Articles, we will not just say "natural-born citizen," but we will specify what we mean.
MR. SUAREZ: That might pose complications, Mr. Presiding Officer. So, I would not accept the suggestion of the proponent.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I submit this matter to a vote.
MR. RODRIGO: Before we vote, may I have a few minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: The purpose of that proviso is to remedy an inequitable situation. Between 1935 and 1973, when we were under the 19325 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers but alien mothers were natural-born Filipinos. However, those born of Filipino mothers but alien fathers would have to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and, if they do elect, they become Filipino citizens, yes, but not natural-born Filipino citizens.
The 1973 Constitution equalized the status of those born of Filipino mothers and those born of Filipino fathers. So that from January 17, 1973 when the 1973 Constitution took effect, those born of Filipino mothers but of alien fathers are natural-born Filipino citizens. Also, those who are born of Filipino fathers and alien mothers are natural-born Filipino citizens.
If the 1973 Constitution equalized the status of a child born of a Filipino mother and that born of a Filipino father, why do we not give a chance to a child born before January 17, 1973, if and when he elects Philippine citizenship, to be in the same status as one born of a Filipino father — namely, natural-born citizen.
Another thing I stated is equalizing the status of a father and a mother vis-a-vis the child. I would like to state also that we should equalize the status of a child born of a Filipino mother the day before January 17, 1973 and a child born also of a Filipino mother on January 17 or 24 hours later. A child born of a Filipino mother but an alien father one day before January 17, 1973 is a Filipino citizen, if he elects Philippine citizenship, but he is not a natural-born Filipino citizen. However, the other child who luckily was born hours later — maybe because of parto laborioso — is a natural-born Filipino citizen.
I think we should equalize their status, so this proviso should be inserted. I think it is a very just proviso.
Thank you very much
FR. BERNAS: The amendment of Commissioner Suarez is for the deletion of the proviso on page 2, line 12.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): All those in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Few members raise their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 7 votes in favor and 23 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: I move that we adjourn until tomorrow at two-thirty in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The session is adjourned until tomorrow at two-thirty in the afternoon.
It was 7:46 p.m.
* Appeared after the roll call.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable Ma. Teresa F. Nieva.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
MS. NIEVA: O good and loving Father, You created men and women as brothers and sisters, and as co-creators of the world. You gave the riches of creation for each and everyone's use so that we Your children made in Your image and likeness may live lives of human dignity.
Yours is the earth and the fullness thereof; we are only Your stewards. We humbly ask You to cleanse us from self-centeredness and pride, and empty us of greed and intolerance. Fill us with Your Spirit so that we may have the collective wisdom and courage to frame a Magna Carta that will lay the firm foundations for the building of a truly just and humane society.
Heavenly Father, we praise and thank You that like the Israelites of old, You freed us from slavery and bondage, and led us to the Promised Land.
Continue to protect us and guide us so that in the crucial days ahead we may be Your faithful instruments in securing to our people and our country the blessings of democracy under a rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, love, equality and peace.
All these we ask of You in the name of Your Son, Jesus Christ, and through the intercession of our Blessed Mother Mary. Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Present * | Natividad | Present |
Alonto | Present | Nieva | Present |
Aquino | Present | Nolledo | Present |
| Azcuna | Present | Ople | Present * |
Bacani | Present | Padilla | Present |
Bengzon | Present * | Quesada | Present |
| Bennagen | Present | Rama | Present |
| Bernas | Present | Regalado | Present |
| Rosario Braid | Present | Reyes de los | Present |
| Brocka | Present | Rigos | Present |
| Calderon | Present | Rodrigo | Present |
| Castro de | Present | Romulo | Present |
| Colayco | Present | Rosales | Absent |
| Concepcion | Present | Sarmiento | Present |
| Davide | Present | Suarez | Present |
| Foz | Present | Sumulong | Present |
| Garcia | Present | Tadeo | Present |
| Gascon | Present | Tan | Present |
| Guingona | Present | Tingson | Present |
| Jamir | Present | °Õ°ù±ðñ²¹²õ | Present |
Laurel | Present * | Uka | Present |
| Lerum | Present * | Villacorta | Present |
| Maambong | Present | Villegas | Present |
| Monsod | Present |
The President is present.
The roll call shows 42 Members responded to the call.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ALONTO: I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of the last session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the Assistant Floor Leader? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of the last session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the Assistant Floor Leader? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, I move that we now proceed to the Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we proceed to the Reference of Business? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolutions on First Reading, Communications and Committee Reports, the President making the corresponding references:
Proposed Resolution No. 409, entitled:
RESOLUTION CREATING AUTONOMOUS REGIONS FOR THE MUSLIMS OF MINDANAO AND THE PEOPLE OF THE CORDILLERA HIGHLANDS AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER AREAS OF AUTONOMY WITHIN LARGER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.Introduced by Hon. Ople.
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Proposed Resolution No. 410, entitled:
RESOLUTION MAKING THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS THE SOLE JUDGE OF ELECTIONS, RETURNS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF ALL ELECTIVE LOCAL OFFICIALS.Introduced by Hon. Davide, Jr.
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Proposed Resolution No. 411, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF A SEPARATE ARTICLE IN THE CONSTITUTION INSTITUTIONALIZING THE CONCEPT OF PEOPLE POWER.Introduced by Hon. Rosario Braid.
To the Committee on the Legislative.
Proposed Resolution No. 412, entitled:
RESOLUTION LIMITING THE PRACTICE IN THE PHILIPPINES OF THE VARIOUS PROFESSIONS TO FILIPINO PROFESSIONALS.Introduced by Hon. Rosario Braid.
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Proposed Resolution No. 413, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT OF THE STATE TO ASSIST THE DISABLED INTO BECOMING PRODUCTIVE AND USEFUL MEMBERS OF SOCIETY.Introduced by Hon. de los Reyes. S
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 414, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO RESTORE THE PRE-MARTIAL LAW POLICY OF ALLOWING VOTERS IN HIGHLY URBANIZED CITIES TO VOTE FOR PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS.Introduced by Hon. Rama.
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Proposed Resolution No. 415, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THAT THE STATE SHALL ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND GROWTH OF POLITICAL PARTIES ORGANIZED ALONG SECTORAL LINES AND WHICH SHALL STAND FOR WELL-DEFINED PRINCIPLES AND PROGRAMS OF GOVERNMENT.Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento and Brocka.
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 416, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE TO UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION.Introduced by Hon. Guingona.
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Proposed Resolution No. 417, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO ADOPT SECTION 4, ARTICLE XV OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AND INSERTING THE WORDS 'RIGHTS AND' BEFORE THE WORD 'DUTIES' AND 'FAMILY LIVING AND' BEFORE 'CITIZENSHIP.'Introduced by Hon. Tan, Rigos and Villacorta.
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Proposed Resolution No. 418, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT SECTIONS 4 AND 5, ARTICLE II OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION AND ADD THE WORDS 'IN THE NURTURE AND CARE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH FOR THEIR SURVIVAL AND TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AND' AND 'MORAL, EMOTIONAL,' RESPECTIVELY.Introduced by Hon. Tan, Villacorta and Rigos.
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Proposed Resolution No. 419, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION GUARANTEEING A DECENT SHELTER FOR EVERY FILIPINO, PROTECTION AGAINST ARBITRARY AND INHUMAN DEMOLITION OF DWELLINGS AND AN ASSURANCE FOR PROPER RESETTLEMENT UNDER A COMPREHENSIVE SHELTER PROGRAM.Introduced by Hon. Tan, Villacorta and Rigos.
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 420, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE CREATION OF A CITIZENS' ARMY THAT SHALL TAKE ON THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF DEFENDING THE STATE AGAINST FOREIGN AGGRESSION.Introduced by Hon. Suarez and Tadeo.
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 421, entitled:
RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION TO INSURE THAT THE STATE SHALL UNDERTAKE AND IMPLEMENT AN URBAN LAND REFORM AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM.Introduced by Hon. Nieva, Monsod, Tan, Bacani and Gascon.
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 422, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE.Introduced by Hon. Nieva.
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 423, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION.Introduced by Hon. Suarez, Bennagen, Quesada, Tan, Rosario Braid, Sarmiento, Aquino and Tadeo.
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 424, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION.Introduced by Hon. Suarez, Bennagen, Quesada, Tan, Rosario Braid, Sarmiento, Aquino and Tadeo.
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Proposed Resolution No. 425, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION GUARANTEEING INALIENABILITY AND INSURANCE OF A MINIMUM PATRIMONY OF EACH FAMILY THAT ENSURE DECENT FAMILY LIFE.Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento, Quesada and Tadeo.
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 426, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ESTABLISHING WORK AS A RIGHT AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, A STATE ENDEAVOR TO ACHIEVE FULL PRODUCTIVE EMPLOYMENT AND THE CREATION OF A CENTRALIZED MONITORING SYSTEM AND UNEMPLOYMENT WELFARE PROGRAM.Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento, Quesada, Tadeo and Bennagen.
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 427, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON TRANSITORY PROVISIONS A PROVISION FOR THE DEMONETIZATION OF ALL CURRENCY ISSUED UNDER THE PREVIOUS REGIME.Introduced by Hon. de Castro and Suarez.
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 428, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE MECHANICS FOR A SYSTEM OF MULTISECTORAL REPRESENTATION IN THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE.Introduced by Hon. Villacorta, Aquino, Ople, Suarez, Sarmiento, Quesada, Tadeo, Garcia, Azcuna, Uka, Bennagen, Jamir, Nieva, Davide, Jr., Brocka, Rosario Braid and Villegas.
To the Committee on the Legislative.
Letter from the Honorable Salvador H. Laurel, Vice-President and Minister for Foreign Affairs, recommending the restoration of the specific provision in the 1935 Constitution that the President shall have the power to appoint "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls."
(Communication No. 116 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Executive.
Letter from Mr. Potenciano M. Alcala, Sr. of KBakyas, Bacolod City, proposing provisions on free education up to high school level, land reform, the Sabah issue, among others.
(Communication No. 117 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Gonzalo (Lito) Puyat of Manila, requesting a constitutional mandate on youth and sports development.
(Communication No. 118 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Letter from Commissioner Mario D. Ortiz of the Commission on Elections, transmitting the draft of proposals on election matters discussed by the COMELEC en banc.
(Communication No. 119 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Letter from Mr. Antonio A. Lobitaña, proposing the elevation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to a constitutional body.
(Communication No. 120 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Letter from the Senior Citizens Government Retirees Association of Agusan del Norte and Agusan City, signed by Ms. Caridad V. Atega, proposing a presidential form of government, bicameral legislature, retention of the US bases, and limited autonomy of Muslim regions, among others.
(Communication No. 121 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Report of the "mini Con-Com" assigned to Iloilo City composed of President Cecilia Muñoz Palma, Commissioners Ma. Teresa F. Nieva, Efrain B. °Õ°ù±ðñ²¹²õ and Wilfrido V. Villacorta, entitled "Highlights of the Public Hearing held at the University of San Agustin Auditorium in Iloilo City on June 28, 1986."
(Communication No. 122 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from the Sangguniang Pangwika sa Edukasyon ng Pilipinas, with enclosures, signed by Mr. Alfonso O. Santiago, requesting that the Constitution be written and promulgated in the national language.
(Communication No. 123 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Style.
Letter from Mr. Oscar N. Rivera of San Miguel Village, Makati, Metro Manila, proposing the adoption of the jury system in our courts of law.
(Communication No. 124 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Judiciary.
Letter from Mr. Julian Makabayan ng Masa ng Pilipinas, urging various political, social and economic reforms.
(Communication No. 125 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Communication from Mr. Ismael P. Sevilla of Cofradia, Malolos, Bulacan, urging that the establishment of a cooperative society be made a national policy.
(Communication No. 126 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Letter from Mr. Norberto Cahete of Project 4, Quezon City, Metro Manila, requesting the inclusion of provisions on the role of science and technology in the attainment of national goals, among others.
(Communication No. 127 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Kilusang Mayo Uno signed by Mr. Roberto T. Ortaliz, requesting the extension of the period of drafting the Constitution and the holding of more public hearings.
(Communication No. 128 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from the Filipino Community Board of Sydney signed by Mr. Oscar R. Landicho, requesting the inclusion of a provision on dual citizenship.
(Communication No. 129 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from the Association of TOWNS Awardees signed by Ms. Corazon S. de la Paz, proposing as an additional sentence of Section 1, Article IV of the Constitution: "Women shall enjoy equal rights with men."
(Communication No. 130 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights, and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Mr. Teodoro Padilla, expressing deep appreciation to the Commission for adopting Resolution No. 5 expressing profound condolence on the death of Hon. Sabino Padilla, former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
(Communication No. 131 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Archives.
Letter from Management Trend Company of Tarzana, California, with enclosures, signed by Mr. David E. Phillippe, stating that the United States Constitution falls short of expressing acceptable goals for business and social conduct, pointing to inequities in the judicial system of the United States and suggesting a rule and code of conduct between human beings to avert the same problems.
(Communication No. 132 — Constitutional Commission of 1986?
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Kilusan sa Kapangyarihan at Karapatan ng Bayan (KAAKBAY) signed by Mr. Jose Mario C. Bunay and Ms. Lynn R. Enriquez, submitting proposals on science and technology.
(Communication No. 133 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Kilusan Sa Kapangyarihan at Karapatan ng Bayan (KAAKBAY) signed by Ms. Maria Teresa I. Diokno, submitting proposals on national economy and patrimony.
(Communication No. 134 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Communication from Mr. Benedicto Aza Gonzales of Capitol Bliss, Quezon City, proposing the incorporation in the Constitution of a provision on the Filipinization of the retail trade industry. Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Davide, Jr.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 11 on Proposed Resolution No. 234, as reported out by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
RESOLUTION FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE ARTICLE ON THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT A SPECIFIC PROVISION REDEFINING THE POWER OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,recommending its approval with amendments.
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Regalado.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 12 on Proposed Resolution No. 435, prepared by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
RESOLUTION REQUIRING CONCURRENCE OF THE MONETARY BOARD TO LOANS CONTRACTED OR GUARANTEED AND FOR THE SUBMISSION BY THE MONETARY BOARD OF REPORTS TO THE LEGISLATURE,recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 59 and 124.
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong, Regalado and Maambong.
To the Steering Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 5:33 p.m.
At 5:36 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Lorenzo M Sumulong presiding.
(Communication No. 135 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The session is resumed.
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
Committee Report No. 10 on Proposed Resolution No. 118, as reported out by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION REQUIRING THE APPROVAL OR CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE FOR THE EFFECTIVITY AND VALIDITY OF TREATIES, EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS AND RECOGNITION OF STATES OR GOVERNMENTS,recommending its approval with amendments.
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Davide, Jr.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 11 on Proposed Resolution No. 234, as reported [out by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
RESOLUTION FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE ARTICLE ON THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT A SPECIFIC PROVISION REDEFINING THE POWER OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,recommending its approval with amendments.
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Regalado.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 12 on Proposed Resolution No. 435, prepared by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
RESOLUTION REQUIRING CONCURRENCE OF THE MONETARY BOARD TO LOANS CONTRACTED OR GUARANTEED AND FOR THE SUBMISSION BY THE MONETARY BOARD OF REPORTS TO THE LEGISLATURE,recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution No. 59 and 124.
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong, Regalado and Maambong.
To the Steering Committee.
At 5:36 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Lorenzo M. Sumulong presiding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The session is resumed.
The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
RESOLUTION NO. 263
(Article on National Territory)
Continuation
MR. ALONTO: I move that we proceed to the voting on Second Reading of Proposed Resolution No. 263, the Article on National Territory.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer, parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Suppose the no vote prevails, what happens? We shall have no more provision on National Territory, or will the provision of the 1973 Constitution be deemed reinstated?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Will the Gentleman please repeat his point of inquiry?
MR. DE LOS REYES: If the no vote prevails, in other words, the proposal is rejected, does it mean that we will have no provision on National Territory as earlier proposed or is the provision of the 1973 Constitution on National Territory deemed reinstated since it was made the draft model?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): I suppose that if the voting on Resolution No. 263 results in more negative votes, then the resolution is disapproved.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Then we will have no provision on National Territory?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): No, because the 1935 or the 1973 Constitution has to be presented for incorporation in the new Constitution in order to be considered.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I submit, Mr. Presiding Officer.
ON SECOND READING
(Article on National Territory)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): There was a previous motion to proceed to the voting on Second Reading of Proposed Resolution No. 263.
As many as are in favor of the resolution, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 27 votes in favor and 8 against.
Proposed Resolution No. 263, as amended, is approved on Second Reading.
MR. ALONTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
Per our knowledge and information, the last public hearing will be on July 12 and 13. However, some of the Commissioners have been receiving requests from other provinces such as Baler, Aurora, Zambales, Daet, Camarines Norte and Masbate for the holding of public hearings in those areas. May I know from the Chair if we are going to accommodate these requests? Secondly, who will handle the transportation expenses of the Commissioners in the event that we accommodate this request?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): I think we have to accommodate this request. I would rather refer this matter to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Hearings, Commissioner Garcia.
MR. GARCIA: I would like to suggest that if there are Commissioners who are willing to undertake the task of going to those respective provinces, we would like to receive those willing volunteers. Secondly, we would also like to request the Budget Committee of .the Commission if it is possible to ask for additional funds, or in the absence of such funds, we would like to request that those Commissioners who are going take the amount or the funds from their allowance.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Is the Commissioner satisfied?
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Insofar as the query raised by Commissioner Garcia is concerned, there is nothing in the budget that provides for these extra public hearings. However, the Committee could look into this and we could try to provide for these extra hearings. But we would have to know how much would be the amount requested.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
RESOLUTION NO. 7
(Article on Citizenship)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. ALONTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we continue the period of amendments on Committee Report No. 4 on Proposed Resolution No. 7, the Article on Citizenship.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong) Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. ALONTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized to sponsor the amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission:
The sponsor is prepared to entertain amendments. May I request all those who desire to present amendments to register their turn with the Floor Leader. And I am asked to remind everyone that the proponent of an amendment has a maximum of five minutes to fight for his amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): According to the Rules, we have to begin with the committee amendments.
FR. BERNAS: The committee amendments have already been put in the committee report. Proposed Resolution No. 7, as amended by the Committee, is on the third page of Committee Report No. 4.
THE PRESIDING OFFICE (Mr. Sumulong): The first committee amendment is on line 7: Put a period (.) after the word "law."
FR. BERNAS: What is the amendment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Yes, the sponsor will submit the committee amendments.
FR. BERNAS: On line 7 of Proposed Resolution No. 7, page 2, put a period (.) after the word "law." Therefore, the sentence will read: "Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." Delete the rest of the paragraph starting with the semicolon ( ;).
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I just want to raise a point of parliamentary inquiry.
Considering that I have here a copy of Committee Report No. 4, and attached to it is Proposed Resolution No. 7, the provisions are already very clear. For example, the provision indicated by the honorable sponsor on paragraph 4 is very clear in Committee Report No. 4. The provision reads: "Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." I think the sponsor is reading the original copy of the proposed resolution of Honorable Davide which has been considered and reported out by the Committee with some portions deleted, and so, we are now in possession of the Article on Citizenship. I do not see any need, therefore to go back to the proposed resolution of Commissioner Davide. To save time, what we should do is to consider the proposed resolution as submitted by the Committee, not the proposed resolution as submitted by the author, Commissioner Davide.
FR. BERNAS: I completely agree with the Gentleman, and I submit to the ruling of the Presiding Officer. I was going to start with the committee report but I was told to go back by the Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then, in that case, Mr. Presiding Officer, may I suggest now to the sponsor to consider the Article on Citizenship as reported out by the Committee and not the original proposed resolution as filed by the author; otherwise, we will be going back to the deliberations of the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): So, we will take up the resolution as amended.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. So, we begin with Section 1.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Yes. We will consider all the committee amendments as already approved by the Committee. And, therefore, what is now before the Commission is the resolution as amended. Is that correct?
FR. BERNAS: Yes. Mr. Presiding Officer, after this committee report was formulated and after having listened to the Members of the Commission, the Committee is prepared to accept the recommendation that on line 9 of the first page of Resolution No. 7, as amended by the Committee, the word "ratification" be changed to ADOPTION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Is there any objection?
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I wish to be enlightened on what could be the difference between "ratification" and "adoption."
FR. BERNAS: There is no difference. The only wish that was expressed by those who wanted to use "adoption" was that it is a reversal to the 1973 version.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, I have to ask that question because in the previous amendments to the Constitution we really had two sets of facts: One, the COMELEC announcing the result that the Constitution is ratified, and then a proclamation by the President that the Constitution which was ratified be deemed adopted.
FR. BERNAS: I think that was because in that exercise, the decree calling for the plebiscite said that these amendments be effective upon the announcement of the ratification.
MR. DAVIDE: That may be proper if the Article on Amendments, for instance, on the new Constitution, will merely state that any amendment or revision of the Constitution shall be deemed ratified upon the votes of so many of the electorate as determined by the COMELEC after a plebiscite. But if it is not, I think "ratification" is the proper word.
FR. BERNAS: I submit that to the vote of the body. For the Committee, it is either way.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The amendment is on line 9. The word "ratification" shall be changed to ADOPTION.
As many as are in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised the hand.)
The results show 16 votes in favor and 11 against. So, the amendment to change "ratification" to ADOPTION is approved.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee has no further changes to make on the committee report.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be recognized for an amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I propose that on page 2, line 2, after the word "law," the following be added: NATURALIZATION OBTAINED BY EXECUTIVE DECREES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION IN THE MANNER AND WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW. FAILURE TO OBTAIN SAID CONFIRMATION SHALL BE A GROUND FOR REVOCATION OF SAID CITIZENSHIP. In other words, I am for the restoration of the Davide amendment.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee took this into consideration and the Committee does not amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I explain my amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer?
Many aliens succeeded in securing Filipino citizens a under liberalized naturalization laws created by presidential decrees. The basic rationale for the liberalization of the laws on naturalization was to absorb, among others, Chinese aliens who have resided in the Philippines for many years and preferred being Filipinos to being considered citizens or subjects of the People's Republic of China.
It should be remembered that the liberalized naturalization laws came about because of presidential decrees after our country severed its diplomatic ties with the Republic of China in Taiwan and established diplomatic ties with the People's Republic of China. Thus, the process of naturalization under presidential decrees was less demanding; we might even say accommodating. There were no searching inquiries on the motives of the applicants and their past activities to show their sincere desire to become Filipinos.
This amendment would only provide that future laws may be enacted in order to subject to judicial confirmation the naturalization of this class of Filipino citizens.
Mr. Presiding Officer, under the naturalization law, after an alien is naturalized, he is required to stay in the country, and when it is found that he transfers to another country and establishes his residence there, his certificate of naturalization may be cancelled.
In case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner and by virtue of the laws in force in her husband's country, she acquires her husband's nationality.
In other words, this amendment would serve to purify. We will go on some sort of a purifying process for those citizens who obtain citizenship through a liberalized method of naturalization by presidential decrees.
The reason given by the sponsor is that this will clutter our court dockets. I do not believe that this will unnecessarily clutter the dockets of our courts because future laws may simply provide for summary proceedings just to see to it that this class of citizens who obtained citizenship by naturalization through presidential decrees are really sincere in becoming Filipino citizens and are not out to take advantage only of the privileges of a Filipino.
That is all, Mr. Presiding Officer.
FR. BERNAS: May I be allowed to say a few words?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Yes, the sponsor has the floor.
FR. BERNAS: In opposing the amendment, we have several reasons. We begin with the presumption of regularity of official action. I do not think that it is the purpose of anybody to junk this principle that official action is presumed to be regular. Therefore, we begin with the presumption that those 29,722 adults who were naturalized through this process are validly citizens of the Philippines. And I do not believe in the proposed amendment if the intention of the proponent is to deny the validity of their citizenship.
Second, we do not make a distinction between natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens except in those instances when the Constitution itself makes a distinction. In this particular amendment, the intention is to refer to the Constitution to make a distinction between two classes of naturalized citizens — those judicially naturalized and those naturalized by decree, specifically, during what we might call the "open flood gate years." Should we make this distinction? I believe we should not; I say this principally for those who truly deserve Philippine citizenship. I ask the proponent not to compel them to go through a demeaning process of begging for citizenship again. One will probably say that the process will be summary, but what will be the nature of this summary procedure? We do not yet know. We do not know yet what future legislatures will consider summary procedure and whether or not it is the type that we envision. And even if indeed the provision is summary, we do not know how those who will implement it will actually behave.
Admittedly, there may be some who indeed are unworthy, but we have laws for them, and if they are not adequate, then they can be improved. After all, it is also a principle embodied in our jurisprudence that the grant of citizenship is never res judicata. It can always be reopened for valid reasons. But let us not reopen them en masse. Let us reopen only those cases where there is perceived evidence or grounds for reopening the case. For these reasons, I oppose the proposed amendment and that remedial measures be left to ordinary legislation within the limits of the Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer, one last word. Precisely, that is the amendment: SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION IN THE MANNER AND WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE LAW. In other words, we agree that it should be left to future legislation.
FR. BERNAS: But the basic opposition we have is to the reopening of all the cases en masse.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, no, we are not reopening. Future legislation shall decide whether we shall reopen or not. There is nothing in the amendment which says that those who obtain naturalization by decrees shall have their naturalization reopened. 343 2
FR. BERNAS: In which case, the amendment is unnecessary because the legislature can do it, anyway, even without that amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, but the purpose of this amendment is to express the intent of this Commission that future legislation should do that.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. In the opinion of the Committee, the matter is covered by Section 3 — "Philippine citizen — ship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law."
MR. DE LOS REYES: I respectfully submit that we put this to a vote.
FR. BERNAS: I would agree with the proponent of the amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I add something?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Are there any further remarks?
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I say something before we vote? The use of the word "confirmation" means that the naturalization is not complete and, as the sponsor says, this applies to all these naturalization cases by presidential decrees. It means that we will declare all of them now as not yet complete, and that is why judicial confirmation is needed. The added phrase "provided by law" only means that the way it will be confirmed will be provided by law.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am intending to propose a related amendment and in order not to go back and forth, considering that this is related to the proposed amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes, I wonder if the sponsor could just clarify certain points so that I do not have to propose an amendment to this particular section.
FR. BERNAS: The sponsor will make every effort to clarify.
MR. MAAMBONG: The wording here is "Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." I am intending to propose an amendment to the word "law," but to obviate that possibility, probably the sponsor could reply to some questions. I am referring now to the sponsor's Philippine Constitution, A Reviewer — Primer, which is the only book I can afford. The sponsor's other book is rather expensive.
Does the term "law" cover the Mass Naturalization Law provided in the Philippine Bill of 1902?
FR. BERNAS: Those naturalized under the Mass Naturalization Law of 1902 are covered not by paragraph 4 but by Section 1, paragraph 1 of the 1935 Constitution.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is clear enough. Does the term "law" cover the general law of naturalization through judicial process under the Revised Naturalization Law, Commonwealth Act No. 473, which was approved on June 17, 1939?
FR. BERNAS: It includes that but it also includes any other law.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am going to that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Does the term "law" apply to special naturalization law enacted by the old Congress or through a decree; for example, as the sponsor has stated clearly in his book, the republic act which made Father James Moran a citizen or a presidential decree which made Mr. Ronnie Nathanielz a citizen?
FR. BERNAS: That is included.
MR. MAAMBONG: The last point, Mr. Presiding Officer. Does this tern "law" cover a general law on naturalization which was applied in a summary manner through LOI No. 270, dated April 11, 1975, promulgated on July 9, 1975, and LOI No. 491, promulgated on December 29, 1976, by which a good number of aliens were naturalized not through the LOIs but through a decree?
FR. BERNAS: "By law," we mean here the decrees, not the LOIs referred to.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, I wanted that clarified because I seem to recall that there was a statement made here that there were aliens who were naturalized by letters of instructions, and that is not really a correct statement. The letters of instructions which I mentioned only created a special committee on naturalization which processed the applications and on the basis of its recommendation, decrees were issued by the President later on.
FR. BERNAS: I am in agreement.
MR. MAAMBONG: Finally, I have here the June 23, 1986 issue of the Malaya which says:
President Aquino has directed the justice ministry and the solicitor general's office to look into pending applications for naturalization by decree which were left unacted upon by the ousted Marcos administration.
The President's order was issued to Justice Minister Neptali Gonzales and Solicitor General Sedfrey Ordonez
The President told newsmen that depending on the results of the joint study, meritorious cases may be given due course and the rest mothballed until the Constitutional Commission drafting the new charter has laid down new policies and guidelines on naturalization of deserving aliens.
The June 30, 1986 issue of the Philippine Tribune practically contains the same thing. The question is that when one says "those who are naturalized in accordance with law," does this include those applicants who filed application for naturalization through the LOIs mentioned — LOI Nos. 270, 292 and 491? Probably, in a few days' time, President Aquino might act on the applications of previous applicants and when she issues a decree to this effect, will they be covered by the provision "Those who are naturalized in accordance with law," considering that the applications were filed during the time of President Marcos under a letter of instructions issued by the President, but this time, the decree would be issued by President Aquino based on those previous applications? Would they be covered by the term "law"?
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, I have no amendment to propose.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
FR. BERNAS: Incidentally, there are still 9,131 pending cases.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Are there any further remarks?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I just insert in the record the definition of naturalization.
Naturalization is the judicial act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with the privileges of a native-born citizen. It implies the renunciation of a former nationality and the fact of entrance into a similar relation towards a new body politic. (Volume 2, Am. Jur., p. 561, par. 188)
FR. BERNAS: May I just say that that is a definition of one type of naturalization. There is also direct naturalization by legislation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Will Commissioner de los Reyes kindly repeat the amendment he proposes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: My proposed amendment is to add: NATURALIZATION BY EXECUTIVE DECREES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION IN THE MANNER AND WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW. FAILURE TO OBTAIN SAID CONFIRMATION SHALL BE A GROUND FOR REVOCATION OF SUCH CITIZENSHIP.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong).: What does the sponsor say?
FR. BERNAS: We do not accept the proposed amendment and we submit it to a vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Those in favor of the amendment proposed by Commissioner de los Reyes, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 5 votes in favor and 30 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized for an anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
The proposed amendment is on line 1, page 2 of the amended resolution which consists in the insertion of Is the word JUDICIALLY between the words "are" and "naturalized," so that the entire paragraph would read: "Those who are JUDICIALLY naturalized in accordance with law."
FR. BERNAS: The Committee would rather leave that to the body.
MR. DAVIDE: Before it is left to the body for determination, may I be allowed to explain, Mr. Presiding Officer?
In the course of the interpellation by Commissioner Concepcion when we took up this proposal under a freewheeling discussion, and as stated earlier by Commissioner de los Reyes, naturalization is a judicial act because admission to Philippine citizenship is a matter of privilege. And the determination then of who should be considered or admitted as a Filipino citizen must be the prerogative of the court; hence, this proposal. We should prevent any other person from admitting an alien as a Filipino citizen to preempt a judicial function or authority. I submit, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Are there any further remarks?- Are we now ready to vote?
MR. RODRIGO: May I ask the proponent a few questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Gentleman from Bulacan, Commissioner Rodrigo, is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: In the 1935 Constitution, the provision is "Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." In the 1973 Constitution, the provision is exactly the same: "Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." Now, what is the reason for adding the word "JUDICIALLY" in the present Constitution?
MR. DAVIDE: I will answer that, Mr. Presiding Officer. The issue of naturalization by decree affected so many and, of course, it resulted in the admission of aliens as Filipino citizens without undergoing the rigorous process of presenting their qualifications for admission and providing them before a court.
We now would seek to prevent any further action by any other agency of the government to admit aliens by a mere decree or a letter of instructions. This proposed amendment is the only way we can prevent future actions of such kind as was done in the past regime.
MR. RODRIGO: If the amendment is approved, does this mean that those who were naturalized by the presidential decree of President Marcos will lose their citizenship?
MR. DAVIDE: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, because this; to be construed to operate prospectively.
MR. RODRIGO: Prospectively. So, this is not aimed at a particular group of persons?
MR. DAVIDE: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, but this is to govern future action. Henceforth, no naturalization can be done by decree, only by judicial action.
MR. RODRIGO: With that clarification, thank you very much.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I say a few words?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The sponsor is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: I would oppose although not very vigorously, the amendment for this reason: The background of the proposed amendment is the situation of the Marcos regime when legislation was in the hands of one man. The reason we had this mass naturalization by decree was because one man possessed legislative power. If we insure that legislative power will not be exercised by one person, then the abuses which resulted from the possession of this legislative power by decree will no crop up in the future.
For that reason, I prefer to leave the provision as it is and allow the legislature to naturalize directly.
I ask for a vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Those in favor of the amendment proposed by Commissioner Davide, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 14 votes in favor and 19 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Vice-President Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Section 3 states: "Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law." Will the sponsor agree to change the words "in the manner" to FOR ANY CAUSE? The reason is, the phrase "in the manner" speaks more of the procedural aspect, whereas 'FOR ANY CAUSE provided by law" will consider the substantial reason for either loss or reacquisition.
FR. BERNAS: In my understanding of this proposal, the word "manner" includes both substance and procedure. So, I would not accept the amendment.
MR. PADILLA: After that line "provided by law," will the sponsor consider this addition: CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION MAY BE CANCELLED FOR ANY OF THE CAUSES PROVIDED BY LAW AS GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF APPLICANTS FOR NATURALIZATION.
I will explain briefly. Section 18 of the Revised Naturalization Law, otherwise known as Commonwealth Act No. 473, provides for grounds for cancellation of a certificate of naturalization, but most of these refer to naturalization certificates obtained illegally or irregularly or for some other causes existing at the time of the application or during the proceedings for naturalization. Moreover, the Revised Naturalization Law provides grounds for qualification (Section 2) and for disqualification (Section 4). An applicant for a naturalization certificate must have all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications.
It may happen, Mr. Presiding Officer, that after an alien obtained a certificate of naturalization, assuming the regular procedure under the Revised Naturalization Law, he may, however, return to his old customs as an alien, such that he will not mingle socially with Filipinos or he will not send his children to our schools where Philippine history and other subjects are taught.
In other words, he might not have had the disqualification at the time of the application, but may acquire or go back to some cause for disqualification after he had secured the certificate of naturalization. So that in addition to the grounds under Commonwealth Act No. 63, we should recognize not only those under Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, but also the disqualifications for naturalization under Section 4.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, on general principle, I hold the proposition not to make a distinction except on those cases where the Constitution specifically makes a distinction between natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens.
The proposal to my mind, in effect, allows the legislature to create laws prejudicial to validly naturalized citizens, but not applicable to natural-born citizens.
I am opposed to that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. PADILLA: No, I am referring to the grounds presently provided for by the Revised Naturalization Law on disqualifications.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, but if the applicant passed the test with all regularity, then he enjoys that citizenship as firmly as a natural-born citizen does.
MR. PADILLA: Even if, subsequently, he returns to his old ways, would that have constituted disqualification?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, because those old ways could also be the ways of natural-born citizens, and yet we do not disqualify them.
MR. PADILLA: It is hardly possible that a natural-born citizen would have any of those disqualifications for naturalization.
FR. BERNAS: Some of the disqualifications are moral disqualifications; it is quite possible for natural-born citizens to be immoral.
MR. PADILLA: No, the disqualifications are not exactly on moral standards; they are more on social behavior.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, one of the qualifications is they must be of good moral character.
MR. PADILLA: That is a qualification, but the opposite is not mentioned among the disqualifications, I am now referring to disqualifications.
FR. BERNAS: I submit the matter to a vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: Was there a proposed amendment? I think the Vice-President was only asking if the sponsor would be amenable to such an amendment.
FR. BERNAS: No, I am not amenable.
MR. RODRIGO: I do not think the Vice-President has already proposed his amendment.
FR. BERNAS: Commissioner Rodrigo is correct.
MR. PADILLA: My questions are proposals for an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Will Vice-President Padilla please repeat his proposed amendment?
MR. PADILLA: The amendment is, after "by law" on Section 3, add: CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION MAY BE CANCELLED FOR ANY OF THE CAUSES PROVIDED BY LAW AS GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF APPLICANTS FOR NATURALIZATION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What does the sponsor say?
FR. BERNAS: The sponsor does not accept the amendment, and he asks for a vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Those in favor of the amendment proposed by the Vice-President, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 5 votes in favor and 19 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I propose a more basic amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: The 1935 Constitution has Section I (3) and (43 - the third paragraph refers to fathers and the fourth, to mothers. The 1973 Constitution joined them together. We have previously discussed that the situation of a Filipino man who marries an alien is somewhat different from that of a Filipino woman who marries an alien. I would propose that we return to the provisions of Section, 1 (3) and (4) of the 1935 Constitution, instead of Section 2 of the 1973 Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: Does the Vice-President mean Section 1, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the 1935 Constitution?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, Section 1, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the 1935 Constitution.
I would not argue against the demand for equality of sexes, but the situation of a Filipino man who marries an alien is sometimes quite different from the situation of a Filipino woman who marries an alien. As we stated during the period of interpellations, a Filipino wife usually accompanies her alien husband and they reside abroad. The child is born usually abroad and takes the surname of the alien father. On the other hand, a Filipino man who marries an alien usually resides in the Philippines. The child bears the surname of the Filipino father and is like any other Filipino born in the Philippines. Because of the merger of the provisions on the citizenship of the father and the mother in the 1973 Constitution, there is no provision for election by the child upon his reaching the age of majority. And that has given rise to many problems of dual citizenship, and it is quite strange that under the 1973 Constitution, paragraph 3 thereof, we make reference to:
Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty five.
I believe we have discussed this on several instances before, and I would not repeat further.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recognized for one question to the proponent?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I share the concern about the situation which would develop in the event the Commission approves the proposed resolution. But what happens to those born after January 17, 1973, because according to the proponent, the Honorable Bernas, he would limit the application of Section 3 only to those born on or before January 17, 1973? How would we consider their status, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. PADILLA: I suppose that period mentioned which does not appear in the law or in the Constitution has reference to the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. If the children were born after the adoption of the 1973 Constitution and before the adoption of the 1986 Constitution, their status would be determined by the laws and the Constitution then in force. In other words, even if we retroact or return to the 1935 Constitution, there would be no situation where we could disturb the status already acquired under the 1973 Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, Mr. Presiding Officer, even those born after January 17, 1973 and before the adoption of this Constitution could opt to elect Philippine citizenship under appropriate circumstances?
MR. PADILLA: No, because they were born after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, so the 1973 Constitution applies.
MR. SUAREZ: Meaning, if their fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines, automatically they also become Filipino citizens, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, because we cannot change that status anymore by any subsequent provision, even if it were included in the Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the clarification.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: The proponent is suggesting that we revert to the provision of the 1935 Constitution, his reason being that the situation of a Filipino woman who marries an alien is different from that of a Filipino man who marries an alien. He stated that normally the Filipino woman resides in the country of her alien husband, unlike a Filipino man who marries an alien who resides in the Philippines together with his alien wife. However, I know of an instance where a Filipino husband resides in the country of his alien wife. One example is that of my relative who, together with his alien wife, resides in his wife's country. May I ask the Vice-President's comment on this.
MR. PADILLA: There is always such a situation. If the husband is "under the saya," then he follows the wife. But it is the husband — especially a Filipino husband — who is the head of the family under the Civil Code, and who chooses the residence or domicile after marriage.
MR. SARMIENTO: What if the husband is not "under the saya"? They both love each other and they both decide to stay in that foreign place because of "greener pasture."
MR. PADILLA: That is all right. It will be covered -even by the 193 5 Constitution, that a child whose father is a citizen of the Philippines is a Filipino. Of course, under the American law on citizenship, the principle of jus soli is recognized, such that even if both parents are Filipinos if the child is born in the United States, that child has a right to American citizenship.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the Gentleman yield to a few questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: These provisions both of the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions are based on jus sanguinis, is that right?
MR. PADILLA: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: We want to follow this principle of jus sanguinis. There is a saying, which is a little naughty, that maternity is a certainty, paternity is an act of faith. So, 'it is surer that the blood of the mother is in the child than the other way around. So, is it not surer if we are to follow jus sanguinis, that is, giving the child of a Filipino mother Philippine citizenship?
MR. PADILLA: The fact of birth, definitely, is even a ground for recognition because the relation of maternity between mother and child is clear and even conclusive. As regards the father, the relation of paternity and filiation may not, as the Gentleman says, be very clear. But if they are married, that is not only disputable or prima facie but also conclusive. I recall Commissioner de los Reyes asked me before if this would discourage marriage because a child born of a Filipino mother not married to the father may not have legal paternity and filiation, so that the child adopts the citizenship of the mother.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I interpose vigorous objection to the proposal of the distinguished proponent. Despite the blandishments of purism in citizenship, there is read into that proposal a very distinctive trend towards discrimination against women. It is bad enough that the Constitution is replete in language and formulations with sexual connotations, and it is doubly tragic for us to constitutionalize this bias by way of a proposal after we have practically enshrined in unmistakable formulations the principle of jus sanguinis in the 1973 Constitution. This is, in fact, a recognition that women have made relative successes in terms of having recognition of their equal rights with men. For us to delete this provision would be retrogression, nothing less. I believe that we have the opportunity now to expunge the Constitution of all vestiges of sexual discrimination and of sexism.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I was warned that in proposing the 1935 Constitution, I would be misunderstood by the feminist movement for equal rights. But I am convinced that when the learned and illustrious delegates who framed the 1935 Constitution had that distinction made between fathers and mothers, they were not discriminating against the fairer sex. I do not believe that we can accuse them of discrimination, of inequality and other unfair criticisms.
I admit that the 1973 Constitution had changed or, rather, combined together "fathers and mothers." But I do not believe that such a change was an improvement over the 1935 Constitution, especially when we consider that there are some relevant differences in the case of a father marrying an alien and a mother marrying a foreigner. I believe in equal rights, especially before the law, but not necessarily in equality. But by the very nature of man and woman, there are certain differences that cannot be denied. One important virtue or attribute of a woman, we might say, is that she is the only one who can become pregnant and give birth to a child, not a man. Therefore, we must give our mothers, our wives, our sisters and our daughters due recognition, and even preferential respect.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be allowed to say something in defense of the Committee's proposal?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What does the sponsor say?
FR. BERNAS: We do not accept the proposed amendment.
The purpose of the committee report is to elevate the Filipino mother to a level of equality with the Filipino father. First, we do not wish to punish the Filipino mother and her child simply because she married an alien, in the same way that we do not punish the Filipino father and his child when he marries an alien. Second, the child has two options. In many cases, he will have dual citizenship — he may either choose the citizenship of his mother or the citizenship of the father. He should be allowed to choose. The choice must not be imposed on him. True, this can give rise to dual citizenship but the naturalization law can provide that the child with dual citizenship must make a choice within a certain period of time.
Finally, I think the principal argument against the existing provision is that these mestizos, if we may call them, may occupy positions reserved for natural-born citizens. But let us remember that a mestizo can be such because he is either the child of a Filipino father and an alien mother or the child of a Filipino mother and an alien father. Both of them are mestizos. If we want to exclude mestizos, then let us exclude all mestizos, including the children of Filipino fathers, and let us treat this in the appropriate article. For instance, if the Gentlemen really wants to be a purist about this, he can say in the Article on the President that the President must be a child of a Filipino mother and father. But let us not handle that here.
Therefore, I request a vote on this, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: For all of the protestations of the proponent of his belief in the ideals of sexual equality even as he would say that we should deny the status of citizenship to the children of Filipino mothers married to aliens, I would have to take exception to this monumental hypocrisy.
The issue here is, why do we have to discriminate against children of Filipino mothers who are married to aliens? It does not fit well with the idea of equality.
When the 1973 Constitution incorporated the phrase "or mothers," it was already a bonanza in terms of the manifold successes of women in their struggle for equality, and to deny the children of Filipino mothers this right now would be nothing less than oppression.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, in connection with the remark of the honorable sponsor that his proposed amendment does not seek to distinguish between the natural-born and otherwise, as far as I am concerned, a child born of a Filipino mother is a natural-born citizen, in the same way that a child born of a Filipino father is a natural-born citizen. The distinction is not intended to deny or deprive the children of Filipino mothers their status as natural-born.
In other words, the objection seems to give this interpretation to my proposed amendment which merely restores the wisdom of the Members of the 1935 Constitutional Convention — that a child born of a Filipino father is a natural-born citizen whereas the child born of a Filipino mother is not a natural-born citizen. That is not the intention of the amendment.
FR. BERNAS: May we know what the amendment of the Gentleman is?
MR. PADILLA: As stated, instead of Section 1 (2) of the 1973 Constitution, we revert to Section 1 (3) and (4) of the 1935 Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I suggest that we start with Section 1 (2) because it will not be necessary to move to Section 1 (3), if we settle Section 1 (2). Therefore, as I understand it, the proposed amendment is, Section 1 (2) should read: THOSE WHOSE FATHERS AND MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES. Is that correct?
MR. PADILLA: No, no; it is not correct.
FR. BERNAS: What is the Gentleman's amendment?
MR. PADILLA: Section 1 (2) of the 1973 Constitution should be amended to read as provided in Section 1 (3) and (4) of the 1935 Constitution, and I quote: "Section 1 (3). Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship."
FR. BERNAS: We do not accept the Gentleman's amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What is the pleasure of the Floor Leader?
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Concepcion would like to speak in favor of the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer, my remarks are not based on gender but I start from the assumption that we still want to protect our natural resources and the operation of our public utilities by reserving a big portion thereof to Filipino citizens. Contrary to the allegation that the amendment will result in inequality, perhaps it will result in equality, but adversely for the children whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Why? It is because the child whose mother is a Filipino but whose father is a foreigner has two choices, and may avail of them at different times for different purposes; whereas the Filipino will be left bereft of such choice.
Secondly, I think I can describe this better by referring to parity rights. We granted parity rights to the Americans but did they really have the same rights as the Filipinos? The Americans apparently have better rights than the Filipinos since they have the capital which the Filipinos do not have. The Americans are well-organized; we do not have that organization — wherever you go, the Filipinos always split. It is not perhaps the Americans but some other nationalities who are better organized or are better financed than the Filipinos. If the woman should follow the nationality of the husband, the husband cannot avail of the nationality of the woman in order to exploit our natural resources and operate public utilities. But if we maintain the citizenship of the woman — presumed from the very beginning to have retained her citizenship — then she is most likely to be exploited by the husband.
And that is true with respect to the child. The child will have two choices. When it suits him, he could invoke the nationality of his mother; but if it suits him in some other respect, he can invoke the nationality of the father. It is precisely against this inequality that I stand before this body tonight. Of course, I should like to point the Commission's attention to the need of correlating these provisions on Citizenship with the provisions on Natural Resources. Are we still requiring preferential rights for Filipinos in connection with the exploitation of our natural resources and the operation of public utilities?
If this Constitutional Commission will eliminate the preference for Filipinos, I would have no objection to the report of the Committee. But as long as we give some preference for the Filipinos to the aliens, I would prefer the amendment proposed by Commissioner Padilla. Why? I think it is no secret that before 1935, there was barely any petition for naturalization. As soon as the 1935 Constitution was approved, petitions for naturalization swarmed the courts of justice because of the provision that Filipinos shall have preference over the utilization and exploitation of natural resources. And that is still so now. Their petitions did not only swarm our dockets but they found themselves desirous to become Filipinos or else they would not have enjoyed the right of preference for Filipinos over the conservation and utilization of natural resources, and the operation of public utilities. However, since that policy was abandoned by the 1973 Constitution, how many of our former foreigners have sought naturalization either by judicial or some other process which has increased their predominance over the Filipinos? So that now, the list of the presidents of the Rotary club or the Lions club shows that the names are foreign names. The overwhelming majority of those who go to the movies, to the golf clubs and other clubs are of foreign parentage or foreign nationality, before at least.
So, it is precisely to prevent the Filipinos from being discriminated against that I favor the idea that only in case the father is a Filipino citizen should the child be considered a citizen of the Philippines. When the mother is a Filipino but she wants to follow the citizenship of her husband, let her say so. Let us not presume that he would want to do so. But remember, he is not likely to do that. In many cases, foreigners marry Filipino women precisely to enjoy the benefits of the national law.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I request a vote on the proposal.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer, before we take a vote, may I request clarification from the distinguished Vice-President?
Would his proposal requiring election upon reaching the age of majority make the newly born child a Filipino citizen or not? And would he be considered a citizen between the time of birth and the time of election of citizenship?
MR. PADILLA: What I would say is, after election that retroacts.
MR. GUINGONA: I see. Would the Vice-President propose a corresponding provision similar to the one found in the proposal of the Committee which says that
MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just those who elect Philippine citizenship shall also be say a word in reply to the remarks of Commissioner deemed natural-born citizens?
MR. PADILLA: I can agree to that.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: I just would like to say something in connection with what Commissioner Concepcion said with respect to the intention of some foreigners who marry Filipino women with the sole purpose of exploiting our natural resources, which inevitably affects the children.
I think we should remember that there are a lot of Filipino children born of Filipino mothers and foreign fathers who do not know any other country but the Philippines. They have no other friends but Filipinos and they have not known any other education but Filipino education.
It may be true in some instances, although not in all, that perhaps the intention of a foreigner in marrying a Filipino woman is to be able to pursue activities reserved for Filipinos by putting the business in the name of his wife. But we should also remember that in the pursuit of these activities, not only did that particular foreigner improve the economic situation in the Philippines, but also improved the lot of his Filipino wife and his children to a point that in the end such an alien becomes a Filipino and has become more of a Filipino than some other Filipinos.
So in that respect, it may not be fair to say, and it may not be fair to punish and discriminate against the children of a Filipino woman married to a foreigner, because those children are truly Filipinos, educated in the Philippines and who know no other country but the Philippines.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Is the Commission ready to vote?
MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong):Commissioner Concepcion has the floor.
MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just say a word in reply to the remarks of Commissioner Bengzon that we are not trying to punish anybody. Marriage has its own effects and we have to accept its effects. But the question is: Are we willing to give up the preference for Filipinos over our natural resources?
That is the point I would want to stress.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Chair now puts the amendment proposed by the Vice-President to a vote.
Those in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please do the same. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 10 votes in favor of the amendment and 29 against; the amendment is lost.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner °Õ°ù±ðñ²¹²õ be recognized to present an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Gentleman is recognized.
MR. TREÑAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I propose an amendment to subsection (3) of Article 1 which reads:
Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five . . .
I understand that the purpose of inserting this provision is to give a chance to those born of Filipino mothers on or before January 17, 1973. Am I right?
FR. BERNAS: Before January 17.
MR. TREÑAS: Yes, and this is merely a transitory provision.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. TREÑAS: Those who may not be lawyers or who may not really understand the purpose of incorporating this section in our new Constitution, by merely reading this where it makes reference to the Constitution of 1935 will, therefore, refer to paragraph (4) which says:
Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority elect Philippine citizenship. The proposed amendment is to make this provision clear by going directly to the purpose of this section, and shall read as follows: THOSE BORN BEFORE JANUARY 17, 1973 WHOSE MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND UPON REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY, ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I request that we defer consideration of this amendment until we settle the proviso in Section 4. If that is understood as retroactive, paragraph (3) of Section 1 will even become unnecessary.
MR. TREÑAS: It is all right.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Guingona be recognized to present an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I have two amendments to offer. One concerns naturalization, and the other is on the matter of dual citizenship. With regard to the first, I would like to add the following clause to lines 1 and 2, page 2 of the committee report. My proposed amendment shall read: THE EXECUTIVE SHALL HAVE NO POWER TO GRANT NATURALIZATION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE EVEN THROUGH DELEGATION BY THE LEGISLATURE.
In other words, Mr. Presiding Officer, I am removing any possibility of the executive granting citizenship by naturalization, and the reason is that we are framing a Constitution which is not only good for this generation but for many generations to come. It might be possible that in the future the legislature might delegate to the executive the power to grant citizenship, subject to restrictions.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee does not accept the amendment and would prefer to leave the matter of naturalization to ordinary legislation.
MR. GUINGONA: May I suggest to the honorable proponent that he throw it to the floor and put it to a vote.
FR. BERNAS: If the Gentleman insists, we have to throw it to the floor.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: We have no choice. May I ask for a vote on the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Those in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise the hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please do the same. (Several Member raised their hand.)
The results show 3 votes in favor and 26 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
The second amendment refers to the matter of dual citizenship and this is found in Section 2, starting with line 3, page 2. My proposed amendment would be: "Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens BY REASON OF WHICH THEY ACQUIRED THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE SPOUSE shall retain their citizenship, PROVIDED THAT AT ANY TIME WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE CELEBRATION OF THEIR MARRIAGE, THEY RENOUNCE THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR SPOUSES, OTHERWISE, THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP."
I would like to mention that this provision is almost a verbatim copy from the second alternative proposal of the UP Law Revision Project of 1970.
With the Commissioner's permission, may I just read some of the reasons I have advanced in connection with this particular amendment:
1. Citizens of the Philippines, including those of dual citizenship would be entitled to all rights and privileges of a citizen, including the right to be elected to the highest positions in the government.
2. Filipinos of dual citizenship would be subject to the jurisdiction of other states of which he or she is also a citizen and to which he or she would owe allegiance and would have the duty to serve and the duty to pay taxes . . .
3. It would be advisable for us to provide in the Constitution even indirectly that we uphold the theory of only one citizenship as proposed by the late Dr. Salvador Araneta, a 1971 Constitutional Convention delegate. Filipinos of dual citizenship could at best be suspected of divided loyalty as far as the countries of which they are citizens are concerned. At times even these countries may, in the future, come into conflict with one another.
Finally, the renunciation of one's citizenship under a foreign country, although the same may have no effect therein, would serve as an evident declaration of loyalty to our country.
FR. BERNAS: The matter of dual citizenship has relevance not just to Section 2 but also to paragraph 2 of Section I because the latter can also give rise to dual citizenship. But it is the position of the sponsor that the matter of dual citizenship be handled by ordinary legislation. It is perfectly within the competence of the legislative body to pass a law saying that those possessing dual citizenship must make a choice within a certain period.
Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, just a piece of information.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What is the pleasure of Commissioner Sarmiento?
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Guingona mentioned the 1970 UP Law Revision Project. However, a look at the 1970 UP Law Constitution Project would show that its proposal was not repeated in this 1986 UP Law Project. The proposal of the 1986 UP Law Constitution Project is a verbatim repetition of Section 2 as proposed by the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong). Is the body ready to vote?
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I understand that the amendment has not been formally proposed, so there is no need for a vote yet.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Villacorta be recognized to present an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to know if the Committee would consider the addition of a section that will give due recognition to the social dimension of naturalization. It is well-known that many aliens aspire for naturalization for reasons of convenience. The naturalization law of the country, unfortunately, does not provide for genuine cultural assimilation of naturalized citizens after they pass the probation test. I am not calling for a disqualification of these naturalized citizens who do not assimilate themselves. What I am proposing is a general principle that will reinforce cultural, economic and social assimilation as an ideal and which could be a basis for future legislation and serve as a behavioral norm that naturalized citizens and their families will always be conscious of. I would like the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights to consider the incorporation of the following provision based on the resolution that Commissioner Sarmiento and I have cosponsored: SECTION ______ NATURALIZED CITIZENS SHALL STRIVE TO ASSIMILATE THEMSELVES INTO FILIPINO ECONOMIC, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL LIFE AND RESPECT FILIPINO VALUES AND TRADITIONS.
I respectfully submit this proposal so that this mutual discrimination based on racial or ethnic ancestry, as well as its ugly consequencess could be reduced significantly in our society.
FR. BERNAS: If I read the Committee's mind right? the Committee would not accept that provision for the reason that the process of assimilation should precede naturalization rather than follow naturalization. The steps towards naturalization should be strengthened in such a way that before naturalization judgment is given, there should be an assurance that there has already been assimilation. As I understand the Commissioner's proposal, the assimilation will be after naturalization, which is quite late. Assimilation before naturalization can very well be provided by ordinary legislation, and I believe we are capable of creating a legislature which would be equally as concerned as we are with economic, social and cultural factors.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just reply? Our proposal would like to reinforce the assimilation process that precedes the conferment of naturalization. We know for a fact that even if a candidate for naturalization assimilates himself into the national cultural mainstream, what usually happens is that he forgets to follow through the assimilation process after being naturalized.
May I, therefore, request the proponent to ask for a vote on our proposal.
FR. BERNAS: I propose a vote on the subject.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Those in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 9 votes in favor and 23 against; the amendment is lost.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized to present a short amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I am now referring to Section 3 found on page 2, lines 7 and 8, which reads "Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law."
I intend to propose an amendment on the word "law." However, if the honorable sponsor could satisfy some of my questions on this point, then I will not proceed with my proposal.
First of all, I would like to know if, in the interpretation of the word "law," the Commissioner is referring to the denaturalization procedure under Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, which is the Revised Naturalization Law.
FR. BERNAS: I am referring to any denaturalization procedure which may be provided by law. This is not intended to canonize any existing law but rather to give authority to the legislature to pass future laws on this matter.
MR. MAAMBONG: Without prejudice to future legislation, may I just indicate some of the laws which may be covered by the term "law" under Section 3?
FR. BERNAS: Perhaps I could just make a general answer. If there are laws which are not yet repealed and are in existence, then they are covered by this term.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then, let us start with Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 which provides for denaturalization procedure. Could that apply in the present setting?
FR. BERNAS: If that has not yet been repealed, it still applies.
MR. MAAMBONG: It does not seem to have been repealed because it is still in the Commissioner's book. (Laughter)
FR. BERNAS: We can never tell what President Marcos repealed by decrees.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am referring to the 1983 edition of the commissioner's book.
I will proceed.
Commissioner Bernas' book also mentions Commonwealth Act No. 63 which was actually approved on October 21, 1936. The title of this Act reads: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED.
Would this be covered by the term "law" under Section 3 as far as loss or reacquisition of citizenship is concerned?
FR. BERNAS: As I say, if that Act has not yet been repealed either by the legislature or by decree during the years when it could be repealed by decree, then it is covered.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask this question in reference to Section I (7) of Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended. I am now referring to the book Citizenship, Naturalization, Immigration, and Alien Registration Laws, Annotated, published by the Central Law Book Publishing Company Incorporated, 1977, Third Edition.
Portion of the said Commonwealth Act provides for the loss of citizenship which states:
In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner, If by virtue of the laws enforced in her husband's country, she acquires his nationality.
Will this formulation of Section 1 (7) of Commonwealth Act No. 63 not be applicable anymore if we approve this provision on Citizenship under Section 2?
FR. BERNAS: As a matter of fact, I would say that that particular provision was already repealed by the 1973 Constitution.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that.
May I proceed to another law again mentioned in the Commissioner's book. It is RA 965, approved on June 20, 1953 which is entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY PERSONS WHO LOST SUCH CITIZENSHIP BY RENDERING SERVICE TO, OR ACCEPTING COMMISSION IN THE ARMED FORCES OF AN ALLIED FOREIGN COUNTRY AND TAKING AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE INCIDENT THERETO.
Offhand, would the Commissioner say that in the present setting this proposal will be covered by the term "law" under Section 3?
FR. BERNAS: Offhand, yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you. We will now proceed to RA 2630, which unfortunately is indicated in the Commissioner's book as RA 2639, approved on June; 18, 1960.
FR. BERNAS: I will have to tell my printer to correct the typographical error.
MR. MAAMBONG: The title of this RA 2630 is: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY PERSONS WHO LOST SUCH CITIZENSHIP BY RENDERING SERVICE TO, OR ACCEPTING COMMISSION IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES. Offhand, would this Act still be applicable in the interpretation of the word "law" in Section 3 under the present setting?
FR. BERNAS: As I said, the general principle I am going under is that the word "law" in that provision has reference only to laws which are still in effect. We can check later on which laws are still in effect.
MR. MAAMBONG: And all of these, without prejudice to future laws, are on loss or reacquisition of citizenship?
FR. BERNAS: Correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is my last question: It is not ,indicated anymore in the Commissioner's book but I have here P.D. No. 725, issued on June 5, 1975, which says: PROVIDING FOR REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO WOMEN WHO HAD LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE TO ALIENS AND OF NATURAL-BORN FILIPINOS.
Would this provision be considered again in the interpretation of the word "law" under Section 3 of the proposed Article on Citizenship?
FR. BERNAS; Again, we would consider it a law provided it has not yet been' repealed.
MR. MAAMBONG. In view of that reply, I will not proceed with my proposed amendment.
Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Suarez be recognized to present an amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. My amendment is very simple; it is the deletion of the proviso in Section 4, lines 12 to 13, which reads: "Provided, That those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with Section 1, paragraph 3 above shall also be deemed natural-born citizens."
FR. BERNAS: The Committee prefers to retain this proviso just to even things out in view of our approval of Section 1, paragraph 2.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
May I be allowed to discuss this matter?
I must confess that I had some agonizing moments before moving to delete this particular proviso because I do not want to be accused of discriminating against fellow citizens. I might be committing a disservice to them. However, I feel rather strongly that my personal sentiments should not prevail over the interests of the nation.
Let me cite an example. Under our Constitution, the President, Vice-President, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and members of the Commission on Elections are required to be natural-born citizens. So, if this provision would be approved, there will be frightening possibilities. We may have a President whose father is named Jack Reagan who is based in Washington, D.C. and is a member of the CIA. We may have a Vice-President -whose name may be Naburo Nakasone, based in Tokyo, Japan. We may have a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court whose father may be named Miguel Gorbachev, a member of the KGB in Moscow. We may have a Chair- man of the Commission on Elections whose father may be called Jose Deng Xiaoping who is based in Peking.
This matter involves national interest and security. We should not allow possibilities as frightening as these to be perpetrated in our Constitution. Our sentiment in this regard is rather very strong and so we are respectfully moving for the deletion of this particular proviso appearing in Section 4 of the Proposed Resolution on Citizenship.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What does the sponsor say?
FR. BERNAS: May I say a few words. I have already adverted to that problem earlier saying that certain offices should be occupied only by these very pure citizens. We can attend to that when we come to the proper provisions. For instance, when we are dealing with the qualifications of the President, we could have a provision stating that the President must be born of a Filipino father and mother. That is the appropriate place to put it in because that is where the problem is. That can be taken care of in those specific portions of the Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ. So, is the Commissioner suggesting that we defer consideration of my motion to delete?
FR. BERNAS: I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that even if we approve this proviso, it can still be attended to when we take up the pertinent provisions on the Executive, the Legislative, the Judiciary and the Commission on Elections especially when we start talking about the qualifications of those who will occupy those offices.
In other words, when we reach those Articles, we will not just say "natural-born citizen," but we will specify what we mean.
MR. SUAREZ: That might pose complications, Mr. Presiding Officer. So, I would not accept the suggestion of the proponent.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I submit this matter to a vote.
MR. RODRIGO: Before we vote, may I have a few minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: The purpose of that proviso is to remedy an inequitable situation. Between 1935 and 1973, when we were under the 19325 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers but alien mothers were natural-born Filipinos. However, those born of Filipino mothers but alien fathers would have to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and, if they do elect, they become Filipino citizens, yes, but not natural-born Filipino citizens.
The 1973 Constitution equalized the status of those born of Filipino mothers and those born of Filipino fathers. So that from January 17, 1973 when the 1973 Constitution took effect, those born of Filipino mothers but of alien fathers are natural-born Filipino citizens. Also, those who are born of Filipino fathers and alien mothers are natural-born Filipino citizens.
If the 1973 Constitution equalized the status of a child born of a Filipino mother and that born of a Filipino father, why do we not give a chance to a child born before January 17, 1973, if and when he elects Philippine citizenship, to be in the same status as one born of a Filipino father — namely, natural-born citizen.
Another thing I stated is equalizing the status of a father and a mother vis-a-vis the child. I would like to state also that we should equalize the status of a child born of a Filipino mother the day before January 17, 1973 and a child born also of a Filipino mother on January 17 or 24 hours later. A child born of a Filipino mother but an alien father one day before January 17, 1973 is a Filipino citizen, if he elects Philippine citizenship, but he is not a natural-born Filipino citizen. However, the other child who luckily was born hours later — maybe because of parto laborioso — is a natural-born Filipino citizen.
I think we should equalize their status, so this proviso should be inserted. I think it is a very just proviso.
Thank you very much
FR. BERNAS: The amendment of Commissioner Suarez is for the deletion of the proviso on page 2, line 12.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): All those in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Few members raise their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 7 votes in favor and 23 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: I move that we adjourn until tomorrow at two-thirty in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The session is adjourned until tomorrow at two-thirty in the afternoon.
It was 7:46 p.m.
* Appeared after the roll call.