| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
[ VOL. IV, October 12, 1934 ]
JOURNAL No. 63
Se abre la sesi贸n a las 5:10 p.m. bajo la presidencia del Hon. Claro M. Recto.
EL PRESIDENTE: Se abre la sesi贸n. L茅ase la lista de Delegados.
MR. GRAFILO: I move that the roll call be dis颅pensed with.
DISPENSACI脫N DE LA LECTURA DE LA LISTA
EL PRESIDENTE: 驴Hay alguna objeci贸n? (Silencio.) La Mesa no oye ninguna. Se dispensa la lectura de la lista. Hay 辩耻贸谤耻尘. L茅ase el acta.
APROBACI脫N DEL ACTA
MR. GRAFILO: I also move that reading of the minutes be dispensed with.
EL PRESIDENTE: 驴Hay alguna objecion? (Silencio.) La Mesa no oye ninguna. Aprobada.
ORDEN DE ASUNTOS
EL SECRETARIO:
PETICIONES
Resolution of the Municipal Council of Lazi, Sub-province of Siquijor, requesting the adoption of a precept organizing all sub-provinces into regular provinces (P. No. 105.)
THE PRESIDENT. To the Committee on Sponsorship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Petition from Andr茅s Dumlao, Augusto Dumlao and Antero Natividad, all of Alcala, Pangasinan, regarding the inclusion in the Constitution of several constitutional precepts (P. No. 106.)
THE PRESIDENT. To the Committee on Sponsor-ship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Petition from A. C. Soriano, L. Rodriguez and J. Fronda, all of Alcala, Pangasinan, suggesting the reduc颅tion of the number of senatorial and representative dis颅tricts, the establishment of local circuit courts, and the election of the President and Vice-President (P. No. 107).
THE PRESIDENT: To the Committee on Sponsor颅ship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Petition from Francisco G. Millavas, of Bautista, Pangasinan, regarding facilities for applicants for homestead (P. No. 108).
THE PRESIDENT: To the Committee on Sponnsorship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Communication from Pablo M. Pimentel, of Camarines Norte, protesting against the proposed increase in the salary of the delegates (P. No. 109).
THE PRESIDENT: To the Committee on Sponsor颅ship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Petition from D. Macario M. Ysrael, of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, regarding the adoption of the system of re颅call, initiative and referendum (P. No. 110).
THE PRESIDENT: To the Archives.
EL SECRETARIO:
Communication from residents of the municipal dis颅trict of Libona, Bukidnon, protesting against the conver颅sion of Bukidnon into a regular province (P. No. 111).
THE. PRESIDENT: To the Committee on Sponsortship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Communication from residents of the municipal district of Baugon, Bukidnon, protesting against the conver颅sion of Bukidnon into a regular province (P. No. 112).
THE PRESIDENT: To the Committee on Sponsor颅ship.
EL SECRETARIO:
The resolution of Municipal Council of Bukidnon, protesting against the proposed measure to make Bukid颅non a regular province (P. No. 113).
THE PRESIDENT: To the Committee on Sponsorship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Comunicacion de Deogracias Y. Castro, de Batac, IIocos Norte, haciendo varias sugestiones referentes a la Constitution (P. No. 114).
EL PRESIDENTE: Al Comit茅 de Ponencias.
ASUNTO PENDIENTE
EL PRESIDENTE: Esta en orden la continuacion de la discusion del precepto constitucional sobre el sistema bicameral.
MR. BUSLON: Mr. President, I understand that the standing resolution of this Convention is to take a vote tonight, at seven o'clock, on the question under discus颅sion. I see that many are still scheduled to speak on either side. In this evening's session also I note that many are absent. I propose, therefore, that the discussion of this question be postponed for tomorrow and that final vote be taken at twelve o'clock tomorrow. I would change that to Monday evening at seven o'clock.
EL PRESIDENTE: 驴Qu茅 dice el Presidente del Comite de Reglamentos?
MR. BUENO: There is only one objection in that on Monday many who come from the provinces will be going back to attend the installation of the provincial and municipal officials. I would amend that motion to have the voting take place next Friday. I do not care if the debate stops, but voting must take place when everybody is here, say on Thursday. I submit the amendment that voting should take place on Thursday.
EL PRESIDENTE: 驴Hay objeci贸n por parte de la Asamblea?
VARIOS DELEGADOS: Hay objeci贸n.
EL PRESIDENTE: Los que esten conformes con la mocion tal como ha sido enmendada, digan, si. (Varios Delegados: Si.) Los que esten en contra, digan, No. (Varios Delegados: No.) Division. Los que esten conformes tengan la bondad de levantarse. (Se levantan 62 delega颅dos.) Los que esten en contra, sirvanse levantarse ahora. (Se levantan 40 delegados.) Por sesenta y dos votos afirmativos contra 40 negativos, se aprueba la mocion.
MR. ARUEGO: Mr. President, I yield ten minutes to the Delegate from Bulacan (Mr. Sandiko.)
EL PRESIDENTE: Tiene la palabra el Caballero de Bulacan.
DISCURSO DEL SENOR SANDIKO.
SR. SANDIKO: Se帽or Presidente y Caballeros de la Convencion: Todos nosotros sabemos que hemos sido convocados aqui por autoridad del Congreso de los Estados Unidos para redactar una Constituci贸n para el pa铆s. Es muy natural que cuando tratamos de redactar preceptos sobre un ramo de nuestro Gobierno, como el ramo legisla颅tivo, por ejemplo, es muy natural que aqu铆 surjan diferencias de opini贸n y no podamos adoptar enseguida el precepto constitucional que queremos introducir sin tropezar con opiniones encontradas y variadas.
Me alegro de ver que haya una discusion sobre este particular. Esta cuestion ha sido muy debatida en Ameri颅ca y en todas partes. Unos abogan por el sistema unicameral y otros por el sistema bicameral. Me alegro, pues, de ver que aqui hay diferentes opiniones, que aqui hay bandos que opinan a favor del sistema bicameral y otros que opinan en pro del sistema unicameral.
(En este momento la Mesa presidencia al Vice-presidente Sr. Montinola.)
Se帽ores, a pesar de que aqui se han impugnado los argumentos que se refieren a pa铆ses extra帽os, argumentos que se refieren a Europa, a los hechos, a los resultados de 茅ste sistema adoptado en Europa y en Am茅rica, en Asia y en Australia; a pesar de que algunos han querido Ilamar la atencion de esta Asamblea diciendo que no debemos aducir tales argumentos, soy de opini贸n que no podemos prescindir de estos argumentos, porque el sistema de gobierno, la ciencia del gobierno bueno es una ciencia practica, es el resultado de los hechos y observaciones. Tenemos que comparar los sistemas que tratamos de adoptar ahora, saber como han operado en otros paises, y que resultado han dado esos sistemas. Asi es que me parece a mi que no esta de mas que discutamos sobre lo que vemos en los paises donde se estila el sistema unicameral o el sistema bicameral. Segun los datos que he conseguido, hay 41 Estados donde se ha adoptado el sistema bicameral, y hay 22 Estados, casi nuevos, donde funciona el sistema unicameral. A juzgar por lo que se observa en various paises, sobre todo en los paises grandes de Ame颅rica, da Asia, de Australia, el sistema que ha permanecido alli es el sistema bicameral, y para mi ese sistema ha dado buenos resultados. Es verdad que hay 22 paises donde funciona nuevamente el sistema unicameral, pero podemos decir que estos paises estan en un periodo de experimento y no podemos decir aun si el resultado es bueno; asi es que, senores, creo que no podemos prescindir de estos hechos para establecer la tesis de que tal sistemaes bueno o de que tal sistema es malo. Tenemos que fundarnos en la experiencia. Ademas, tenemos que fundarnos en la razon. Senores, todos nosotros sabemos que el sistema de gobierno que hoy se estila en America, es el sistema basado en el check and balance. Ese mismo sistema es el que se ha establecido aqui. Hemos tenido ya experiencia creo que por 18 o 20 anos. Se ha creido que el Senado sirve a manera de check o freno, y si no sirve de freno, sirve para rechazar las leyes defectuosas que logan pasar en la Asamblea. Creo que no debemos menospreciar esta organizacion. Esta organizacion hasta ahora nos ha producido muy buenos resultados. No ha habido ningun fracaso, ningun desorden publico que haya llamado la atenciun del mundo para decir que este sistema es malo y que la practica de este sistema aqui no es conveniente.
Se帽or Presidente, adem谩s de estas razones, conviene que tengamos cierta limitacion conviene que tengamos un cuerpo moderador. Yo creo que el Senado desempena el papel de un cuerpo moderador; asi es que abogo por las dos Camaras, en vez de una. Entre las tareas del gobierno constituido la mas dificil es la tarea de hacer leyes, porque ellas son las que regulan los intereses y negocios de la comunidad. A ellas debemos ajustar nuestros actos para que haya paz, orden y prosperidad en nuestro pueblo. De acuerdo con ellas, el poder Ejecutivo y el Judicial tienen que arreglar sus actos para evitar toda clase de abusos. Para hacer una buena ley es preciso tomar todas las debidas precauciones porque es preciso que dicha ley sea la expresion genuina de la voluntad del pueblo y la combinacion mas apropiada para satisfacer las necesidades del mismo. La Camara Baja representa, digamoslo asi, el sentimiento popular, el sentir del pueblo. La Camara Alta representa el sentimiento del sa颅ber, el sentimiento practico de las cosas, que es lo que necesitamos para formar una ley. Tal como esta constituida la Camara Baja, no podemos dudar ni por un momento de que representa toda clase de opiniones, representa la voluntad popular. La Camara Alta, tal como esta constituida, naturalmente tiene que representar al elemento inteligente, al elemento conservador, porque la Camara Alta, como sabemos, esta fomada de miembros cuya eleccion depende no solamente de miles de personas residentes en un distrito, sino tambien en otros, y por eso se agrupan cuatro provincias para elegir a un senador. Ademas, la constitucion de la Camara Alta regularmente tiene que ser he hombres practicos, hombres experimentados en la tarea de los negocios publicos. La Camara Alta no se renueva cada tres anos; queda la mitad, y esta mitad que queda es para conservar los conocimientos que tiene dicha Camara sobre asuntos publicos. En America se renueva solamente una tercera parte. Asi es que para mi es muy necesaria la Camara Alta, porque sin ella no tendremos elementos practicos y experimentados en asuntos publicos. La Camara Baja se renueva cada tres anos. En otros paises, cada dos anos. Ademas de estas razones, yo creo que no estamos en un periodo de hacer experimentos. Nos estan observando ahora. Hemos adoptado ya el sistema bicameral y si vamos a meternos en el sistema unicameral, entiendo que no estamos preparados para hacer dicho experimento. Podria hacerse despues, en todo caso, cuando seamos completamente libres e independientes. Ahora nos estan observando como hemos de conducirnos para establecer un gobierno. Ademas, con el sistema unicameral estariamos expuestos al peligro de dejar que la vida y la propiedad del pais pudiesen estar en manos de un solo hombre. Esto se ha visto en la Historia. Cuando en Francia no habia mas que una Camara el que alli predominaba era el gran orador llamado Mirabear, asesorado por Robespierre y Danton, que era el que gobernaba a todo el pais. Aqui hemos tenido tambien un caso parecido a este. Es triste decirlo. Hemos tenido en el gobierno una Asamblea unica. Sin embargo, la vida de dicha Asamblea fue corta y muchos se quejaban de que el que mandaba alli era un solo hombre. No quisiera recordarlo, esto es triste, pero es un hecho. No quiero exponer a nuestro pueblo a ese peligro; yo quisiera asegurar para el todo lo que es bueno, y por esta razon abogo por el sistema bicameral. Si despues, cuando llegue la epoca en que debamos hacer estos experimentos, cuando veamos que el resultado de estas nuevas importaciones dan en Europa buen fruto, entonces no tendre inconveniente en aceptar el sistema unicameral, Pero ahora no es aun tiempo para hacer esos experimentos. He dicho. (Aplausos.)
SR. ROMERO: Senor Presidente, cedo diez minutos al Caballero de Cebu, Delegado Vicente Sotto.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: Tiene la palabra el Delegado por Cebu.
DISCURSO DEL SR. SOTTO (V.)
SR. SOTTO (V.): Se帽or Presidente y Caballeros de la Convenci贸n: No necesito consumir los diez minutos: probablemente, yo consuma solamente cinco, si los Delegados tienen la atenci贸n de escucharme. Voy a pronunciar un breve discurso porque, francamente, estoy desalentado. Cuando lei en "La Vanguardia" con grandes letras una informacion con este titulo: "Una Mayoria Se Inclina A Favor Del Sistema Bicameral," yo pense que seria inutil arguir bajo las presentes circunstancias, y seria predicar aqui en desierto; sobre todo; porque discutiendo ayer este asunto con el Delegado Se帽or Sandiko, acab贸 茅l por decirme: es imposible que usted me convenza, porque ya tengo una opini贸n formada.
SR. CONFESOR: Se帽or Presidente, para una pregunta al orador.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El orador puede contestar, si le place.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si se帽or,
SR. CONFESOR: Eso que ha le铆do lo dice "La Vanguardia" 驴qu茅 dice el peri贸dico "Uni贸n"?
SR. SOTTO (V.): "Uni贸n" no es peri贸dico diario; de modo que no sabemos a煤n qu茅 es lo que va a decir.
(Prosiguiendo.) Se帽or Presidente, no estoy conforme con la contestacion del Delegado se帽or Sandiko. Yo entiendo que debemos dividirnos en dos grupos cada vez que haya alguna cuestion en discusion: un grupo, que no ha estudiado asento el y que viene para escuchar y fallar. 驴Que diremos de un juez que, al comenzar la vista de una causa criminal, empieza por cacarear que el va a condenar al acusado? Exactamente, tres cuartos de lo mismo le pasa al Delegado senor Sandiko, quien antes de escuchar todos los razonamientos en pro y en contra, ya anticipa que es inutil discutir con el porque ya tiene una opinion formada. Sobre este punto traigo una cita de un famoso tratadista moderno sobre derecho politico, que es el Profesor Fernando Mellado, autor contemporaneo. Este tratadista dice: "A veces el criterio de la mayoria en cierto modo es absurdo. Se funda en el numero, y no siempre en la razon. Asimismo no todos los representantes del pais pueden tener conocimiento de la actitud de las diferentes partes que han de regular las leyes; pero si esto es, en absoluto, verdad, no tiene completa fuerza en un orden relativo, porque todo representante hay que suponer que tiene una determinada ilustracion y, por tanto, en el acto de la deliberacion, oira las razones alegadas en pro y en contra de la ley que se discute; formara una opinion concreta no por propio conocimiento, sino por el que adquiera oyendo a los demas, y en este caso su juicio puede ser exacto, justo y conveniente." Pero, como ningun esfuerzo se pierde, a mi se me ocurre arguir aqui de otro modo esta tarde. Como no tengo la influencia moral del Presidente Quezon, que puede hacer cambiar de opinion, ni tengo el magnetismo personal del Delega颅do Senor Romualdez, quien, despues de haber pronunciado un discurso aqui, estuvo a punto de lograr que fuese aprobada aquella Resolucion defendida por el, voy a recurrir a otros medios. Yo, Senores, traigo lo que decimos los abogados, autoridades. Voy a citar opiniones de peso de los que han estudiado a fondo este asunto. Voy a empezar, por ejemplo, por el Conde de Sieyes. un senador frances, miembro de la Asamblea Constituyente. Este dice: "La ley es la voluntad del pueblo, y un pueblo no puede tener dos voluntades diferentes a un mismo tiempo sobre un mismo objeto."
Voy a acotar a otro prominente tratadista que es el senor Babout Saint Etiene. Este es otro miembro de la Asamblea Constituyente de Francia. La importancia de este miembro se puede juzgar por el hecho de que el precepto constitucional que aparece en el documento conocido por Declaracion de los Derechos del Hombre, el precepto constitucional que concede la libertad de conciencia y de cultos, fue propuesto por el. Este caballero dice: La nacion es una; luego, si la nacion es una, su representacion debe ser tambien una."
Vamos a pasar a Condorcet. Los que han estado en Paris, saben quien es Condorcet para los franceses. Con decir que tiene un monumento en la plaza donde esta el Instituto de Francia, esta dicho todo. Condorcet tambien fue miembro de la Asamblea Constituyente, fue academico y fue el autor del manifiesto de la Asamblea Francesa, que convocaba a la Convencion Constituyente para quitar el poder ejecutivo de manos del Rey. Este ilustre politico dice: "Todo lo que no es simple es un charlatanismo en politica." Robespierre鈥斅縌uien no conoce a Roberspierre, famoso revolucionario frances, y tambien miembro de la Asamblea Constituyente? Ro颅bespierre dijo: "Un pueblo que tiene dos representaciones deja de ser un pueblo unico," Vamos a seguir a Marat. Este era pedagogo y filosofo. Fue el Presidente de la Asamblea Constituyente, Este dijo: "La soberania es una; la voluntad es una, la nacion, una. 驴Como se quiere que la delegacion de la soberania no sea unica?"
Ahora, volviendo al autor contemporaneo que acabo de citar, o sea el profesor Mellado, quien, dicho sea do paso, es bicameralista. Sin embargo, su libro trae este argumento muy fuerte a favor del unicameralismo. Hace una excepcion y esta es el caso en que no haya clases, y como en Filipinas no hay clases, no necesitamos dos Camaras. El profesor Mellado dice: "Realmente, si las dos Camaras han de ser identicas en su origen y en su desenvolvimiento, es claro que una de las dos esta de mas." Las dos Camaras deben ser diversas en su base y organizacion. Asi podriamos decir, por ejemplo, que la Camara Alta tiene diferente origen, si concedieramos el sufragio femenino e hicieramos que las mujeres votaran por el Senado, y los hombres por la Camara de Representantes. Entonces serian de distinto origen y de distinta representacion, pero no lo se颅rian si los mismos electores que votan por los diputados son los que han de votar por los senadores. En este caso no hay duda que proceden de un solo origen.
Hay otro punto importante al que deseo llamar la atencion de la Convencion, y es el de que insensiblemente estamos creando en Filipinas una casta aristocratica, la casta de los senadores, o mejor dicho, la aristocracia del dinero. Con dolor, tenemos que confesar que en Filipinas, actualmente, un pobre no puede pensar en, ser candidato a senador. Esto es contrario a los canones de la democracia. Resulta que ahora solo pueden ser senadores los que tienen dinero. Si eso es lo que se pretende al establecer el sistema bicameral, que los senadores representen a los ricos, y la Camara Baja a los pobres, entonces debemos empezar por reformar nuestro sistema electoral, haciendo lo que se hace en otros paises donde existe el Senado. El senado en otros paises es elegido por entidades no por el voto directo de los electores. Por eso tienen distinta fuente.
SR. SANDIKO: Se帽or Presidente, para algunas preguntas al orador.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El orador puede contes颅tar, si le place.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si, se帽or.
SR. SANDIKO: 驴Hay aqui alguna cualificacion de los senadores que confirme la asercion de Su Senoria de que el Senado tiende a crear una casta de ricos solamente? Quiero decir si aqui se requiere para ser senador la condicion de tener una propiedad, como ocurre, por ejemplo, en la Argentina y Checoslovaquia, en donde, para ser senador, se requiere que el candidato tenga propiedades.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Es cierto; no se requiere que tenga propiedades; pero se requiere dinero, y este mismo hecho el mismo Delegado interpelante, Senor Sandiko, me lo confirmo ayer cuando me dijo que el fue una excepcion, que triunfo, que gano la eleccion senatorial sin dinero; y entonces le pregunto ahora: 驴puede usted ser candidato sin dinero? Ahora, dice que no.
SR. INTING: Senor Presidente, para una pregunta al orador.
EL VICEFRESIDENTE: El orador puede contestar, si le place.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si, se帽or.
SR. INTING: Su Se帽oria nos da a entender que no quiere la existencia del Senado, porque representa a los hombres que tienen dinero, y 驴por que present贸 usted su candidatura en las pasadas elecciones?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Por eso hablo por experiencia propia, porque si no hubiese tenido dinero no hubiera sido candidato.
SR. CONFESOR: Se帽or Presidente, para algunas preguntas al orador.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El orador puede contestar las si le place.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Con mucho gusto.
SR. CONFESOR: El Delegado por Ceb煤 hizo muchas citas de autores franceses, y yo quisiera preguntarle que dijo Napoleon sobre esta cuestion.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Lo 煤nico que recuerdo de Na颅poleon es que despues de discutir un dia con sus ministros de la manera como el discutia de un modo rectilineo, sin retorica ni literatura, dijo: "Yo os he demostrado que dos y dos son cuatro, y ahora demuestren ustedes que dos y dos son cinco."
SR. CONFESOR: Me parece que Su Se帽oria tiene inclinacion a aceptar ideas francesas, asi es que yo quisiera averiguar de Su Se帽oria si ha leido la opinion de Napoleon sobre la cuestion de las C谩maras legislativas de Francia.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Ante todo, debo decir a Su Senoria que, si no estoy equivocado, en tiempos de la Convencion francesa, Napoleon no era el soberano de Francia; era Luis XV o XVI. Napoleon entonces no gobernaba a Francia, y sobre mi inclinacion a las francesas o las teorias francesas, debo decir a Su Senoria que Francia es al presente lo que Grecia era en la antiguedad. Francia es la cuna ahora de la civilizacion, es la cuna de las ideas mas brillantes.
SR. CONFESOR: 驴Cuantas Camaras legislativas tiene Francia?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Probablemente tenga dos. Yo no se, no estoy seguro. Pero si tiene dos, estoy seguro de que una de ellas, el Senado, no es elegida por los votos directos de los electores, sino por entidades de otra clase. No he averiguado si tiene dos, pero estoy seguro de que si tiene dos, cada una de las Camaras tiene diferentes fuentes de representacion.
SR. CONFESOR: 驴Que suerte tuvo Robespierre despues de emitir su opinion sobre las Camaras legislativas?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Fue guillotinado no por haber sostenidos esta teoria sino por otra causa.
MR. CLARIN: Mr. President, will the Gentleman yield?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may an颅swer.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si, se帽or.
MR. CLARIN: The Gentleman stated that the senators represent the rich. Shouldn't rich people, as a class, be duly represented in the legislature?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Entonces, antes de contestar a esa pregunta, voy a formular otra: Entonces, 驴admite Su Senoria que es necesario dividir el voto en clases?
MR. CLARIN: There should be representation for both the rich and the poor. If the Gentleman admits that the senators represent the rich, then it is proper for the Philippine Legislature to give the rich representa颅tion.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Probablemente no representen a los ricos, pero, por lo pronto, son solamente los ricos los que pueden ser senadores. Dicho se est谩 que los senadores siempre van a defender a los de su clase, a los ricos.
MR. CLARIN: It is proper that the ricb be repre颅sented in the Senate and the poor class in the House.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Creo que es as铆, porque la democracia no hace distinci贸n entre ricos y pobres. En la democracia, es la mayoria de votos la que debe dominar,
SR. ABELLA: Se帽or Presidente, para unas preguntas al orador.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El orador puede contestar, si lo desea.
SR. SOTTO: Si, se帽or.
SR. ABELLA: 驴Est谩 Su Se帽or铆a en contra del sistema actual de las dos Camaras en Filipinas, porque tienen la misma base de representacion tanto el Senado como la Camara de Representantes?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si, Se帽or.
SR. ABELLA: De manera que si el Senado tuviese una base de representacion distinta, estari谩 usted a favor de la creaci贸n del Senado?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Eso no es posible, porque no tenemos clases en Filipinas.
SR. ABELLA: Por ejemplo, en el anteproyecto sometido por el Comit茅 Legislativo se propuso, entre otras cosas, la representacion proporcional como base de representacion de nuestro Senado, 驴no cree Su Senoria que eso seria aceptable?
SR. SOTTO (V.): En mi opinion, precisamente ese plan es peor que la eleccion de senadores.
SR. ABELLA: Pero la base es distinta de la base de representacion de la Camara de Representantes.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Creo que no, porque son los mismos electores, se trata de los mismos electores.
SR. ABELLA: 驴De manera que estaria usted siempre en contra de eso?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si, se帽or.
MR. MARAMARA: Mr. President, will the Gentleman from Cebu yield?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may an颅swer.
MR. MARAMARA: The Gentleman from Cebu has the idea that the Senate is for the rich only and he is speaking from experience. Is that the reason for the Gentleman's defeat in the elections because he is poor?
SR. SOTTO (V.): No digo que fui derrotado porque soy pobre; el otro tenia mas que yo.
MR. MARAMARA: Can the Gentleman from Cebu assure me that in a umcameral system he will win be颅cause he has no money?
MR. SOTTO (V.): Who is that "he"?
MR. MARAMARA: The Gentleman from Cebu him颅self. By eliminating money so it will not be used in polities, can the Gentleman assure me that he will win in future elections?
MR. SOTTO (V.): My best answer is that I was elected Representative from the Second District of Cebu.
MR. MARAMARA: Without money?
MR. SOTTO (V.): With little money. (Prosiguiendo.) Voy a terminar, Senor Presidente, saliendo al encuentro de una afirmacion hecha aqui anoche por el Delegado Bueno, y que extracta un periodico de la manana, "The Tribune."
Yo quisiera decir que no depende de una o dos Camaras el soborno. El soborno es muy facil en cualquiera Legislatura del mundo, porque no se soborna a todos y a cada uno de los miembros. Se soborna solamente a los lideres, a los que pueden arrastrar; de modo que el argumento parte de un supuesto inexacto.
SR. CONFESOR: 驴Habla Su Se帽or铆a por experiencia, en el sentido de que a los lideres se soborna y no a las C谩maras?
SR. SOTTO (V.): En el sentido de que yo haya sido sobornado alguna vez, yo dir铆a que nunca.
SR. CONFESOR: 驴C贸mo ha Ilegado Su Se帽oria a hablar con autoridad sobre su asercion de que solamente a los l铆deres se les soborna?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Me gusta recordar al Caballero de Iloilo el sensacional articulo publicado por un tal Da颅vid Berry, ex macero del Senado de los Estados Unidos, que fue sumariamente destituido por publicar un art铆culo que trataba del asunto que estoy hablando.
SR. CONFESOR: 驴Quiere usted decir que tambien en Filipinas pasa eso?
SR. SOTTO (V.): No digo que pasa, pero que puede pasar; que no somos aqui angeles y serafines.
SR. GUEVARA: Para una aclaracion, Senor Presidente.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: Puede hacerlo Su Senoria si lo permite el orador.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si, senor.
SR. GUEVARA: El sargento de armas que publico aquel articulo, fue destituido, porque no pudo probar lo que habia alegado. Escribio aquellos articulos con el fin de ganar dinero por medio de articulos sensacionalistas.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Es que debe tener en cuenta Su Senoria que hay verdades que no se pueden probar.
SR. GUEVARA: Quiero hacer justicia al Delegado por Cebu diciendole que no quiere dar a entender que aquellas acusaciones del sargento de armas eran ciertas.
SR. SOTTO (V.): No digo que eran ciertas o falsas, pero hay verdes que son difficiles de probar.
MR. ARUEGO: I yield 10 minutes to the Gentleman from Batangas, Mr. Lopez.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: Tiene la palabra el Delegado por Batangas.
DISCURSO DEL SR. L脫PEZ A FAVOR DEL SISTEMA BICAMERAL
MR. L脫PEZ (E.): Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: The last speaker in favor of the unicameral system has cited the opinions of various authorities, most of them French. But the French authorities should have no place in the deliberations of this Convention on whether we should adopt either the bicameral or the unica颅meral system in our Constitution. The Gentleman from Cebu should remember that the French Legislature was unicameral only during the First and Second Republics. French royalists, imperialists and republicans, through颅out the recent constitutional changes effected in France, have adhered to the bicameral system. The French people are not scared over the dilemma propounded by Sieyes and they insisted on and actually have the bicameral sys颅tem of legislature.
In the discussion of this question we should appeal to history for light and guidance. There are no more practical and prosperous nations today than England, France, Japan and America. They are the leaders among nations and all of them have the bicameral system of legislature. England has had experience in unicameralism in her long Parliament during the days of Cromwell. That experience was a most bitter one; hence bicameralism in England today has become a permanent part of English political institutions. England today cannot, even if she should want to, give up bicameralism, not even if she destroyed her House of Lords. The Jap颅anese today would consider the abolition of the House of Peers as a tragedy in the Empire of the Rising Sun.
What do we say, Gentlemen, of the American Senate? I doubt if there is any American today who is not proud of the American Senate. Sir Henry Maine has stated that the American Senate is the one thoroughly successful institution that has been established, and since its establishment the tide of modern democracy began to run high. Political scientists the world over are agreed on one conclusion: that the American Senate is not only the most interesting and the strongest, but also the most efficient second chamber in the world today.
The American Senate is at present the admiration and wonder of the world. The great Bryce called it the masterpiece of the constitution makers of America.
The development of the American Senate is not due to the fact that the Senate represents the states of the American Union. During the first thirty years of its existence, very few Americans of importance aspired to what was considered the empty honor of senatorial dig颅nity. The position of American senator during these first thirty years was considered inferior in influence to that of members of the senates of the different states. But in the last three decades preceding the American Civil War the presence in that body of prominent statesmen like Clay, Webster, Calboun, Sumner, placed that institution in the position that it now occupies: at the topmost part of the American representative system. That body con颅tains the ripest and the best products of American poli颅tics, and it has the best claims to intellectual leadership in the United States in the political manner. The Ameri颅can Senate, because of its influence, dignity, and power, has silenced the admirers of the cart-and-horse theory of Benjamin Franklin. It has silenced those who allowed themselves to be dragged down by the principle of "Su Senoria." It has silenced the disciples of Goldsmith who made the hypothesis that it passes beyond human inge颅nuity to construct an effective second chamber of a legis颅lative body.
Gentlemen of the Convention, I am positive that the success of the American Senate should silence those among us who believe that in the Philippine Islands the existence of the second chamber is a mere theory and a superfluity in our political system. It should be remembered that the United States introduced the bica颅meral system of legislature in the Philippine Islands because of her absolute faith in the capacity of the Filipino people to develop and perfect that system. To abandon it as a failure after an experience of eighteen years, Gentlemen, is on our part a confession of defeat and incapacity unworthy of a free people.
MR. MU脩OZ: Will the Gentleman yield, Mr. President?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may an颅swer.
MR. LOPEZ (E.): Gladly.
MR. MU脩OZ: From his speech I deduce that the Gentleman has been praising the American system of government due to the existence of the Senate and that because of its excellence, the United States has not changed the system. How would the Gentleman reconcile the fact that the states organized after the World War did not follow the system of the United States and, in fact, they even adopted the unicameral system?
MR. L脫PEZ (E.): I will answer the Gentleman by say颅ing that the states formed after the World War did not adopt the American system. They could have adopted it if they wanted to.
MR. MUN脫Z: Does it mean that such states did not really see the importance, the excellence of the American Senate?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): I cannot speak for those states.
MR. MU脩OZ: Does the Gentleman mean that these states were not duly prepared politically to follow the American system?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): No, sir, I do not want to say that. But I want to tell this: In the formulation of our Constitution we should not be mere philosophers and doctri颅naires. We should follow a policy of conservatism.
MR. MU脩OZ: Does the Gentleman mean that we are not necessarily bound to follow the American system?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): Not necessarily so; but since the American system is already here, I believe that if we cannot point any defect in that system, then it would be better that we perfect that system. I do not mean that the Philippine Senate or the American Senate is a perfect body of men. Just like all bodies of men, they have the imperfections that human institutions have, but I should emphasize this assertion: that the policy we should follow is not to adopt a new and doubtful ex颅periment, but rather to perfect and develop the institution that we now have. The Philippine bicameral Legislature has its defects. Let us purge that Legislature of its defects.
MR. SEVILLA: Will the Gentleman yield, Mr. President?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may an颅swer.
MR. LOPEZ (E.): Willingly.
MR. SEVILLA: Does the Gentleman admit that the American Senate is imperfect?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): There is no perfect human institution.
MR. SEVILLA: The Gentleman also admits that the House of Representatives of the American Congress is imperfect ?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): Surely, as all human institutions are.
MR. SEVILLA: Would he rather have two im颅perfections or only one?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): Not exactly. I do not admit the conclusion.
MR. SEVILLA: Then what does the Gentleman mean by saying that he wants to have a bicameral legislature in which two houses are both imperfect?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): I am not trying to convince the Members of this Convention that the American system of bicameral legislature is perfect, since all human institutions are imperfect. The system can stand improvements and I believe that if we are a capable people, we can improve it.
MR. SEVILLA: Does the Gentleman mean that it would be better to have just one perfect house rather than two houses that are both imperfect?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): No, sir.
MR. CONFESOR: Mr. President, will the Gentleman yield?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may answer.
MR. LOPEZ (E.): With pleasure.
MR. CONFESOR: Suppose the Gentleman has two houses and both need repairs. What would he do鈥攂urn them?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): If they need repairs, let them be repaired.
MR. CONFESOR: Are you going to set them on fire?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): No, sir, that is different. I said that the Philippine bicameral legislature is not a perfect sys颅tem; but all institutions grow, so let us make them grow. They develop defects, so let us stop them. Let us purge our system of its developed defects. It will be worth all our troubles. It is a beautiful thing, this bicameral system of legislature: two chambers working together, solving the people's problems鈥攐ne house representing and personifying all the national qualities of our people, protecting and championing the people's cause and respon颅sive to their needs; and the other house containing the perfect and purest product of our political field personify颅ing the calm dignity of the nation, controlling, moderat颅ing and guiding the passions, the zest and enthusiasm of the lower chamber and the surging masses in moments of intense national emotions.
MR. ROMERO: Mr. President, I yield five minutes to the Gentleman from Tarlac.
DISCURSO DEL DELEGADO GALANG EN CONTRA DEL SISTEMA BICAMERAL
SR. GALANG: Se帽or Presidente y Caballeros de la Convenci贸n: No tengo mas que cinco minutos escasos y voy a ser muy breve.
Yo abogo por la teor铆a de la unidad de representacion para abolir la existencia de un ramo politico en el gobierno filipino, que es el Senado. Digo que el Senado es un ramo aristocratico, porque dentro de sus salas sopla el viento de la superioridad sobre la Camara de Representantes, ya por el sueldo de los senadores, ya por sus privilegios, ya por la duracion del cargo o ya por el sentido mismo del nombre C谩mara Alta.
Se帽or Presidente, estamos para pasar al Gobierno de nuestra Mancomunidad. Dentro de poco ya veremos con los ojos brillantes de alegr铆a la luz naciente de nues颅tra ansiada libertad, sinibolo de uua verdadera democracia en el Extremo Oriente, y por tanto no debemos perder esa nueva era de nuestra historia con la insercion en la Constitucion del sistema bicameral, una autoridad peligrosa, porque lleva consigo un car谩cter esencialmente aristocratico. Se ha dicho aqui que el sistema bicameral ha sido adoptado con 茅xito por unas 22 naciones. 驴Que nos importa que el sistema haya sido adoptado por una nacion extranjera? Aqu铆 estamos como elegidos por el pueblo que ha impuesto sobre nuestros hombros la obligacion, no de copiar sino de hacer que nuestra Constitu颅cion sea una fotograf铆a instant谩nea de la voluntad del pueblo filipino. Tambi茅n la parte contraria pregunta, 驴acaso vamos a sacrificar un principio solamente por razon de economia? Se帽or Presidente, nosotros los unicameralistas no sacrificamos el principio bicameral sola颅mente por razon de economia sino que lo hacemos para dar lugar a otro principio mejor y democratico que es el principio unicameral. Tambien dicen que ya estamos acostumbrados con el sistema bicameral. Pero puedo decir con seguridad, Senor Presidente, que aunque estamos ya acostumbrados, no es una costumbre que expresa el ideal del pueblo, porque el pueblo filipino esta dispuesto a desligarse de todo lo que tenga color aristocratico. Se颅nor Presidente, aplicando por analogia, una famosa cancion que desperto un interes singular en los Caballeros de esta Convencion, supongamos que en un proyecto, en uno de sus puntos, la C谩mara de Representantes dice que si y el Senado dice que no, 驴cual de los dos expresa la voluntad del pueblo? Como bien dijo aqui, acotando a un comentarista, el Caballero de Cebu, Senor Sotto, la ley es la voluntad del pueblo. Un pueblo no puede tener al mismo tiempo dos voluntades diferentes sobre el mismo punto: luego, el cuerpo legislativo que representa al pue颅blo debe ser esencialmente uno.
Por 煤ltimo, hago constar mi voto a favor del sistema unicameral. porque creo sobre esta materia en aquel decir en ingles: "One is enough, two is too much."
MR. ARUEGO: Mr. President, I yield ten minutes to the Gentleman from Leyte, Mr. Cinco.
SPEECH BY DELEGATE CINCO
MR. CINCO: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: I rise in defense of the resolution under consideration not only to voice my personal opinion on the fundamental question, but also to transmit to you the will of the people of the Fifth District of the Province of Leyte that was unequivocally expressed at the polls three months ago. I would be recreant to my duty as Delegate of 150,000 people and unabiding with my own conscience as a humble member of the thir颅teen and one-half million inhabitants who comprise the Filipino nation if I let pass unanswered the only three outstanding arguments adduced by the opponents of the resolution.
Mr. President, my time is short, so in order not to abuse the indulgence of the Chair and the generosity of my fellow Delegates, I shall not repeat here arguments already offered or the reasons made by those who pre颅ceded me on this floor to defend the proposition that this Convention adopt in the Constitution we are formulating a bicameral system of legislature, such as we have now, although the composition of both or either chamber and the manner of electing the members thereof may be modified. I generally can subscribe to all the arguments presented and reasons made by my Colleagues in the affirmative side.
When I presented my resolution on the fifth instant advocating the adoption of a two-chamber legislature in the Constitution, I did so strongly convinced of the advisability and necessity of continuing our present sys颅tem of two legislative bodies鈥攁 House of Representatives and a Senate鈥攐ne to serve as a check and balance on the other, thereby avoiding the passage of rush and ill-considered legislation. The Senate is to act also as mod颅erating body for being usually composed of men more mature in mind and experience, as compared to the generally youthful members of the House who, moreover, are frequently changed. After closely listening to the able arguments presented by several speakers for and against the proposition, especially those adduced by its opponents, I am more convinced than ever that we must decide to continue with our present two legislative bodies.
Mr. President, if we want to be practical, as we should, and not be mere theorists; if we desire to profit from our own experiences and practices and from those of the biggest and strongest powers of the world today, such as the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Japan, and from those of smaller nations, as well as all the states of the American union where the bicameral system of legislation prevails, I believe our rea颅soning power need not be stretched before we conclude that our Philippine Senate must be retained. To think of the contrary is to court disaster in a peaceful and or颅derly Government we are now proud to posses.
In plain words, I ask those who want to establish here a unicameral system of legislature: What harm has the Philippine Senate caused the Government or the people? Has there been any instance wherein a bill orig颅inating in the House of Representatives could have been any better if the same were not passed upon by the Senate? I believe none can be cited. On the other hand, it is unquestionable that the laws so far promulgated by our bicameral legislature were improved in one chamber or the other. The opponents of the present system main颅tain, first, that the Senate is a superfluity; second, that eco颅nomy dictates that the same be abolished; and third, that when we assume a new form of government, it will be timely to experiment with the unicameral system of legislature.
Mr. President, with due respect to those who take the opposite view, I maintain that our Senate is not a superfluity. It is amusing to note that the unicameralists confine their criticism not on the system of double cham颅bers, but upon the practice of party caucuses to which legislation is sometimes first submitted and decided before being brought to the consideration of the legislative cham颅bers, and also on the manner the conference committees of the two chambers operate. Certainly they do not oppose the system but the practice observed by our present re颅sponsible leaders in the legislature, with party disci颅pline and the alleged evil practices of the conference committees. The unicameralists impliedly admit the wis颅dom and soundness as a principle of the bicameral system for it affords a check and balance within the legislature if the leaders so choose.
Why then do the proponents of unicameralism ask for abolition or substitution of a wise and sound system, instead of pleading for the removal of the men respon颅sible for the frustration, so they claim, of the ideals of the system? Are they running the affairs of the House of Representatives, on one hand, and the Philip颅pine Senate, on the other hand, or the party in power as a whole?
As regards the alleged evils of the conference committees, the unicameralists should procure the insertion in our Constitution of a procedural provision prohibiting the submission of any pending legislation to the conference committees. I do not, however, mean to be understood as favoring such a provision, for I believe in the expediency of such committees.
An assertion was made here that the conference committees do not really check but they "choque" each other; meaning; confabulating, as the Gentleman from Samar said last night. Mr. President, such assertion means that the members of the respective conference committees must necessarily fight physically, so that the Gentleman may see that they are really checking and not "chequeando", or conniving with one another to the detriment of the Interest of the Government. When the conference com颅mittees have reached an agreement on a certain pending legislation, it does not mean that the wishes of one chamber have prevailed over those of the other. They may either agree to accede totally to the desire of one chamber or compromise or agree to disagree entirely. By such procedure the check and balance principle is maintained just the same in all its forms.
The proponents of the abolition of the Philippine Senate have never asserted that in the conference com颅mittees the views of the House of Representatives have invariably prevailed. On the contrary, the will of the Senate in almost all cases prevail on these committees over that of the House.
With respect to party caucuses, there is nothing fundamentally wrong and irregular in the practice. I suppose that as a party government, whether there will be one only or two chambers in our legislature, there will always be party caucuses for obvious reasons. Sup颅posing we have only one chamber and the practice of party caucuses continues. Will the unicameralists again demand the abolition of the legislative branch altogether, especially where the chief executive of the Government exercises that influence, and so in effect directs in the making of the laws? It is plain then that it is not the system of two chambers that need be changed to one chamber system, but certain practices in the system which are objectionable to the upholders of unicameralism. If such practice really nullifies the utility of the Senate in maintaining the theory of check and balance in the legislature, then the logical thing for the proponents is to foster public opinion against the alleged evil practices, such as the party caucuses and the procedure of the conference committees, so our leaders may take action.
I believe that the opponents of party caucuses know that our political leaders were the ones responsible for these practices. The same are not so now; thus, I can颅not understand why the Gentleman from Tayabas, Mr. Salumbides, a devout unicameralist, has always been supporting Senate President Quezon and Floor Leader Recto of the Senate and our distinguished Chairman of this august Body. I am at a loss to hear that my fellow Delegate Buslon from Bohol is becoming a bicameralist; yet he worked hard for the election of President Pro-tempore Clarin of the Senate. I do not know why my colleague, Mr. Bocar from Samar, has always aided Senator Avelino. All these men, and leaders in the Se颅nate, in collaboration with the Speaker and ranking Mem颅bers of the House, are responsible for the present state of affairs鈥攖he party caucuses in our legislature, which are objectionable to the proponents of unicameralism.
At these leaders, the unicameralists should direct their attacks and not at the whole Philippine Senate; so I am afraid that my friends are barking up the wrong tree. When we observed the Sponsorship Com颅mittee was failing in its work, we did not abolish that Committee; instead, a drafting sub-committee of seven Members was ordered. For every ailment there is a cure. The opponents of the resolution maintain that if the function of the Senate is just to check the work of the House, then it should be abolished as it hinders the work of the latter. On the other hand, if it really does not check, but only concurs in the bills passed by the House, the more reason that the Senate must be abolished for being useless and a burden to the State.
At this juncture, I am reminded of an interesting conversation between a doctor and a lawyer. The doctor said to the lawyer: "Lawyers are useless and a burden to the State because if I happen to kill somebody and I am to blame, then even if I be defended by a law颅yer, the judge, as repository and administrator of all that is just and lawful, will put me to prison. If I am not to blame, and whether I have a lawyer or not, the just judge will acquit me. So what is the use of lawyers?" The lawyer, in his characteristic alertness, retorted: "No. sir, doctors are useless and they consti颅tute a burden to the State, because they cannot prevent a person's death. Every person is predestined to die at a certain time, for even if he gets sick and his time has not yet come, he will live with or without an attending doctor; on the other hand, if his end must come by the will of God, no doctor can prolong the patient's life. So where is the use of doctors?"
Moreover, Mr. President, the Senate does not only serve as moderator and maintainer of the check and balance in the legislative, but also, as a function ap颅propriate for a Senate, confirm appointments made by the Chief Executive as the Constitution and the laws provide. I have no doubt also that our Consti颅tution will provide for the impeachment of civil officials to be preferred by the legislature. But if there is only one chamber, the result will be that this chamber will act as accuser and judge at the same time, an un颅questionably anomalous situation to happen. The ex颅istence of an upper chamber is, therefore, a necessity.
The second argument presented by the opponents of the resolution hinges on economy. Mr. President, the unicameralists cannot claim to be the only preachers of economy in the expenditures of public funds. We, who believe in the advisability and necessity of two legislative bodies also believe in wise economy. The taxpayers are entitled to good government; so long as public funds are expended to maintain a government that protects the governed alike and which assures the people of good laws for their well-being then the ex颅penditure is a sound economic investment. A necessary branch of a good government must not be sacrificed for the pursuit of ill-advised economic theories.
Of course, it is admitted that our present govern颅ment in all its departments鈥擫egislative, Executive and Judicial鈥攊s top heavy. Something must be done to cut down expenses to the minimum compatible with a required efficiency in our government. But to abolish the Philippine Senate for the sake of economy will be unwise, dangerous economy. It is repugnant to reason that just because a person can see as well with his eye as with two eyes, he should have one of his eye balls removed so that he might use only one eyeglass instead of a pair of eyeglasses, for the sake of economy. To do so would be not only necessarily expensive as he will pay for the surgical and medical treatment, but will also probably mean loss of one-fourth of his personal assets.
Now, Mr. President, I should like to refute the argument adduced by an opponent of the resolution that, as we assume a new government it will be most opportune to experiment with a unicameral system of legislature. I really differ with this point of view of a certain speaker of the negative side. It is my honest opinion that our new government, or any other new government, cannot afford to experiment with a system here, especially if that has failed elsewhere or its result is still doubtful. The bicameral system of legislature not only has proven to be of great advantage in our own country for the last twenty-seven years since the inauguration of the Philippine Assembly, but it is one that also has been tried by and is still adhered to by the most powerful nations in the world today.
In conclusion, Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, I want to reiterate that the composition of either or both of the legislative chambers and the manner of electing the members thereof may be modi颅fied. I believe, however, that for all the experience we have had in our bicameral legislature and the con颅tinued adherence to bicameralism by almost all of the biggest and strongest countries in the world today, the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines and the independent government to follow should maintain the two-chamber legislature such as we have today.
I thank you.
MR. BUSLON: Mr. President, for a privileged question. I heard the Gentleman refer to my name, but I did not hear the rest of his sentence. I would like him to repeat that part, because I want to know what he said about me.
MR. CINCO: Mr. President, I stated: While my fellow Delegate Buslon is a unicameralist and is, there颅fore, as I believe, not in favor of the practice of party caucuses, yet I am surprised why he is always supporting the President Protempore of the Senate, Mr. Clarin. He is one of the leaders responsible for party caucuses.
SR. BUSLON: Senor Presidente, Caballeros de la Convencion; Permitidme que haga una manifestacion. No es cierto, en primer lugar, que yo siempre haya apoyado al Senador Clarin. Quiero decir que durante las elecciones, desde el ano 1921 hasta 1928, que fue cuando por primera vez tuve intervencion activa en la politica, estaba en contra de la candidatura del Senor Clarin. Si he apoyado la candidatura del Senor Clarin en las elecciones pasadas, fue porque el abogaba los mismos principios por los que yo abogaba, que eran los de los antis.
MR. GRAGEDA: Mr. President, will the Gentleman yield?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may yield, if he so desires.
MR. CINCO: Willingly.
MR. GRAGEDA: Is it not true that we had the unicameral system during the time of the Philippine Assembly?
MR. CINCO: Prior to the Philippine Assembly, what we had was a sort of unicameral system; but during the Philippine Assembly, we did not have the unicameral system. We had two legislative chambers.
MR. GRAGEDA: Be it during the Philippine Commission or the Philippine Assembly, had there been many defects in the unicameral system which were cured by the present system?
MR. CINCO: In the first place, we did not have exactly the unicameral system prior to the Philippine Assembly. We had the Philippine Commission but we cannot consider it exactly as a unicameral body. What I stated is that we should profit from our experience in the last twenty-seven years since the inauguration of the Philippine Assembly.
MR. GRAGEDA: Yes, but were there any defects in the existence of the Philippine Assembly?
MR. CINCO: I said that we had two bodies already: the Philippine Commission and the Philippine Assembly.
MR. BALILI: Mr. President, I rise not to ask ques颅tions, but to make an observation. There is a very serious sickness ailing this Assembly. I invite your attention to the fact that right now we have no quorum. It has always been the case that these seats are occupied only at the very beginning of the session, and then they gradually become empty. This needs im颅mediate cure; and for that reason I regret to present a motion for adjournment, there being no quorum.
LEVANTAMIENTO DE LA SESI脫N
SR. ROMERO: Senor Presidente, pido que se levante la sesion hasta manana a las 10:00 de la manana.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: Si no hay objection, se levanta la sesion hasta manana a las 10:00 de la manana.
(No la hubo.)
Eran las 6:37 p.m.
EL PRESIDENTE: Se abre la sesi贸n. L茅ase la lista de Delegados.
MR. GRAFILO: I move that the roll call be dis颅pensed with.
DISPENSACI脫N DE LA LECTURA DE LA LISTA
EL PRESIDENTE: 驴Hay alguna objeci贸n? (Silencio.) La Mesa no oye ninguna. Se dispensa la lectura de la lista. Hay 辩耻贸谤耻尘. L茅ase el acta.
MR. GRAFILO: I also move that reading of the minutes be dispensed with.
EL PRESIDENTE: 驴Hay alguna objecion? (Silencio.) La Mesa no oye ninguna. Aprobada.
EL SECRETARIO:
Resolution of the Municipal Council of Lazi, Sub-province of Siquijor, requesting the adoption of a precept organizing all sub-provinces into regular provinces (P. No. 105.)
THE PRESIDENT. To the Committee on Sponsorship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Petition from Andr茅s Dumlao, Augusto Dumlao and Antero Natividad, all of Alcala, Pangasinan, regarding the inclusion in the Constitution of several constitutional precepts (P. No. 106.)
THE PRESIDENT. To the Committee on Sponsor-ship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Petition from A. C. Soriano, L. Rodriguez and J. Fronda, all of Alcala, Pangasinan, suggesting the reduc颅tion of the number of senatorial and representative dis颅tricts, the establishment of local circuit courts, and the election of the President and Vice-President (P. No. 107).
THE PRESIDENT: To the Committee on Sponsor颅ship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Petition from Francisco G. Millavas, of Bautista, Pangasinan, regarding facilities for applicants for homestead (P. No. 108).
THE PRESIDENT: To the Committee on Sponnsorship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Communication from Pablo M. Pimentel, of Camarines Norte, protesting against the proposed increase in the salary of the delegates (P. No. 109).
THE PRESIDENT: To the Committee on Sponsor颅ship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Petition from D. Macario M. Ysrael, of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, regarding the adoption of the system of re颅call, initiative and referendum (P. No. 110).
THE PRESIDENT: To the Archives.
EL SECRETARIO:
Communication from residents of the municipal dis颅trict of Libona, Bukidnon, protesting against the conver颅sion of Bukidnon into a regular province (P. No. 111).
THE. PRESIDENT: To the Committee on Sponsortship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Communication from residents of the municipal district of Baugon, Bukidnon, protesting against the conver颅sion of Bukidnon into a regular province (P. No. 112).
THE PRESIDENT: To the Committee on Sponsor颅ship.
EL SECRETARIO:
The resolution of Municipal Council of Bukidnon, protesting against the proposed measure to make Bukid颅non a regular province (P. No. 113).
THE PRESIDENT: To the Committee on Sponsorship.
EL SECRETARIO:
Comunicacion de Deogracias Y. Castro, de Batac, IIocos Norte, haciendo varias sugestiones referentes a la Constitution (P. No. 114).
EL PRESIDENTE: Al Comit茅 de Ponencias.
EL PRESIDENTE: Esta en orden la continuacion de la discusion del precepto constitucional sobre el sistema bicameral.
MR. BUSLON: Mr. President, I understand that the standing resolution of this Convention is to take a vote tonight, at seven o'clock, on the question under discus颅sion. I see that many are still scheduled to speak on either side. In this evening's session also I note that many are absent. I propose, therefore, that the discussion of this question be postponed for tomorrow and that final vote be taken at twelve o'clock tomorrow. I would change that to Monday evening at seven o'clock.
EL PRESIDENTE: 驴Qu茅 dice el Presidente del Comite de Reglamentos?
MR. BUENO: There is only one objection in that on Monday many who come from the provinces will be going back to attend the installation of the provincial and municipal officials. I would amend that motion to have the voting take place next Friday. I do not care if the debate stops, but voting must take place when everybody is here, say on Thursday. I submit the amendment that voting should take place on Thursday.
EL PRESIDENTE: 驴Hay objeci贸n por parte de la Asamblea?
VARIOS DELEGADOS: Hay objeci贸n.
EL PRESIDENTE: Los que esten conformes con la mocion tal como ha sido enmendada, digan, si. (Varios Delegados: Si.) Los que esten en contra, digan, No. (Varios Delegados: No.) Division. Los que esten conformes tengan la bondad de levantarse. (Se levantan 62 delega颅dos.) Los que esten en contra, sirvanse levantarse ahora. (Se levantan 40 delegados.) Por sesenta y dos votos afirmativos contra 40 negativos, se aprueba la mocion.
MR. ARUEGO: Mr. President, I yield ten minutes to the Delegate from Bulacan (Mr. Sandiko.)
EL PRESIDENTE: Tiene la palabra el Caballero de Bulacan.
SR. SANDIKO: Se帽or Presidente y Caballeros de la Convencion: Todos nosotros sabemos que hemos sido convocados aqui por autoridad del Congreso de los Estados Unidos para redactar una Constituci贸n para el pa铆s. Es muy natural que cuando tratamos de redactar preceptos sobre un ramo de nuestro Gobierno, como el ramo legisla颅tivo, por ejemplo, es muy natural que aqu铆 surjan diferencias de opini贸n y no podamos adoptar enseguida el precepto constitucional que queremos introducir sin tropezar con opiniones encontradas y variadas.
Me alegro de ver que haya una discusion sobre este particular. Esta cuestion ha sido muy debatida en Ameri颅ca y en todas partes. Unos abogan por el sistema unicameral y otros por el sistema bicameral. Me alegro, pues, de ver que aqui hay diferentes opiniones, que aqui hay bandos que opinan a favor del sistema bicameral y otros que opinan en pro del sistema unicameral.
Se帽ores, a pesar de que aqui se han impugnado los argumentos que se refieren a pa铆ses extra帽os, argumentos que se refieren a Europa, a los hechos, a los resultados de 茅ste sistema adoptado en Europa y en Am茅rica, en Asia y en Australia; a pesar de que algunos han querido Ilamar la atencion de esta Asamblea diciendo que no debemos aducir tales argumentos, soy de opini贸n que no podemos prescindir de estos argumentos, porque el sistema de gobierno, la ciencia del gobierno bueno es una ciencia practica, es el resultado de los hechos y observaciones. Tenemos que comparar los sistemas que tratamos de adoptar ahora, saber como han operado en otros paises, y que resultado han dado esos sistemas. Asi es que me parece a mi que no esta de mas que discutamos sobre lo que vemos en los paises donde se estila el sistema unicameral o el sistema bicameral. Segun los datos que he conseguido, hay 41 Estados donde se ha adoptado el sistema bicameral, y hay 22 Estados, casi nuevos, donde funciona el sistema unicameral. A juzgar por lo que se observa en various paises, sobre todo en los paises grandes de Ame颅rica, da Asia, de Australia, el sistema que ha permanecido alli es el sistema bicameral, y para mi ese sistema ha dado buenos resultados. Es verdad que hay 22 paises donde funciona nuevamente el sistema unicameral, pero podemos decir que estos paises estan en un periodo de experimento y no podemos decir aun si el resultado es bueno; asi es que, senores, creo que no podemos prescindir de estos hechos para establecer la tesis de que tal sistemaes bueno o de que tal sistema es malo. Tenemos que fundarnos en la experiencia. Ademas, tenemos que fundarnos en la razon. Senores, todos nosotros sabemos que el sistema de gobierno que hoy se estila en America, es el sistema basado en el check and balance. Ese mismo sistema es el que se ha establecido aqui. Hemos tenido ya experiencia creo que por 18 o 20 anos. Se ha creido que el Senado sirve a manera de check o freno, y si no sirve de freno, sirve para rechazar las leyes defectuosas que logan pasar en la Asamblea. Creo que no debemos menospreciar esta organizacion. Esta organizacion hasta ahora nos ha producido muy buenos resultados. No ha habido ningun fracaso, ningun desorden publico que haya llamado la atenciun del mundo para decir que este sistema es malo y que la practica de este sistema aqui no es conveniente.
Se帽or Presidente, adem谩s de estas razones, conviene que tengamos cierta limitacion conviene que tengamos un cuerpo moderador. Yo creo que el Senado desempena el papel de un cuerpo moderador; asi es que abogo por las dos Camaras, en vez de una. Entre las tareas del gobierno constituido la mas dificil es la tarea de hacer leyes, porque ellas son las que regulan los intereses y negocios de la comunidad. A ellas debemos ajustar nuestros actos para que haya paz, orden y prosperidad en nuestro pueblo. De acuerdo con ellas, el poder Ejecutivo y el Judicial tienen que arreglar sus actos para evitar toda clase de abusos. Para hacer una buena ley es preciso tomar todas las debidas precauciones porque es preciso que dicha ley sea la expresion genuina de la voluntad del pueblo y la combinacion mas apropiada para satisfacer las necesidades del mismo. La Camara Baja representa, digamoslo asi, el sentimiento popular, el sentir del pueblo. La Camara Alta representa el sentimiento del sa颅ber, el sentimiento practico de las cosas, que es lo que necesitamos para formar una ley. Tal como esta constituida la Camara Baja, no podemos dudar ni por un momento de que representa toda clase de opiniones, representa la voluntad popular. La Camara Alta, tal como esta constituida, naturalmente tiene que representar al elemento inteligente, al elemento conservador, porque la Camara Alta, como sabemos, esta fomada de miembros cuya eleccion depende no solamente de miles de personas residentes en un distrito, sino tambien en otros, y por eso se agrupan cuatro provincias para elegir a un senador. Ademas, la constitucion de la Camara Alta regularmente tiene que ser he hombres practicos, hombres experimentados en la tarea de los negocios publicos. La Camara Alta no se renueva cada tres anos; queda la mitad, y esta mitad que queda es para conservar los conocimientos que tiene dicha Camara sobre asuntos publicos. En America se renueva solamente una tercera parte. Asi es que para mi es muy necesaria la Camara Alta, porque sin ella no tendremos elementos practicos y experimentados en asuntos publicos. La Camara Baja se renueva cada tres anos. En otros paises, cada dos anos. Ademas de estas razones, yo creo que no estamos en un periodo de hacer experimentos. Nos estan observando ahora. Hemos adoptado ya el sistema bicameral y si vamos a meternos en el sistema unicameral, entiendo que no estamos preparados para hacer dicho experimento. Podria hacerse despues, en todo caso, cuando seamos completamente libres e independientes. Ahora nos estan observando como hemos de conducirnos para establecer un gobierno. Ademas, con el sistema unicameral estariamos expuestos al peligro de dejar que la vida y la propiedad del pais pudiesen estar en manos de un solo hombre. Esto se ha visto en la Historia. Cuando en Francia no habia mas que una Camara el que alli predominaba era el gran orador llamado Mirabear, asesorado por Robespierre y Danton, que era el que gobernaba a todo el pais. Aqui hemos tenido tambien un caso parecido a este. Es triste decirlo. Hemos tenido en el gobierno una Asamblea unica. Sin embargo, la vida de dicha Asamblea fue corta y muchos se quejaban de que el que mandaba alli era un solo hombre. No quisiera recordarlo, esto es triste, pero es un hecho. No quiero exponer a nuestro pueblo a ese peligro; yo quisiera asegurar para el todo lo que es bueno, y por esta razon abogo por el sistema bicameral. Si despues, cuando llegue la epoca en que debamos hacer estos experimentos, cuando veamos que el resultado de estas nuevas importaciones dan en Europa buen fruto, entonces no tendre inconveniente en aceptar el sistema unicameral, Pero ahora no es aun tiempo para hacer esos experimentos. He dicho. (Aplausos.)
SR. ROMERO: Senor Presidente, cedo diez minutos al Caballero de Cebu, Delegado Vicente Sotto.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: Tiene la palabra el Delegado por Cebu.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Se帽or Presidente y Caballeros de la Convenci贸n: No necesito consumir los diez minutos: probablemente, yo consuma solamente cinco, si los Delegados tienen la atenci贸n de escucharme. Voy a pronunciar un breve discurso porque, francamente, estoy desalentado. Cuando lei en "La Vanguardia" con grandes letras una informacion con este titulo: "Una Mayoria Se Inclina A Favor Del Sistema Bicameral," yo pense que seria inutil arguir bajo las presentes circunstancias, y seria predicar aqui en desierto; sobre todo; porque discutiendo ayer este asunto con el Delegado Se帽or Sandiko, acab贸 茅l por decirme: es imposible que usted me convenza, porque ya tengo una opini贸n formada.
SR. CONFESOR: Se帽or Presidente, para una pregunta al orador.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El orador puede contestar, si le place.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si se帽or,
SR. CONFESOR: Eso que ha le铆do lo dice "La Vanguardia" 驴qu茅 dice el peri贸dico "Uni贸n"?
SR. SOTTO (V.): "Uni贸n" no es peri贸dico diario; de modo que no sabemos a煤n qu茅 es lo que va a decir.
(Prosiguiendo.) Se帽or Presidente, no estoy conforme con la contestacion del Delegado se帽or Sandiko. Yo entiendo que debemos dividirnos en dos grupos cada vez que haya alguna cuestion en discusion: un grupo, que no ha estudiado asento el y que viene para escuchar y fallar. 驴Que diremos de un juez que, al comenzar la vista de una causa criminal, empieza por cacarear que el va a condenar al acusado? Exactamente, tres cuartos de lo mismo le pasa al Delegado senor Sandiko, quien antes de escuchar todos los razonamientos en pro y en contra, ya anticipa que es inutil discutir con el porque ya tiene una opinion formada. Sobre este punto traigo una cita de un famoso tratadista moderno sobre derecho politico, que es el Profesor Fernando Mellado, autor contemporaneo. Este tratadista dice: "A veces el criterio de la mayoria en cierto modo es absurdo. Se funda en el numero, y no siempre en la razon. Asimismo no todos los representantes del pais pueden tener conocimiento de la actitud de las diferentes partes que han de regular las leyes; pero si esto es, en absoluto, verdad, no tiene completa fuerza en un orden relativo, porque todo representante hay que suponer que tiene una determinada ilustracion y, por tanto, en el acto de la deliberacion, oira las razones alegadas en pro y en contra de la ley que se discute; formara una opinion concreta no por propio conocimiento, sino por el que adquiera oyendo a los demas, y en este caso su juicio puede ser exacto, justo y conveniente." Pero, como ningun esfuerzo se pierde, a mi se me ocurre arguir aqui de otro modo esta tarde. Como no tengo la influencia moral del Presidente Quezon, que puede hacer cambiar de opinion, ni tengo el magnetismo personal del Delega颅do Senor Romualdez, quien, despues de haber pronunciado un discurso aqui, estuvo a punto de lograr que fuese aprobada aquella Resolucion defendida por el, voy a recurrir a otros medios. Yo, Senores, traigo lo que decimos los abogados, autoridades. Voy a citar opiniones de peso de los que han estudiado a fondo este asunto. Voy a empezar, por ejemplo, por el Conde de Sieyes. un senador frances, miembro de la Asamblea Constituyente. Este dice: "La ley es la voluntad del pueblo, y un pueblo no puede tener dos voluntades diferentes a un mismo tiempo sobre un mismo objeto."
Voy a acotar a otro prominente tratadista que es el senor Babout Saint Etiene. Este es otro miembro de la Asamblea Constituyente de Francia. La importancia de este miembro se puede juzgar por el hecho de que el precepto constitucional que aparece en el documento conocido por Declaracion de los Derechos del Hombre, el precepto constitucional que concede la libertad de conciencia y de cultos, fue propuesto por el. Este caballero dice: La nacion es una; luego, si la nacion es una, su representacion debe ser tambien una."
Vamos a pasar a Condorcet. Los que han estado en Paris, saben quien es Condorcet para los franceses. Con decir que tiene un monumento en la plaza donde esta el Instituto de Francia, esta dicho todo. Condorcet tambien fue miembro de la Asamblea Constituyente, fue academico y fue el autor del manifiesto de la Asamblea Francesa, que convocaba a la Convencion Constituyente para quitar el poder ejecutivo de manos del Rey. Este ilustre politico dice: "Todo lo que no es simple es un charlatanismo en politica." Robespierre鈥斅縌uien no conoce a Roberspierre, famoso revolucionario frances, y tambien miembro de la Asamblea Constituyente? Ro颅bespierre dijo: "Un pueblo que tiene dos representaciones deja de ser un pueblo unico," Vamos a seguir a Marat. Este era pedagogo y filosofo. Fue el Presidente de la Asamblea Constituyente, Este dijo: "La soberania es una; la voluntad es una, la nacion, una. 驴Como se quiere que la delegacion de la soberania no sea unica?"
Ahora, volviendo al autor contemporaneo que acabo de citar, o sea el profesor Mellado, quien, dicho sea do paso, es bicameralista. Sin embargo, su libro trae este argumento muy fuerte a favor del unicameralismo. Hace una excepcion y esta es el caso en que no haya clases, y como en Filipinas no hay clases, no necesitamos dos Camaras. El profesor Mellado dice: "Realmente, si las dos Camaras han de ser identicas en su origen y en su desenvolvimiento, es claro que una de las dos esta de mas." Las dos Camaras deben ser diversas en su base y organizacion. Asi podriamos decir, por ejemplo, que la Camara Alta tiene diferente origen, si concedieramos el sufragio femenino e hicieramos que las mujeres votaran por el Senado, y los hombres por la Camara de Representantes. Entonces serian de distinto origen y de distinta representacion, pero no lo se颅rian si los mismos electores que votan por los diputados son los que han de votar por los senadores. En este caso no hay duda que proceden de un solo origen.
Hay otro punto importante al que deseo llamar la atencion de la Convencion, y es el de que insensiblemente estamos creando en Filipinas una casta aristocratica, la casta de los senadores, o mejor dicho, la aristocracia del dinero. Con dolor, tenemos que confesar que en Filipinas, actualmente, un pobre no puede pensar en, ser candidato a senador. Esto es contrario a los canones de la democracia. Resulta que ahora solo pueden ser senadores los que tienen dinero. Si eso es lo que se pretende al establecer el sistema bicameral, que los senadores representen a los ricos, y la Camara Baja a los pobres, entonces debemos empezar por reformar nuestro sistema electoral, haciendo lo que se hace en otros paises donde existe el Senado. El senado en otros paises es elegido por entidades no por el voto directo de los electores. Por eso tienen distinta fuente.
SR. SANDIKO: Se帽or Presidente, para algunas preguntas al orador.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El orador puede contes颅tar, si le place.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si, se帽or.
SR. SANDIKO: 驴Hay aqui alguna cualificacion de los senadores que confirme la asercion de Su Senoria de que el Senado tiende a crear una casta de ricos solamente? Quiero decir si aqui se requiere para ser senador la condicion de tener una propiedad, como ocurre, por ejemplo, en la Argentina y Checoslovaquia, en donde, para ser senador, se requiere que el candidato tenga propiedades.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Es cierto; no se requiere que tenga propiedades; pero se requiere dinero, y este mismo hecho el mismo Delegado interpelante, Senor Sandiko, me lo confirmo ayer cuando me dijo que el fue una excepcion, que triunfo, que gano la eleccion senatorial sin dinero; y entonces le pregunto ahora: 驴puede usted ser candidato sin dinero? Ahora, dice que no.
SR. INTING: Senor Presidente, para una pregunta al orador.
EL VICEFRESIDENTE: El orador puede contestar, si le place.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si, se帽or.
SR. INTING: Su Se帽oria nos da a entender que no quiere la existencia del Senado, porque representa a los hombres que tienen dinero, y 驴por que present贸 usted su candidatura en las pasadas elecciones?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Por eso hablo por experiencia propia, porque si no hubiese tenido dinero no hubiera sido candidato.
SR. CONFESOR: Se帽or Presidente, para algunas preguntas al orador.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El orador puede contestar las si le place.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Con mucho gusto.
SR. CONFESOR: El Delegado por Ceb煤 hizo muchas citas de autores franceses, y yo quisiera preguntarle que dijo Napoleon sobre esta cuestion.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Lo 煤nico que recuerdo de Na颅poleon es que despues de discutir un dia con sus ministros de la manera como el discutia de un modo rectilineo, sin retorica ni literatura, dijo: "Yo os he demostrado que dos y dos son cuatro, y ahora demuestren ustedes que dos y dos son cinco."
SR. CONFESOR: Me parece que Su Se帽oria tiene inclinacion a aceptar ideas francesas, asi es que yo quisiera averiguar de Su Se帽oria si ha leido la opinion de Napoleon sobre la cuestion de las C谩maras legislativas de Francia.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Ante todo, debo decir a Su Senoria que, si no estoy equivocado, en tiempos de la Convencion francesa, Napoleon no era el soberano de Francia; era Luis XV o XVI. Napoleon entonces no gobernaba a Francia, y sobre mi inclinacion a las francesas o las teorias francesas, debo decir a Su Senoria que Francia es al presente lo que Grecia era en la antiguedad. Francia es la cuna ahora de la civilizacion, es la cuna de las ideas mas brillantes.
SR. CONFESOR: 驴Cuantas Camaras legislativas tiene Francia?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Probablemente tenga dos. Yo no se, no estoy seguro. Pero si tiene dos, estoy seguro de que una de ellas, el Senado, no es elegida por los votos directos de los electores, sino por entidades de otra clase. No he averiguado si tiene dos, pero estoy seguro de que si tiene dos, cada una de las Camaras tiene diferentes fuentes de representacion.
SR. CONFESOR: 驴Que suerte tuvo Robespierre despues de emitir su opinion sobre las Camaras legislativas?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Fue guillotinado no por haber sostenidos esta teoria sino por otra causa.
MR. CLARIN: Mr. President, will the Gentleman yield?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may an颅swer.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si, se帽or.
MR. CLARIN: The Gentleman stated that the senators represent the rich. Shouldn't rich people, as a class, be duly represented in the legislature?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Entonces, antes de contestar a esa pregunta, voy a formular otra: Entonces, 驴admite Su Senoria que es necesario dividir el voto en clases?
MR. CLARIN: There should be representation for both the rich and the poor. If the Gentleman admits that the senators represent the rich, then it is proper for the Philippine Legislature to give the rich representa颅tion.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Probablemente no representen a los ricos, pero, por lo pronto, son solamente los ricos los que pueden ser senadores. Dicho se est谩 que los senadores siempre van a defender a los de su clase, a los ricos.
MR. CLARIN: It is proper that the ricb be repre颅sented in the Senate and the poor class in the House.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Creo que es as铆, porque la democracia no hace distinci贸n entre ricos y pobres. En la democracia, es la mayoria de votos la que debe dominar,
SR. ABELLA: Se帽or Presidente, para unas preguntas al orador.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El orador puede contestar, si lo desea.
SR. SOTTO: Si, se帽or.
SR. ABELLA: 驴Est谩 Su Se帽or铆a en contra del sistema actual de las dos Camaras en Filipinas, porque tienen la misma base de representacion tanto el Senado como la Camara de Representantes?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si, Se帽or.
SR. ABELLA: De manera que si el Senado tuviese una base de representacion distinta, estari谩 usted a favor de la creaci贸n del Senado?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Eso no es posible, porque no tenemos clases en Filipinas.
SR. ABELLA: Por ejemplo, en el anteproyecto sometido por el Comit茅 Legislativo se propuso, entre otras cosas, la representacion proporcional como base de representacion de nuestro Senado, 驴no cree Su Senoria que eso seria aceptable?
SR. SOTTO (V.): En mi opinion, precisamente ese plan es peor que la eleccion de senadores.
SR. ABELLA: Pero la base es distinta de la base de representacion de la Camara de Representantes.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Creo que no, porque son los mismos electores, se trata de los mismos electores.
SR. ABELLA: 驴De manera que estaria usted siempre en contra de eso?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si, se帽or.
MR. MARAMARA: Mr. President, will the Gentleman from Cebu yield?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may an颅swer.
MR. MARAMARA: The Gentleman from Cebu has the idea that the Senate is for the rich only and he is speaking from experience. Is that the reason for the Gentleman's defeat in the elections because he is poor?
SR. SOTTO (V.): No digo que fui derrotado porque soy pobre; el otro tenia mas que yo.
MR. MARAMARA: Can the Gentleman from Cebu assure me that in a umcameral system he will win be颅cause he has no money?
MR. SOTTO (V.): Who is that "he"?
MR. MARAMARA: The Gentleman from Cebu him颅self. By eliminating money so it will not be used in polities, can the Gentleman assure me that he will win in future elections?
MR. SOTTO (V.): My best answer is that I was elected Representative from the Second District of Cebu.
MR. MARAMARA: Without money?
MR. SOTTO (V.): With little money. (Prosiguiendo.) Voy a terminar, Senor Presidente, saliendo al encuentro de una afirmacion hecha aqui anoche por el Delegado Bueno, y que extracta un periodico de la manana, "The Tribune."
Yo quisiera decir que no depende de una o dos Camaras el soborno. El soborno es muy facil en cualquiera Legislatura del mundo, porque no se soborna a todos y a cada uno de los miembros. Se soborna solamente a los lideres, a los que pueden arrastrar; de modo que el argumento parte de un supuesto inexacto.
SR. CONFESOR: 驴Habla Su Se帽or铆a por experiencia, en el sentido de que a los lideres se soborna y no a las C谩maras?
SR. SOTTO (V.): En el sentido de que yo haya sido sobornado alguna vez, yo dir铆a que nunca.
SR. CONFESOR: 驴C贸mo ha Ilegado Su Se帽oria a hablar con autoridad sobre su asercion de que solamente a los l铆deres se les soborna?
SR. SOTTO (V.): Me gusta recordar al Caballero de Iloilo el sensacional articulo publicado por un tal Da颅vid Berry, ex macero del Senado de los Estados Unidos, que fue sumariamente destituido por publicar un art铆culo que trataba del asunto que estoy hablando.
SR. CONFESOR: 驴Quiere usted decir que tambien en Filipinas pasa eso?
SR. SOTTO (V.): No digo que pasa, pero que puede pasar; que no somos aqui angeles y serafines.
SR. GUEVARA: Para una aclaracion, Senor Presidente.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: Puede hacerlo Su Senoria si lo permite el orador.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Si, senor.
SR. GUEVARA: El sargento de armas que publico aquel articulo, fue destituido, porque no pudo probar lo que habia alegado. Escribio aquellos articulos con el fin de ganar dinero por medio de articulos sensacionalistas.
SR. SOTTO (V.): Es que debe tener en cuenta Su Senoria que hay verdades que no se pueden probar.
SR. GUEVARA: Quiero hacer justicia al Delegado por Cebu diciendole que no quiere dar a entender que aquellas acusaciones del sargento de armas eran ciertas.
SR. SOTTO (V.): No digo que eran ciertas o falsas, pero hay verdes que son difficiles de probar.
MR. ARUEGO: I yield 10 minutes to the Gentleman from Batangas, Mr. Lopez.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: Tiene la palabra el Delegado por Batangas.
MR. L脫PEZ (E.): Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: The last speaker in favor of the unicameral system has cited the opinions of various authorities, most of them French. But the French authorities should have no place in the deliberations of this Convention on whether we should adopt either the bicameral or the unica颅meral system in our Constitution. The Gentleman from Cebu should remember that the French Legislature was unicameral only during the First and Second Republics. French royalists, imperialists and republicans, through颅out the recent constitutional changes effected in France, have adhered to the bicameral system. The French people are not scared over the dilemma propounded by Sieyes and they insisted on and actually have the bicameral sys颅tem of legislature.
In the discussion of this question we should appeal to history for light and guidance. There are no more practical and prosperous nations today than England, France, Japan and America. They are the leaders among nations and all of them have the bicameral system of legislature. England has had experience in unicameralism in her long Parliament during the days of Cromwell. That experience was a most bitter one; hence bicameralism in England today has become a permanent part of English political institutions. England today cannot, even if she should want to, give up bicameralism, not even if she destroyed her House of Lords. The Jap颅anese today would consider the abolition of the House of Peers as a tragedy in the Empire of the Rising Sun.
What do we say, Gentlemen, of the American Senate? I doubt if there is any American today who is not proud of the American Senate. Sir Henry Maine has stated that the American Senate is the one thoroughly successful institution that has been established, and since its establishment the tide of modern democracy began to run high. Political scientists the world over are agreed on one conclusion: that the American Senate is not only the most interesting and the strongest, but also the most efficient second chamber in the world today.
The American Senate is at present the admiration and wonder of the world. The great Bryce called it the masterpiece of the constitution makers of America.
The development of the American Senate is not due to the fact that the Senate represents the states of the American Union. During the first thirty years of its existence, very few Americans of importance aspired to what was considered the empty honor of senatorial dig颅nity. The position of American senator during these first thirty years was considered inferior in influence to that of members of the senates of the different states. But in the last three decades preceding the American Civil War the presence in that body of prominent statesmen like Clay, Webster, Calboun, Sumner, placed that institution in the position that it now occupies: at the topmost part of the American representative system. That body con颅tains the ripest and the best products of American poli颅tics, and it has the best claims to intellectual leadership in the United States in the political manner. The Ameri颅can Senate, because of its influence, dignity, and power, has silenced the admirers of the cart-and-horse theory of Benjamin Franklin. It has silenced those who allowed themselves to be dragged down by the principle of "Su Senoria." It has silenced the disciples of Goldsmith who made the hypothesis that it passes beyond human inge颅nuity to construct an effective second chamber of a legis颅lative body.
Gentlemen of the Convention, I am positive that the success of the American Senate should silence those among us who believe that in the Philippine Islands the existence of the second chamber is a mere theory and a superfluity in our political system. It should be remembered that the United States introduced the bica颅meral system of legislature in the Philippine Islands because of her absolute faith in the capacity of the Filipino people to develop and perfect that system. To abandon it as a failure after an experience of eighteen years, Gentlemen, is on our part a confession of defeat and incapacity unworthy of a free people.
MR. MU脩OZ: Will the Gentleman yield, Mr. President?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may an颅swer.
MR. LOPEZ (E.): Gladly.
MR. MU脩OZ: From his speech I deduce that the Gentleman has been praising the American system of government due to the existence of the Senate and that because of its excellence, the United States has not changed the system. How would the Gentleman reconcile the fact that the states organized after the World War did not follow the system of the United States and, in fact, they even adopted the unicameral system?
MR. L脫PEZ (E.): I will answer the Gentleman by say颅ing that the states formed after the World War did not adopt the American system. They could have adopted it if they wanted to.
MR. MUN脫Z: Does it mean that such states did not really see the importance, the excellence of the American Senate?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): I cannot speak for those states.
MR. MU脩OZ: Does the Gentleman mean that these states were not duly prepared politically to follow the American system?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): No, sir, I do not want to say that. But I want to tell this: In the formulation of our Constitution we should not be mere philosophers and doctri颅naires. We should follow a policy of conservatism.
MR. MU脩OZ: Does the Gentleman mean that we are not necessarily bound to follow the American system?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): Not necessarily so; but since the American system is already here, I believe that if we cannot point any defect in that system, then it would be better that we perfect that system. I do not mean that the Philippine Senate or the American Senate is a perfect body of men. Just like all bodies of men, they have the imperfections that human institutions have, but I should emphasize this assertion: that the policy we should follow is not to adopt a new and doubtful ex颅periment, but rather to perfect and develop the institution that we now have. The Philippine bicameral Legislature has its defects. Let us purge that Legislature of its defects.
MR. SEVILLA: Will the Gentleman yield, Mr. President?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may an颅swer.
MR. LOPEZ (E.): Willingly.
MR. SEVILLA: Does the Gentleman admit that the American Senate is imperfect?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): There is no perfect human institution.
MR. SEVILLA: The Gentleman also admits that the House of Representatives of the American Congress is imperfect ?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): Surely, as all human institutions are.
MR. SEVILLA: Would he rather have two im颅perfections or only one?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): Not exactly. I do not admit the conclusion.
MR. SEVILLA: Then what does the Gentleman mean by saying that he wants to have a bicameral legislature in which two houses are both imperfect?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): I am not trying to convince the Members of this Convention that the American system of bicameral legislature is perfect, since all human institutions are imperfect. The system can stand improvements and I believe that if we are a capable people, we can improve it.
MR. SEVILLA: Does the Gentleman mean that it would be better to have just one perfect house rather than two houses that are both imperfect?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): No, sir.
MR. CONFESOR: Mr. President, will the Gentleman yield?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may answer.
MR. LOPEZ (E.): With pleasure.
MR. CONFESOR: Suppose the Gentleman has two houses and both need repairs. What would he do鈥攂urn them?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): If they need repairs, let them be repaired.
MR. CONFESOR: Are you going to set them on fire?
MR. LOPEZ (E.): No, sir, that is different. I said that the Philippine bicameral legislature is not a perfect sys颅tem; but all institutions grow, so let us make them grow. They develop defects, so let us stop them. Let us purge our system of its developed defects. It will be worth all our troubles. It is a beautiful thing, this bicameral system of legislature: two chambers working together, solving the people's problems鈥攐ne house representing and personifying all the national qualities of our people, protecting and championing the people's cause and respon颅sive to their needs; and the other house containing the perfect and purest product of our political field personify颅ing the calm dignity of the nation, controlling, moderat颅ing and guiding the passions, the zest and enthusiasm of the lower chamber and the surging masses in moments of intense national emotions.
MR. ROMERO: Mr. President, I yield five minutes to the Gentleman from Tarlac.
SR. GALANG: Se帽or Presidente y Caballeros de la Convenci贸n: No tengo mas que cinco minutos escasos y voy a ser muy breve.
Yo abogo por la teor铆a de la unidad de representacion para abolir la existencia de un ramo politico en el gobierno filipino, que es el Senado. Digo que el Senado es un ramo aristocratico, porque dentro de sus salas sopla el viento de la superioridad sobre la Camara de Representantes, ya por el sueldo de los senadores, ya por sus privilegios, ya por la duracion del cargo o ya por el sentido mismo del nombre C谩mara Alta.
Se帽or Presidente, estamos para pasar al Gobierno de nuestra Mancomunidad. Dentro de poco ya veremos con los ojos brillantes de alegr铆a la luz naciente de nues颅tra ansiada libertad, sinibolo de uua verdadera democracia en el Extremo Oriente, y por tanto no debemos perder esa nueva era de nuestra historia con la insercion en la Constitucion del sistema bicameral, una autoridad peligrosa, porque lleva consigo un car谩cter esencialmente aristocratico. Se ha dicho aqui que el sistema bicameral ha sido adoptado con 茅xito por unas 22 naciones. 驴Que nos importa que el sistema haya sido adoptado por una nacion extranjera? Aqu铆 estamos como elegidos por el pueblo que ha impuesto sobre nuestros hombros la obligacion, no de copiar sino de hacer que nuestra Constitu颅cion sea una fotograf铆a instant谩nea de la voluntad del pueblo filipino. Tambi茅n la parte contraria pregunta, 驴acaso vamos a sacrificar un principio solamente por razon de economia? Se帽or Presidente, nosotros los unicameralistas no sacrificamos el principio bicameral sola颅mente por razon de economia sino que lo hacemos para dar lugar a otro principio mejor y democratico que es el principio unicameral. Tambien dicen que ya estamos acostumbrados con el sistema bicameral. Pero puedo decir con seguridad, Senor Presidente, que aunque estamos ya acostumbrados, no es una costumbre que expresa el ideal del pueblo, porque el pueblo filipino esta dispuesto a desligarse de todo lo que tenga color aristocratico. Se颅nor Presidente, aplicando por analogia, una famosa cancion que desperto un interes singular en los Caballeros de esta Convencion, supongamos que en un proyecto, en uno de sus puntos, la C谩mara de Representantes dice que si y el Senado dice que no, 驴cual de los dos expresa la voluntad del pueblo? Como bien dijo aqui, acotando a un comentarista, el Caballero de Cebu, Senor Sotto, la ley es la voluntad del pueblo. Un pueblo no puede tener al mismo tiempo dos voluntades diferentes sobre el mismo punto: luego, el cuerpo legislativo que representa al pue颅blo debe ser esencialmente uno.
Por 煤ltimo, hago constar mi voto a favor del sistema unicameral. porque creo sobre esta materia en aquel decir en ingles: "One is enough, two is too much."
MR. ARUEGO: Mr. President, I yield ten minutes to the Gentleman from Leyte, Mr. Cinco.
SPEECH BY DELEGATE CINCO
MR. CINCO: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: I rise in defense of the resolution under consideration not only to voice my personal opinion on the fundamental question, but also to transmit to you the will of the people of the Fifth District of the Province of Leyte that was unequivocally expressed at the polls three months ago. I would be recreant to my duty as Delegate of 150,000 people and unabiding with my own conscience as a humble member of the thir颅teen and one-half million inhabitants who comprise the Filipino nation if I let pass unanswered the only three outstanding arguments adduced by the opponents of the resolution.
Mr. President, my time is short, so in order not to abuse the indulgence of the Chair and the generosity of my fellow Delegates, I shall not repeat here arguments already offered or the reasons made by those who pre颅ceded me on this floor to defend the proposition that this Convention adopt in the Constitution we are formulating a bicameral system of legislature, such as we have now, although the composition of both or either chamber and the manner of electing the members thereof may be modified. I generally can subscribe to all the arguments presented and reasons made by my Colleagues in the affirmative side.
When I presented my resolution on the fifth instant advocating the adoption of a two-chamber legislature in the Constitution, I did so strongly convinced of the advisability and necessity of continuing our present sys颅tem of two legislative bodies鈥攁 House of Representatives and a Senate鈥攐ne to serve as a check and balance on the other, thereby avoiding the passage of rush and ill-considered legislation. The Senate is to act also as mod颅erating body for being usually composed of men more mature in mind and experience, as compared to the generally youthful members of the House who, moreover, are frequently changed. After closely listening to the able arguments presented by several speakers for and against the proposition, especially those adduced by its opponents, I am more convinced than ever that we must decide to continue with our present two legislative bodies.
Mr. President, if we want to be practical, as we should, and not be mere theorists; if we desire to profit from our own experiences and practices and from those of the biggest and strongest powers of the world today, such as the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Japan, and from those of smaller nations, as well as all the states of the American union where the bicameral system of legislation prevails, I believe our rea颅soning power need not be stretched before we conclude that our Philippine Senate must be retained. To think of the contrary is to court disaster in a peaceful and or颅derly Government we are now proud to posses.
In plain words, I ask those who want to establish here a unicameral system of legislature: What harm has the Philippine Senate caused the Government or the people? Has there been any instance wherein a bill orig颅inating in the House of Representatives could have been any better if the same were not passed upon by the Senate? I believe none can be cited. On the other hand, it is unquestionable that the laws so far promulgated by our bicameral legislature were improved in one chamber or the other. The opponents of the present system main颅tain, first, that the Senate is a superfluity; second, that eco颅nomy dictates that the same be abolished; and third, that when we assume a new form of government, it will be timely to experiment with the unicameral system of legislature.
Mr. President, with due respect to those who take the opposite view, I maintain that our Senate is not a superfluity. It is amusing to note that the unicameralists confine their criticism not on the system of double cham颅bers, but upon the practice of party caucuses to which legislation is sometimes first submitted and decided before being brought to the consideration of the legislative cham颅bers, and also on the manner the conference committees of the two chambers operate. Certainly they do not oppose the system but the practice observed by our present re颅sponsible leaders in the legislature, with party disci颅pline and the alleged evil practices of the conference committees. The unicameralists impliedly admit the wis颅dom and soundness as a principle of the bicameral system for it affords a check and balance within the legislature if the leaders so choose.
Why then do the proponents of unicameralism ask for abolition or substitution of a wise and sound system, instead of pleading for the removal of the men respon颅sible for the frustration, so they claim, of the ideals of the system? Are they running the affairs of the House of Representatives, on one hand, and the Philip颅pine Senate, on the other hand, or the party in power as a whole?
As regards the alleged evils of the conference committees, the unicameralists should procure the insertion in our Constitution of a procedural provision prohibiting the submission of any pending legislation to the conference committees. I do not, however, mean to be understood as favoring such a provision, for I believe in the expediency of such committees.
An assertion was made here that the conference committees do not really check but they "choque" each other; meaning; confabulating, as the Gentleman from Samar said last night. Mr. President, such assertion means that the members of the respective conference committees must necessarily fight physically, so that the Gentleman may see that they are really checking and not "chequeando", or conniving with one another to the detriment of the Interest of the Government. When the conference com颅mittees have reached an agreement on a certain pending legislation, it does not mean that the wishes of one chamber have prevailed over those of the other. They may either agree to accede totally to the desire of one chamber or compromise or agree to disagree entirely. By such procedure the check and balance principle is maintained just the same in all its forms.
The proponents of the abolition of the Philippine Senate have never asserted that in the conference com颅mittees the views of the House of Representatives have invariably prevailed. On the contrary, the will of the Senate in almost all cases prevail on these committees over that of the House.
With respect to party caucuses, there is nothing fundamentally wrong and irregular in the practice. I suppose that as a party government, whether there will be one only or two chambers in our legislature, there will always be party caucuses for obvious reasons. Sup颅posing we have only one chamber and the practice of party caucuses continues. Will the unicameralists again demand the abolition of the legislative branch altogether, especially where the chief executive of the Government exercises that influence, and so in effect directs in the making of the laws? It is plain then that it is not the system of two chambers that need be changed to one chamber system, but certain practices in the system which are objectionable to the upholders of unicameralism. If such practice really nullifies the utility of the Senate in maintaining the theory of check and balance in the legislature, then the logical thing for the proponents is to foster public opinion against the alleged evil practices, such as the party caucuses and the procedure of the conference committees, so our leaders may take action.
I believe that the opponents of party caucuses know that our political leaders were the ones responsible for these practices. The same are not so now; thus, I can颅not understand why the Gentleman from Tayabas, Mr. Salumbides, a devout unicameralist, has always been supporting Senate President Quezon and Floor Leader Recto of the Senate and our distinguished Chairman of this august Body. I am at a loss to hear that my fellow Delegate Buslon from Bohol is becoming a bicameralist; yet he worked hard for the election of President Pro-tempore Clarin of the Senate. I do not know why my colleague, Mr. Bocar from Samar, has always aided Senator Avelino. All these men, and leaders in the Se颅nate, in collaboration with the Speaker and ranking Mem颅bers of the House, are responsible for the present state of affairs鈥攖he party caucuses in our legislature, which are objectionable to the proponents of unicameralism.
At these leaders, the unicameralists should direct their attacks and not at the whole Philippine Senate; so I am afraid that my friends are barking up the wrong tree. When we observed the Sponsorship Com颅mittee was failing in its work, we did not abolish that Committee; instead, a drafting sub-committee of seven Members was ordered. For every ailment there is a cure. The opponents of the resolution maintain that if the function of the Senate is just to check the work of the House, then it should be abolished as it hinders the work of the latter. On the other hand, if it really does not check, but only concurs in the bills passed by the House, the more reason that the Senate must be abolished for being useless and a burden to the State.
At this juncture, I am reminded of an interesting conversation between a doctor and a lawyer. The doctor said to the lawyer: "Lawyers are useless and a burden to the State because if I happen to kill somebody and I am to blame, then even if I be defended by a law颅yer, the judge, as repository and administrator of all that is just and lawful, will put me to prison. If I am not to blame, and whether I have a lawyer or not, the just judge will acquit me. So what is the use of lawyers?" The lawyer, in his characteristic alertness, retorted: "No. sir, doctors are useless and they consti颅tute a burden to the State, because they cannot prevent a person's death. Every person is predestined to die at a certain time, for even if he gets sick and his time has not yet come, he will live with or without an attending doctor; on the other hand, if his end must come by the will of God, no doctor can prolong the patient's life. So where is the use of doctors?"
Moreover, Mr. President, the Senate does not only serve as moderator and maintainer of the check and balance in the legislative, but also, as a function ap颅propriate for a Senate, confirm appointments made by the Chief Executive as the Constitution and the laws provide. I have no doubt also that our Consti颅tution will provide for the impeachment of civil officials to be preferred by the legislature. But if there is only one chamber, the result will be that this chamber will act as accuser and judge at the same time, an un颅questionably anomalous situation to happen. The ex颅istence of an upper chamber is, therefore, a necessity.
The second argument presented by the opponents of the resolution hinges on economy. Mr. President, the unicameralists cannot claim to be the only preachers of economy in the expenditures of public funds. We, who believe in the advisability and necessity of two legislative bodies also believe in wise economy. The taxpayers are entitled to good government; so long as public funds are expended to maintain a government that protects the governed alike and which assures the people of good laws for their well-being then the ex颅penditure is a sound economic investment. A necessary branch of a good government must not be sacrificed for the pursuit of ill-advised economic theories.
Of course, it is admitted that our present govern颅ment in all its departments鈥擫egislative, Executive and Judicial鈥攊s top heavy. Something must be done to cut down expenses to the minimum compatible with a required efficiency in our government. But to abolish the Philippine Senate for the sake of economy will be unwise, dangerous economy. It is repugnant to reason that just because a person can see as well with his eye as with two eyes, he should have one of his eye balls removed so that he might use only one eyeglass instead of a pair of eyeglasses, for the sake of economy. To do so would be not only necessarily expensive as he will pay for the surgical and medical treatment, but will also probably mean loss of one-fourth of his personal assets.
Now, Mr. President, I should like to refute the argument adduced by an opponent of the resolution that, as we assume a new government it will be most opportune to experiment with a unicameral system of legislature. I really differ with this point of view of a certain speaker of the negative side. It is my honest opinion that our new government, or any other new government, cannot afford to experiment with a system here, especially if that has failed elsewhere or its result is still doubtful. The bicameral system of legislature not only has proven to be of great advantage in our own country for the last twenty-seven years since the inauguration of the Philippine Assembly, but it is one that also has been tried by and is still adhered to by the most powerful nations in the world today.
In conclusion, Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, I want to reiterate that the composition of either or both of the legislative chambers and the manner of electing the members thereof may be modi颅fied. I believe, however, that for all the experience we have had in our bicameral legislature and the con颅tinued adherence to bicameralism by almost all of the biggest and strongest countries in the world today, the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines and the independent government to follow should maintain the two-chamber legislature such as we have today.
I thank you.
MR. BUSLON: Mr. President, for a privileged question. I heard the Gentleman refer to my name, but I did not hear the rest of his sentence. I would like him to repeat that part, because I want to know what he said about me.
MR. CINCO: Mr. President, I stated: While my fellow Delegate Buslon is a unicameralist and is, there颅fore, as I believe, not in favor of the practice of party caucuses, yet I am surprised why he is always supporting the President Protempore of the Senate, Mr. Clarin. He is one of the leaders responsible for party caucuses.
SR. BUSLON: Senor Presidente, Caballeros de la Convencion; Permitidme que haga una manifestacion. No es cierto, en primer lugar, que yo siempre haya apoyado al Senador Clarin. Quiero decir que durante las elecciones, desde el ano 1921 hasta 1928, que fue cuando por primera vez tuve intervencion activa en la politica, estaba en contra de la candidatura del Senor Clarin. Si he apoyado la candidatura del Senor Clarin en las elecciones pasadas, fue porque el abogaba los mismos principios por los que yo abogaba, que eran los de los antis.
MR. GRAGEDA: Mr. President, will the Gentleman yield?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may yield, if he so desires.
MR. CINCO: Willingly.
MR. GRAGEDA: Is it not true that we had the unicameral system during the time of the Philippine Assembly?
MR. CINCO: Prior to the Philippine Assembly, what we had was a sort of unicameral system; but during the Philippine Assembly, we did not have the unicameral system. We had two legislative chambers.
MR. GRAGEDA: Be it during the Philippine Commission or the Philippine Assembly, had there been many defects in the unicameral system which were cured by the present system?
MR. CINCO: In the first place, we did not have exactly the unicameral system prior to the Philippine Assembly. We had the Philippine Commission but we cannot consider it exactly as a unicameral body. What I stated is that we should profit from our experience in the last twenty-seven years since the inauguration of the Philippine Assembly.
MR. GRAGEDA: Yes, but were there any defects in the existence of the Philippine Assembly?
MR. CINCO: I said that we had two bodies already: the Philippine Commission and the Philippine Assembly.
MR. BALILI: Mr. President, I rise not to ask ques颅tions, but to make an observation. There is a very serious sickness ailing this Assembly. I invite your attention to the fact that right now we have no quorum. It has always been the case that these seats are occupied only at the very beginning of the session, and then they gradually become empty. This needs im颅mediate cure; and for that reason I regret to present a motion for adjournment, there being no quorum.
SR. ROMERO: Senor Presidente, pido que se levante la sesion hasta manana a las 10:00 de la manana.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: Si no hay objection, se levanta la sesion hasta manana a las 10:00 de la manana.
(No la hubo.)
Eran las 6:37 p.m.