2009 MAY 12 - congress.gov.phcongress.gov.ph/legisdocs/congrec/15th/3rd/15C_3RS-31-111912.pdf ·...

Vol. 2 Monday, November 19, 2012 No. 31

CALL TO ORDER

At 4:00 p.m., Deputy Speaker Arnulfo P. Fuentebellacalled the session to order.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Thesession is called to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Pleaserise for the singing of the Philippine National Anthem.

Everybody rose to sing the Philippine National Anthem.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Thedistinguished Rep. Emi G. Calixto-Rubiano from Pasay Citywill deliver the Invocation.

Please remain standing.

Everybody remained standing for the Invocation.

INVOCATION

REP. CALIXTO-RUBIANO. Let us please bow downour heads and feel the presence of the Lord.

For where two or three are gathered together in My name,there I am in the midst of them, says the Lord.

Heavenly Father, almighty King of the universe, werejoice as we come into Your presence and gather in thisaugust Chamber to perform the duties You entrusted to us.We praise and thank You, Lord, for bringing us togethertoday. With Your invisible presence, pour out the gifts ofYour Holy Spirit on us. We consecrate to You, dear God, allour thoughts, our plans, our endeavors—only with You shallour hearts and minds be occupied; our words, only of Youshall they speak.

Father, cover this place with Your holy presence. Mayeverything we do always begin with Your inspiration. Let ourwork always find its origin in You and through You reachcompletion. Grant us Your wisdom to do what is honorable,just, pure and selfless, to keep on doing what we have learned,received, heard and seen from You. Enlighten our minds andinstill in us the heart of a true public servant, to see You in thepersons we work with, and in people we vow to serve withlove, respect and sincerity.

Dear Lord, teach us to use our gifts and talents to bringabout genuine change and unity in our beloved country.Make us work in a spirit of prudence and understanding so

Congressional Record15th CONGRESS, THIRD REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

that we may experience an abundance of light andcompassion. Let harmony reign among us. We ask You tocontinue to prosper the works of our hands and bless uswith courage, wisdom, strength, and good health of mindand body.

Lead us with Your wisdom; discipline us with Your truth;console us with Your tenderness; protect us with Your might.We ask You to reign in our minds at all times to know what isright and just, and strengthen our wills to carry out faithfullyour sacred duties as Representatives and voices of our people.Enable us to implement Your will for us no matter whatdifficulty it may entail.

All these we ask in Your mighty name, our true source ofpower and wisdom.

Amen.

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

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

REP. QUIMBO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspendthe session for a few minutes.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Thesession is suspended.

It was 4:05 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:40 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Thesession is resumed.

The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. FARIÑAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we defer thecalling of the roll of Members.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is thereany objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved.

APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

REP. FARIÑAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we approvethe Journal of the previous session, Journal No. 30, datedWednesday, November 14, 2012.

2 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2012


REP. FARIÑAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceedto the Reference of Business.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Funtebella). Is thereany objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved.

The Secretary General will please read the Reference ofBusiness.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary General read the following House Billsand Resolutions on First Reading, and Communication, andthe Deputy Speaker made the corresponding references:

BILLS ON FIRST READING

House Bill No. 6678, entitled:“AN ACT MANDATING THE PROVINCIAL

GOVERNMENTS IN THE PROVINCES WHEREOFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE(ODA) FUNDED RURAL ROAD PROJECTSARE LOCATED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”

By Representative AumentadoTO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND

HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6680, entitled:“AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE FINAL

FORESTLAND BOUNDARY OF THEPROVINCE OF MOUNTAIN PROVINCE”

By Representative DalogTO THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

RESOLUTIONS

House Resolution No. 2882, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON

TRADE AND INDUSTRY AND OTHERAPPROPRIATE COMMITTEES TO CONDUCTAN INVESTIGATION, IN AID OF LEGISLATION,ON THE PROCESSES ADOPTED BY TELECOMAND MOBILE SERVICE PROVIDERS INEXPLAINING AND OFFERING THEIRRESPECTIVE MOBILE SERVICES TO THEGENERAL PUBLIC WITH THE END IN VIEWOF CRAFTING A RELEVANT STATE POLICYTHAT WILL PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY ANDFULL DISCLOSURE IN THE MOBILETELECOM INDUSTRY”

By Representative VillarTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2883, entitled:“A RESOLUTION CALLING ON THE COMMITTEE

ON SUFFRAGE AND ELECTORAL REFORMS

TO INVESTIGATE, IN EARNEST, ON THEMENTAL FITNESS OF COMMISSION ONELECTIONS (COMELEC) CHAIRMAN, SIXTOBRILLANTES, TO HEAD THE SAID POLLBODY AND TO REQUEST THE CHAIRMAN OFTHE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS TOMAKE PUBLIC THE PSYCHOLOGICALPROFILE OF THE COMELEC CHAIRMAN ASTHE RECENT ACTUATIONS ANDPRONOUNCEMENTS MADE BY THECOMELEC CHAIRMAN SHOW ALARMINGSIGNS OF MENTAL AND PSYCHOLOGICALINSTABILITY WHICH, IF REMAINEDUNCHECKED, MIGHT LEAD THIS COUNTRYTO DESCEND INTO ANARCHY,LAWLESSNESS OR CIVIL UNRESTCONSIDERING THAT THE 2013 ELECTIONSWHICH IS GOING TO BE ADMINISTEREDAND OVERSEEN BY THE COMELEC IS FASTAPPROACHING”

By Representative AlcoverTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2884, entitled:“RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN

INVESTIGATION, IN AID OF LEGISLATION,ON THE ALLEGED ANOMALIES COMMITTEDBY THE NATIONAL PRINTING OFFICE (NPO)IN AWARDING THE PRINTING OF ELECTIONBALLOTS FOR THE UPCOMING 2013MIDTERM ELECTIONS, TO A PRIVATEPRINTING COMPANY”

By Representatives Suarez, Bagasina, Padilla, Calimbas-Villarosa, Magsaysay (M.), Albano, Alcover,Aumentado, Datumanong, Pangandaman (N.),Panotes, Fua, Radaza, Macapagal Arroyo (J.),Obillo, Pangandaman (M.), Pichay, Mercado-Revilla, Romualdez, Dimaporo (F.) and Lazatin

TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Concurrent Resolution No. 21, entitled:“CONCURRENT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE

LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR FOR THE THIRDREGULAR SESSION OF THE FIFTEENTHCONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES”

By Representatives Gonzales (N.) and SuarezTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

ADDITIONAL COAUTHORS

The list of additional coauthors is reflected in JournalNo. 31, dated November 19, 2012.*

COMMUNICATION

Letter dated October 29, 2012 of Cosette V. Canilao,Executive Director, Public-Private Partnership Center,submitting copies of the following documents:1. Public-Private Partnerships 2011 Annual Report;2. Build-Transfer-and-Operate Contract of the Daang

* See ANNEXES (printed separately)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2012 3

Hari-South Luzon Expressway (SLEX) Link RoadProject; and

3. Build-Lease-and-Transfer Contracts of thePublic-Private Partnership for School InfrastructureProject (PSIP) for Contract Packages A, B, and C.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS ANDHIGHWAYS

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

REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, today being a Monday—I withdraw the motion.

REP. DE VENECIA. Mr. Speaker, allow us toacknowledge the presence of the following guests, theguests of Hon. Romero Federico “Miro” S. Quimbo,from the Second District of Marikina City, namely:Marilyn Jebulan, Gloria Lim, Evelyn Curioso andErlinda Ramos.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Pleaserise. Welcome to the House of Representatives. (Applause)

REP. DE VENECIA. We also have the guests of Hon.Eufranio “Franny” C. Eriguel, M.D., Hon. Victor F. Ortega,and Hon. Francisco Emmanuel “Pacoy” R. Ortega III, fromthe Municipality of Caba, La Union—the public schoolteachers from high school and elementary, …

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). You areall welcome to the House of Representatives. (Applause)

REP. DE VENECIA. …the PTA President for the publicschools of Caba…

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Pleaserise. Welcome to the House of Representatives. (Applause)

REP. DE VENECIA. …and the Barangay Nutritionscholars, headed by their District Supervisor Carmencita E.Follosco.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The samewelcome is accorded to you by the House. (Applause)

The Floor Leader is recognized.

PRIVILEGE HOUR

REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, today being a Monday,I move that we open the Privilege Hour.

I so move, Mr. Speaker.


REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognizethe honorable Representative from the First District ofZamboanga del Sur, Hon. Victor J. Yu, to deliver his privilegespeech.

I so move, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). TheHonorable Yu may take the floor.

Please proceed.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF REP. YU

REP. YU. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues.I rise particularly on the matter of procedures in the

appointment, relief and/or reassignments of PNP provincialdirectors, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6975, as amended byRepublic Act No. 8551.

Last April 9, 2012, a group of NPAs, numbering 70 moreor less, harassed the police station in the municipality ofTigbao, province of Zamboanga del Sur, and caught thepolicemen by surprise. They disarmed the policemen on dutywithout firing a single shot and took with them Police OfficerJuhali Faisal as captive. Because of that incident, PNP ChiefNicanor Bartolome immediately relieved PNP ProvincialDirector Jose Bayani Gucela without consultation with theGovernor and installed William Tolomia Manzan as OICProvincial Director, again, without prior consultation withthe Provincial Governor.

This is despite the fact that the Provincial Governor isthe Chairman of the Provincial Peace and Order Council(PPOC). The said OIC Provincial Director stayed in hisposition for more than six months despite the fact that theProvincial Governor asked the PNP Regional Director severaltimes to hasten the appointment of a regional provincialdirector and include his chosen provincial director in the listof nominees. Sad to say, the request of the Governor fell intodeaf ears.

Then came another incident which is the illegalpyramiding activities or Ponzi scheme of a certain AmanFutures Group Philippines Incorporated which hoodwinkedthousands of people from all walks of life and ran away withat least P12 billion.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would liketo acknowledge the immediate action of our ProvincialGovernor, Governor Tony Cerilles, of writing a letter to theNBI, asking them to conduct an in-depth investigation to resolvethis problem as soon as possible because as Chairman of thePeace and Order Council, he knows it would affect the peaceand order in our province. But on the PNP side, because of thescam, it ended the stint of the OIC Provincial Director andsome policemen in the province of Zamboanga del Sur withoutprior consultation with the PPOC or with the Governor.

It is common knowledge that the Governor sits aschairman of the Provincial Peace and Order Council as amatter of sworn duty. It is his responsibility to make peaceand order conditions in the province ideal so that itsconstituents will feel protected and secure from all forms ofcriminalities. That is how it should be, simply because if therewill be no stable peace and order, there will be no developmentand progress. The province cannot move forward for noinvestors will invest in a locality full of criminalities.

Unlike the PNP Regional Director, the ProvincialGovernor, being the local chief executive of the provincialgovernment, is the very person who knows the entire provinceand has the command, as well as contact with the provincialofficials and leaders including reliable organizations. He ismore knowledgeable and more familiar with his people.Hence, he is attuned to the situation in the province. The


discretion to choose who will be the next provincial directorshould be given to the Provincial Peace and Order CouncilChairman, and this is so because the people expect thegovernor to protect the lives and properties of his constituents.

It is very sad to note that with the appointment of thetwo OIC provincial directors who just came and, likewise,went without consultation, the Provincial Peace and OrderCouncil was not respected and was taken for granted.

To make matters worse, the head of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force, Police InspectorRommel Gabriel Etbew, was also relieved by the PNPRegional Director without consultation. Similarly, ChiefInspector Modhin Pantaran of the Zamboanga del SurProvincial Intelligence Unit and Inspector RommelNaciongayo of the Provincial Public Safety Company werelikewise relieved without prior consultation with theProvincial Peace and Order Council.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Governor, as PPOCChairman, is supposed to be armed with his complete masterplan for peace and order in the province, but was suddenlycrippled by the removal and/or replacement of the PNPprovincial director, especially without his prior knowledge.This instantly hampers the continuation of the implementationof the supposed peace and order situation in the province.

It would be so hard, Mr. Speaker, for the governor to betalking about high–risk criminals and top secret issues withthe PNP Provincial Director who is a complete stranger. Ifthe new provincial director happens to be a good friend of adrug lord in the area, that is the end of the efforts of thegovernor. God forbid that this will happen or else the futureof our youth and our province will be in vain.

This is the reason I rise, Mr. Speaker, to propose thatthere should be an amendment to the PNP Law, specificallyin Section 51-A of Republic Act No. 6975. This is not onlyto give respect and recognition to the efforts of the ProvincialPeace and Order Council and for the Provincial Governorwho is granted by law to exercise supervision and controlover police forces within his jurisdiction, but moreessentially to provide clear–cut rules on coordination andconsultation processes between the PNP and localgovernment units.

As we can read in the PNP Law, the prerogatives of themunicipal/city mayors have been amended but the prerogativeof the provincial governor remains the same. Hence, I believethat it is high time that the Provincial Governor, who is aconstant key player in the peace and order efforts of theprovince such as anti-illegal drug trafficking and other formsof lawlessness, should be given respect by law. I am referringto Section 51-A of Republic Act No. 6975 which categoricallystates:

(a.) Provincial Governor – (1) Power to Choosethe Provincial Director. The provincial governorshall choose the provincial director from a list ofthree (3) eligible recommended by the PNP regionaldirector.

In view of the above, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfullysuggest the following as proposed amendments to Section51-A of RA No. 6975:

1. No provincial director, whether in a regular, officer-in-charge, or acting capacity, shall be relieved and removed

without prior consultation with the Provincial Peace and OrderCouncil, and the governor: Provided, however, that in no caseshall an officer-in-charge be designated for more than sixty(60) days; Provided, further, that the local peace and ordercouncil chairman may recommend the recall and reassignmentof the police director when, in its perception, the latter hasbeen ineffective in combating crime or maintaining peace andorder in the province; Provided, finally, that such relief shallbe based on guidelines established by the NAPOLCOM.

2. In appointing the PNP provincial directors, theProvincial Peace and Order Council shall submit a list of10 prospective nominees to the PNP director general, andwithin 10 days from receipt thereof, the director generalshall submit to the provincial governor a list of three eligiblenominees from which the governor shall choose hisprovincial director.

3. Since time element is very important as the peace andorder of the province cannot be compromised, the submissionof the list must be done within the given period and must bedirectly submitted to the director general.

4. If the 10 prospective nominees submitted by the PPOCare all not qualified based on PNP standards, the council mustbe informed by the director general within five days so thatthe council can immediately submit another list of 10prospective nominees within 10 days from receipt of the saidinformation.

5. If less than three should qualify, the director generalshall immediately inform the council within five days fromreceipt of said information.

6. Once the list of three eligible nominees is received bythe governor, he shall immediately inform the director generalof his choice and within five days, the director general shallissue the appointment.

Mr. Speaker, these are all the reasons I need to rise andpropose these amendments as these are very crucial to theattainment of peace and development of a province.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that today is the time to empowerour Provincial Peace and Order Council through the governorsas their provinces are the ones affected by the actions of thePNP regional directors, and by empowering them, we arealso empowering our people in the community level.

Diyan tayo ganap na uusad. Iyan ang daang matuwid.Mr. Speaker and dear colleagues, I will be very thankful

if you reserve your questions, comments and suggestions inthe deliberation of this matter on the committee level.

Daghang salamat ug maayong hapon sa inyong tanan.


REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer theprivilege speech of Hon. Victor J. Yu to the appropriatecommittee.


REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognizefor his privilege speech the distinguished Gentleman fromthe First District of Oriental Mindoro, Hon. Rodolfo G.Valencia.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). TheHonorable Valencia will please take the floor.

REP. VALENCIA. Yes. Correction first, Mr. Speaker, itis Oriental Mindoro not Occidental Mindoro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Therecord is thus corrected.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF REP. VALENCIA

REP. VALENCIA. I rise to bring to your attention theproposed National Land Use and Management Act or in shortthe NLUMA under House Bill No. 6545, and a consolidationof several other bills that appear to have been fast-tracked onThird Reading by this august Chamber just before Congresswent into recess last October 2012.

At the outset, let me declare, Mr. Speaker, that I do notquestion the good intentions and compassionate concern forcertain sectors of our citizenry that underlie this proposedmeasure in the earlier versions from which it has beenconsolidated.

The larger interests of our country and our nationaleconomy, however, compel me to speak up and call theattention of this august Chamber to the grave, deleterious,far-reaching consequences of House Bill No. 6545 if allowedto become a law in its present form, which may cause uponnot only the real estate and housing industry, but also on ournational economy as a whole, and on the equilibrium of socialequity and justice as enshrined in our Philippine Constitution.

Hereunder are the salient features of House Bill No. 6545:1. It defines land use as the manner of allocation,

utilization, management and development of land;2. It provides for the creation of the National Land Use

Policy Council (NLUPC) as the highest policy-making bodyon all matters pertaining to land use and management;

3. It mandates the completion and updating of existingcadastral surveys;

4. It provides for the creation of the National SpatialDatabase Information and Mapping System;

5. It seeks to determine the scope and nature ofresponsibilities of national government agencies, and addressthe long-overdue task of determining and delineating thecountry’s permanent forest line; and

6. It mandates the institutionalization of land use andphysical planning as a mechanism for identifying, determiningand evaluating appropriate land use and allocation patterns.

Mr. Speaker, a big number of landowners supported byumbrella organizations of real estate and housing industrieshave raised the following objections to House Bill No. 6545:

1. It neither harmonizes nor justly allocates the country’slands, but is so crafted as to promote principally the interestof the agrarian reform beneficiaries, apparently, at the expenseof the rest of the nation; and

2. It is merely a subterfuge to perpetuate theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

Now, let us consider the following provisions:a. Agricultural land is any land suitable for agriculture

(Section 41). Mr. Speaker, with current technology, any landcan be made suitable to agriculture.

b. All agricultural lands are protected areas (Section 4fff).

c. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) has theexclusive authority to approve conversion of all agriculturallands (Section 4b, Section 4bb, Section 13).

d. The DAR is a mere administrative agency. It hasthe exclusive authority to approve or disapprovereclassification by local government units (LGUs) in theexercise of their legislative power. The reclassificationpower of LGUs under the Local Government Code isvirtually abrogated (Section 99).

e. Since all agricultural lands are defined as “protected,”under Section 4fff, they must be included as such in the LGU’szoning ordinance. In other words, the LGUs cannot reclassifythem as non-agricultural. Protection land use prevailed overproduction land use (Section 50).

3. There is no representation in the proposed NationalLand Use Planning Council, none at all is given to the privateland sector.

4. The LGUs are being fried in their own lard so to speak.5. The National Land Use and Management Act

(NLUMA) pretends to promote an equitable allocation ofland resources; but since all agricultural lands are definedas” protected areas” under Section 4fff, placed under theDAR’s jurisdiction and protected from conversion, it leavesnothing of the land pie to be allocated for settlements,infrastructure, and other non-agricultural development,notwithstanding the provision that makes it appear otherwise.

6. It is a class legislation that violates the Constitution’sequal protection and non-impairment clauses:

a. Agricultural lands are banned from conversion whilethey are in the hands of landowners, but may be convertedonce they are awarded to agrarian reform beneficiaries.

b. Landowners or duly authorized representatives whofail to commence and/or complete the development plandefined in the DAR’s Conversion Order, shall be jointly andseverally penalized under Article II, Section 82.

The fines based on the zonal value of the land at the timethe fine shall be imposed, include the following:

a. 6 percent for the first three hectares;b. 15 percent for the next three hectares; andc. 30 percent for the remaining area.The non-impairment clause is made applicable only to

marginalized sectors under Section 100. Very important, Mr.Speaker, is that it poses a big threat and disincentive to furtherinvestment in the country. The contents and the manner bywhich this bill is being pushed cannot sit well with the sectorsthat are at the forefront of our country’s current economicperformance. Not only are they bothered by the seemingdisregard and violation of the letter and spirit of the PhilippineConstitution, they are also disappointed by the parochialismthat is inherent in many provisions of the bill.

Without any doubt, Mr. Speaker, House Bill No. 6545will send very disturbing signals to the investors, fundmanagers, industrialists, and business managers, both foreignand local, who are actively participating in the sustainedhousing boom, the dynamic growth of the BPO business, thecontinuing inflow of overseas Filipino workers (OFW)remittances, the resurgence of tourism and agribusiness andall the other enterprises that are contributory to the growth ofour national economy.

Further, land classified under protected land use cannotsource financing. More so, investors in general, are notinterested in CARP lands.


Mr. Speaker, the Constitution upholds the principle ofequitable land access for all sectors. To implement this basicconstitutional provision, Congress passed various laws thatspecified lands which may be used for these purposes, andthe more prominent among these laws and policies on landuse are as follows:

1. Republic Act No. 6657 or the ComprehensiveAgrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, which specifies thelands that are to be used for agrarian reform purposes andconfers upon the DAR jurisdiction over the same;

2. Republic Act No. 9700, amending Republic Act No.6657, approved and signed into law on August 7, 2009,extending the period of the CARP until June 30, 2014;

3. Republic Act No. 8435 or the Agricultural andFisheries Modernization Act of 1997;

4. Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban DevelopmentHousing Act of 1992 and PD No. 399;

5. Republic Act No. 7916 or the PEZA Law, whichspecifies the areas set aside for mixed development purposesunder the economic program and confers upon the President,through the Philippine Economic Zone Authority or PEZA,jurisdiction over the same;

6. Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Codeof 1991, which confers upon the LGUs the primary authorityand responsibility to determine land use in their respectivelocalities through their comprehensive planning and zoningpowers;

7. The charter of the Department of Environment andNatural Resources or DENR and various laws which conferupon this agency exclusive jurisdiction over lands of thepublic domain and endows it with authority to implementlaws intended for environmental protection; and

8. Certain laws designating specific lands or areas fortourism development and conferred upon the Department ofTourism jurisdiction over the same.

Still, Mr. Speaker, there are other laws and policies relatedto land use such as Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141 or thePublic Land Act of 1936, the first public land use managementpolicy; CA No. 452 or the Pasture Land Act; P.D. No. 705, orthe Revised Forest Code of 1976; P.D. No. 1067, or the WaterCode of the Philippines; P.D. No. 1084, or the Creation ofthe Public Estates Authority (PEA); R.A. No. 7076, or thePeople’s Small Scale Mining Act of 1991; R.A. No. 7161, orthe Banning of Cutting of Mangroves/Forest Charges; R.A.No. 7586, or the National Integrated Protected Areas SystemAct; R.A. No. 837, or the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of1997; R.A. No. 8550, or the Revised Fisheries Code of 1997;R.A. No. 9275, or the Clear Water Act of 2009; R.A. No.9729, or the Climate Change Act of 2009; R.A. No. 10066,or the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009; R.A. No.10121, or the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act;E.O. No. 263, adoption of Community-Based ForestManagement (CBFM) as the country’s sustainable forestpolicy; E.O. No. 72 and MC 54 (1993); E.O. No. 204 (2000);and E.O. No. 841 (2009) on the compliance with theComprehensive Land Use Plans by LGUs.

Mr. Speaker, fellow Members in this august Chamber,we are not lacking for laws and policies on land use inthis country; neither can we be accused of not beingspecific enough about our concerns and our prescriptionsregarding this all-important element in developmentplanning.

The real problem is not the laws. Rather, it is the poorand ineffective implementation of such laws. This, in turn, iscaused by the lack of precise operational information thatwill provide an accurate basis for implementing the provisionsof the laws.

The Absence of Land Information SystemThis brings up one of the biggest weaknesses of our land

administration system. The government has no landinformation system worthy of its name. It is a case of to eachhis own, and one agency’s information is inconsistent withthe rest.

A Well-Disguised Perpetuation of CARPThe NLUMA is a well-disguised perpetuation of the

CARP, Mr. Speaker. With all due courtesy to their respectiveauthors, the consolidated proposed National Land Use andManagement Act or (NLUMA) does not inspire nor provideany real assurance that the aforecited deficiencies, handicapsand problems that were encountered in the implementationof the early laws on land use will be effectively reduced, letalone solved. On the contrary, it may unwittingly compoundthe problems even more.

Let me point out that the proposed NLUMA neitherharmonizes nor justly allocates the country’s lands, but is socrafted as to promote principally the interest of the agrarianreform beneficiaries—apparently at the expense of the restof the nation. It is merely a well-disguised perpetuation ofthe Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or CARP.

Under the Constitution, all lands not classified as timber,mineral or natural parks are generically termed “agricultural”lands. Thus, necessarily, lands to be used for residential,commercial, industrial and other non-agricultural purposesare carved out of the “agricultural” land pie throughreclassification by law of Congress or by local ordinance ofthe LGUs. It is from this basic constitutional premise that,over the years, our existing national laws and local ordinanceson land use were based and formulated.

With the proposed NLUMA, however, practically alllands lumped in the generic category of “agricultural land”are preserved for agriculture and agrarian reform purposes.This is the dead giveaway of the real bias of this proposedlegislation.

Mr. Speaker, may I clarify at this point that I representthe province of Oriental Mindoro, considered to be theagricultural province and known today as the “food basket”of the region; therefore, my full support to agricultural landscannot be questioned. In my nine years as governor, OrientalMindoro was selected as the number four highest foodproducer of the Philippines. It is also known by theDepartment of Agrarian Reform that conversion of irrigatedand irrigable lands is non-negotiable during my time.

I have disturbing evidence of the bias, Mr. Speaker. Aftercareful analysis of this consolidated bill, several disturbingbiases against the other sectors of society were not primarilyassociated with agriculture and agrarian reform.

First evidence—the declaration of policies of theNLUMA mandates that land use and physical planning shallensure protection of agricultural lands, and highest priorityin the completion of the CARP.

The question, Mr. Speaker, is: why is the CARPimplementation singled out and accorded the highest priority


by the Land Use and Management Act? What happened tothe other land uses necessary for other sectors of society?

Second evidence—again, according to the proposedNLUMA, priority areas for agricultural development are theCARP, CARPable areas, and the NPAAAD which meansNational Protected Area for Agricultural and Agri-IndustrialDevelopment.

Mr. Speaker, consider the list of lands covered by theNPAAAD:

1. All irrigated areas that are 100-percent acceptable;2. All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation

projects with firm funding commitment that is 100-percentacceptable;

3. All alluvial plains. Nakakatakot po ito. Napakaramiho halos na lupa ng bansa natin ay alluvial plains;

4. Lands highly suitable for agriculture, whether irrigatedor not.

Ito pong number five ang nakakatakot—5. Agro-industrial croplands or lands planted to industrial

crops to support the validity of existing agriculturalinfrastructure and agro-based enterprise. Ang ibig sabihin ponito, iyong mga pineapple plantation, iyong mga bananaplantation, these are agro-industrial areas, calamansiplantation, lahat po iyan ay sasakupin ng protected area;

6. Highlands or areas located at an elevation of 500meters and above, and have the potential for growing semi-temperature and high-value crops;

7. All agricultural lands that are ecologically fragile, theconversion of which will result to serious environmentdegradation; and

8. All mangrove areas and fish sanctuaries.The question, Mr. Speaker, since land conversion is under

the jurisdiction of the DAR and if the NLUMA is truly meantto harmonize interests in land, why is the DAR, anadministrative agency whose mandate is solely to promotethe interest of the agrarian reform beneficiaries, through theCARP, being made the final arbiter of land allocation andplanning even for the LGUs which are in contrast to the DAR,which is mandated to promote the interest of not just the CARPbeneficiaries but the entire local citizenry?

Third evidence—the NLUMA provides that in spatialallocation of different land uses, the LGUs shall first excludeareas under protection land use, national parks, energyresource lands and prime agricultural lands, the latter havingthe same definition as the NPAAAD.

Question: If all these lands are to be excluded from landuse allocation by the LGUs, what other lands will remainavailable or allowed for residential, commercial, institutionaland other non-agricultural development?

Fourth evidence—for purposes of housing and residentialuse, the NLUMA allocated only those agricultural lands asdesignated in the CLUP which are no longer economicallyfeasible for agricultural use.

Again, the questions are:1) Exactly when does an agricultural land become no

longer feasible for agricultural use?2) Given the population growth rate and demographic

trends and needs, exactly how much and at what rate canlands be released for various needs other than agriculture?

3) Mr. Speaker, by 2016, it is estimated that the country’shousing backlog will reach 5.7 million homes, increasing atthe rate of 250,000 units per year. How can we ever solve the

housing crisis in this country as well as provide homes forour informal settlers?

4) What about other non-residential uses?Fifth evidence—in the proposed NLUMA, the NPAAAD

lands are protected from conversion; irrigated and irrigablelands as well as lands with a potential for high value cropsare given full protection from conversion; and all lands subjectto the CARP are protected from conversion pendinginstallation of agrarian reform beneficiaries, but thereaftermay be converted subject to Section 65 of Republic Act No.6657.

In other words, practically all lands cannot be allowedfor conversion or development for non-agricultural uses—including priority infrastructure projects—except whenalready in the hands of agrarian reform beneficiaries.

The big question is why? Where is equity or justice in aprovision that obviously favors the agrarian reformbeneficiaries while denying the rest of the citizenry the rightto the beneficial use of land, when out of the country’spopulation of close to 100 million only some 5.7 million arefarmers and fisherfolk as against some 23.8 million who livein slums and are homeless and 40 million are subsisting belowpoverty line and, therefore, in need of a variety of servicesand facilities to improve their socio-economic conditions?

Sixth evidence—the NLUMA provides that a nationalmapping program shall be implemented through the creationof an Inter-Agency Technical Committee, with the completedmaps integrated in the national framework for physicalplanning.

Questions: 1) So, why is a blanket conversion ban ormoratorium already to take effect upon effectivity of the law?

2) Exactly how will a judicious and impartialdetermination be made as to whether or not the conversionban is applicable to a particular piece of land, when there isyet no credible land information system that identifies,locates, demarcates and accurately determines the attributesof all the lands which are supposed to be protected fromconversion?

The inescapable impression, Mr. Speaker, for those whobother to read House Bill No. 6545 closely is that the proposedNLUMA partakes of the nature of class legislation, theenactment of which will almost certainly provoke challengesunder various provisions of our Constitution including its “dueprocess” and “equal protection” clauses.

Surely, we, their legislators and policymakers, cannotremain deaf to the real and operational issues on the groundthat they are raising, some of which we have also pointed outin this presentation.

There are possible compromises, Mr. Speaker, that wewould like to present. Short of an outright rejection, allowme to present four (4) urgent negotiating points towards apossible compromise.

The following are the proposed pre-conditions for theconsideration and amendment of the proposed NLUMA thatmay allay the anxiety and opposition of the affected sectors:

First condition—clip the overreaching powers of theDepartment of Agrarian Reform (DAR) on the matter of landuse in conformity with the Philippine Constitution and otherspecific laws on the matter.

Whether or not the land is tenanted, irrigated, irrigableor suitable for crops, the prior review and approval or anyclearance by the DAR should not be required in the


reclassification or conversion or development of agriculturallands that are located, as follows:

1) Within all cities and first class municipalities underRepublic Act No. 7279;

2) Within all areas reclassified and zoned by LGUs fornon-agricultural uses prior to June 15, 1988, under RepublicAct No. 7160, provided that in case the land to be developedis identified as environmentally critical, an EnvironmentalClearance Certificate shall be obtained from the DENR;

3) Within a strip of 1,000 meters from existing nationalhighways and provincial roads under Presidential Decree No.399; and

4) Within areas identified by Provincial Land UseCouncils for priority infrastructure development projectsunder Republic Act No. 7160; provided that in case the landto be developed is identified as environmentally critical, anECC shall be obtained from the DENR.

At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Fuentebellarelinquished the Chair to Rep. Rodolfo C. Fariñas.

Said lands should be reserved for settlements and urbandevelopment purposes under Republic Act No. 7279, andshould, therefore, be excluded from all provisions of theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, as amended.

Of the total number of 1,512 cities and municipalities inthe country, there are only 122 cities and only 187 first classmunicipalities. With an average town size of 27,000 hectares,the total land area to be excluded under the proposedamendment is only 8.6 million hectares.

In other words, out of the country’s total area of 30 millionhectares, only 28.6 percent is being recommended to becategorically reserved for residential, commercial, industrial,institutional and all other non-agricultural uses for the entirecountry.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the remaining agricultural lands ofthe country, with the application of appropriate technologyto maximize agricultural productivity, as in the case of tinyIsrael, would be more than sufficient to meet the requirementsof food security for generations.

Second condition—immediately enhance the planningcapability and jurisdiction of the Housing and Land UseRegulatory Board or HLURB as the centralized physicalplanning agency that will administer a centralized geographicinformation system with a comprehensive automated spatialdatabase covering the entire country, to which all LGUs shallhave access for land use planning and zoning purposes.

Third condition—establish and empower a Departmentof Housing, Urban Planning and Development to includeamong its responsibilities that of supervising the physicalplanning of the country towards integrated human settlements,which will, of course, include farms and other productionand protection areas.

Fourth condition—provide immediate and priorityassistance to the Department of the Interior and LocalGovernment (DILG) and the LGUs to complete and/orregularly update their respective Comprehensive Land UsePlans, with appropriate technological and budgetary support.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, by way of conclusion, the NationalLand Use and Management Act, worthy of its name, must beconsistent with the fundamental law of the land, the PhilippineConstitution.

Article XII on the National Economy and Patrimonyprovides:

Section 1. The goals of the national economyare a more equitable distribution of opportunities,income, and wealth; a sustained increase in theamount of goods and services produced by the nationfor the benefit of the people; and an expandingproductivity as the key to raising the quality of lifefor all, especially the underprivileged.

x x xIn the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the

economy and all regions of the country shall be givenoptimum opportunity to develop. xxx

Clearly, the proposed NLUMA, as drafted and submittedfor the consideration of Congress, now in the Senate, isinconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.Neither does it address the real policy and operational problemson the ground in pursuing a just and equitable use of our land-based resources for all sectors of society.

In many towns and cities, there are glaring symptoms ofeither lack of a coherent, realistic and equitable land use andmanagement plan or poor and ineffectual enforcement ofexisting laws that govern this concern.

Conflicts on land use continue to proliferate—whetherbetween farmers and landowners, between informal settlersand property owners, or between host communities andspecific government agencies in charge of implementingimportant transborder infrastructure projects.

Humongous urban projects continue to be constructedall over our metropolitan cities with seeming disregard orlack of concern for certain basic planning considerations.These include the overstretched carrying capacity of basicinfrastructure, such as streets and roads, transport systems,water systems, waste disposal and sewerage systems and thelike. Gleaming skyscrapers rise one after the other amidstconditions of congested traffic, flooded streets anduncollected garbage.

Citizens cannot help but ask: Are these all not symptomsof a breakdown of essential basic urban services that werenot properly planned for?

At this juncture, the Presiding Officer relinquished theChair to Deputy Speaker Arnulfo P. Fuentebella.

Unfortunately, House Bill No. 6545 does not addressthe real underlying cause of such a situation. Of particularurgency and indispensable need is a centralized nationalgeographic information system beefed-up by state-of-the-arttechnology, professional competence and skills, and adequatebudgetary support, so that decisions and actions on land useconcerns are based on correct, validated, reliable andconsistent information.

An already existing national agency, the Housing andLand Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) can play this role. Allwe need to do is capacitate and empower the HLURB aspresently constituted.

Let us now have the proposed Department of Housing,Urban Planning and Development (DHUPD) with theHLURB tasked with this responsibility, fully empowered toexercise it.


In closing, Mr. Speaker, instead of being distracted andmisdirected by legislative and policy recommendations thatdo not address the real problems on the ground, we, in thegovernment, must focus our attention on the completion and/or upgrading of the CLUPs of our local government units.They need their CLUPs, so that they can have a solid andscientific basis for identifying, planning and implementingthe relevant development programs and projects for theircitizens.

A beefed-up, fully capacitated HLURB envisioned forthe DHUPD can provide the overall coordinative support forall the LGUs.

With such support, our LGUs can push for more andbetter housing, better communities, more clearly identifiedproduction areas for agriculture and industry, more efficientand dependable agricultural productivity, better managed andprotected environments and, more importantly, a dynamic andliving guide for continuing future and growth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and my dear colleagues forgiving me your time. Salamat po.


REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer theprivilege speech of the Honorable Valencia to the appropriatecommittee.


REP. VALENCIA. Thank you.

ROLL CALL

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


The Secretary General will please call the roll.

The Secretary General called the roll, and the result isreflected in Journal No. 31, dated November 19, 2012. *

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. The Speaker is present.The roll call shows that 204 Members responded to the

call.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). With 204Members present, the Chair declares the presence of quorum.

The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

CONSIDERATION OF H.CT. RES. NO. 21

REP. FARIÑAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we considerHouse Concurrent Resolution No. 21.

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

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is thereany objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved. **

The Secretary General is directed to read only the titleof the measure.

With the permission of the Body, and since copies of themeasure have been previously distributed, the SecretaryGeneral read only the title thereof without prejudice toinserting its text in th Congressional Record.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House ConcurrentResolution No. 21, entitled: CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONAMENDING THE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR FOR THETHIRD REGULAR SESSION OF THE FIFTEENTHCONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES.


ADOPTION OF H.CT. RES. NO. 21

REP. FARIÑAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we adoptHouse Concurrent Resolution No. 21.


House Concurrent Resolution No. 21 is adopted.

REP. FARIÑAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take upthe Unfinished Business.


CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 6214Continuation

PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE

REP. FARIÑAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resumethe consideration of House Bill No. 6214, as contained inCommittee Report No. 2191 and submitted by the Committeeon Energy.

For this purpose, may I ask that the Secretary Generalbe directed to read only the title of the measure.


The Secretary General will please read only the title ofthe measure.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 6214,entitled: AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE NATIONALELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION FURTHERAMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIALDECREE NO. 269, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE

* See ANNEXES (printed separately)** See MEASURES CONSIDERED (printed separately)


KNOWN AS THE “NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATIONADMINISTRATION DECREE.”


REP. FARIÑAS. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary statusof the bill is that we are still in the period of sponsorship anddebate. I therefore move that the Honorable Batocabe berecognized to continue the sponsorship on the measure.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). TheGentleman from Ako Bicol is recognized.

REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What isthe pleasure of Gentleman from Leyte?

REP. APOSTOL. This bill has been debated on for solong; I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate.

REP. FARIÑAS. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Whatdoes the Dep. Majority Leader say?

REP. FARIÑAS. I move that we terminate the period ofsponsorship and debate on House Bill No. 6214.



REP. FARIÑAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspendthe session for a few minutes.


It was 5:50 p.m.




The Sr. Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I now move that weproceed to the period of amendments. However, there beingno committee amendments, I move that we close the same.


REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I now move that weproceed to consider individual amendments.


INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS

REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, may I introduce thefollowing individual amendments:

1. On page 7, line 31, add the phrase, IN SO FAR ASTHE TOTAL ELECTRIFICATION OF SPUG AREAS ISCONCERNED;

2. On page 9, after line 15, insert a new paragraphto read as follows: FOR THIS PURPOSE, THEAUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK OF THE NEA ISHEREBY INCREASED TO TWENTY FIVE BILLIONPESOS (PHP25,000,000,000.00) DIVIDED INTO TWOHUNDRED FIFTY MILLION (250,000,000) SHARESWITH A PAR VALUE OF ONE HUNDRED PESOS(PHP100.00).

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Just aminute. Is the Sr. Dep. Majority Leader presenting an omnibusmotion for the individual amendments or is she going to do itline by line, or page by page?

REP. GARIN (J.). I am presenting it in an omnibusmotion, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is thisan omnibus individual amendments?

REP. GARIN (J.). Yes, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). That isjust to clarify. The Lady will please proceed.

REP. GARIN (J.). 3. On page 10, re-designateparagraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) as paragraphs (a), (b), (c)and (d).

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Just aminute, any Member may interrupt in between if they haveany anterior amendments, taking into consideration theproposed individual amendments of the Sr. Dep. MajorityLeader.

The Lady may please proceed.

REP. GARIN (J.). 4. On page 11, line 6, delete the phrase“ITEM (4)” and in lieu thereof insert the phrasePARAGRAPH (D);

5. On page 11, line 19, delete the word “OF”;6. On page 13, line 17, change the phrase “financially

interested” to HAS FINANCIAL INTEREST; and7. On page 19, line 3, insert a hyphen (–) after the title of

Section 64-B. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.I so move, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Isthere any objection to the omnibus individualamendments presented by the Sr. Dep. Majority Leader?(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendments areapproved.


REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I now move that weterminate the period of amendments.

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

REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we approveon Second Reading House Bill No. 6214, as amended, ascontained in Committee Report No. 2191.

VIVA VOCE VOTING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). As manyas are in favor of the approval of said bill, as amended, onSecond Reading, please say aye.

SEVERAL MEMBERS. Aye.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). As manyas are against, say nay. (Silence)

APPROVAL OF H.B. NO. 6214, AS AMENDED,ON SECOND READING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The ayeshave it; the motion is approved.

House Bill No. 6214, as amended, is approved on SecondReading.


REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I move for a few minutessuspension of the session.


It was 5:54 p.m.





REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I now move that we takeup bills on Third Reading.


NOMINAL VOTING ON H.B. NO. 5927ON THIRD READING

REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we vote onThird Reading on House Bill No. 5927 and direct theSecretary General to read the title of the measure, and callthe roll for nominal voting.


Thereupon, the Secretary General read the title of themeasure, printed copies of which were distributed to theMembers on November 5, 2012, pursuant to Section 58, RuleX of the House Rules.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5927,entitled: AN ACT STRENGTHENING FURTHER THEWORKERS’ RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION,AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLES 234-A, 235,236 AND 237, AND REPEALING ARTICLES 234(C) AND270 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, ASAMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LABORCODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

The Chair directed the Secretary General to call the rollfor nominal voting. Thereafter, pursuant to the Rules of theHouse, a second roll call was made. The nominal voting onThird Reading* on the aforesaid measure appears in JournalNo. 31, dated November 19, 2012.

APPROVAL OF H.B. NO. 5927ON THIRD READING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). With 204affirmative votes, no negative vote and no abstention, HouseBill No. 5927 is hereby approved on Third Reading.


REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we vote onThird Reading on House Bill No. 6643 and direct theSecretary General to read the title of the measure, and callthe roll for nominal voting.

I so move.


Thereupon, the Secretary General read the title of HouseBill No. 6643, printed copies of which were distributed tothe Members on November 5, 2012, pursuant to Section 58,Rule X of the House Rules.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 6643,entitled: AN ACT ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASICEDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGTHENING ITSCURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OFYEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATINGFUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.


* See ANNEXES (printed separately)


REP. ALMARIO. Mr. Speaker, I heard that House BillNo. 6643 was called for a vote. May I know how my votewas registered?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Will theSecretary General please advise the distinguished Lady howher vote was registered.

It has not been recorded yet. What is the vote of thedistinguished Lady?

REP. ALMARIO. Again, Mr. Speaker?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Your votehas not yet been recorded. May we know now the vote of thedistinguished Lady.

REP. ALMARIO. May I explain my vote, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). You arevoting?

REP. ALMARIO. I am voting “No” and I would like toexplain my vote.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). You arevoting “No,” but it has already been counted. Do you want toexplain your vote?

REP. ALMARIO. I want to explain my vote.



It was 6:02 p.m.




Under the Rules, the Chair will have to announce firstthe results of the voting, after which, the distinguished Ladymay now be recognized to explain her vote. So, will theSecretary General please advise the Chair on the result of thevoting. What is the result of the voting?

RESULT OF THE VOTING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The resultshows 203 affirmative votes, 1 negative vote and no abstention.

House Bill No. 6643 is approved on Third Reading.

REP. ALMARIO. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Thedistinguished Lady is now recognized.

REP. ALMARIO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to explainmy vote.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Pleaseproceed.

REP. ALMARIO EXPLAINS HER VOTE

REP. ALMARIO. This Representation, like the otherMembers of this august Chamber, is a product of the 10-yearbasic education program, unlike most of our colleagues,though she is a graduate of the University of Hard Knocks,major in Common Sense.

Addressing the policy reform initiative of House Bill No.6643 or the K to 12 Program, there is no argument againstthe need to do a dramatic turnaround to arrest the decliningquality of our education system. The call for reform in thisregard by His Excellency, the President, is most welcome. Itmay as well be a most significant legacy of the administrationof the President. As Members of Congress, we would wish tobe part of such a significant landmark policy.

In unity with the desired goal of an improved basiceducation system at par with the rest of the world, I grievethat I could not join the proposed journey. I have reservationson whether the vehicle chosen, this so-called K to 12 Program,could really get us to our destination. I pray that we proceedwith extreme caution.

Haste makes waste. The rush of rolling out the K to 12Program scheduled for full implementation by 2016 wouldnot bring to fruition the envisioned objectives and advantages.

The Department of Education (DepEd) needs to firstundertake a house cleaning and clearing of the weak links inits structure, in its management and operational capabilities,handicapped as it is by annual budgetary constraints. Unlessthe grounds are cleared, the superimposition of the K to 12strategy will have a straining effect that would further beardown on the DepEd’s resources and capacities. The K to 12Program could not be effectively and efficiently carried out.

The rationale for adding two (2) more years to thesecondary level is to decongest the curriculum and, thus, moremeaningfully spread the educational thrusts.

However, the proposed introduction of technicalvocational courses in all levels to orient students to the worldof work would also crowd the curriculum. Regrettably, theDepEd has not established a positive track record in its presenthandling of TV and trade schools. Its inability to appropriatelyprovide support in terms of laboratories, tools, supplies,teachers’ capability-building programs and a more equippedwork environment would only be exacerbated when TVcourses will be taught in all schools throughout the Juniorhigh schools.

If the K to 12 Program is adamant in including TV coursesas to be useful to students, basic TV subjects have to berelevant to the trends in the work requirement of existingbusinesses, industries and government programs. These haveto be cognizant of entrepreneurial opportunities within thelocale of schools. These should not be left to the individualchoices of students from a range of exploratory menus

The simultaneous adoption of the Kinder curriculum,made mandatory and compulsory starting 2012-2013, underRepublic Act No. 10157, with the reformed curriculum forGrade I and Grade VII under the K to 12 Program, will beardown heavily on the timely provision of available classrooms,learning materials, other facilities, and teachers’ capability-upgrading activities. Already, the absence of these provisions,


a priori, has made the implementation of the program anightmare for school administrators.

I contend that the phase by phase teaching of the reformedcurriculum in Grades I to X is necessary to ensure that theprovisions are in place beforehand in order to carry out theinstruction smoothly and to allow proper evaluation of itsimpact. The succeeding Grade years curriculum should beintroduced subject to these conditions.

The situation can be most telling to the prospect of astudent being able to stay in school, in the first place. Toillustrate, for the first and second grading period of Grade Iand Grade VII in the two Divisions of Davao Oriental,students had to photocopy the learning materials. Each GradeI student spent P454 and the Grade VII student, P1,573. Therisk of the child leaving school stares at us since parents arehardly able to meet these amounts.

On tha hiring of graduates of specialized courses and offaculty of higher education institutions to teach at thesecondary level, in Section 8 of House Bill No. 6643, wehave provided for the hiring of graduates of Science,Mathematics, Statistics, Engineering, Music and other degreecourses to teach subjects in the secondary level, with shortagesin qualified Licensure Examination for Teachers or LETapplicants. Likewise, in Section 10, we have allowed thehiring of higher education institution faculty to teach generaleducation subjects at the secondary level.

These provisions do not sit well with those whose basicdiscipline is teaching, having finished their degree inEducation and having passed the requisite LET. Theseprovisions have sent shivers to the spines of ourprofessional teachers. They fear that interventions, politicalor otherwise, are possible. These maneuvers could deprivethem of the golden opportunity to get the permanentteacher-position items, for which they have waited in linefor so long.

There is no shortage of teachers in these disciplines. Theshortage lies in teacher-item allocations. We have a highnumber of LET teachers in these major subject-areas andmany more with the exodus of experienced LET teachers fromprivate schools to the public school system, given the higherpay and better benefits the government has offered, of late.We also have teachers paid under the Local School BoardFund who, now, also want to be regularized in status intopermanent plantilla teacher-item positions.

It is for these reasons that during the plenary discussionon House Bill No. 6643, I proposed to amend these particularsections by calling for their deletion.

The CHED by its mandate should closely monitordevelopments as to the emerging disciplines which will requirenew or expanded teacher-expertise. There is sufficient timefor students in Education to major in areas anticipated to bein want of faculty and to acquire the requisite LET.

The provisions of Section 10 of House Bill No. 6643will supposedly take care of the situation when the highereducation institutions will not have students in school years2016-2017 and 2017-2018. This should not even be a problemof DepEd as the HEIs should have the ingenuity to fend forthemselves to counteract the impact of K to 12 on their firstand second year enrollment.

Nevertheless, this is not without remedy. The latest studyI have on hand claims that of the 43 graduates in the 10-yearbasic education program, only 23 will enroll in college.

Thus, a proposed phasing during the transition period ispossible:

1. Year 2015-2016, to graduate from Grade X andaccelerate to college the best 23 students;

2. Year 2016-2017, to graduate from Grade XI andaccelerate to college the best 40 students; and

3. Year 2017-2018, all graduates of the K to 12 Programchoosing to go to college.

No program, Mr. Speaker, however noble, can succeedin the absence of full financial budgetary support to itsrequirements.

The DepEd has been operating on a persistently lowbudget. This explains why quality education which shouldbe at globally recognized standards has remained at adismal level. With the K to 12 reform agenda, the DepEdpresented to the Committee on Basic Education and Culturea study showing that in a catch-up scenario, the budget forschool year 2013-2014 should be in the amount of P312billion and if the 2015 Millennium Development Goal orMDG thrust at an Education For All (EFA) objective is tobe met, the amount of P334 billion should be allocated.The national government’s budgetary provision to theDepEd for school year 2013-2014, at an amount of P292billion, is a far cry from the catch-up budget or the EFAbudget scenarios. We even need to reckon that the P292billion DepEd allocation still includes the third tranche ofthe Salary Standardization Law III amounting to P19.8billion. If deducted from the budget for calendar year 2013of the DepEd, the operational budget would only be P272billion. What catch-up budget, much less EFA budget,could we be speaking of?

Collectively, by sheer determination, the budget provisionto be pushed to the level of EFA scenario should be as follows:2013 – P334 billion; 2014 – P344 billion; 2015 – P360 billion;2016 – P409 billion; and for 2017 – P434 billion.

A commentary published by the Philippine Daily Inquireron November 3, 2012, chided the DepEd reminding that theK to 12 curriculum, together with the implementation of theMother Tongue Based Multi-lingual Education and theproposed Filipino Sign Language, are “education gamechangers” that takes time for teachers and administrators aliketo imbibe as a totally new approach to education. The DepEd,the commentary concluded, should have “factored in enoughtime for some kind of refinement process, say three years,before it can build enough capacity and resources to fullyimplement its flagship programs.”

And I say to this commentary, Mr. Speaker, “Amen”.With the K to 12 Program, we are running far too fast

for the capability and capacity of the DepEd. If we do notpause and put more organization and strength to theadministration of our present basic education system andmore rationally draw up the operational plans and financialviability program for an enhanced basic educationcurriculum, we may be laming our already limping DepEd.In the process, we will be doing more harm than good toachieving our collective goal of an internationallyrecognized standard quality of education, of having studentsand professionals competitively establishing their niche herein our country and abroad.

For these reasons and reservations, Mr. Speaker, with aheavy heart, I vote “No” to House Bill No. 6643.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). With 203affirmative votes, 1 negative vote and no abstention, HouseBill No. 6643 is approved on Third Reading.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). All right.The session is suspended for a few minutes.

It was 6:18 p.m.




The Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, it wouldappear that some Members misheard what is beingapproved on Third Reading a while ago and I amreferring to House Bill No. 6643. In order to allow theMembers to truly reflect and announce their votes onthe matter and considering that this Member is one ofthose who voted with the majority and the winningmajority, then in accordance with our rules, I move thatwe reconsider the approval of House Bill No. 6643 onThird Reading.

I so move.


NOMINAL VOTING ON H. B. NO. 6643ON THIRD READING

REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, I now move thatwe again vote on Third Reading on House Bill No. 6643 andrequest that the Secretary General be directed to read onlythe title of the bill.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Beforewe start the nominal voting on Third Reading, the Chairwould like to express to the Members to please standup and state their votes so that we can actually fullyregister their votes because the explanation of vote willbe done only after the recording and the announcementof the number of votes for Third Reading. So, the Chairwould just like to beg and request the Members to pleasestand up and state their “Yes,” or “No” vote or“abstention.” The Chair also directs the SecretaryGeneral to read the title of the measure, and call theroll for nominal voting.

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

Thereupon, the Secretary General read the title of themeasure, printed copies of which were distributed to theMembers on November 5, 2012, pursuant to Section 58, RuleX of the House Rules.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 6643,entitled: AN ACT ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINEBASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGTHENINGITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBEROF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION,APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOROTHER PURPOSES.

The Chair directed the Secretary General to callthe roll for nominal voting. Thereafter, pursuant to theRules of the House, a second roll call was made. Theresult of the voting on Third Reading* on the aforesaidmeasure is reflected in Journal No. 31 dated November19, 2012.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Theresult shows 198 affirmative votes, 8 negative votes and noabstention.

House Bill No. 6643 is approved on Third Reading.

REP. CASIÑO. Mr. Speaker, I vote “No,” and I will beinserting my explanation of vote in the Record.

Thank you.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). TheGentleman registers a vote of “No.”

REP. CASIÑO. Yes, and I will be inserting myexplanation in the Record later on.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). You cando that later.

REP. CASIÑO. Thank you.

REP. COLMENARES. Mr. Speaker, I would like toregister a negative vote.

I would like to reserve my right to submit a writtenexplanation of my vote.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). At theproper time, the Chair would recognize…

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Pleaseproceed.

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Yes,please proceed.

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I vote “No” to the Bill andI reserve the right to explain afterwards.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). All right.Continue with the roll call vote.

REP. MARIANO. Mr. Speaker, I vote “No.”

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). All right,please proceed.

REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, I vote “No.”

REP. TINIO. Mr. Speaker, I vote “No.”


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). With 198affirmative votes, eight negative votes and no abstention,House Bill No. 6643 is approved on Third Reading.


REP. TINIO. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Wait aminute. Under Section 117 of the Rules, the Chair will nowrecognize individually those who would want to stand up andexplain their vote.

REP. TINIO. Mr. Speaker.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Yes.

REP. TINIO. May I just ask that I be allowed to submita written explanation of my vote and that it be inserted intothe Congressional Record.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). So youwould prefer to just make a written explanation of yourvote?

REP. TINIO. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). All right.Please proceed.

REP. TINIO. Thank you.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is thereany other Member who would like to stand up and explainhis vote?


REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Pleaseproceed. Is the Lady going to explain her vote?

REP. ILAGAN. I am going to explain my vote, Mr.Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Ladyhas three minutes to explain her vote.

Please proceed.

REP. ILAGAN EXPLAINS HER VOTE

REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, honorable colleagues,Gabriela Women’s Party votes “No” on House Bill No. 6643.

The proposed K to 12 Program is being justified by itsSponsors as a necessary measure to make better the qualityof education in the country, to decongest the curriculum, andto equip the youth with employable skills after finishing highschool. It is easy to mouth these rationalities. Even a used-car salesman can also say that he is reforming our basiceducation. But the crucial question is: Are we, as legislators,doing the things that will lead us to our stated objective ofimproving the quality of our basic education? As a mother,as a former teacher, and as a member of Gabriela Women’sParty, I approach this question with extra caution because weare here going into the delicate act of shaping the minds ofour children who will grow up into the youth to become thefair hope of our Motherland. In time, these youth will growup to become workers who will turn that fair hope into socialproducts.

As this Bill is concerned with the formative years ofour children, it will determine the future, their future, insofaras it will fix their role in society and their contribution toour economy. What we will do with the bill will shape ourchildren into something that spells the difference betweenbecoming full-fledged humans or robots and masters or wageslaves.

I cannot question the objective of improving the qualityof basic education. If detergent products keep on coming upwith “new improved formula,” we should do the same to ourbasic education. But I take exception to the Bill’s core ideaof institutionalizing multi-learning education, retooling as theycall it, in order to impart our youth with employable skillsafter finishing high school. In so doing, according to theSponsors of the Bill, we will be able to solve the problem ofthe new entrants to our labor force being a mismatch to theneeds of the labor market.

This objective sounds good to the uninitiated eye, but acloser look will tell us that it has nothing to do with theimperative to develop our own basic, medium and heavyindustries so that our economy can generate employmentwithin our national boundaries. It has nothing to do withimparting our youth with scientific knowledge and skills sothey might do their part in industrializing our economy.

The whole K to 12 Program is more in keeping with theWorld Bank and the ADB prescription to further reorient oureducational system to the needs of foreign investments in theera of globalization. Such reorientation will only retool ourlabor force into more efficient cogs and wheels of the capitalistmachine. It will only transform our youth into more productivefactory workers, more competent construction workers, moreefficient sales ladies—all of whom are willing to work forwages that cannot support a decent life. This Bill, Mr. Speaker,honorable colleagues, will only perpetuate and enhance thedesignated role of the country in the globalization scheme:that of being an abundant supplier of cheap labor. And insofaras this bill targets our youth, the potential new entrants to our


future labor force most susceptible to accepting low wages,it will complement the two-tier wage system that the presentAdministration is pursuing. It will also complement the laborexport policy of the country that scatters our countrymen tothe four corners of the globe. It will perpetuate thefeminization of migrant work that exposes our women to theexploitation and abusive conditions of work abroad, lettingthem continue to endure the social costs of migration.

Gabriela is of the humble belief that reforming our basiceducation without radically reforming our society andeconomy will not lead to any improvement in the quality ofour basic education. Without radically reforming oureconomy, our basic education, no matter what reform we willintroduce into it, will remain detached from the needs of ourpeople and economy. It will continue to produce wage slaveswilling to take on the harshest working conditions and willingto suffer political turmoil and civil wars in other countriesjust to survive.

Besides the defective core idea behind this so-calledreform ...

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Thedistinguished Lady will please wind up. She has exceededthree minutes.

REP. ILAGAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker.This bill is aimed to fail, actually, because among the

obstacles is the unwillingness to pay the overhead costnecessary for implementing K to 12. While we need as muchas P334 billion for the full implementation next year, thebudget of the Department of Education is only P292 billion.How will we implement this properly?

Second, we have inadequate textbooks, inadequatepreparation of the teachers. The parents will be burdened.

Lastly, the Department of Education itself admitted thatit is not equipped to implement the program because of thedawdling pace to fulfill the personnel and infrastructurerequirements of the program. So, Mr. Speaker, this programis doomed to fail because the Department itself is not readyto implement this. We will just add the burden to our parentsand we will just contribute our labor force to the exploitativeconditions of the outside world.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). TheSecretary General is directed to record the explanation ofvote of the Honorable Ilagan.

What is the pleasure of the distinguished Lady,Representative Almario?

Representative Almario is recognized, but before thedistinguished Lady speaks up, the Chair would like to justsuggest, if she does not mind, to abbreviate the proceedings,inasmuch as she earlier explained her vote, her lengthyexplanation of vote in the negative, and inasmuch as it hasbeen reconsidered, then, she might just make a motion, toabbreviate the proceedings, to re-record the earlier statementmade by her by way of explanation of her negative vote earlier,if she so desires.

REP. ALMARIO. Mr. Speaker, I just would like tomanifest ...

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Yes please.

REP. ALMARIO. ... that my vote is “No” and that I amreinforcing it with the statement again that my vote is “No”and that I am requesting that this Body adopt the explanationthat I rendered before.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is thereany objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the explanationof vote earlier made by the distinguished Lady is herebyadopted.

REP. ALMARIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). TheHonorable Palatino is recognized. Please proceed.

REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed toexplain my vote.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). TheGentleman has three minutes.

REP. PALATINO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

REP. PALATINO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Mr. Speaker, I vote “No” on House Bill No. 6643 because

I fear that instead of reforming the current education system,this K to 12 proposal might aggravate the problems besettingour Philippine education. Instead of rushing to the passageof this piece of legislation, my proposal is that we reviewfirst the implementation of the universal kindergartenprogram, we review the experience of DepEd in implementingthe trade school curriculum, and finally we review the K to12 Pilot Testing for this current school year.

Mr. Speaker, can the DepEd proceed with K to 12 withoutCongress passing a law in favor of this measure? Yes, Mr.Speaker. In fact, 10 years ago, DepEd introduced theRestructured Basic Education Curriculum. Meaning, theDepEd can decongest the curriculum.

Mr. Speaker, we have to remind our colleagues aboutthe assessment of the DepEd of this RBEC Program, and theassessment of DepEd is that curriculum decongestion is notenough to solve the problems affecting our schools. My fear,Mr. Speaker, is that K to 12, without fixing the currenteducation setup, would be adding two more years of torturefor our students and teachers. There is a disconnectionbetween this ambitious education reform and the fundingcommitment of the government.

The short school cycle, Mr. Speaker, is just one of thefactors affecting quality of education in the country. K to12, unfortunately, gives false hopes that through thisprogram we will be able to reduce the problem ofunemployment and underemployment. May we remindDepEd that job creation is not a function of schools, andthat DepEd should focus on providing quality educationto our young people.

Mr. Speaker, K to 12 is an ambitious program whosehasty implementation and the ill-preparedness of the DepEd,my fear, would adversely affect the learning and the future ofmillions of our children.

For these reasons, I vote “No” on House Bill No. 6643.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Pleasehave his explanation of vote duly recorded.

Is there any other Member who would like to explain hisvote? (Silence)



REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I now move that we voteon Third Reading on House Bill No. 6656 and direct theSecretary General to read the title of the measure, and callthe roll for nominal voting.

I so move.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Just aminute. What is the bill number?

REP. GARIN (J.). House Bill No. 6656, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is thereany objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motionis approved.

Thereupon, the Secretary General read the title of themeasure, printed copies of which were distributed to theMembers on November 14, 2012, pursuant to Section 58,Rule X of the House Rules.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 6656,entitled: AN ACT ABOLISHING THE AGEREQUIREMENT FOR APPLICANTS TAKING THEBOARD EXAMINATION FOR SOCIAL WORKERS,PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING SOCIAL WORKEDUCATION AND UPGRADING THE SUNDRYPROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE PRACTICE OFSOCIAL WORK.




THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Fariñas). With 206affirmative votes, no negative vote and no abstention, HouseBill No. 6656 is approved.


REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we instructthe Secretary General to immediately transmit all the billswe passed on Third Reading today.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Fariñas). Is there anyobjection to the motion? (Silence) The Chair hears none; themotion is approved.

REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resumethe Privilege Hour.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Fariñas). Is there anyobjection to the motion? (Silence) The Chair hears none; thePrivilege Hour is resumed.

REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognizeHon. Josefina M. Joson from the First District of Nueva Ecijafor her privilege speech.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Fariñas). The Hon.Josie Joson from the First District of Nueva Ecija isrecognized.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF REP. JOSON

REP. JOSON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Honorable Speaker, distinguished colleagues in this

august Chamber, I rise before you today to decry andmanifest the utter abhorrence of my constituents to thepresent peace and order situation in my province of NuevaEcija.

No one needs to wonder as the papers, radio andtelevision were deluged recently with the blatant andunremorseful killing of one of my ardent supporters anddedicated public servant, DWJJ announcer and barangayKagawad Julius Caezar Aquino Cauzo of Barangay Sibul,Talavera, a constituent in my First Congressional District ofNueva Ecija.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, just last Thursday morning,as he was on board his motorcycle to fulfill his paternal andspousal obligations to his family, he was mercilessly gunneddown in Cabanatuan City by a lone gunman on a motorcycle,who followed him as he left the radio station where he workedand pumped three bullets into his body. He did not reach thehospital alive.

Mr. Speaker, malinaw pa po sa aking alaala si Julius orJC noong ako ay naging panauhin niya sa kaniyang programasa radyo pagkatapos akong maghain ng aking kandidaturapara sa pagka-gobernador ng lalawigan ng Nueva Ecija.Punung-puno po siya ng pag-asa na darating na ang tunayna pagbabago at matapat na mula sa pusong paglilingkodpara sa mahal naming lalawigan ng Nueva Ecija. Hindi kopo noon inaasahan na may lihim na lamlam ang kaniyangmga mata, na hindi na niya pala magigisnan angpagbabagong darating.

Maraming nagtatanong, Mr. Speaker, kung ano ang tunayna dahilan sa pagkakabaril sa kaniya. Hindi na sigurokailangan ng malalim na pag-iisip sapagkat alam ng buonglungsod ng Cabanatuan na nakikinig sa kaniyang programakung paano batikusin ni Julius ang pamahalaang panlalawiganat mga opisyal nito.

Sa pangyayari na iyon kay Julius, Mr. Speaker, bumaliksa akin ang alaala nang ang isa pang kaibigang mamamahayagay brutal na pinatay noong Abril taong 2007. Si Marc Palaciosay isa ko ring constituent mula sa bayan ng Guimba atannouncer-commentator ng Radyo ng Bayan. Siya po aydinukot at natagpuang patay sa Barangay Mapalad ng Sta.Rosa, sanhi ng tama ng baril at mga palo sa katawan, mukhaat ulo. Basag ang kaniyang panga at lagas ang kaniyang mgangipin at may bahid ng pagpapahirap na kita sa kaniyang


buong katawan. Ang kaniyang kasalanan sa utak ng pagpatay,Mr. Speaker, ay ang pagbubunyag ng Fertilizer Scam ng noonay isang Kongresista ay ngayon ay gobernador, na siya ringbinatikos nitong nakaraang mga araw ni Julius Cauzo.

Ayon sa report noon ng Center for Media Freedom andResponsibility, ang dahilan ng pagdukot at pagpatay kay MarcPalacios ay ang kaniyang pagiging pinuno ng Citizen’s CrimeWatch at ang “series of reports on the alleged misuse of aCongressman’s pork barrel.” Ang kakatwa, Mr. Speaker, ayang pagkalaki-laking bahay ngayon ng kaniyang binatikosna opisyal ay nandoon din sa may kinatagpuan sa kaniyangbangkay, sa kalapit na Barangay Soledad ng bayan ng Sta.Rosa.

Ang isa pang kakatwa, Mr. Speaker, ay nang mangyariang pagpatay kay Julius, ang mga tao na kaniyang binatikosay naglabas pa ng propaganda na sa pagsasama ng Joson atVergara ay bumalik daw ang karahasan sa Nueva Ecija. Angaking sagot, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, “Hoy, ehhuwag mo namang ipanturo ang daliri mo na siyang may bahidng dugo!”

Mr. Speaker, in so many occasions, we hear in this augustChamber the lament that Members of this House raisewhenever a journalist or any citizen, for that matter, wouldbe a casualty of violence. But for all the uproar, did it everstop?

Was there any real and tangible step to prevent thisfrom happening again? Mr. Speaker, I speak not just formy province but it holds true in the entire breadth of thenation.

How recently, Mr. Speaker, that a municipal mayor, RestyAbad of Carranglan Town, was shot and killed as he left anengagement in the town of Guimba, where one of the suspects,now in police custody, was a mayoralty candidate of the sameparty as my opponent; that Venson Evangelista was foundhogtied and mercilessly shot by a member of a syndicate in aditch in Cabanatuan City; that just the other Sunday, Mr.Speaker, landowner Engineer Mejia of Carranglan was alsogunned down as he was conducting a survey of hislandholdings. The suspect now being hunted down is a brotherof the vice mayoralty candidate also of the same party as myopponent.

There were also five known incidents of kidnap-for-ransom in Southern Nueva Ecija where the victims includedthe president of a bank, an owner of a Nursing college andpawnshop owners. These are only but a few, Mr. Speaker, ofthe many criminal incidents in Nueva Ecija that have becomeunabated for the last five years.

Time and again, Mr. Speaker, we ask, “Where are thepolice?” I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, evenwith the very high rate of police-to-population ratio, many ofour low-ranking policemen had to follow their officers’ ordersdetailing them as security to provincial officials and theircohorts, as well as their business interests.

Magtataka pa po ba tayo, Mr. Speaker, kung walangpulis dahil bodyguard sila ng gobernador, ng kapatid nggobernador, ng asawa ng gobernador, ng amain nggobernador, ng pamangkin ng gobernador, at bodyguard narin sila, Mr. Speaker, ng bodyguard ng gobernador? Siyanga rin po pala, Mr. Speaker, sila na rin ang nagbabantay saillegal mining operations ng gobernador, ng kanyangbodyguard at dating provincial director sa bayan ngTalugtug.

At this juncture, Rep. Rodolfo C. Fariñas relinquishedthe Chair to Deputy Speaker Arnulfo P. Fuentebella.

Kawawa naman po, Mr. Speaker, ang mga pulis na itona nagagamit sa pulitika at pansariling interes. Ang balita kopa po ay may isang team ng pulis na naka-safehouse sa tabing bahay ng Bokal na kapatid ng Gobernador na kandidatongayon bilang mayor ng Cabanatuan. Ang kanilang trabaho,Mr. Speaker, ay bantayan lamang at bigyan ng seguridad angnasabing pulitiko. Hindi na rin kataka-taka, Mr. Speaker,sapagkat ang kanilang opisyal na hindi kwalipikado bilangCO ng Provincial Public Safety Company (PPSC) ay naitalagaat patuloy na OIC dahil sa pakiusap ng Gobernador at ngbodyguard ng Gobernador sa Regional Director ng kapulisan.

Mr. Speaker, this Representation is well aware of thelooming change in the PNP leadership.

Ang napipintong mamumuno ng pambansang pulisya ayhindi iba sa aking mga kalalawigan sapagkat nakapaglingkodna siya sa Nueva Ecija noong bagong opisyal pa lamang siyaat isa na ring maituturing na kapwa Novo Ecijano.

Sa pamamagitan ng Kapulungang ito, umaasa angKinatawang ito ng tunay na paglilingkod ng kapulisan nawalang bahid ng pulitika, bagkus ay isang propesyonal naahensya ng pamahalaan na nirerespeto ng mamamayan.

Do away with political patronage in our police force andpolitically related as well as common crimes will also be donewith. Earn the respect of our citizens and your policemen canhold their heads high in pride and honor.

At bilang isang kapwa Novo Ecijano, umaasa angkalalawigan mo, Heneral Alan Purisima, na iyong maibabalikang matahimik at walang karahasang lalawigan na may dangalat respeto ang kapulisan.

Mapapasaiyong kamay Heneral ang pagbigay ngkatarungan kay Julius Cauzo, at Mark Palacios, at sa maramimo pang kalalawigan.

Mr. Speaker, mga kagalang-galang na Kinatawan saKapulungang ito, ako po ay nakatingin sa silangan at umaasasa bagong liwanag ng bukas.

Maraming salamat po.


REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer theprivilege speech of the Hon. Josefina M. Joson to theappropriate committee.


REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognizefor his privilege speech, the Hon. Pastor M. Alcover, Jr. ofthe Party-List ANAD.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). TheHonorable Alcover may please take the floor.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF REP. ALCOVER

REP. ALCOVER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker,and the honorable Majority Floor Leader.


This Representation stands before you in plenary toexpress our party-List’s dismay and utter frustration overthe injustice and unbridled deprivation of the rights of themany marginalized Filipinos because of the blatantsubservience of the Commission on Elections to someinterest groups, particularly those seeking the destructionand eventual dissipation of our freedom and democraticgovernance.

The manner in which party-list groups’ accreditation hadbeen cancelled is appropriately summed up as arbitrary,capricious, and malicious, wild witch hunting. As a result,the Supreme Court, solely mandated by the Constitution tointerpret our laws, issued a status quo ante order badly neededinitially by eight party-list groups so as not to undulydisenfranchise their respective marginalized andunderrepresented members from this august Chamber which,after all, is the bone and spirit of the party-list systemmandated by our Constitution and given due course byRepublic Act No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-ListAct of 1995.

Last November 15, 2012, the Alliance for Nationalismand Democracy (ANAD), pursuant to our desire and intentionof protecting and preserving the rights and interest of the tensof thousands of our marginalized and underrepresentedmembers, filed with the Supreme Court a Petition forCertiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a TemporaryRestraining Order (TRO).

At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, and Members of thisaugust Chamber, we leave it all to the wisdom and soundjudgment of the incumbent Supreme Court justices to decidewhat is just, fair, and equitable for us and the thousands ofANAD’s marginalized members who pin their hopes on usso that their voices be heard in this hallowed halls ofCongress.

Nevertheless, this Representation would like to bringbefore this Chamber the glaring travesty of our laws andjurisprudence blatantly committed by no less than the currentChairman of the Commission on Elections Sixto Brillantes. Ishould say glaring because his statements issued to media, asreported by broadcast and television stations and publishedin national broadsheets, depict the head of a constitutionalbody who seems to be having some mental or psychologicalinstability in the manner and substance of the statements hemade.

Allow me to point out a few. He was quoted in severalnews reports of first, his own admission that he does not knowthe meaning of “marginalized” nor is there any provision oflaw that defines “marginalized”; yet, the accreditation of asubstantial number of party-list groups, mostly qualified andaccredited to participate in past several elections, with somehaving sitting Representatives, was cancelled mainly becausethey are not marginalized or their nominees are millionairesand thus do not belong to the marginalized and unrepresentedsector of our society.

Second, he defines party-list representation as comingfrom only one particular sector, as among the sectors definedin Republic Act No. 7941 and later on expanded by theSupreme Court in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani. This meansthe word “multi-sectoral” does not warrant compliance ofhis adduced definition. This is what happened to the party-list groups who were disqualified by the Comelec but werelater on handed status quo ante orders by the Supreme Court,

Mr. Speaker. Yet, a few weeks later, he changed his position.This time, with the issue of Akbayan and the MaoistCommunist pseudo Party-List Bayan Muna, he admitted thatthey are party-list groups with multi-sectoral representation.

Third, Chairman Brillantes manifested alarming signsof mental and psychological instability and grandioseillusions of power and greatness when he made thepronouncement that the party-list system is a joke, a bigjoke. Chairman Brillantes must have forgotten that the party-list system is a constitutional provision. If the party-listsystem is a joke, then our Constitution must also be a joke,and the laws, governmental institutions and instrumentalities,including the present government, which are enacted, createdor established based on and in compliance with the principlesand general state policies laid down by our Constitution arealso all jokes. There is no wonder why the Chairman whoruns the Comelec, which is also a constitutional body,appears to be a big joke. This statement amounts to amockery of our Constitution, which is shocking to hear, tosay the least, especially if it is made by the head of aconstitutional body. This actuation of Chairman Brillantescould very well be considered a betrayal of public trustbecause by trifling with the provisions of our Constitution,he betrayed his sworn duty to the people which is to upholdand defend the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Comelec is used toexpressing discordant views, though personal or otherwise,as evidenced by the way and speed with which he changeshis position and stand as fast as a quicksilver could muster,on the review of accredited party-list groups. Because ofthis serious concern, this Representation filed last week,House Resolution No. 2383, calling on the House Committeeon Suffrage and Electoral Reforms to conduct a seriousinvestigation on the mental fitness of Comelec ChairmanSixto Brillantes to head the poll body and request theChairman of the Commission on Appointments to makepublic the psychological profile of the incumbent ComelecChair.

Making matters worse is the information circulating withso much speed, that the approval of the application foraccreditation by party-list groups and the non-cancellationof accreditation is reportedly being dangled and peggedranging from P5 million to P25 million.

Mr. Speaker, this information has been doing therounds and in all probability might have come fromaffected party-list groups who cannot afford to cough outthe amount. Whether this is true or not, is for theappropriate committee of this Congress to determine. Thereis substance and logic in the popular saying that goes,“where there is smoke, there is fire.” An investigation is inorder to ferret out the truth on this serious developmentthat should not be left hanging and unattended by thisHouse.

However, Mr. Speaker, and my esteemed colleagues,this Representation earlier pointed out that the Comelec hasshown subservience to some interest groups, especially thoseseeking the total capitulation of our freedoms and democraticbeing, because of the fact that it has deliberately tilted, ifnot going all out, in favor of Kontra Daya that thisRepresentation fully knows well is a creation of the MaoistCommunist Party of the Philippines being among the manymulti-sectoral front organizations under Bagong Alyansang


Makabayan that is closely supervised by the MaoistCommunist National United Front Commission of theNational Democratic Front, waging a political struggle andcomplementing the armed revolution of the Maoist TerroristNew People’s Army. This is the very same Kontra Dayawhose Machiavellian intentions are now uncovered andrevealed as the unrelenting proponent of Mao Tse Tung’sdirty old trick “Use democracy to destroy democracy, jointhe parliament to destroy the parliament.”

No less than Jose Ma. Sison, in his speech in May 4,1987, in Brussels, Belgium, admitted that BagongAlyansang Makabayan is a broad legal organization of theMaoist Communist Party of the Philippines tasked to wagepolitical struggle and complementing the Maoist TerroristNew People’s Army’s armed revolution againstgovernment.

My dear colleagues, Kontra Daya is headed by a RomanCatholic priest who answers by the name of Fr. Jose Dizon.Personally, I know him as one of the leaders of the Communistfront organization for the clergy sector, Christians for NationalLiberation or CNL. He is of the same breed and thinking asthe late Fr. Conrado Balweg, who later on saw the light, aftermany years of living in the dark shadows of MaoistCommunism, but whose life was snapped by a bullet of a gunfired by his own brother Jovencio Balweg. Unlike Fr. Balweg,this Fr. Dizon, continues to espouse a godless ideology, untiltoday, by utterly pretending to be doing and mouthing thingsthat God wanted for his people. He skillfully uses God toadvance the interest and programs of an organization thatwholly espouses a godless ideology.

Fr. Dizon and the demonic minions of MaoistCommunism, here in this Chamber, cannot deny this, for thisRepresentation is fully aware of the character, thinking, andperson of Judy Taguiwalo, one of the signatories of the KontraDaya letter to the Commission on Elections seeking ANAD’sdisqualification.

For the information of my colleagues in this augustChamber, magkasama kami ni Judy Taguiwalo sa KilusangKomunista in the Visayas. And Judy Taguiwalo is the sisterof Dr. Mario Taguiwalo, the former head of the Departmentof Health before. He was an organizer in the Visayas. He wassent to Cebu to organize the Makibaka before Martial Lawwas declared. That is why I know this Judy Taguiwalo who isnow a professor in UP.

Plainly said, Kontra Daya cannot and shall not doanything that would be contrary or opposed to the dictatesand wishes of Jose Ma. Sison and his array of demagogues inthe Maoist Communist Party. Ostensibly, it is the reasonKontra Daya has been hotly mouthing and expressing itsmorbid intention to cleanse the country’s party-list system,the very same lines mouthed by Comelec Chair Brillantes,but ironically only to those openly against the programsespoused by the Maoist Communist Terrorist CPP-NPA-NDF.This is not coincidence but with the intention vividly depictedin the cancellation of ANAD’s accreditation. Brazen andunfettered was their elation and glee when ANAD wasdisqualified by the Comelec from participating in the 2013elections.

Woe and shame to Kontra Daya who sought to disqualifythe Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD), andother party-list groups opposed to the whims and desires ofMaoist communism.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). TheGentleman will please wind up his speech.

REP. ALCOVER. Yes, but we never raised even anounce of protest nor a finger against Bayan Muna,Gabriela, Anakpawis, Alliance of Concerned Teachers,and Kabataan Party-Lists. Their barkada or kagupa inthe long list of accredited party-lists did increase withthe entry of PISTON whose accreditation was approvedby the Comelec last week. Dinagdagan pa nila ng isaang grupo ng mga Maoistang komunista r i to saKongreso.

As a whole, Mr. Speaker, there is weight in the manyapprehensions and concerns expressed by countlessFilipinos pointing to the use by the Commission on Electionsof a double-edged sword with nothing to lose but everythingto gain. Probably unknown to many, Chairman Brillantes isinto deception while in the guise of cleansing the party-listgroups in time for the 2013 elections. I say double-edgedsword because this is purposely to throw out any and allparty-list groups which are strongly opposed or does nottow the Maoist communist dictates. With this, he is tryingto please his Maoist communist masters, friends, andbenefactors.

Also, the reported dangling of between P5 to P25million is unfettered extortion which only the opportunistshave become their most willing would-be victims. In otherwords, this is simply pleasing the communists and extortingthe opportunists. Again, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my callfor this Congress to conduct a no-nonsense investigationon this serious issue that could eventually insult and put toshame the “daang matuwid” mantra of the presentgovernment.

We should look straight to reality and make bolddecisions for our country and people if necessary. ThisRepresentation, humbly, shall sound a noble call on theMembers of this Chamber who still cherish our peace,freedom, and democracy to support House Resolution No.2883 so that it shall move forward, thus preventing it frombeing thrown into the dustbin of oblivion and history. We didnot file House Resolution No. 2883 just because of ...

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). TheGentleman has one minute to wind up.

REP. ALCOVER. One minute, Mr. Speaker ... somevested intentions but mainly because we are more thanconvinced of the necessity to ferret out the truth in the lightof what is happening around us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mabuhay ang tunay na kalayaanat totoong demokrasya.



It was 7:23 p.m.






REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer theprivilege speech of the Honorable Alcover to the appropriatecommittee.


REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, for the last colleague toavail of the Privilege Hour, I move that we recognize thedistinguished Gentleman from the Second District ofPangasinan, the Hon. Leopoldo N. Bataoil for his privilegespeech.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). TheHonorable Bataoil may please proceed.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF REP. BATAOIL

REP. BATAOIL. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let mecongratulate the Pangasinan provincial government under theleadership of Governor Armado T. Espino Jr.


For the past recent years, the province of Pangasinanhas been regarded by national and regional award-givingbodies for being the best or number one in variouscategories—among them, being the best local governmentunit (LGU) Millennium Development Goal implementor andbest Poverty Reduction Program implementor. It has becomeone of the top performing provinces in the country whosegood practices in terms of developmental governance areworth emulating.

In 2010, the province topped seven out of eight awardsgiven by the Regional Development Council in its variousprogram evaluations for 2010, besting other provinces inRegion I. In July 2011, again, it proved its number one statusas it bagged the Likas Yaman award for the category BestLGU-Initiated Environmental Project (provincial level) inrecognition of the province’s achievements on environmentand natural resources conservation and protection.

The late DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo had evenlauded Pangasinan as one among local governments, basedon DILG’s assessment system, for initiating andimplementing programs designed to improve the lives ofthe people, for their commitment in elevating andmaintaining standards of public service delivery in theirrespective localities—on environment protection, financialaccountability and commitment to transparency. Theprovince has proven its resolve and dedication to supportour President’s advocacy for good governance towards the“matuwid na daan.”

The good Secretary of Education, Brother Armin Luistro,has commended the Pangasinan provincial government forits well maintained sports facilities and outstanding conductof Palarong Pambansa 2012.

Even in the field of tourism, the province has excelledthrough its various historical sites and famous tourist spotslike the Hundred Islands National Park. Lately, our newlyrestored Provincial Capitol and government buildingsaround it have been favorite destinations for many activitieslike lakbay-aral, convention, meetings and even beautypageants as well. Very recently, it hosted the Miss Earth2012 international competition while the enchantingcandidates made a tour of the province’s natural and scenicspots.

In the light of the province’s achievement, the best is yetto come. It needed to achieve more as its potentials have notbeen fully tapped. It needed further support from the nationalgovernment so that its gains could reach out to the entirepopulace.

On the part of the administration, it has providedcontinuing support to the province and its districts forlocally funded projects, repair/rehabilitation andconstruction of farm-to-market roads and otherdevelopment assistance.

However, the support coming from the nationalgovernment must be equitably allocated and released tothe six districts of the province so as not to curb and neglectthe development of other areas. For one, the Departmentof Tourism must look into the promotion and improvementof cultural heritage and unique natural formations like theManleluag Spring National Park in Mangatarem, thehistoric Casa Real which was the seat of provincialgovernment during the Spanish time, and the beautifulpanoramic Lingayen Gulf, the site of General MacArthur’slanding during the Second World War. Likewise, theallocation and timely release of funds for the much-neededprojects and development assistance must be fairlydispensed to the more embryonic barangays andmunicipalities.

For the province of Pangasinan to maintain this standardof performance in support to the national government, itsdevelopment and financial assistance must be well-balancedand equitably spread throughout its 536,819-hectare territory.Development must reach even the remotest areas of theprovince where the poorest of our poor farmers can be found.This is our “daang matuwid.”

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, my dear colleagues.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Fariñas). The FloorLeader is recognized.

REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer theprivilege speech of the Honorable Bataoil to the appropriatecommittee.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Fariñas). Is there anyobjection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved.

REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we terminatethe Privilege Hour.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Fariñas). Is there anyobjection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved.

The Privilege Hour is terminated.


ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjournthe session until tomorrow, November 20, at 4:00 p.m.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Fariñas). Is there any

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

of the House of Representatives at www.congress.gov.phddc/azb/11262012/1435

objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved.

The session is adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday,November 20, at four o’clock in the afternoon.

It was 7:29 p.m.

Date post:	20-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

2009 MAY 12 - congress.gov.phcongress.gov.ph/legisdocs/congrec/15th/3rd/15C_3RS-31-111912.pdf ·...

Documents