2009 may 12 · 2011. 7. 14. · ang puwersa ng usaffe at ng mga pilipino. ang corregidor ang...

Vol. 3 Tuesday, March 22, 2011 No. 65a

Congressional RecordPLENARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE 15th CONGRESS, FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:00 p.m., the session was resumed with DeputySpeaker Lorenzo R. Tañada III presiding.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The session isresumed.

The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, may we have a few minutessuspension of the session.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The session issuspended.

It was 4:00 p.m.


At 4:10 p.m., the session was resumed.



REP. BANAL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the

presence of the members of the Philippine Veterans Legionor PVL headed by Atty. Salvador Princesa as the NationalCommander, with Commander Ricardo Madayag, CommanderPablo Valdez and Commander Teodorico Calica, the guestsof Congresswoman Herminia B. Roman.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please rise.(Applause) Welcome to the House of Representatives.

REP. BANAL. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, we would like toacknowledge the presence of the members of the VeteransFederation of the Philippines headed by Col. Emmanuel V.De Ocampo as President, with Col. Francisco San Miguel,Congresswoman Beth Santos, Congressman Ed Pilapil,Justice Manuel Pamaran, Orestes Lopez, Agapito Perez,Melosino Respecio, Atty. Jose Maronilla and Ret. Col. CesarP. Pobre, all guests of Congresswoman Herminia B. Roman.


What is the pleasure of the Lady from Bataan?

REP. ROMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a questionof personal and collective privilege.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). What is thenature of the personal and collective privilege?

REP. ROMAN. To bring to the Body’s attention theplight of our veterans, especially the World War II veterans.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Lady has10 minutes.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. ROMAN

REP. ROMAN. First of all, I would like to thank our Dep.Majority Leader for allowing me to speak and to deliver thisprivilege speech to commemorate the Araw ng Kagitinganon April 9, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen:Good afternoon!On April 9, 2011, we will be celebrating the 69th

anniversary of the Araw ng Kagitingan. Although April 9 iscommonly associated with the Fall of Bataan, this day alsocommemorates the Fall of Corregidor and the Victory ofBesang Pass.

Ang Araw ng Kagitingan ay handog natin sa alaala ngating mga beteranong lumaban at nagbuwis ng kanilangbuhay upang tayo ay makinabang sa natatamasangkapayapaan ngayon. Sa nagdaang mga taon, ang kasaysayanng Pilipinas ay puno ng mga kuwento ng kabayanihan atkatapangan, subali’t wala nang hihigit pa sa nangyari saBataan at Corregidor noong panahon ng IkalawangDigmaang Pandaigdig. Dito sa dalawang lugar na ito, naroonang puwersa ng USAFFE at ng mga Pilipino. Ang Corregidorang ikalawang islang pinaka-napinsala sa pagbomba ng mgaHapon, kasunod ng Malta. Ang pinsalang nadulot dito aysiyang nagsisilbing paalala sa atin sa kabayanihan ng mgabeteranong Pilipino at ng mga sundalong Amerikano.

Ang Bataan ay laging maaalala na simula ng DeathMarch. Nang sumuko ang puwersa na pinangungunahan niMaj. Gen. Edward P. King, mahigit na 75,000 mga Pilipino atAmerikanong sundalo ang pinilit na maglakad ng 112kilometro mula sa Mariveles, Bataan hanggang sa CampO’Donnell sa Capas, Tarlac. Di lamang sa kasaysayan ngPilipinas pinapahalagahan ang Death March, kundi pati rinsa kasaysayan ng Estados Unidos. Tinuturing ito na isa sapinakamalagim na karanasan ng Ikalawang Digmaang

2 TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011

Pandaigdig. Sa 11,796 na mga sundalong Amerikano, 600hanggang 650 ang hindi nakarating sa Camp O’Donnell. Sa67,000 mga sundalong Pilipino naman, 5,000 hanggang 10,000ang nasawi bago makarating sa Camp O’Donnell. Ang mgasundalong nabanggit ay namatay dahil sa sakit, gutom, init,pagod at pagkauhaw, sa hindi nagagamot na mga sugat at sakamatayan sa kamay ng mga mananakop. Napakahirap isipinang malagim na paghihirap na dinanas ng mga sundalo napuno ng pag-aalinlangan sa kinabukasan habang sila aynaglalakad sa loob ng matagal na panahon patungong CampO’Donnell.

Ang Laban sa Besang Pass noong ika-14 ng Hunyo,1945 ay naganap sa Ilocos Sur na pinangunahan ng mgaFilipino Northern Luzon Guerillas. Ang Besang Pass anghuling malakas na lugar na pinanghahawakan ng mgaHapones sa ilalim ni Gen. Tomoyuki Tamashita na kilala bilang“Tiger of Malaya” na siyang sumakop sa Singapore atMalaya. Ang Besang Pass ay bahagi ng “triangular defense”ni General Yamashita sa Norte, kasama ng Balete Pass atVillaverde Trail, upang bantayan ang paligid ng Ifugao,Benguet at Nueva Vizcaya. Ang labanan sa Besang Passang naging daan sa pagkatalo, pagkahuli at pagdakip kayGeneral Yamashita noong Setyembre 2, 1945.

As the Representative of the First District of Bataanand as the Chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairsand Welfare, gusto kong ipaabot sa inyo at ipadama angkalunus-lunos na sitwasyon ng pamumuhay ng ating mgaWW II veterans. This tribute would afford us not only theopportunity to rekindle our memories of the courageous andheroic deeds of the Filipino veterans during the past war,but also to highlight the plight of the remaining veteranswho are still alive and with us today.

Today we are honored to be joined by some of theseheroes. Allow me to tell you their stories. These veterans,who were then young men in their teens and twenties,responded to the clarion call to defend our country whenWorld War II reached our soils.

Pvt. Teodorico Calica was only 16 years old when hewas inducted in 1943 under D Company, 1st Battalion of the121st Infantry. Now 84, he vividly remembers the time whenhis group, a team of five young men, received orders todemolish the communication lines between Bauan, La Unionand Baguio City. At that time, the Japanese troops underGen. Yamashita were retreating towards Baguio and theCordilleras. In the midst of darkness, Pvt. Calica climbed thetelephone post to cut the wires. After cutting the wires, aJapanese soldier resting along the roadside noticed him. Thesoldier stood up, shouted and started shooting towardsCalica. With several shots flying in his direction, Pvt. Calicajumped off the post and fell on a thick branch of a bushbefore hitting the ground. He crawled as fast as he couldaway from the Japanese soldier. It was already dawn whenhe rejoined his team, proudly holding a couple of meters ofthe telephone wires.

Pvt. Ricardo Madayag was only 22 years old when hejoined C Company, 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment. Heremembers the battle in Kiangan, Mountain Province whenholding on to his gun, he crouched behind the stone wall.During the shootout, he thought he felt the sting of an insect.Not minding the pain, he continued exchanging fire with theenemy atop a tree, finishing 50 rounds of the Thompsonsemi- automatic. But after 30 minutes of fighting and when

the pain was too much to bear, only then did he realize thathe was wounded on his left knee. Pvt. Madayag wasawarded the Purple Heart and the Philippine LiberationAward.

Diosdado Galvez Albeto, now 87, was 19 years old in1943. He was a member of the reconnaissance guerillas.Surviving hunger, he experienced rolling in knee-deep water.His wet clothes literally dried on his back. Nang mapaligiransila ng kaaway, hindi niya naisip ang kaniyang pamilya,bagkus inisip niya na makatulong sa pagpapalaya sa atingbayan. For him, serving is an honor.

Sgt. Mariano Laron Eslao was assigned to the 2ndEngineering Construction Battalion. Sgt. Eslao was only 21when he was assigned in Mauban, Quezon. He distinctlyrecalled that as a prisoner of war (POW), he was beaten witha bayonet by the Japanese soldiers. To quench his hungerand thirst, he was forced sometimes to drink his own urine tosurvive. When I saw him last year in one of our committeemeetings, Sgt. Eslao was almost totally blind and could hardlyhear. A few months back, he suffered a stroke and had sincebecome bedridden. But his wife relayed to us that everytimeSgt. Eslao hears of an upcoming committee meeting inCongress, he somehow musters enough strength and energyto attend the meetings to articulate the urgent needs,frustrations and aspirations of the veterans. He thrived onthe meager pension he got from the Philippine government,and a certain percentage of his disability pension from theUS government to cover his daily needs and medical healthcare expenses. The situation of Sgt. Eslao mirrors the livesof our veterans today. Today, Sgt. Eslao is not with usanymore. A true soldier that he was, he never quit butcontinued to fight to the end to witness and enjoy the sweetvictory of heroism for his fellow veterans. As I speak, it isnot far-fetched that some of our World War II heroes lie ontheir deathbeds. Marami na ang natulad kay Sgt. Eslao.

Staff Sgt. Avelino Reyes was also in his teens when thewar broke out. The 16-year-old sergeant belongs to “I”Company, 2nd Battalion of the 31st Infantry Regiment. Sgt.Reyes recalled the first time he held a rifle, he felt powerfuland proud to be part of the regiment. But when it was time touse the rifle, his hands trembled and his fingers were clammy.Survival instincts got the better of him. He was surprisedwith the jolt he felt after the first shot. As the days of fightingcontinued, he got used to his rifle which became his constantcompanion. At the end of the war, Sgt. Reyes was awardedthe Philippine Liberation Award.

Staff Sgt. Avelino Reyes is with us today. He resideswith his relatives in Sta. Rosa, Laguna as his house wasgutted by fire in 2006. Now 84, he goes to the Taguig VeteransCenter once a week for his check-up. He spends an averageof P400 a day for living expenses, including medicines.

Staff Sgt. Luis Macapagal Avendano was only 24 whenhe joined the “M” Company, 3rd Battalion, Hunters-ROTCGuerilla. He stays with his relatives in Sta. Rosa, Laguna ashe does not have his own house. Now, at 92, he has to endurethe hour-long travel to the Veterans Clinic in Taguig for hisweekly check-up. He is suffering from asthma, cough andarthritis. He spends, on the average, P500 per day for hisfood and medicines, and has accumulated debts which mayremain unpaid beyond his lifetime.

Sgt. Juan Garing Beloncio II, now 90 years old, servedfor four years, four months and 12 days under the 61st Infantry

TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011 3

Regiment. He is a recipient of the Philippine Liberation Medal.He cannot walk anymore. Since his monthly old-age pensionof P5,000 is not enough for his daily sustenance, he onlybuys half of the prescription.

Mr. Speaker, these stories are just part of the 28,638stories of living World War II veterans in the Philippineswho are confronted with similar concerns in the twilightyears of their lives. This is the face and the circumstance ofour World War II veterans. Mr. Speaker, a World War IIveteran expects nothing else from our government but whatis rightfully his. By virtue of Republic Act No. 6948, he isentitled to the old-age monthly pension of P5,000, whichroughly amounts to almost P167 a day. How can one surviveon this amount, more so, the veterans who are already intheir eighties and nineties, whose essential and medicalexpenses average P400 a day? One wonders on hisdetermination to live and to survive despite his financialpredicament.

My dear colleagues, it is sad to note, however, thattoday, the Philippine government has not fulfilled itsobligations and has a debt to these veterans. As of March2011, a total of 1,169 World War II veterans have not beenpaid their old-age monthly pension. In 1994, Republic ActNo. 7696 was passed which provided for the totaladministrative disability or the TAD pension, grantingadditional P1,700 to veterans upon reaching 70 years andabove. Sadly, it was only in 2010 that a portion of the TADpension was paid to the veterans amounting to P140,000 perveteran. According to the PVAO, the summary of unpaidpension obligations under this pension amounted toP20,625,540,700. Since the government has acknowledgedthe TAD pension obligations and has, in fact, made partialpayments, the government should endeavor to pay theremaining balance to the veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened and frustrated whenI read in the newspapers the very disturbing scandal thatwas splashed in the trimedia about the “pabaon” system ofthe AFP generals. Nalulungkot ako na ang milyun-milyongsalapi na nalustay ay maaari sanang ipamahagi upangmakabili ng pang-araw-araw na gamot ng mga beteranongkatulad nina Sgts. Reyes, Avendano and Belonio; ng mgabeterano na umalis upang lumaban na walang pabaon atbumalik na walang pasalubong. Mr. Speaker, if slush fundscould be created for the military brass, and if such funds areeasily disbursed for personal purposes, is it not high timethat the favor be shifted to our veterans, our foot soldiers,who stood as our country’s first line of defense against ourenemies? How can we encourage our youth to serve ourcountry if they see how we treat our veterans?

Mr. Speaker, we need to provide the funding and actwith urgency on the loss which deals with our veterans,especially our World War II veterans, who are dying as Ispeak today. As the saying goes, “Aanhin pa ang damokung patay na ang kabayo.” Dito sa Kongreso, marami patayong magagawa para sa ating mga beterano. Pinaka-unadito ay ang pagbibigay ng pondo upang mabayaran angmga utang sa kanilang mga benepisyo. I thank all mycolleagues who have worked so hard to secure the benefitsfor our WWII veterans and who are still working on theenhancement of these benefits. We still need your support.

Mr. Speaker, this Representation has filed a billincreasing the burial assistance of our veterans from P10,000

to P20,000. This bill passed on Third Reading in Congressand is now in the Senate. Umaasa ako na maisasabatas ito salalong madaling panahon upang magkaroon sila ngassurance that they will have a decent burial when they goback to their Creator. Our request for the much-neededsupport and appropriation is consistent with ourconstitutional mandate in Section 7, Article XVI, whichprovides:

The State shall provide immediate and adequatecare, benefits, and other forms of assistance to warveterans and veterans of military campaigns, theirsurviving spouses and orphans. Funds shall beprovided therefor and due consideration shall begiven them in the disposition of agricultural lands ofthe pubic domain and, in appropriate cases, in theutilization of natural resources.

Clearly, the State has a mandate and its obligation isdirect and immediate. Out of the same provision, the Statepassed Republic Act No. 6948, AN ACT STANDARDIZINGAND UPGRADING THE BENEFITS FOR MILITARYVETERANS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS. Section 1 thereofprovides:

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Stateto help foster the socio-economic security and generalwell-being of the country’s veterans in recognition oftheir patriotic services in times of war and peace for thecause of freedom and democracy; for the attainment ofnational unity, independence, and socio-economicadvancement; and for the maintenance of peace andorder, in keeping with the goals of the government andthe aspirations of the people.

We strongly feel that the cited constitutional mandateand statutory declaration are being undermined and theirefficacy eroded, citing the fact that long-standing claims forsupport and assistance have been conveniently ignored andset aside.

Di naman tayo inaasahan na magsakripisyo gaya ngkanilang pagsakripisyo sa Death March ngunit bilang mgaKinatawan ay dapat na patuloy nating ipaglaban angkanilang mga karapatan. Ibigay kung ano ang nararapat, dilamang sa suportang pananalapi kundi higit sa lahat aymabigyan ng tunay, makabuluhan at may dignidad napagpapahalaga ang mga bayani ng ating bayan. We are the“cradle of noble heroes”— “duyan ng magiting,” sabi ngasa ating Pambansang Awit. We must endeavor to give thesebenefits despite the obstacles and meager resources at hand.Many of our unsung war heroes who perished in the DeathMarch and who lie beneath the fields of Bataan, Tarlac, Leyteand Pangasinan resisted to the bitter end, gave their all, andperished into the dark of the night. For the few left who arestill with us today, stuck in the quagmire of poverty anddeprivation, existing on the benevolence of relatives,neighbors and friends, it is not yet too late for us to take careof them.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, letus give honor to our veterans. Let us remember the sweat,blood and tears they sacrificed that we might live today toenjoy the boon of liberty and freedom.


Maraming salamat po.Mabuhay ang mga beterano! Mabuhay ang ating bayan!

(Applause)

REP. MERCADO-REVILLA. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). What is thepleasure of the Lady from Cavite.

REP. MERCADO-REVILLA. I would like to ask if theLady from Bataan would yield to a few questions?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). If she sodesires.

REP. ROMAN. Yes, but I promised our Majority Leaderto give me time just to deliver my privilege speech, that Iwould not yield to any interpellation because I do not wantto take more time from our usual business. If you have anyquestion, Representative Mercado-Revilla, Mr. Speaker,maybe you can send it to my office.

REP. MERCADO-REVILLA. Yes, I would just like to makea manifestation, Mr. Speaker.

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

REP. MERCADO-REVILLA. I would like to congratulatethe Lady from Bataan for giving her insights and her heart toour veterans. I am a member of the Sons & DaughtersAssociation, Inc. of our Veterans Federation of thePhilippines . My father is a World War II veteran who passedaway in 1998. My mother is a recipient of my father’s pension.I would like to reiterate that the benefits should be given toour veterans who have fought for our country during WorldWar II. I would like also to extend my support to whateveramendments that we should do for R.A. No. 6948 and for thefull implementation of R.A. No. 7696 on the TAD pensionobligation. There are a lot of members of the Sons &Daughters Association of our Veterans Federation who wouldlike to benefit from this TAD pension obligation and alsofrom the existing pension. I would like to hear and see theday when our veterans would be given an increase in theirpensions habang sila po ay nabubuhay pa sa mundong ito.

Marami pong salamat, Mr. Speaker. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Gentlemanfrom Pangasinan is recognized. What is his pleasure?

REP. BATAOIL. Mr. Speaker, may I also make a shortmanifestation in relation to the privilege speech deliveredearlier.


REP. BATAOIL. Mr. Speaker, may I also join the honorableCongresswoman of Cavite in congratulating the honorableCongresswoman of Bataan for bringing into our midst oneof the concerns very close to my heart. Having been a memberof an institution which is a pillar in the preservation ofdemocracy, peace and order in our country, I would also liketo support the manifestation, the suggestions, of the

Congresswoman of Bataan. I myself am a nephew of a veteran,and I was named after my late uncle, the late Third Lt. LeopoldoM. Bataoil, who died in Orani, Bataan. Mr. Speaker, his bodywas never recovered up to this date. From the time he wasdeclared a casualty in Bataan up to this date, I exerted effortsto recover his body when the Provincial Commander in theLady’s province, then Police Sr. Supt. Abner Cabalquinto, wasthe Provincial Director. But our efforts were in vain. To date,my concern for the veterans still burns in my heart, that thebenefits and remunerations due them should be given withoutdelay, including the improvement of the Veterans MemorialMedical Center, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I congratulate the honorable Congresswomanof Bataan.

Thank you very much. (Applause)

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

REP. BANAL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.May we refer the speech of the honorable

Congresswoman Roman to the Committee on Rules.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Is there anyobjection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved.


REP. BANAL. Yes. I would like to take this opportunityto acknowledge the presence of a few more guests. Wehave here the guest of Congressman Sonny P. Collantesfrom the Third District of Batangas: the Mayor of Cuenca,Batangas, Hon. Edmund Remo.


REP. BANAL. Then, may we acknowledge the presenceof the visitors of Hon. Roilo S. Golez from the Second Districtof Parañaque City: Mr. David Ordoñez, Mr. Roger Cardinal,and 31 other friends from St. Martin De Porres ParishCommission on the Family.

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

(Applause) Welcome to the House of Representatives.

REP. BANAL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.May we likewise acknowledge the presence of students

from San Beda College Graduate School of Business whoare on a study tour.


REP. BANAL. Lastly, may we acknowledge the presenceof Political Science students under the subject Politics andGovernance of the Diliman Technology Institute headed byProf. Ma. Floran Tan, guests of Hon. Al Francis C. Bichara.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Please rise.(Applause)Welcome to the House of Representatives.



REP. BANAL. Mr. Speaker, may we now recognizeCongressman Aurelio “Dong” D. Gonzales Jr. who wishes torise on a question of personal and collective privilege.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). What is thepleasure of the Gentleman from Pampanga?

REP. GONZALES (A.). Mr. Speaker, I stand on a questionof personal and collective privilege.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). What is thenature of the personal and collective privilege?

REP. GONZALES (A.). The nature of my speech, Mr.Speaker, is regarding the engineering interventions forearthquake damage mitigation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Gentlemanhas 10 minutes.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. GONZALES (A.)

REP. GONZALES (A.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.My dear colleagues:I rise on a matter of personal and collective privilege

and with a clear sense of understanding of the importanceof why I am submitting this matter to this august Bodyat this very moment, maybe a crucial one if you will, mydear colleagues. We are all aware of the context, a sadand foreboding one, even if that may be interpreted asbeing alarming. If that may be the case, Mr. Speaker, sobe it. Let it not be said that I did not rise when the timecalled for it.

First, it was Haiti, then Chile, and then followed by NewZealand, and most recently, Japan. Only God knows whatand who is next. Today, in fact, the Philippines may be thenext. In fact, in the heat of the debates on the impeachmentlast night, we did not even feel the Session Hall shake whenQuezon City was hit by an intensity 3.0 earthquake. But wehave an idea of what to do and what could possibly happenif we did not do what we should have done, like beingprepared, being pro-active now before a strong earthquakeof killer magnitude hits us.

Japan’s experience is a lesson on the rear-view mirror.There is no substitute to being prepared. If even thebest prepared country like Japan can still sustainenormous damage and loss, imagine, Mr. Speaker, whatnot being prepared can bring. As we know, my dearcolleagues the Philippines, like Japan, is in the so-calledPacific Ring of Fire, the home of fault-lines andearthquakes. As we know as well, about a kilometer fromwhere we sit or stand is the well-known and highly-dreaded West Valley Fault.

As I stand before you, many questions race through mymind like any citizen concerned about his safety and that ofour family. I wonder whether this building, which we callhome, can withstand a powerful earthquake. How safe isthis very building where we are right now if an earthquake ofstrong magnitude shakes us? As an engineer, my dearcolleagues, Mr. Speaker, I ask myself what factor of safetywas used in designing this building which opened in 1978 ormore than 30 years ago. When was the last structural audit

conducted to check its structural integrity, Mr. Speaker? I donot wish to sound like a doomsayer but we should allremember that at one time every year, all the leaders of thecountry gather in this august hall to hear the President’sState of the Nation Address. As experts now agree thatthere is a strong possibility of a magnitude 7.2 earthquakestriking Metro Manila, but exactly where and when that couldhappen, only God knows. The other question I ask myselfis, what if this dreaded earthquake strikes during the SONA?Will the building hold, protecting our country’s leaders, orwill the Filipino people suddenly find themselves orphans?During their most desperate times, Mr. Speaker, while cynicsmay say “good riddance,” I think many of us would beconcerned about the line of succession.

A natural calamity like an earthquake can be like someof us, Congresspersons, late or early. But unlike all of us,the coming of an earthquake can be a real danger to our livesand safety. Having said that, I have some proposals forconsideration, Mr. Speaker.

The first and the most crucial one which, to some extent,is already being undertaken: there should be a mandatorystructural audit of all public buildings and essentialinfrastructures, especially and as priority, those built before1992. We can start right here with our own BatasangPambansa.

Mr. Speaker, as a licensed civil engineer, I stand oncompetent ground when I say that a structural audit of ourpublic buildings and other infrastructures is timely andnecessary. I set the year 1992 as the baseline year becausethat year was suggested by civil and structural engineers asthe reference point when more stringent design andconstruction codes took effect and where ductility of thestructure is considered in the design. Last week, I had abrainstorming session with officers of the Association ofStructural Engineers of the Philippines, the ASEP, who allagreed that a structural audit will tell us which buildings needto be retrofitted because of possible structural weaknesses.I met them again this morning, Mr. Speaker, together with theofficers of the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, the PICE,and they expressed their willingness to lend their expertiseso that this can be undertaken. This is important as wecontinue to strengthen our disaster preparedness plans. It iscrucial that we include in the equation, critical/essentialstructures such as hospitals, schools and bridges which needto remain standing because they serve as the first and thelast lines of defense during calamities. The retrofitting willdefinitely require funds and could be expensive, but this willfar outweigh the cost of not doing anything and just waitingfor a disaster to strike. Besides, the cost of retrofitting willcost less in most cases. Moreover, it will minimize loss oflives. For this purpose, my dear colleagues, governmentagencies must include in their budget submissions toCongress, the cost needed for the structural audit and therequired retrofitting when necessary.

Next, we also need to look at the civil engineeringcurriculum being used in our schools and see if it is updatedand current. We have to be sure that our curriculum beingused by civil/structural engineering students conforms withor at least approximates the one being used in Japan andother countries so that present and future building designswill be done with the end in view of being able to withstandstronger earthquakes. Of particular import is to determine


whether subjects such as earthquake engineering and bridgeengineering are to be considered core subjects or electives.The curriculum review is important because the conceptslearned by the students and their correct applications arecrucial in designing stronger structures in the future. I havealready filed the necessary resolution for this purpose andhope that the appropriate committee can call for a hearing ofconcerned government agencies even during our recess.

Third, we need to check if our infrastructures haveenough factor of safety to overcome a higher magnitudeearthquake. This needs to be done so we can determinewhether the factor of safety in infrastructure designs needsto be upgraded, and whether existing structures need to bereinforced to ensure that our buildings will become morestructurally sound. We need to know whether structuralanalysis and design analysis requirements are present andare being implemented. We need to know the worst casescenario should an earthquake with a magnitude greater thanmagnitude 7.0 hit us. Should we upgrade our structuraldesign so that better and safer columns, beams andfoundation sizes, enough number of rebars, deeperfoundations and more properly-spaced columns become thestandard rather than the exception?

We may also need to have a separate design code forlow-cost housing units. Many houses built in resettlementcommunities are not compliant with the Building Code. It isso wrong to say that because they are built cheaply, wecannot expect strength and durability, Mr. Speaker. That iswhy I include, as a proposal, the same structural audit forlow-cost housing units which we know are now builtaccording to the Building Code but under different levels ofstandards and technical requirements as mandated by BatasPambansa Blg. 220. Low-cost housing units are one of themost vulnerable structures that we need to mitigate, if notprevent, the potential damage to relocation communities inthe aftermath of a strong earthquake. After all, it is the poorwho suffers the most, especially in times of calamities. Hence,there may be a need to have a separate code for these typesof houses, Mr. Speaker.

My dear colleagues, I submit that these proposals/solutions are all engineering interventions and, as I havesaid, are meant to strengthen and complement existingdisaster preparedness plans. And because I believe and knowthat we have the technology and capability to do these, Isee no reason we should not. By way of a reasonablereminder, Mr. Speaker, better safe than sorry.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon to all of you.(Applause)


REP. BANAL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.I move to refer the speech of the Honorable Gonzales

(A.) to the Committee on Rules.


REP. BANAL. May we acknowledge the presence ofthe guests of Hon. Reena Concepcion G. Obillo of 1 Ang

Pamilya Party-List, Princess Kiram of Kristiano’t Islam RepormangAagapay sa Mamamayan; Cedric Alvarez of Alyansa ngResponsableng Paggawa ng Pilipinas; and Edgar Guardian.


REP. BANAL. May we also acknowledge the presenceof the guests of Ako Bicol Party-List Representatives fromSorsogon State College: Mrs. Marisusan Gaudilla, Mrs. HelenLara, Mrs. Salisa Estur, Fatima Jane Estur and Gabriel Solano.


SUSPENSION OF SESSION

REP. BANAL. I move for a few minutes suspension ofthe session, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The session issuspended.

It was 4:53 p.m.


At 4:55 p.m., the session was resumed.



REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up theUnfinished Business.


CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 4146Continuation

PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE

REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume theconsideration of House Bill No. 4146 and ask that theSecretary General be directed to read only the title of saidmeasure.


The Secretary General is directed to read only the titleof House Bill No. 4146.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 4146,entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THESYNCHRONIZATION OF THE ELECTIONS AND THETERM OF OFFICE OF THE ELECTIVE OFFICIALS OF THEAUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO(ARMM) WITH THOSE OF THE NATIONAL AND OTHER


LOCAL OFFICIALS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSEREPUBLIC ACT NO. 9333, ENTITLED “AN ACT FIXINGTHE DATE FOR REGULAR ELECTIONS FOR ELECTIVEOFFICIALS OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIMMINDANAO, “ AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.


REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary statusof the bill is that it is in the period of sponsorship and debate.

I move that we recognize the Sponsor, the Hon. ElpidioF. Barzaga Jr., and the Hon. Rodolfo B. Albano for hisinterpellation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Sponsorof the bill, Congressman Pidi Barzaga, is recognized andlikewise, the Dep. Minority Leader, Congressman RudyAlbano.

REP. ALBANO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Many would wonder why I stood up when I am not from

Mindanao. But the questions that I am supposed to askfrom the Sponsor have been aptly asked by CongressmanBalindong very extensively and so, I will refrain frominterpellating the distinguished Sponsor except for the factthat I cannot understand this bill.

The committee report was submitted ahead of theconsultation done by the Congressmen in the affected region.Then, I cannot understand why there was a certificationwhen there is no emergency or calamity in the region. So, Ihope that the next bill that we will take up will be arranged insuch a way that the committee report will not be ahead of theconsultation, and that there should be an existing calamityor emergency before the certification.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). Theobservations of the Gentleman from Isabela are noted.

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). CongressmanBarzaga is recognized.

REP. BARZAGA. May I respond, Mr. Speaker, regardingthese two issues poised by our distinguished colleague fromIsabela.


REP. BARZAGA. Firstly, Mr. Speaker, insofar as theprocedure is concerned, the records will show that there hasbeen a committee report coming from the Committee onSuffrage and Electoral Reforms and a committee reportcoming from the Committee on Muslim Affairs, providingthat a majority of all the Members of both Committees haveapproved House Bill No. 4146. However, after the submissionof these two committee reports to the Rules Committee, ourcolleagues coming from Mindanao have requested for apublic consultation and it is on this basis, upon the requestof our colleagues, that the President granted their request

for this public consultation. Insofar as certification regardingthis bill, I think I have to answer this thoroughly becausedeliberations in this House would be considered by theSenate, and possibly by the Supreme Court, in the eventthat the constitutionality and validity of House Bill No. 4146,if enacted into law, will be questioned before the highesttribunal.

Personally, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Constitution isvery explicit in granting the President the right to make acertification regarding bills which the President considers ofnational emergency. There have been jurisprudence to thiseffect. First, I would quote the decision of the SupremeCourt in the case of Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance. Inthat particular case, the issue that was brought before theSupreme Court was the constitutionality of Republic ActNo. 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded Value-AddedTax Law. In that particular case, like House Bill No. 4146, thesame was certified by the President of the Philippines asurgent under his power in Section 26, paragraph (2), ArticleVI of the Constitution. The ground for its certification as anational emergency is the growing budget deficit.

According to the petitioners, the growing budgetdeficit is not a national emergency since it is happeningnot only in the Republic of the Philippines but in all localgovernment units. The Supreme Court rejected the petitionof the petitioners. Moreover, in that particular case, thepetitioners also argued that when there is a certificationcoming from the President, it only means that in suchcertification of a bill by the President, the requirement ofthree readings on separate days and of printing anddistribution can be dispensed with, which is supported bythe weight of legislative practice. The Supreme Court wascategorical in saying in that particular case, that as long asthere is a certification, there is no need for three-day readingas mandated in the Constitution and provided for in theRules.

Finally, and this is very important, and I quote:

The sufficiency of factual basis of thesuspension of the writ of habeas corpus ordeclaration of martial law under Article VIII, or theexistence of national emergency justifying thedelegation of extraordinary powers to the Presidentunder Article VI, is subject to judicial review. Basicrights of individuals may be at hazard, but thefactual basis of presidential certification of bills,which involves doing away with proceduralrequirements designed to ensure the bills are dulyconsidered by Members of Congress, certainlyshould elicit a different standard of review.

Finally, in the newspapers, there has always been anallegation that there is no national emergency which wouldwarrant the President to certify as urgent House Bill No.4146. Apparently, many are forgetting the problems pertainingto Mindanao. Certainly, the peace and order situation wouldbe a national emergency which would warrant the Presidentto exercise his functions or authority under the Constitution.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.



REP. BANAL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.May we now recognize the Hon. Antonio L. Tinio of

ACT Teachers Party-List.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). TheRepresentative from the Party-List ACT Teachers isrecognized for his interpellation of the Sponsor.

REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Will the honorable Sponsor yield to a few questions?

REP. BARZAGA. Willingly, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.The previous interpellator, the Honorable Albano

touched on the issue of the certification of House Bill No.4146, and the honorable Sponsor has elucidated relevantjurisprudence regarding the power of the President to declareor to certify a bill as urgent. Is it not correct, Mr. Speaker, thatHouse Bill No. 4146 is one of the priority bills of the Aquinoadministration?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it,this is one of the 23 priority measures coming from the Officeof the President.

REP. TINIO. Of the 23 priority measures, this is so farthe only one that has been certified as urgent. Is that notcorrect, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. I fully agree, Mr. Speaker, insofar asthe question is concerned.

REP. TINIO. As the Sponsor mentioned earlier, the effectof certification is to fast-track the way through the processesin our House, meaning to say, once a bill is certified as urgentby the President, it is no longer required to go through therequired number of readings. Is that not correct, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. That is the provision under theConstitution. That is the jurisprudence on the matter. Thatstatement coming from my colleague is absolutely correct.

REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.The relevant constitutional provision—in other words,

the certification of a bill as urgent is not a trivial matter becauseit will precisely entail the short-circuiting of the whole processof lawmaking, which is precisely designed to enable fullknowledge and participation of the public in matters whichare of public concern. Article VI, Section 26 of theConstitution states:

….when the President certifies to the necessityof its immediate enactment to meet a public calamityor emergency.

In other words, a constitutional requirement ofcertification of a bill as urgent by the President would be ifthere is a public calamity or public emergency. Is that notcorrect, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. That is absolutely correct, as provided

for under Section 26, paragraph (2), Article VI of thePhilippine Constitution.

REP. TINIO. Now, Mr. Speaker, may I know if thePresident who, like each one of us here, has sworn to upholdthe Constitution, has complied with this particularrequirement in certifying House Bill No. 4146 as urgent?

REP. BARZAGA. It is my humble submission, Mr.Speaker and my dear colleagues, that the President hasabsolutely complied with the mandate of Section 26,paragraph 2, Article VI of the Constitution providing that acertification of the President can be made in the event thatthere is a necessity for the immediate enactment of a law forthe purpose of meeting a public calamity or emergency.

REP. TINIO. May I know then specifically the publiccalamity or public emergency that is to be addressed throughthis bill that has been certified as urgent?

REP. BARZAGA. The best evidence, Mr. Speaker, mydear colleagues, would be the last paragraph of the letteraddressed by the President to the Speaker, dated March 14,2011, providing as follows, and I quote:

…to address the urgent need to protect andstrengthen ARMM’s autonomy by synchronizingits elections with the regular elections of nationaland other local officials, to ensure that the on-goingpeace talks in the region will not be hindered, andto provide a mechanism to institutionalize electoralreforms in the interim, all for the development, peaceand security of the region.

REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor.Let me just try to comprehend the reasons given by the

President as read by the honorable Sponsor. So it has to dowith the peace talks. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes, as provided for in this lastparagraph of the certification made by the President.

REP. TINIO. The other reasons are electoral reforms andreforms in general in the ARMM?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes.

REP. TINIO. If I will paraphrase it very loosely, is thatcorrect, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. To paraphrase? Pardon?

REP. TINIO. If I were to paraphrase it very loosely, isthat correct, Mr. Speaker?

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, it is not loosely. Whenyou make a certification, you just say that it is for a nationalemergency or a national calamity. As a matter of fact, in thatcase of Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance which happensalso to be a certified bill, the ground made by the Presidentfor his certification was a growing deficit to justify a nationalemergency. According to the petitioners in that case, that


phrase “growing deficit” is not a national emergency becausethat is practically deficit in all local government units. Thisargument made by the petitioners was not sustained by theSupreme Court in holding that the phrase “growing deficit”as a ground for certification under the Constitution wouldnot amount to a national emergency.

REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor.For the record, I hope that our colleagues, during the

voting on this bill, will take this into consideration. Acertification of a bill by the President as urgent is, as I said,not a matter that is to be taken lightly since it will involve theoverriding of the normal constitutional processes in theHouse. Therefore, we should be watchful and mindful thatthis will not be abused.

Now, let me move on, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BARZAGA. May I just respond.

REP. TINIO. Please do, distinguished Sponsor.

REP. BARZAGA. Personally, on the basis of the committeehearings which I conducted, as well as the public consultationswhich we underwent in Mindanao, coupled with the newsappearing in the media, I think, indeed, there is nationalemergency insofar as ARMM is concerned. Just yesterday,we read in the newspapers and heard over the radios that theAbu Sayyaf again kidnapped businessmen. Two weeks ago,we heard the news that there was bombing in Sulu. For aperiod of 21 years, there is no stability in the peace and ordersituation insofar as Mindanao and ARMM provinces areconcerned, and because there is no stability in these ARMMregions, at present, there are peace negotiations taking placebetween the government and the MILF. If there is no nationalemergency, all these things would not be happening.

Finally, let me remind, Mr. Speaker, that my dearcolleague, Congressman Tinio, was present in our publichearing in Cotabato City. We arrived at Davao City in theearly morning, and we traveled for a period of five-and-a-half hours from Davao City up to Cotabato. We wereaccompanied in the airplane by a colonel coming from theDepartment of National Defense, and when I asked him thereason he was with us, he said, “I have to coordinate all yoursecurity in your travel during the five-and-a-half hours.”From Davao City up to Cotabato City, we were escorted bypolicemen and military officers. However, when we reachedMaguindanao, our police escorts disappeared for noapparent reason. There were men in fatigue uniforms alongthe road, and our companion, Col. Dela Torre, had to call theheadquarters to find out whether or not these persons inmilitary uniforms are members of the Armed Forces of thePhilippines. Along the way in Maguindanao, I personallysaw persons carrying firearms, who were not in militaryuniforms but in their malongs. When we were alreadyconducting the hearing—and we started the hearing at twelveo’clock—at two o’clock in the afternoon, we were advisedby the military to stop the hearing because it would be toodangerous to travel at night. If the Members of this Congress,accompanied by military soldiers, cannot go to a place, thenI do not think that there will be no national emergency. It isquite fortunate that Congressman Tinio was present and hewitnessed all that I am saying right now.

REP. REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker; thank you,Mr. Sponsor.

If I may just remark, I think that the very proposal fromthe executive to postpone the elections in the ARMM iscontributing greatly to the actual instability in the region atthe moment. But let me move on to another point.

Regarding the rationale, why is the Aquinoadministration and why are the administration’s allies inCongress pushing for House Bill No. 4146?

Some weeks ago, Presidential Spokesperson EdwinLacierda, in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, was quoted assaying that House Bill No. 4146 is necessary because “in hisview, ARMM”—the A-R-M-M— is “a failed experiment” anda “failed sub-state.” May I ask, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor: dothe Sponsors of this bill share this view of the presidentialspokesperson which, if it is safe to assume, is also the viewof the President?

REP. BARZAGA. I would subscribe to the view on thebasis, Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, of the results of thecommittee hearing as well as the public consultations whichI have witnessed.

REP. TINIO. In other words, it is clearly the view of theAquino administration that the ARMM is a failure andtherefore, this measure, House Bill No. 4146, is necessary.

Now, again, in the Inquirer last week, March 15, a certainRonald Llamas was extensively quoted on this issue andRonald Llamas is the Political Affairs Secretary of the Cabinet,a member of the Cabinet. He is also a prominent member ofthe Akbayan Party. Secretary Llamas cited several reasonsor justifications for the postponement of elections andthe appointment of OICs in the ARMM, and if the Speakerand the Sponsor will bear with me, I will just quote someof his reasons. He said:

...postponing the ARMM elections would help thenational government reshape regional politics andremove the lingering influence of the Ampatuanclan...

...the Aquino government’s plan to push electoralreforms, including cleaning up the Commission onElections’ registration records, which they called an“Ampatuan ‘voters’ list.”

Furthermore, Llamas said: “The postponement will allowthem to conduct a forensic audit,” meaning an inquiry intothe regional government spending that would cover a longperiod of prior fund disbursements. So, these are some ofthe reasons—cleaning of the voters’ records and otherreforms, as well as the conduct of a forensic audit on the useof funds of the ARMM. Finally, may I add, the Sponsorhimself in the previous session when he first defended thisbill, was quoted as saying that reforms in the ARMM canonly start with the approval of House Bill No. 4146.

Now, my question is, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Sponsor, isthis really true? Can these reforms, electoral andadministrative governance reforms, really take place onlyafter the postponement of elections?

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague, we


have to look at the actual situation which transpired insofaras the ARMM is concerned. The ARMM came into legalexistence 21 years ago. Notwithstanding the billions of pesoswhich the government has allocated and has given to theARMM officials, there has been no development insofar asthe ARMM is concerned. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker,my dear colleague was present when we heard in practicallyall the venues of public consultations that the four provincesin the ARMM remain to be the poorest provinces in theentire Philippines. Therefore, after assessing everything,most are in agreement that the ARMM happens to be a failureand for which logically and reasonably, there must bechanges in order that reforms could be made.

REP. TINIO. Wala pong duda na kailangan ng mgapagbabago sa ARMM pero ang sinasabi ninyo po ba, G.Sponsor at Mr. Speaker, ay sa kasalukuyan, inutil angPresidente? Wala ba siyang magagawa ngayon paramapatupad ang mga reporma sa ARMM, paglilinis ng voters’list, at mga iba pang reporma sa eleksyon sa ARMM katuladng pag-audit ng pondo ng ARMM? Hindi ba niya magagawaang mga ito ngayon? Ang sinasabi ninyo po ba ay inutilsiya at nakatali ang kanyang mga kamay ngayon kayakailangan pang ipasa ang House Bill No. 4146? Iyan po baang sinasabi ninyo, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor?

REP. BARZAGA. Definitely, the President is not inutile.As a matter of fact, I think that it would be unparliamentaryto state or to describe the highest elective official in thePhilippines to be that. In any event, let me state that insofaras cleansing the voters’ list is concerned, what is thesituation? The COMELEC cannot do this, and that is whywe are advocating biometrics para mawala na ang mga flyingvoters sa ARMM. Genuine reforms can start only onceHouse Bill No. 4146 has already been approved and becomesa law.

REP. TINIO. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, hayaan ninyopong basahin ko ang Article V, Section 1 ng Organic Act,Republic Act No. 6734, as amended by Republic Act No.9054, under Inter-governmental Relations, at tinatalakay porito kung ano ang kapangyarihan ng Presidente in relationto the ARMM. Ang sinasabi po rito:

In addition to other acts which he or she mayimpose under the Constitution and this OrganicAct, the President may suspend, reduce, or cancelthe financial blocks or grants in aid, funds forinfrastructure, and other forms of assistanceintended for the autonomous region: (1) if theregional government fails to account for the fundsand financial assistance released to it by the centralgovernment or national government, within onemonth from the end of every quarter in which thefunds and financial assistance has been released;or (2) when measures for the protection andenhancement of the civil, human, political orreligious rights of the lumads, Christians and otherminorities in the autonomous region ordained bythe Constitution and this Organic Act, are notrespected or are violated or are not implementedwithin one (1) year from its enactment.

Tama po ba na nakasaad ito sa Organic Act ng ARMM?

REP. BARZAGA. It is expressly stated in Article V,Section 1 of the Organic Act.

REP. TINIO. Yes. Is it not also correct that the Presidentmay also suspend the regional governor for a period notexceeding six months for willful violation of the Constitution,this Organic Act or any existing law that applies to theAutonomous Region? Tama po ba iyon, Mr. Speaker, Mr.Sponsor?

REP. BARZAGA. The law is very explicit, as theGentleman has stated. That is provided for under this specificprovision which he have just quoted.

REP. TINIO. At ang mga batas na ito ay may bisa nangayon, hindi po ba?

REP. BARZAGA. Definitely, because this was enacteda long, long time ago.

REP. TINIO. Sa madaling sabi po, hindi pa ba sapat angkapangyarihan ng Presidente alinsunod sa mga batas na itopara ireporma at isaayos na ang ARMM?

REP. BARZAGA. Considering that the ARMM has beenin existence for 21 years and considering further that thisprovision has been in the law for a very long period of time,I must admit that this provision on this power of the Presidentwould not be sufficient to make the necessary reforms whichPresident Aquino envisions for the ARMM.

REP. TINIO. Sa palagay ko po, ang problema ay hindiang batas kundi iyong political will. Malinaw na sapat naang kapangyarihan—kayang i-withhold ng Presidente angpondo ng ARMM, kaya niyang magsuspinde ng regionalgovernor. Nasa kanya ang mga kapangyarihang ito. Malinawna walang hadlang sa Pangulo para maipatupad ang mgareporma ngayon. Kaya huwag tayong maniwala, mga kasama,na kailangan pang kanselahin ang eleksyon para maipatupadang reporma ngayon. Iyon po ang isang punto, Mr. Speaker.

Now, let me move on to another point. Sa House BillNo. 4146, ang description po sa bill ay synchronization, athinahabol nito ang synchronization of elections, tama poba?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes. It is expressly provided in thebill itself, House Bill No. 4146.

REP. TINIO. At ang ibig pong sabihin nito ay sa halipna sa Agosto 2011 ang eleksyon, ito ay gagawin sa Mayo2013, tama po ba?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes, it is in Section 1 of House BillNo. 4146.

REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr.Sponsor.

Kaya ang tawag po nito sa bill ay synchronization. Perohindi po ba mas tama na tawagin itong cancellation of electionrather than synchronization of election? Kung sa nakaraang


administrasyon, di po ba ang tawag dito ay “NO-EL, “ dahilwalang eleksyon na magaganap sa Agosto na katulad ngnakatakda sa umiiral na batas? Hindi po ba tama na angaktwal na epekto ng bill na ito ay mawawalan ng eleksyon saAgosto, tama po ba?

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, I cannot subscribe tothe view that the elections would vanish. It is not acancellation of the elections insofar as the ARMM isconcerned. It is merely a postponement. When we speak ofcancellation of elections, there will be no more elections.When we speak of postponement, there will still be electionsbut we are just changing the date.

REP. TINIO. Sa akin pong pagtingin at sa pagtingin ngmarami rin sa ARMM, batay nga sa mga konsultasyon napareho nating dinaluhan, ay ito ay kanselasyon ng eleksyon.Sa probisyon din ng House Bill No. 4146 ay bibigyan ngkapangyarihan ang Presidente na mag-appoint ng mga OIC.Ngayon, ang tanong po, saan po manggagaling ang mandatong mga appointees ng Presidente gayong hindi sila ihahalalng mga pamumunuan?

REP. BARZAGA. Of course, the authority will comefrom the President inasmuch as the President will be the onemaking the appointment. Under House Bill No. 4146, weexpressly grant the President the power to appoint OICs.

REP. TINIO. Of course, pag tinanong ko, saan ponanggaling ang mandato ng Presidente ay, ano po ang sagotnatin?

REP. BARZAGA. It is very basic, from the basicprovision of the Constitution which states that “sovereigntyresides in the people and all government authority emanatesfrom them.” Insofar as this basic principle is concerned, wehave a representative type of government. Although theultimate powers belong to the people, although sovereigntyis inherent in them, they do not actually exercise the powersof the President regarding the appointment.Representative—the people would merely choose whowould be their representative, and to whoever therepresentative they would choose to be, they will give thepowers, including the power to appoint. Undoubtedly, thePresident has that power because the people, in the lastelections, have given him the trust and confidence to rulethe country, including the power to appoint.

REP. TINIO. Of course, ibinoto rin po si Presidente ngmga mamamayan sa ARMM, tama po ba?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes. With more reason that when thepeople in the ARMM voted for the President, their votesonly showed that they have trust and confidence in him,thus delegating their power to him, which power includesthe power to appoint.

REP. TINIO. So, President Aquino got an overwhelmingmandate in the ARMM in the last election, is that correct,Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes, there is no dispute about that.

REP. TINIO. Pero hindi ho ba sinasabi rin ng Kinatawanna bilang isang justification para sa bill ay hindi pomapagkakatiwalaan ang eleksyon sa ARMM? Kung gayon,puwede na rin po natin sigurong sabihin, following his logic,na hindi mapagkakatiwalaan ang mandato ng Presidente saARMM, tama po ba?

REP. BARZAGA. We are not saying that we cannottrust the elections in the ARMM. What we are saying isthat there are certain electoral reforms to be made insofar asthe ARMM is concerned.

REP. TINIO. Ang pinupunto ko lang po rito ay nakikitanatin ang mga contradiction sa argumento ng mga proponent.Sa isang banda, sinasabi na kailangang i-postpone angeleksyon dahil hindi na mapagkakatiwalaan at corrupt angeleksyon sa ARMM. Nguni’t kapag tatanungin na natinkung saan nanggaling ang mandato ng Presidente para mag-appoint ng official sa ARMM, aba ay sasabihin din nila nananggaling ang kanyang mandato mula sa eleksyon nanaganap sa ARMM. Kaya tila selective lang yata angproblema ng eleksyon sa ARMM kung paniniwalaan natinang mga Sponsor.

REP. BARZAGA. What I have been saying, Mr. Speaker,is very clear. We trust the elections in the ARMM but inspite of the results in the ARMM elections, like all theelections in the Philippines, including Luzon and Visayas,there must be electoral reforms and one of them is theapplication of biometrics.

REP. TINIO. Okay. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, pupuntanaman ako sa usapin ng autonomy. Of course, isanghistorically sensitive issue ang autonomy sa MuslimMindanao. Ang isang mabigat na problema para sa akin saproposal ng House Bill No. 4146 ay mawawala na anganumang autonomy sa ARMM. Hindi ba kayo sumasang-ayon doon, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor?

REP. BARZAGA. I would not agree to that, Mr. Speaker,my dear colleagues. My basis would be what transpired inthe past. Nagkaroon tayo ng postponement ng mga halalansa ARMM for five times already. Noong nagkaroon ngpostponement ng limang beses, kailanman ay hindi sinabi ngating mga kababayan na nawala ang autonomy sa ARMM.Kaya kung ipagpapaliban natin ang halahan sa ngayon, byparity of reasoning, the postponement of the elections, likethe postponement in five previous instances of the electionsin ARMM, would not result in the loss of autonomy.

REP. TINIO. Tama po kayo, five times na na-postpone,but I was not referring to postponement. Ang tinutukoy ponatin ay ang provision dito for appointment by the Presidentof the officials in the ARMM. Sa nakaraan po ba ay nangyarina ba iyan doon sa limang beses na na-postpone ang electionsa ARMM, kung saan nag-appoint ang Presidente ng mgaofficials?

REP. BARZAGA. This is the first time.

REP. TINIO. In other words, it is unprecedented. Ngayonlamang po ito mangyayari.


REP. BARZAGA. Yes. But it does not mean that themere fact that, there had been no such instances in the past,there could never be a new procedure.

REP. TINIO. Yes, which is why I am now saying that thisHouse Bill No. 4146 will destroy the essence of autonomyand substitute direct rule in the Muslim Mindanao with thatof Malacañang. May debate pa ba roon, Mr. Speaker, Mr.Sponsor?

REP. BARZAGA. There is no provision in theAutonomy Law prohibiting the President from making anyappointment. I will be willing to give a copy of theAutonomy Law to my dear colleague and to tell if there isany provision prohibiting the President to make anyappointment insofar as officials in the ARMM areconcerned.

REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, peromay kopya na ako ng Autonomy Law at napakaraming mgaprobisyon doon ang nagsasabi na ihahalal ng mgamamamayan mismo ng ARMM ang kanilang governor, vicegovernor at mga Mambabatas.Kaya wala tayo talagangmahanap na probisyon na nagbabawal sa Presidente na mag-appoint dahil may probisyon na dapat ihalal sila. Hindi poba, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TINIO. Okay.

REP. BARZAGA. I have discussed exhaustively duringthe previous interpellations that the President has the powerto appoint.

REP. TINIO. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker, Mr.Sponsor.

Huling punto na lang po. Precisely, on the power toappoint ng Presidente, sa palagay ko ay isa ito sa mgapinakamapanganib na probisyon ng panukalang House BillNo. 4146. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, mayroon po bangprobisyon sa Konstitusyon ng Pilipinas na nagbibigay ngkapangyarihan sa Presidente na mag-appoint ng mga opisyalsa posisyong dapat na inahahalal o elective post? Mayroonpo bang probisyon? At kung mayroon, pakibasa po.

REP. BARZAGA. Insofar as the power of thePresident to appoint officials, including the officials inthe ARMM, and to justify the power granted to thePresident of the Philippines insofar as the appointment ofARMM officials is concerned under Articles 41and 46, letme state my legal authorities. First, in the case of Menzonvs. Petilla decided by the Supreme Court, and let me statebriefly the facts.

REP. TINIO. Mawalang galang na po, Mr. Speaker, Mr.Sponsor. Ang tanong ko po ay kung mayroong probisyonsa Konstitusyon. Sa Konstitusyon po at hindi po iyongjurisprudence.

REP. BARZAGA. There is no provision in theConstitution.

REP. TINIO. Okay.

REP. BARZAGA. But I have to specify that wefollow the basic rule. Whatever is not prohibited, itpermits. The Consti tut ion does not prohibit thePresident from making appointments in the ARMM andin the absence of any such prohibition, then we followthe rule that what the law does not prohibit, it permits.There are also the so-called residual powers of thePresident provided under the various cases decided bythe Supreme Court, and which are part of Americanjur isprudence. There is a lso a provis ion in theAdministrative Code regarding the power of thePresident to make an appointment, and there are alsocases authorizing the President to make an appointmentif there is a vacancy in any elective office.

REP. TINIO. Kaya, una, malinaw po sa sagot ninyo, Mr.Speaker, na walang anumang probisyon sa Konstitusyonang nagbibigay ng kapangyarihan sa Presidente na mag-appoint ng opisyal sa isang elective post. Malinaw po ito.Klarong-klaro ang sinabi ninyo, Mr. Speaker.

Pangalawa, sinabi ninyo na wala namang nagbabawalsa Konstitusyon na mag-appoint si Presidente ng opisyal saARMM. Tama po. Walang probisyon dahil ang nakasaad naprobisyon sa Konstitusyon ay kailangang sundin ngPresidente at lahat ng opisyal ng gobyerno ang Organic Actsa Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. Sa OrganicAct, wala ring anumang probisyon na nagbibigay ngganoong kapangyarihan sa Presidente. Iyong hulingbinanggit…

REP. BARZAGA. At wala ring…

REP. TINIO. Iyong binanggit ninya po na residual power,again, nasa Constitution po ba ng Pilipinas ang so-calledresidual powers ng Presidente?

REP. BARZAGA. Okay.

REP. TINIO. Mayroon po ba? Is that phrase statedanywhere in the Constitution of the Philippines?

REP. BARZAGA. If the power to appoint is expresslygranted under the Constitution, it will not be a case of residualpower; it would be a case of expressed power. When wespeak of residual powers, those are the powers belonging tothe President which are not expressly granted under the lawor under the Constitution, kaya nga po tinatawag natingresidual powers. Kapag nasa Saligang Batas na iyan o saano mang batas, hindi na residual power iyan, that would bean expressed power granted by the law. Kaya sa SaligangBatas, kapag sinabi nating may power ang Pangulo, thatpower is no longer a residual power but an expressed power.I think all the lawyers would agree to what I have said rightnow.

REP. TINIO. In fact, hindi po ako lawyer pero sa ilangresearch na ginawa ko, ang residual power po ay nasaAdministrative Code. Tama po ba?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes, that is why I stated a while ago


that under the Administrative Code, there is the power underSection 20, Article VII, and I quote:

Residual Powers. - Unless Congress providesotherwise, the President shall exercise such otherpowers and functions vested in the President whichare provided for under the laws and which are notspecifically enumerated above, or which are notdelegated by the President in accordance with law.


Kaya sa madaling sabi, ang panukalang batas na ito namagkakansela ng eleksyon sa ARMM at lalabagin ang mgafundamental na demokratikong karapatan ng mgamamamayan sa ARMM ay ibinabatay lamang, hindi saanumang probisyon ng Konstitusyon, hindi rin sa OrganicAct, kundi sa isa lamang kataga na matatagpuan saAdministrative Code. Tunay na nakababahala po angproposal na ito. Para sa akin, maihahalintulad ko ito sakalakaran ng nakaraang administrasyon kung saan angpalaging linya ay hindi naman ipinagbabawal saKonstitusyon, “puwede nating ilusot.” Nakakalungkot naang administrasyon na ito na nagsasabing “tatahak samatuwid na landas,” sa pagkakataong ito ay nais dumaan samga shortcut.

REP. BARZAGA. I beg to disagree.

REP. TINIO. Ang mga na-shortcut ay ang mga probisyonmismo ng Konstitusyon.

REP. BARZAGA. I beg to disagree to that statement. Iwould like to quote Section 16 of Article VII, the last sentenceof the first paragraph:

The Congress may, by law, vest theappointment of other officers lower in rank in thePresident alone, in the courts, or in the heads of thedepartments, agencies, commissions, or boards.

The Constitution expressly authorizes enacting a lawauthorizing the President to make an appointment, and thatis what is being done in House Bill No. 4146. Pursuant to thelast sentence of Section 16 of Article VII, we are attemptingto enact a law to give powers to the President to appointOICs in the ARMM and therefore, our act right now, assumingHouse Bill No. 4146 would become a law, is only in compliancewith this provision. There is no unconstitutionality orillegality insofar as the grant of Congress to the President tomake the appointment of OICs is concerned.

REP. TINIO. I would agree with you fully, Mr. Speaker,Mr. Sponsor, except for the fact that there is already anexisting law which governs election and the selection ofofficials in the ARMM. Kung wala po sanang Organic Actng ARMM, di walang problema. Puwede tayong gumawang batas na bibigyan siya ng kapangyarihang mag-appoint ng mga opisyal, kaso mayroon ngang OrganicAct.

REP. BARZAGA. Let me answer.

REP. TINIO. Ang problema ay hindi ito dinadaan satamang proseso. May mga probisyon doon para saamendment ng Organic Act kung kinakailangan, nguni’t hindiito sinusunod.

REP. BARZAGA. Let me answer that point in very simpleterms. First, there is no provision in the Organic Actpreventing the Congress of the Philippines from granting tothe President the power to make any appointment. It is veryclear—there is no provision in the Organic Act preventingCongress from enacting a law giving the President the powerto appoint.

Second, even assuming arguendo that there is aprovision in the Organic Act providing that the Congress ofthe Philippines cannot enact a law authorizing the Presidentto make appointments in the ARMM, that provision in theOrganic Act, assuming it is present, will be unconstitutionalbecause of the last sentence of Section 16, Article VII.Definitely, in the event that there is a conflict between theOrganic Act and the Constitution, the provisions of theConstitution would prevail.


Dahil tinapik na ako ng ating honorable Majority Leader,siguro ay ire-recap ko na lang ang ilang mga punto na sanaay bigyang konsiderasyon ng mga kasamahan natin sapagboto natin sa House Bill No. 4146.

Una, mga kasama, sa palagay ko, malinaw po na hindikailangan i-postpone ang eleksyon sa ARMM paramagpatupad ng mga kinakailangang reporma sa ngayon.Sapat na sapat ang kapangyarihan na binibigay ng batassa Presidente para magpatupad ng mga reporma ngayon.Pangalawa, malinaw po na pagkansela sa eleksyon angunang layunin ng House Bill No. 4146. Paglabag po itosa batayang demokrat ikong karapatan ng mgamamamayan sa ARMM. Paglabag din ito sa pinaka-idealng autonomy para sa mga kapatid natin sa ARMM, saMuslim Mindanao. At muling panunumbalik angkolonyal na relasyon, ang direktang paghahari ngMalacañang sa ARMM. Pangwakas, mapanganib angHouse Bill No. 4146 dahil hinihiling sa atin sa Kongresona bigyan ang Pangulo ng kapangyarihan ng diktador,kapangyarihan na mag-appoint ng mga opisyal sa mgaposisyon kung saan dapat direktang hinahalal ng mgamamamayan ang mga opisyal.

Dahil sa lahat ng mga kadahilanang ito, hindi ko pomaaaring suportahan ang House Bill No. 4146, at sana ayganoon din ang maging pananaw ng ating mga kasamahan.

Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker. Maraming salamat po,Mr. Sponsor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The FloorLeader is recognized.

REP. GOMEZ. Mr. Speaker, may we now recognize Rep.Mohammed Hussein P. Pangandaman from the First Districtof Lanao del Sur for his interpellation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Tañada). The Gentlemanfrom Lanao del Sur, Congressman Pangandaman, isrecognized for his interpellation.


REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, goodafternoon. Before I ask questions to the honorable Sponsor,let me first enlighten all of us, as briefly as possible, aboutthe series of events that transpired and why we are all heretonight to discuss this important matter in our hands. Themost important things that had happened started during thejoint committee hearing of the Committee on Suffrage andElectoral Reforms and the Committee on Muslim Affairs heldlast month. That meeting, the purpose of which was todeliberate on House Bill No. 4146, did not have a positiveresult when the ex officio Members of both Committeeswanted to immediately pass in the committee level the saidbill, which led to a walkout of our fellow MuslimCongressmen.

After this, the President of the Republic of the Philippinesinvited the Members of the Committee on Muslim Affairsand the Committee on Mindanao Affairs to Malacañang todiscuss the matter, and the meeting ended with thePresident’s recommendation that a public hearing orconsultation be conducted to get the opinion or hear thevoices of the people from Mindanao. It was agreed that aconsultation would take place in Cotabato City because it isthe seat of the ARMM government. However, during thenext joint committee meeting, both Committees involvedagreed that there would be three public hearings—first inCotabato City, second in Marawi City, and lastly, inZamboanga City.

After that meeting, I personally approached thecommittee secretariat and asked if I could go to all the threepublic hearings. The secretariat told me that I could onlychoose one and for obvious reasons, I chose to be presentin Marawi City hearing. Hence, I can only speak on what hadhappened during the time I was present thereat. After all thethree public hearings, the two Committees scheduled anotherjoint committee meeting to discuss the future of House BillNo. 4146 and the things that happened during the three publichearings conducted in Mindanao, which now leads me tomy series of questions.

Based on my observations on the last joint committeehearing that was held last March 15, Honorable Tinio movedthat the joint committee hearing be deferred since the Memberswere not yet provided with the committee report or even theminutes of the meeting on the public hearings conducted inCotabato City, Marawi City and Zamboanga City. The ex officioMembers of the joint committee, who were surprisingly present,voted against the deferment of the said hearing even whenthere were no committee reports or even minutes of theprevious meetings—minutes of the meeting regarding thepublic hearings, consultations conducted in the three cities—yet to be submitted. Thus, the motion of Honorable Tinio wasdenied and the hearing proceeded.

Please put on record that most of the votes to deny themotion of Honorable Tinio came from the ex officio Memberswho were present in our joint committee meeting. It is quiteastonishing that, whenever there is voting required of thejoint committees, they are around or present. They evenhave the audacity to vote for the meeting to proceed evenwithout the copies of the committee report being furnishedto the Members.

Mr. Speaker, honorable Sponsor, in your humble opinion,why are the ex officio Members present only when voting isrequired in the joint committee meetings?

REP. BARZAGA. Actually, everything had beenrecorded. Insofar as committee hearings are concerned, as Ihave stated earlier, there had been a committee reportpreviously approved by the members of the Committee onSuffrage and Electoral Reforms as well as the Committee onMuslim Affairs. Unfortunately, before there could be an actualvoting, insofar as House Bill No. 4146 is concerned, therewas a walk-out by some of our colleagues from Mindanao.

It is on that basis that we had consultations made. Thenwhen we were discussing the results of the publicconsultations, there was a heated debate and ultimately, amotion to adjourn was made, which motion has been approvedby the majority. But insofar as the Rules of the House isconcerned, considering that I witnessed all the proceedings,I would honestly say, Mr. Chairman, my dear colleague, thatwe have not violated any of our House Rules in the handlingof House Bill No. 4146.

REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Is that so, Mr. Speaker,honorable Sponsor? The way I see it, I think it is a commonpractice during committee meetings that we have to befurnished with a copy of these committee reports becausethey contain very vital and crucial information when we willbe deliberating on the passage of House Bill No. 4146. Myobservation during our last committee meeting last March15 is that most of the Members present requested that theybe furnished copies of these committee reports.Unfortunately, we did not receive any copies of the committeereports, and to my surprise, during our last session lastWednesday, I just found out that the committee reports werealready available with the Secretariat. In my opinion, Mr.Speaker, honorable Sponsor, I think wala ho tayong orasbasahin ang contents po ng committee reports dahil ongoingna ho ang session last Wednesday.

REP. BARZAGA. Actually, the committee reports havealready been submitted to the Rules Committee long beforewe made the public consultations. What we did not havelast March 15 happens to be the outcome of the publicconsultations held on March 10, March 12 and March 13.

REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, you mean to say that the contents of that committeereport which was dated March 15, ito po ang natanggapnamin last Wednesday?

REP. BARZAGA. Yes. That is in the record of theproceedings insofar as public consultation is concerned.

REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). So it was dated March15? But our public consultations were conducted last March10, March 12 and March 13. Ibig ninyo pong sabihin,honorable Sponsor, na bago po natin gawin iyong publicconsultation ay nauna na po ang committee report?

REP. BARZAGA. I am referring, my dear colleague, Mr.Speaker, to the committee report on House Bill No. 4146.

REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, I was referring to the committee report of the publicconsultations which were held in Marawi City, Cotabato Cityand Zamboanga City from March 10 to March 13.


REP. BARZAGA. There is no committee report insofaras the public consultation is concerned. We just submitteda document on the series of public hearings on House BillNo. 4146 proposing the synchronization of the ARMM andthe mid-term elections in 2013 with provisions on theappointment of officers-in-charge. In this document, welisted all the persons who spoke, all the associations whichpresented their position papers, and it is part of the recordsinsofar as House Bill No. 4146 is concerned.

REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, I want to address the same question because hindipo ninyo sinagot ang tanong ko kanina. I was referring tothe committee report, dahil po noong March 15, two daysafter our series of public hearings which were held inMindanao, ito po ang hiningi ni Congressman Tinio mula saCommittee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms and Committeeon Mindanao Affairs. We had a joint committee hearing atang hiningi namin ay ang committee report po ng publichearing. Ang ipinagtataka ko lang po, bakit ang isinasagotpo ng ating honorable Sponsor ay iyong committee reportpo noong March 15.

REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, basedon our Rules, insofar as bills are concerned, there should beonly one committee report. If any member of the committeeis not satisfied with our committee report, a remedy isprovided for under the Rules that the person who votedwith the majority has the right to file a motion forreconsideration. Considering that this committee report hasbeen with the Rules Committee as early as March 2, 2011,and nobody moved for its reconsideration, it could no longerbe returned to the Committee on Suffrage and ElectoralReforms or to the Committee on Muslim Affairs, and none ofthese Committees could make another committee report. Ithink we can be enlightened by the Rules Committee insofaras this issue is concerned.

REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, simple lang po ang tanong ko kanina. Last March15, we had the joint committee hearing. It was moved by oneof the Members that “bigyan ho kami ng kopya.” Myquestion is, bakit po hindi na-approve iyong request naminna i-defer ang committee meeting dahil wala pa pong availablena committee report, at ang committee report na iyon wasonly available during the session last Wednesday? Ganoonlang po kasimple ang tanong ko, Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor.

REP. BARZAGA. Unang-una, mayroon na tayongcommittee report dated March 2, 2011 coming from theCommittee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms and theCommittee on Muslim Affairs. Under our Rules, as long asthis committee report has not been reconsidered, either ofthe two committees cannot make any new committee report.At most, what we can report out of the public consultations,would be the results of the public consultations which weremade on March 10, March 12 and March 13; Thursday,Saturday, Sunday, respectively. The following Tuesday, ortwo days after our last public consultation, we had a meeting.According to the secretariat group that accompanied me,considering the time contraint, they were not be able to

prepare the transcripts of the proceedings regarding thepublic consultations. Since there was already a motion toadjourn, and all the other motions presented by those whoare opposed to House Bill No. 4146 were defeated, then wehave no other alternative except to attach the results of ourpublic consultations to the main records of House Bill No.4146. In that hearing on March 15, I emphasized that wehave to act on this House Bill No. 4146 because this is apriority measure coming from the President. Our sessionwould end on March 23, and this still has to be referred tothe Senate in the event that the same would be approved inthe House of Representatives.

REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Another question, Mr.Speaker, honorable Sponsor, do you believe that thepostponement of the ARMM elections via House Bill No.4146 is of transcendental importance to the public at large?

REP. BARZAGA. That is my position. Otherwise, Iwould not be standing here if I do not believe in the wisdomof the bill which I am defending.

REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). I agree with you, Mr.Speaker, that the issue at hand is of transcendentalimportance to the public at large. But I disagree that the fateof the ARMM will be decided by the people who are noteven within the scope or under the jurisdiction of the same.

Let this issue be resolved by the Members. Of the jointcommittee members, let not our votes be naturally overriddenby the supreme number of the ex-officio Members who, Ireiterate, are mostly not from the ARMM or even fromMindanao.

REP. BARZAGA. Let me answer it this way, Mr. Speaker,my dear colleague. Based on the records, there have beenseveral laws postponing the elections in the ARMM. I thinkeverybody would agree, insofar as the previous laws areconcerned, they were approved not only by the Membersof Congress coming from the ARMM but by majority of theMembers of the House. We have to consider also the basicrule that insofar as the enactment of laws is concerned, evenif the bill is of local application only such as naming a nationalstreet in a particular place or naming a public high school, allof us would deliberate and would vote on that bill. That isthe procedure insofar as the enactment of the laws isconcerned. Therefore, the mere fact that House Bill No. 4146would concern only the ARMM does not mean that only theARMM has the sole prerogative and only the ARMMCongressmen have the sole power to decide on the fate ofthis bill.

REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, I agree with you that the elections in the ARMMwere postponed several times. In fact, we had eightpostponements, but the President never appointed an officer-in-charge and all the incumbent elected officials of theARMM were only on a hold-over capacity.

REP. BARZAGA. I fully agree to that, but let me state,Mr. Speaker, elections in the ARMM had been postponedeight times. Of course, whenever there is a postponement orwhen a law has been enacted for that, it is our desire or our


vision that there will be improvement and that is the reason weare postponing the elections. Unfortunately, notwithstandingthat elections had been postponed in the ARMM, there hasbeen no significant change insofar as the lives of the people inARMM are concerned. Based on this experience, I think it wouldbe but proper on the part of the executive to make a newmechanism and to provide measures which, in the final analysis,might solve the problems in the ARMM.

REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, that is precisely the reason in all the bills where theMuslim people are our intended beneficiaries, it should bethe Representatives of the Muslim community who aresupposed to deliberate, scrutinize and vote first on the sameat the committee level. If the bill shall pass the committeelevel, that is the only time the Members of this House cantake cognizance of it; hence, we have the Committee onMuslim Affairs. The reason I am telling this, Mr. Speaker,honorable Sponsor, is that based on my experience, in theseries of committee hearings and public consultations, sinceoutnumbered po ang mga Muslim Congressmen dito sa mganasabing komite, parang nawalan po kami ng boses, nawalanpo kami ng karapatan para po mag-decide sa fate ng ARMM.Mr. Speaker, honorable Sponsor, we both know that becausewe were together during this series of public hearings.

For the information of the Body, Mr. Speaker, honorableSponsor, based on my observations in the committee hearingheld last March 15, 2011, when the joint hearing proceeded,Representatives Datumanong and Jaafar claimed that thesaid public hearing conducted in Cotabato City, Marawi City,and Zamboanga City is just a “consuelo de bobo” becausethe ex-officio Members wanted to proceed with the jointhearing even before the copy of the committee report on thesaid public hearings in Mindanao was furnished to theMembers of the joint committee for approval. Mr. Speaker, isit not preposterous to proceed with the joint meeting withoutknowing what we are supposed to deliberate upon? Therewas no committee report submitted last March 15, 2011 yet,not even the minutes of the said public hearings. How arewe supposed to make an intelligent vote on the issue athand if we do not have those pertinent documents?

For my part, I was present only during the public hearingheld in Marawi City and I can only speak for what transpired onthat day. How would I know what happened during theconsultations in Cotabato City and in Zamboanga City if we arenot provided with the requested documents last March 15, 2011?As you all know, the joint hearing proceeded and naturally, thevotes of the Committee on Muslim Affairs were dominated byex-officio Members, regardless of its outcome whether for oragainst House Bill No. 4146. Also, I want to define the meaningof “public hearing” –meetings held by committees where thepublic, lobbyists, legislators and state agency representativesmay speak or register for or against the proposal.

The purpose of a legislative public hearing is to obtainpublic inputs on legislative decisions on matters of policy.Do you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, honorable Sponsor?

REP. BARZAGA. Definitely, Mr. Speaker, my dearcolleague, I agree with your assertion.

REP. PANGANDAMAN (H.). Thank you, honorableSponsor, Mr. Speaker.

As we all know, dear colleagues, the Committee onSuffrage and Electoral Reforms and the Committee on MuslimAffairs jointly conducted a series of public hearings inCotabato City, Marawi City and Zamboanga City that tookplace last March 10, 12 and 13, 2011, respectively. Thepurpose of these hearings is to know directly the opinionsand sentiments of the people who will be greatly affected ifthis House Bill No. 4146 shall be enacted into a law. I attendedone of these three consultations, particularly the publichearing conducted in my district in the city of Marawi.Therefore, as I said earlier, I can only speak for thecircumstances that occurred during that consultation. Theessence of a public hearing is for the sentiments of the publicto be heard in a proper forum.

Mr. Speaker, honorable Sponsor, last week, we werefurnished copies of the committee report here, inside theplenary. We were not given ample time to read the said report.Fortunately, due to lack of time, House Bill No. 4146 will beagain tackled today and included in the Order of Business. Ihave scrutinized the committee report o

2009 may 12 · 2011. 7. 14. · ang puwersa ng usaffe at ng mga pilipino. ang corregidor ang...

Documents