Senate No. 47

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/senate-no-47 1/16

REPUBLIC OF'THE PHILIPPINES

S e n a t ePasayCi ty

Journal

SESSION NO. 47Tuesday, December 5,2006

THIRTEENTH CONG RESSTHIRD REGULAR SESSION

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47


SESSION NO. 47

Tuesday, December 5,200 6

CALL TO ORDER

At 3:49 p.m., the Se nate President, Hon. Manny

Villar, called the session to order.

PRAYER

Sen. Mar Roxas led the prayer, to wit:

God of power and m ight, of wisdom and

justice, we pray that through You, all

authority be rightly adm inistered, all laws be

properly enacted and all justic e be correctly

decreed.

Assist us, Almighty Father, the President,

and all government leaders, and all those

who serve the public.

Assist us with Your spirit of counsel

and fortitude.

May we always seek the ways ofrighteousness, justice a nd mercy. G rant that

we be enabled by Your grace to lead our

country with honesty and integrity.

We ask these through Christ, our Lord.

Amen.

ROLL CALL

Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary of the

Senate, Oscar G . Yabes, called the roll, to which the

following senators responded:

Angara, E. J.

Arroyo, J. P.Cayetano, C. P. S.

Defensor Santiago, M.

Drilon, F. M.Ejercito Estrada, J.

Ejercito Estrada, L. L. P.

Flavier, J.M.

Gordon, R. J.

Lacson, P. M.

Lim, A . S .

Osmefia 111, S . R.

Pangilinan, F. N.

Recto, R. G.

Roxas, M.

Villar, M.

With 16 senators present, the Chair declared the

prsence of a quorum.

Senators Enrile, Lapid, M agsaysay, Pimentel and

Revilla arrived after the roll call.

Senators M adrigal was abroad on official mission.

Senator Biazon was absent.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE

PRESENCE OF GUESTS

At this juncture , Senator Pangilinan acknowledged

the presence of Mayor Rommel Maslog and the

barangay captains of the Municipality of Talisayan,

Misam is Oriental.

DEFERMENT OF THE APPROVAL

OF THE JOURNALS

Upon motion of Senator Pangilinan, there being

no objection, the Body deferred the consideration

and approval of the Journals of Session Nos. 45

(November 27 to 30, 2006) and 46 (December 4,

2006) to a later date.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary of the Senate read the following

matters and the Chair made the corresponding

referrals:

MESSAGES FROM THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Letter from the Secretary General of the House of

Representatives, informing the Sena te that on 29

November 2006, the House of Representatives

approved the Bicameral Conference Committee

Report on the disagreeing provisions of House

Bill No. 4629 , entitled

AN AC T MANDATI NG THE USE OF

BIOETHANOL OR ETHYL ALCOHOL

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47


930 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5,2006

AS TRANSPORT FUEL AND SUPPORT

THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF

OTHER BIOFUELS, ESTABLISHING

FOR THE PURPOSE THE NATIONAL

BIOFUELS PROGRAM, APPROPRIAT-

ING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES,

and S enate Bill No. 2226, entitled

AN ACT TO DIRECT THE USE OF

BIOFUELS ESTABLISHING FOR T HE

PURPOSE THE BIOFUEL PROGRAM,APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

To the Archives

Letter from the Secretary General of the House of

Representatives, informing the Senate that on 29

November 2006, the House of Representativeselected Representative Cayetano as additional

conferee to the Bicam eral Conference Committee

on the disagreeing provisions of House Bill

No. 5352, entitled

A N A C T A M E N D I N G C E R T A I N

PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT

N O . 8 4 3 6 , E N T I T L E D A N A C T

AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION

O N E L E C T I O N S T O U S E A N

AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM

IN THE MAY 11 , 1998 NATIONAL

OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN

S U B S E Q U E N T N A T I O N A L A N D

LOCAL ELECTORAL EXCERCISES,

P R O V I D I N G F U N D S T H E R E F O R

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,

and Senate Bil l No. 223 1, entitled

AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT

N O . 8 4 3 6 , E N T I T L E D A N A C T

AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSIONO N E L E C T I O N S T O U S E A N

AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM

IN THE MAY 11, 1998 NATIONAL

OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN

S U B S E Q U E N T N A T I O N A L A N D

LOCAL ELECTORAL EXERCISES,

P R O V I D I N G F U N D S T H E R E F O R

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

To t he Commi t t e e on Rules

B I L L S O N F I R S T R E A D I N G

Senate Bill No . 2552, entitled

AN ACT MANDATING THE USE OF TH E

PROCEEDS FROM THE DEVELOP-

MENT, LEASE OR USE OF GOVER N-

MENT PROPERTIES FOR VET!3RANS’

PENSIONS AND BENEFITS

Introduced by Senator Manuel “Lito” M.

Lapid

T o the Commit tees on Nat iona l Defense

and Secur i ty ; and Finance

Senate Bill No. 2553, entitled

A N A C T I N S T I T U T I N G A P O L I C Y

FOR NATIONAL ROAD ACCIDENTPREVENTION A N D S AFET Y AWARE;

NESS SCH EME FOR CHI LDREN,

APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Introduced by Senator Manuel “Lito” M

Lapid

To the Commit tees on Publ ic Works ; Loca l

Government : and Finance

Senate Bill No. 2554. entitled

AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLES 163,

164 AND 165 OF THE REVISED

PENAL CODE AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES

Introduced by Senator Manuel “Lito” M.Lapid

To the Commit tees on Banks , F inanc ia l

Ins t i tu t ions and Currenc ies ; and Jus t ice andH u m a n R i g h t s

QUESTION OF P R I V I L E G E

O F S E N A T O R D E F E N S O R S A N T I A G O

Rising to a question of personal and collective

privilege, Senator Defensor Santiago said that she

already delivered a privilege speech in yesterday’s

session, thus, to deliver another one m ight not be fair

to her co lleagues. How ever, she believed that she

y“

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47


TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5 ,2006 93 1

has to read into the Record of the Senate the letter

she sent this morning to President Arroyo.

Following is the full text of the letter:

Dear Presiden t Arroyo:

As an administration senator, I very stronglyappeal to you to desist fiom appointing byDecember 7 a new Supreme Court Chief Justice.I have to perform this duty, on the ground that,as already pointed out by Senator Pangilinan,there has been a failure of the nomination processconducted by the Judicial and Bar Council, ofwhich he is a member.

The Council called all senior incumbentjustices contending for the imminent vacancy, toa public in terview , None went. Only I, as the solenominated “outsider” to the Court, was present.The Council chair - who by provision of law isthe incumbent Chief Justice - caught me bysurprise when he gave instructions, through the

justice secretary, that I should state at the hearingthat I was “waiving” my right to an interview.

I did not spontaneously waive my right;

under the circumstances, I was compelled to doso. In fact, after I gave my forced consent, alleight Council members went to the holding roomwhere I was waiting, to thank me for my“cooperation.” Then they proceeded to a voting,during which I got exactly one vote. Thus, thenomination process was a farce conducted inbad faith.

In restrospect, it appears that the Council,nnder Chief Justice Panganiban, had alreadyreached a prior unethical agreement that I wouldnot be inteiviewed in public. The ploy of my“waiver” enabled them to cany their insidious plotto close the nomination process to an outsider,and to secure it for Senior Associate Justice Puno.

It appears to me, as a former trial judge that,the Council members violated the Anti-Graft andCormpt Practices Act, condensed as follows:“Causing any undue injury to any party or givingany private party any unwarranted advantage, in

the discharge of his official and administrativefunctions through manifest partiality and evidentbad faith.”

Further, the entire process was tainted bycomption, as defined thus by Black’s Law

Dictionary: “A n act done with an intent to givesome advantage inconsistent with official dutyand the rights of others. The act of an officialperson who unlawfully and wrongfully uses hisstation to procure some benects for himself orfor another person, contraiy to duty and therights of others.”

If you were to appoint Mr. Puno, the publicwill suspect - with good reason - that he hasunlawfully promised to decide in favor of theadministration, the controversial imminent caseon the constitutionality of a constituentassembly. Thus, the Supreme Court and th e

constituent assembly would both lose allcredibility.

Hence, I respectfully propose that anincumbent who is not in contention should benamed acting Chief Justice, until the Council isable to conduct a valid nomination process,including public interviews. Needless to say, I

now withdraw my own nomination, to avoid anysuspicion of self-interest, which is all too

obvious on the part of the justices and theCouncil members.

In my entire life as a lawyer, I have neverbeen as appalled, as I am now, at the moraldepths to which these public officials could sink.

The utter disregard for the canons of civilizedconduct is so indurated as to defy all humanunderstanding. I am prepared to risk my careerand my life on this proposition, for I believe it anoverriding duty, then as now, to reform theculture of conuption.

Respectfully yours,

(Sgd.)MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

Senator Defensor Santiago said that since i t was

not her wish to spe nd more of the valuable time of

the Senate on the subject and with the indulgence of

her colleagues, s he wa s begging off from answeringinterpellations on the Ietter since it was addressed to

the President.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

OF SENATO R R O U S

Senator Roxas d isclosed that as he was speaking,

the Members of th e House of Representatives were

in the process of amending their Rules prior to the

holding of a constituent assembly, to amend and

revise the Constitution with or without th e participationof the Senate, based on their unique interpretation of

the pertinent provision of th e C onstitution.

He said that he has been informed by some

lawyers that amending the Rules of the House ofRepresentative was an internal matter, hence, no

outsider could object to it, a matter that he would

rather leave to those who are schooled in law.

However, he expressed concern that the action

of the House, although preliminary, wa s the opening

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47



salvo to a s equence of events that could destroy the

'system of government, democracy and way of life.

He asked what the response of the Senate, as an

institution, would be to what he considers as an

assault to the system of government.

The Chair replied that the M ajority Leader was

preparing a res olution reiterating the previous position

of the Sen ate that as part of a bicameral legislature,the House of Represe ntatives cannot unilate rally call

for a constituent assembly. It informed the Body

that it would call a caucus within the week to discuss

further the course of action the Senate should take

on the matter.

Moreover, the Chair disclosed that the Legal

Service of the Senate was a lso preparing, in case the

Body decides to file a petition in the Supreme Cou rt

questioning the co nstitutionality and legality of the

action of the House of Representatives.

Senator Roxas expre ssed his apprecia tion for the

response of the Chair as he urged that the caucus

be held as soon as possible so that the Sen ate could

move accordingly.

REMARKS OF SENATOR PANGILINAN

Senator Pangilinan affirmed the stateme nt of the

Chair on the a ctions being taken by the S enate on the

plan of the Ho use of Re presentatives to call a

constituent assembly with or without the Senate. He

disclosed that the Senate President, the Senate

President Pro Tempore, the Minority Leader, the

Majority Leader, and the Chairman of the Comm ittee

on Finance have met to coordinate efforts in

responding to the action of the House.

Senator Pangilinan stated that the resolution

reiterating the previous position of the S enate on th e

matter would also be filed within the week.

REMARKS OF SENATOR GORDON

Still on the same matter, Senator Gordon said

that he has been watching with delight the ludicrous

effort being undertaken by certain members of the

House of Representatives to amend or revise the

Constitution on their own, completely ignoring the

Senate resolution adopted two months ago that any

amendm ent or revision to the fundam ental law should

he in accordan ce with the Constitution itself.

However, Senator Gordon commented that the

Senate should not show so much concern over the

matter because up to this time, the H ouse leadership

has not mustered the sufficient number of votes to

call for a constituent assembly.

Senator Gordon recalled that the last time he

talked with his counterparts in the House, he had

requested that he be informed once they have the

number of votes and he would meet with them to

discuss the issue.

COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 34

ON SENATE BILL NO. 2137

(Continuation)


no objection, the Body resumed consideration, on

Second Reading, ofse na te B ill No. 2137 (Committee

Report No. 34), entitled

AN ACT TO DEFINE AND PUNISH THE

C R I M E S OF T E R R O R I S M A N DCONSPIRACY TO COMMIT

TERRORISM AND OTHER ACTS

INCIDENTAL THERETO, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES.

Senator Pangilinan stated that the parliam entary

status was still the period of individual amendm ents.

Thereupon, the Cha ir recognized Se nator Enrile,

Sponsor of the measure, and Senator Drilon for his

amendments.

WORKING DRAFT

Senator Drilon informed the Body that for

purposes of the Record, the amended copy of the bill

as of November 14, 2006, would be used.

DRILON AMENDMENTS

As proposed by Se nator Drilon and accepte d by

the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body

approved the following amendments:

1. On page 2 , delete line 17 and reletter the

succeeding subsections accordingly;

At this point, Senator Pimentel asked to be

clarified if the deletion of the item on "sedition"

means that it would no longer be one of the acts of

terrorism as defined. Senator Drilon replied in the

affirmative. Senator Enrile confirmed that even if

one hurled invectives against the government

publicly, it is n ot considered terrorism.

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47


TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5,2006 933

At this junc ture, Senate President Villar

relinquished the Chair to Senate President Pro

Tempore Flavier.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Upon motion of Senator Drilon, the session was

suspended.

I t was 4:12 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:12 p.m., the session was resumed.

On page 4, reword lines 9 to 15 as follows:

SEC. 4. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT

TERR0RLSM.- PERSONS WHO CONSPIRETO COMMlT THE CRIME OF TERRORISM

SHALL SUFFER THEPENALTY OF RECLU-SION TEMPORAL IN ITS MAXIMUMPERIOD.

THERE IS CONSPIRACY WHENTWO OR MORE PERSONS COME TOAN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THECOMMISSION OF THECRIMEASDEFINFl)IN SECTION 3 HEREOF AND DECIDE TOCOMMIT THE SAME.;

On page 5, delete lines 1 to 9 and in lieuthereof, insert the following:

SEC. 5. ACCOMPLICE -ANY PERSONWHO, NOT BEING A PRINCIPAL UNDERARITCLE 170FTHEREVISEDPENALCODENOR A CONSPIRATOR AS DEFINED INSECTION4HEREOF, COOPERATES IN THE

EXECUTION OF EITHER THE CRIME OFTERRORISM OR CONSPIRACY TOCOMMIT TERRORISM BY PREVIOUS ORSIMULTANEOUS ACTS SHALL SUFFERTHEPENALTY OF RECLUSIONEA@ORAL

IN ITS MEDIUM PERIOD.;

On the same page, delete lines10 to 24;

On page 6, as modified by Senator Pimentel,delete lines 1 to 5 and in lieu thereof, insertthe following:

SEC. 6 .ACCESSORY. -ANY PERSONWHO, HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THECOMMISSION OF THE CRIME OFTERRORISM OR THE CRIME OFCONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TERRORISMAND WITHOUT HAVING PARTICIPATEDTHEREIN, EITHER AS PRINCIPAL OR

6.

ACCOMPLICE UNDER ARTICLES 17AND

18OF THEREVISEDPENAL CODE, TAKESPART SUBSEQUENT TO lTS COMMISSIONIN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MANNER(A) BY PROFITING HIMSELF ORASSISTING THE OFFENDER TO PROFITBY THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME; (B)BYCONCEALING ORDESTROYlNG BODYOF THE CRIME, OR THE EFFECTS OR

INSTRUMENTS THEREOF, IN ORDER TOPREVENT ITS DISCOVERY; (C) BYHARBORING,CONCEALING OR ASSISTINGIN THE ESCAPE OF THE PRINCIPAL OR

CONSPIRATOR OF THE CRIME, SHALLSUFFER THE PENALTY OF PRISIONMAYOR IN ITS MAXIMUM PERIOD.

Delete lines 14 to 24 on page 6 up to line 4

of page 7 and in lieu thereof, insert the

following provision:

SEC. 7. S U R W W C E OFSUSPEClS

AIVDD TERC EPlTON AND RECORLXNG OFCOMMUNICATIONS.-THE PROVISIONSOF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4200 (ANTLWlRE

TAPPING LAW) TO THE CONTRARYNOTWITHSTANDING, A POLICE ORGOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENTOFFICIAL AND THE MEMBERS OF HISTEAM MAY, W O N A WRITTEN ORDEROF THE COURT OF APPEALS, LISTEN TO,INTERCEPTAND RECORD,WlTHTHEUSEOFANY MODE. FORM. KIM). ORTYPE OFELECTRONIC OROTHER SURVEILLANCEEQUIPMENT OR INTERCEPTING AND

TRACKING DEVICES, OR WITHTHE USEOF ANY OTHER SUITABLE WAYS ANDMEANS FOR THAT PURPOSE, ANYCOMMUNICATION,MESSAGE, CONVER-SATION, DISCUSSION, OR SPOKEN ORWRITTEN WORDS BETWEEN MEMBERSOF A JUDICIALLY DECLARED ANDOUTLAWED TERRORISM ORGANIZA-TION, ASSOCIATION, OR GROUP OFPERSONS OR OFANY PERSON CHARGEDWITH OR SUSPECTED OF THE CRIMEOF TERRORISM OR CONSPIRACY TO

COMMIT TERRORISM.Upon query of Senator Pimentel, Senator Enrile

confirmed that the one to be proscribed in a judicial

decision is the association itself, so that if a person

continues to be a member thereof, he could be

placed by the police or law enforcement agents

under surveillance provided there is authorization

from a division of the Court of Appeals. In effect,

he added, by being a member of a proscribed

association, the person is abetting its objectives.

He said that AI-Ghozi, for instance, was not a

I*

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47


934 TUESDAY. DECEMBER 5.2006

member of an association but he was suspected of

having committed the crime of terrorism and so he

was placed under surveillance.

13. On the same page, line 19, replace the phrase“a Regional Trial Court” with THE COURTOF APPEALS;

7.

8.

9.

10

1 1

12

Replace the words “Regional Trial Court”

with DIVISION OF THE COURT OFAPPEALS on page 7, lines 6 and 11; on page8, lines 2, 10 and 11; onpage 9, lines 11, 13,15, 18 and 21; on page IO, lines 6,10, 14,15

and 16; on page 11, lines 1, 17 and 18; on

page 12, lines 2, 5, 11 and 14; on page 20,lines 1, 2, 16 , 24 up to line 1 ofpage 21; onpage 21, lines 15, 19 , 21 and23; onpage 22,lines 2, 10,23, 24 up to line 1 of page 23; onpage 23, lines I8 and 23; onpage 24, lines 7,10, 14 and 16; and on page 26, line 12;

On page 7, line 7, and wherever it appears in

Following the change in the title of Section 16 ,

Senator Pimentel suggested that on line 19, after the

word “authorized,” the words “or malicious” be

inserted. Senator Enrile clarified that a person

unauthorized to conduct s urveillance or interceptionis subject to penalty. He asked whether the proposed

amendment sugge sts that a person could maliciously

intercept communication even if h e is authorized b y

the appellate court. Senator Pimentel explained that

his proposal seeks to align the content of the provision

with the change in the title; nonetheless, he withdrew

his proposed amendment.

the bil l, change the word “overhear” toLISTEN TO, 14.

On page 8, line 14, and wherever it appears

in the bill, change the word “overheard” toLISTENED TO,

On page 10,after line 7, insert the following

15 .

proviso:

PROVIDED, THAT THE APPLICANTPOLICJ! O R G O W % ” T L A W E N F O R BMENT OFFICIAL SHALL FILE ANAPPROPRJATE CASE BEFORE THE PUBLICPROSECUTOR’S OFFICE FOR ANYVIOLATION OFTHISACTWIT”THIRTY(30) DAYS AFTER THE TERMINATION OFTHE PERIOD GRANTED BY THE COURTOF APPEALS AS PROVIDED IN THEPRECEDING PARAGRAPHS.

IF NO CASE IS FILED WITHIN THETHIRTY (30) DAY PERIOD, THEAPPLICANT POLICE OR GOVERNMENTLAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL SHALLIMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PERSONSUBJECT OF THE SURVEILLANCE,INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING. THEPENALTY OF PRISION MAYOR IN ITSMAXIMUMPERIOD SHALL BE IMPOSEDUPON THE APPLICANT POLICE ORGOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENTOFFICIAL WHO FAILS TO NOTIFY THEPERSONSUBJECrOFTHE S W ” C E ,INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING.;

On Daze 13. line 13. reolace the ukase “notIin accordance with” with IN ViOLATIONO F

On the same page, line 20 and wherever itappears in the bill, change the word“overhears” to LISTENS TO;

On page 14, after line 2, inserta new paragraphto read as follows:

IN ADDITION TO THE LIABILITYATTACHING TO THE OFFENDER FOR THE

COMMISSION OF ANY OTHER OFFENSE,THE PENALTY OFPIUSIONMAYOR IN ITS

MAXIMUM PERIOD SHALL BE IMPOSEDUPON ANY POLICE OR GOVERNMENTLAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHOMALICIOUSLY OBTAINBD ANAUTHOIWYF R O M T H E C D L R T O F A P P E T O T R A C K

DOWN, TAP, LISTENTO,NIERCEm, ANDRECORD IN WHATEVER MANNER ORFORMANYCOMMUNICATION,MESSAGE,CONVERSATION, DLSCUSSION, OR SPOKENOR WRITTEN WORD OF A PERSONCHARGED WITH OR SUSPECTED OF THECRIME OF TERRORISM OR CONSPIRACYTO COMMIT TERRORISM: PROVIDED

THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 13OF THIS ACT, THE PARTY AGGRIEVEDBY SUCH AUTHORIZATION SHALL BEALLOWED ACCESS TO THE SEALEDENVELOPE OR SEALED PACKAGE ANDTHE CONTENTS THEREOFASEVIDENCEFORTHEPROSECUTION OF ANY POLICEOR GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENTPERSONNEL WHO MALICIOUSLYPROCURED SUCH AUTHORIZATION;

SUSPENSION OF SESSION- - ,

Upon motion of Senator Drilon, the session w as

suspended.n the same page, line 17, between the

words “Unauthorized” and “lnterceptioi~s,”

P

insert the words OR MALICIOUS; It was 4:37 p.m.

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47





On page 14, line 16, Senator Drilon proposed the

deletion of the words “R egional Trial”.

Senator Drilon clarified that the am endment is a

matter of style and besides, the term “Regional Trial

Court” already appears on lines 12 and 13.

Asked by S enator Pimentel for a clarification of

the term “Regional Trial Court” on page 13, Senator

Drilon said that Section 17 is on the proscription of

terrorist organizations, association, or group of persons,

while Sec tions 15 and 16 are related to surveillance.

Senator Enrile clarified that the term “Court of

Appeals” on line 19, page 1 3, refers to a division of

the Court of Appeals.


Upon m otion of Sena tor Drilon, the session was

suspended.

It was 4:41 p.m.


At 4:41 pm., the session was resumed.

Thereupon, Senator Drilon withdrew his proposed

amendment to line 16,page 14.


Upon m otion of Se nator Enrile, the session was

suspended.

It was 4:43 p.m.



Senator Drilon explained that he agreed with

Senator Enrile’s position that the Regional Trial

Court should have jurisdiction over proceedings for

the proscription of terrorist organizations, associa tions

or group of persons.

On page 14, Senator Drilon proposed the deletion

of Section 18 which proposes to impose a penalty

for membership in a terrorist organization on the

ground tha t me re mem bership should not give rise to a

penalty of imprisonment as proposed in Section 18

considering that the law that pe nalizes membership -Republic Act No. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Law ) -was already repealed. Senator Enrile accepted the

amendment because anyway a member who is an

active participant in a conspiracy to commit terrorism

would be penalized.

At this juncture, Senator Pimentel asked whetherfinanciers of a terrorist organization are covered by

Section 18, Senator Enrile explained that even if a

financier of an unproscribed organization would not

be liable for the crim e of terrorism, he could still be

penalized as a co-conspirator under the bill.

Asked what the consequence would be when an

organization is eventually declared as a terrorist

group, Senator Enrile stressed that if there is a

showing in surveillance hat the contributoror financier

was in conspiracy with an organization not proscribed

but engaged in terrorist activities, he would he a co-

conspirator. He added that if the person continues to

be a contributor after the organization has been

proscribed, he could be charged under the law.

Senator Pimentel stated that he merely wanted

to point out that in the U.S. and the UK, contributors

to Islamic charity foundations are susceptible to

being placed under surveillance even if the organization

does not appear to be a terrorist organization.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

On page 14, delete Section 18 and renumberthe succeeding sections accordingly;

On page 15, line 2, change “25” to 125;

On the same page, line 4, after the word“who,” insert 3 comma (,) and the phraseHAVING BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED IN

WRITING BY THE ANTI-TERRORISMCOUNCL;

On the same page, line 7, delete the words“arbitrary detention” and n lieu thereof, nsertthe phrase DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF

DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPERJUDICIAL AUTHORITIES;

On the same page, line 1 1 , change the period(.) to a colon (:) and insert the followingproviso: PROVIDED, THAT THE ARRESTOF THOSE SUSPECTEDOFTHE CRIME OF

TERRORISM OR CONSPIRACY TOCOMMIT TERRORISM MUST BE AS ARESULT OF THE SURVEILLANCE UNDERSECTION8 AND EXAMINATION OF BANKDEPOSITS UNDER SECTION 27 OF THISACT.; b

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47



Senator Drilon explained that the amendment

would provide a reasonable basis for an arrest

without a warrant.

21.

22.

On the same page, between lines 11 and 12,

insert the following paragraphs:

IMMEDIATELY AFTER TAKINGCUSTODY OFA PERSON CHARGEDWlTH

OR SUSPECTED OF THE CRIME OFTERRORISM OR CONSPIRACY TO

COMMIT TERRORISM, THE POLICE ORGOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENTPERSONNEL SHALL NOTIFY IN W I N GTHE JUDGE OF THE COURT NEARESTTHE PLACE OF APPREHENSION ORARREST PROVIDED, THAT WHERE THEARREST IS MADE DURING SATURDAYS,SUNDAYS, HOLIDAYS OR AFTER OFFICEHOURS, THE WRITTEN NOTICE SHALLBE SERVED AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE

JUDGENEARESTTHEPLACEWHEREWACCUSED WAS ARRESTED.

THE PENALTY OF PRISIONMAYOR

IN ITS MAXIMUM PERIOD SHALL BEIMPOSED UPON THE POLICE ORGOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENTPERSONNELWHO FAILS TO NOTIFY THEJUDGEAS PROVIDEDIN THEPRECEDINGPARAGRAPH.;

On the same page, delete lines 12 to 20, and

in lieu thereof, insert the following:

SEC. 20. PENA LTYFO R FAILURE TODELIVER SUSPECT TO TH E PROPER

JUDICIAL AUT HOR IlY WITHIN FIVE (5)

DAYS. - THE PENALTY OF PRISION

M Y O R IN ITS MAXIMUM PERIOD SHALL

BE IMPOSED UPON ANY POLICE ORGOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENTPERSONNEL WHO HAS APPREHENDEDOR ARRESTED, DETAINED AND TAKENCUSTODY OF A PERSON CHARGEDWITHOR SUSPECTED OF THE CRIME OFTERRORISM, OR CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT

TERRORISM, AN D FAILS TO DELIVER

SUCH CHARGED OR SUSPECTED PERSONTO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITYWITHIN THE PERIOD OF FIVE (5 )DAYS.;

Asked by Senator Roxas to clarify if the person

subject to the penalty of prision mayor is the same

person who arrested and detained a suspect or the

arresting officer and/or the detaining officer, Senator

Enrile stated that both are liable.

23. On page 16, line 1, delete the phrase “a legalcounsel or counsels of his choice” and in

lieu thereof, insert the following: REMAINSILENTANDTOHAVECOMPETENTANDI NDEPENDENTCOUNSELPREFERABLYOFHIS OWN CHOICE. IF THE PERSONCANNOT AFFOIU! THE SERVICES OFCOUNSEL,HE MUST BE PROVIDED WITH

ONE.THESE RIGHTS CANNOT BEWANED

EXCEPT IN WRITING AND IN TH EPRESENCE OF COUNSEL.;

Senator Drilon stated that the amendment

incorporates Section 12, Article III of the Bill of

Rights in the Constitution:

24

25

26

On the same page, lines 1 to 4, deletesubsections (b) an d (c), and reletter thesubsequent subsections accordingly;

On the same page, line 21, between thewords “be” and “opened,” insert the phraseMADE PUBLIC AND,

On page 17, after line 18, insert a new

paragraph to read as follows:

THEPOLICE OROTHERGOVERNMENTLAW ENFORCEMENT CUSTODIAL UNITWHO FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THEPRECEDING PARAGRAPH T O K EEP ANOFFICIALLOGBOOKSHALLSUFFERTHEPENALTY OF PRISION MAYOR IN ITSMAXIMUM PERIOD.


Upon m otion of Senator Drilon, the session was

I t wa s 5:09 p.m.

suspended.



RECONSIDERATION OF SECTION 21

Upon motion of Senator Drilon, there being noobjection, the Body reconsidered the amendments to

Section 21.

DRILON-ENRILE AMENDMENT

O n page 15, as proposed by Senator Drilon and

accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection,

the Body approved the rewording of lines 21 to 24 up

to line 1of page 16, as follows:

SEC. 21. FUGHTS OF A PERSON UNDER

CUSTODIAL DETENTION. -THE MOMENT APERSON CHARGED WITH OR SUSPECTED OFTHE CRIME OF TERRORISM, OR THE CRIME

i”

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47



OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TERRORISM, ISAPPREHENDED ORARRESTEDANDDETAJNED,HE SHALLF 0 R ” H B E (A) INFORMED O FHIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND TOHAVE COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENTCOUNSEL PREFERABLY OF HIS CHOICE. IFTHEPERSON CANNOT AFFORD THE SERVICESOF COUNSEL, HE MUST BE PROVIDED WITHONE. THESE RIGHTS CANNOT BE WAIVEDEXCEPT IN WRITING AND IN THE PRESENCEOF COUNSEL.

Senator Enrile clarified that the rest of the

provisions of Section 21, from letters (b) to (e) are

retained.

OMNIBUS AMENDMENT

OF SENATOR PIMENTEL

As proposed by Senator Pimentel and accepted

by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Bodyapproved the deletion of the word “counsels” wherever

it appears in the bill.



suspended.

It was 5:25 p .m.



FURTHER DRILON AMENDMENTS

As proposed by Senator Drilon and accepted by

the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body

approved the following amendments, one after the

other:

1. On page 18, put a period (.) following theword “perpetun” on line 19 and delete the

rest of the sentence up to the word “Court”on line 20;

On the same page, modify lines 21 to 24 upto line 3 of page 19 as follows:

2.

SEC. 26. JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATIONREQUIRED TO EXAMINE BANK DEPOSITS,

ACCOUNTS , AND RECORDS. - TH EPROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACTNO. 1405, AS AMENDED, TO THE CON-TRARY NOTWITHSTANDING, A POLICEOR GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

OFFICIAL AND THE MEMBERS OF HISTEAM MAY, UPON A WRITTEN ORDEROF THE COURT OF APPEALS;

On page 19, line 3, delete the word “to”before the word “examine”;

On the same page, line 9, delete the word“to” before the word “gather”;

On the same page, delete the word“authorizing” at the end of line 14;

On the same page, line 15, replace the words“Regional Trial Court” with COURT OF

APPEALS;

On the same page, line 17, delete the words“Regional Trial Court,” and in lieu thereof,insert the phrase COURT OF APPEALS;

On page 22 , after line 11 , replace the period(.)with a colon (:) and insert the followingprovision:

PROVIDED, THAT THE APPLICANTPOLICE OR GOVERNMENTLAW ENFORCSMENT OFFICIALSHALLFILEANAPPRO-PRIATE CASE BEFORE THE PUBLICPROSECUTOR’S OFFICE FOR ANYVIOLATION OFTH SACTWITHIN THIRTY

(30) DAYS AFTER THE TERMINATION OFTHE PERIOD GRANTED BY THE COURTOF APPEALS AS PROVIDED I N TH EPRECEDING PARAGRAPHS.

IF NO CASE IS FILED WITHIN THE30 -DAY PERIOD,THEAPPLICANT POLICE

OR GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENTO F F I W SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTLFYTHE PERSON SUBJECT OF THE BANKEXAMWATIONAND REEZWGOFBANKDEPOSITS, PLACEMENTS, TRUSTACCOUNTS, ASSETS AND RECORDS. THEPENALTY OF PRISION MAYOR IN ITSMAXIMUM PERIOD SHALL BE IMPOSEDUPON THE APPLICANT POLICE ORGOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENTOFFICIAL WHO FAILS TO NO TIFY THEPERSON SUBJECT OF THE BANK

EXAMPJARONAND FREEZING OF BANKDEPOSITS, PLACEMENTS, TRUSTACCOUNTS, ASSETS AND RECORDS.

Senator Drilon affirmed that the 30-day period

would apply only when the person is the subject of

a surveillance such as wiretapping a nd or examination

of bank accounts; if he was arrested after the

surveillance was done, the team that conducted the

surveillance and the examination of bank accounts

should file the information during the five days of

warra ntless detention, and it has up to 30 days, at the

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47


938 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5 , 2006

GOVERNMENT WITNESSES TESTFYINGUNDER THIS AC T SHALL BE GOVERNEDBY SECTIONS 17AND 18OF RULE 119 OF

THE RULES OF COURT; PROVIDED,

HOWEVER, THAT SAID WITNESSESSHALL BE ENTITLED TO BENEFITSGRANTED TO WITNESSES UNDER SAIDREPUBLIC ACTNO. 6981.

Senator Drilon explained that under Republic Ac tNo, 6981, the discretion to convert someone into a

state witness is lodged in the Secretary of Justice.

He said that the purpose o f amendment is to transfer

that discretion to a court, under Rule 119 of the

Rules of Court, so that it is now the court - not the

Secretary of Justice - hat determines who is the

state witness.

max imum , to file the information. If no case is filed

’after the 30-day period, he said that the police officer

is under obligation to notify the person whose bank

account was examined and to answer for his act of

applying for authority to conduct surveillance and/or

examination of bank accounts without any probable

basis.

9. On page 25, line 16, between th e words“Unauthorized” and “Examination,” nsert thewords OR MALICIOUS;

IO. On the same page, line 24, replace the phrase“a Regional Trial Conit” with THE COURTOF APPEALS;

11. On page 26, aRer l i e 2, insert a new paragraphto read as follows:

IN ADDITION TO THE LIABILITYATTACHING TO THE OFFENDER FOR THECOMMISSION OFANY OTHER OFFENSE,THE PENALTY OF PRISIONMAYOR IN ITSMAXIMUM PERIOD SHALL BE IMPOSEDUPON ANY POLICE OR GOVERNMENTLAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHOMALICIOUSLY OBTAINED AN AW O R lTYFROM THE COURT OF APPEALS TOEXAMINETHEDEPOSITS, PLACEMENTS,TRUST ACCOUNTS, ASSETS, OR RECORDSIN A BANK OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONOF: (1) A PERSON CHARGED WITH ORSUSPECTED OF THE CRIME OF TERROR-ISM OR CONSPIRACY TO COMMITTERRORISM, (2) A JUDICIALLYDECLARED

AND OUTLAWED TERRORIST ORGANIZ-ATION, ASSOCIATION, OR GROUP OFPERSONS, OR (3) A MEMBER OF SUCHORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, ORGROUP OF PERSONS: PROVIDED, THATNOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 32 OFTHIS ACT, THE PARTY AGGRIEVED BYSUCH AUTHORIZATION SHALL BEALLOWED ACCESS TO THE SEALED

ENVELOPE OR SEALED PACKAGE ANDTHE CONTENTS THEREOFASEVIDENCEFOR THE PROSECUTION OFANY POLICEOR GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT

PERso”ELwH0 w a 0 u s L Y RCXXJREDSUCH AUTHORIZATION.;

12. On page 29, delete lines 19 to 24 up to line3 of page 30, and in lieu thereof, insert a newSection 44 to read as follows:

SEC.44. IUM(/NITYAND PROTECTION

OF GOVERNMENT WITNESSES. - THEPROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6981

(WITNESS PROTECTION, SECURITY ANDBENEFIT ACT) TO THE CONTRARYN O W S T A N D I N G , THE OF


Upon m otion of Senator Drilon, the session was

suspended.

It was 5:46 p . m .


A t 5:48 pm., the session was resumed.

13. On page 30, delete lines 4 to 10, and in lieuthereof, insert a new Section 45 to read asfollows:

SEC. 45. P E N A L T Y F O R U N -

AUTHORIZED REVELATION OF CLASSIFIEDM2TERl.Al.S. -THE PENALTY OF PRISON

M 2 YOR IN ITS MAXIMUM PERIOD SHALLBE IMPOSED UPON ANY PERSON, POLICEOR GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENTAGENT, JUDICIAL OFFICER OR CIVILSERVANTWHO,NOT BEING AUTHORIZEDBY THECOURT OF APPEALS TO DO SO,REVEALSINANYMANNEROR FORMANY

CLASSIFIED INFORMATION UNDER THIS

ACT.;

14. On the same page, delete lines 11 to 15, and

in lien thereof, insert a new Section 46 toread as follows:

SEC. 46. PENALTY FOR FURM SHING

FADEEVIDENCE,FORGED DOCUMENI: OR

SPURIOUS EVIDENCE. - THE PENALTYOF RECLUSION TEMPORAL SHALL BEIMPOSED UPON ANY PERSON WHOKNOWINGLY FURNISHES FALSETESTIMONY, FORGED DOCUMENT ORSPURIOUS EVIDENCE IN ANYINVESTIGATION OR HEARING UNDERTHIS ACT.;

F-

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47


TUES DAY, DECEMBER 5,2006 939

15. On page 31, line I , delete the phrase “be thesupreme body to”;

16. On the same page, line 2, delete the word

“to”;

17. On the same page, line 8, delete the phrase“In addition to its present function,” and thecomma (,) and thereafter, capitalize the letter

18. On the same page, line 21, after the period,add a new sentence to read as follows:

NOTHING HEREIN SHALLBE INTER-PRETED TO EMPOWER THE ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCU TO EXERCISEANYJUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER

OR AUTHORITY.;

19. On page 32, delete lines 13 to 16 ;

Senator Enrile stated that the provision on lines

13 to 16, authorizes the Council to freeze the funds,

property or assets suspected of being related toterrorism, which is a proper function of the Anti-

Mo ney Laund ering Council.

“ I ’t in the word “the”;

20. Renumber the succeeding paragraphs

21. On page 33 , recast line 2 as follows:

accordingly;

TO DESIGNATE SPECIFIC DIVISIONOF THE COURT OF APPEALS ANDREGIONALTRIALCOURTS AS CASEMAY BE;

22. On the same page, delete lines 6 to 12 ;23. On page 34 , delete lines 16 to 22;

Senator Drilon explained that there is no need

fo r an initial funding of P500 million because the

Council, which shall be composed of government

officials as ex oficio members, shall be served by

the Sec r e t a r i a t o f t he Na t i ona l I n t e l l i gence

Coordinating Agency. He said that should there be aneed for appropriation, the President could alway s

use part of the contingent f h d for this purpose.

24. Renu mb er the succeed ing s ection saccordingly.


suspended.

Upo n mo tion of Senator Drilon, the session was

l t was 5:58 p.m.


At 559 p.m., the session was resumed.

25. Insert the following provision, whereverapplicable in the bill:

SEC._. CONTINUOUS TRIAL. - NCASES OFTERRORISM OR CONSPIRACYTO COMMIT TERRORISM, THE JUDGESHALL SETTHECASE FOR CONTINUOUSTRIAL ON A DAILY OR OTHER SHORT-TERM TRIAL CALENDAR SO AS TO

ENSURE SPEEDY TRIAL.;

Senator Drilon proposed the insertion of the

following provision, wherever app licable in the bill:

SEC. . A P P L I C A B I L I T Y OF

CHARGED WITH OR SUSPECTED OF THECRIMEOFTERRORISM OR CONSPIRACYTO COMMIT TERRORISM SHALL BESUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OFREPUBLIC ACT NO. 9344, OTHERWISE

KNOWN AS THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ANDWELFARE ACT OF 2006.

On Senator Enrile’s concern that the proposed

provision might defeat the very purpose of the

measure, Senator Drilon explained that the provision

was being proposed to emphasize that Republic Act

No. 9344 shall apply to persons who are below 18

years of age and charged with the crime of terrorism

or conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Senator Enrile believed that for the safety of the

State, a person, who is below 18 years of age and

charged w ith the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to

commit terrorism, would be excepted from the

coverage of he Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of

2006. Senator Drilon suggested that the proposal be

held in abeyance because this is a matter of policy to

be decided by the Body.

Senator Enrile agreed, saying that it is a major

policy issue which involves a balancing of national

interest against individual rights.

26. Insert the following provision, wherever

applicable in the bi l l

SEC. _ . JUDGMENT IN CASE OF

VARIANCE BETWEEN ALLEGATION AN D

PROOF. -WHEN THERE IS VARIANCEBEIWEENTHEOFFENSE OF TERRORISMCHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT OR1NI;ORMATION AND THAT PROVEDDURING THE TRIAL,ANDTHE OFFENSEOF TERRORISM NECESSARILY INCLUDESTHE OFFENSE OR FELONY PROVED,THEACCUSED SHALLBE CONVICTED OF THE

P

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47



OFFENSE OR FELONY PROVED WHICH IS

INCLUDED IN THE OFFENSE OFTERRORISM

Senator Drilon explained that this provision was

based on Section 4, Rule 120, Judgment of tlze

Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure , which

became effective in December 2005.

To Senator Enrile’s concern that under the

Constitution, the person charged has to be informed

of the offense for which he is being tried and that he

should be arraigned only for that crime, Senator

Drilon said that the accused would be sufficiently

informed because when the information is read, the

elements of the crime of terrorism he comm itted are

likewise read.

Further, Senator Drilon pointed out that in

People vs Ortega, G. R. No. 116736, July 24, 1997,

the S upreme Court ruled that:

An accused cannot be convicted of an

offense not charged or included in the inform-ation because the Constitution guarantees that:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shallenjoy the right to be informed of the nature andcause of theaccusation against him. It mattersnot how conclusive and convincing the evidenceof guilt may be. An accused person cannot beconvicted o f any offense unless it is charged in

the complaint or information on which he is

tried, or necessarily included therein.

INQUIRIES OF SENATOR PIMENTEL

Senator Pimentel asked why a person should be

charged under the Anti-Terrorism Law and not

directly for the crime of arson or murder. He

commented that the Anti-Terrorism Law provides

more leeway to the prosecution to cause the arrest

of people and detain them on the basis of probable

cause. He said that a Filipino citizen could be subjected

to an “either or” charge by the prosecution thatwould place him at a disadvantage in planning his

defense because he would not know in advance

under what law he has been charged.

Senator Enrile explained that the amendment

would cover a situation where the elements ofterrorism like murder have been proven but the

prosecution failed to prove that the murder was part

of a terrorist act like coercing the government to

accede to a given demand.

Senator Pimentel informed the Body that in the

United Kingdom , terrorists are not charged under ananti-terrorism law but for specific acts in violation of

existing criminal laws. Se nator Enrile said that it was

unfortunate that the Philippines is still operating under

the Codigo Penal of the Spanish system.

Senator Drilon explained that the amendment

was proposed to emphasize the provision in the Rulesof court .

Accep ted by the Sponsor, there being no

objection, the Body approved the amendment.

27. Insert the following provision, whereverapplicable in the bill

SEC- PROSECUTION WDER THISACT SHALL BE A BAR TO ANOTHERPROSECUTION UNDER THE REVISEDPENAL CODE OR AN Y SPECIAL PENALLAWS.- WHEN A PERSON HAS BEEN

PROSECUTED UNDER THIS ACT W O N AVALID COMPLAINT OR INFORMATIONOR OTHER FORMAL CHARGE SUFFICIENTINFORM AND SUBSTANCE TO SUSTAINA CONVICTION AND AFTER THEACCUSED HAD PLEADED TO THECHARGE, THE ACQUITTAL OF THEACCUSED OR THE DISMISSAL OF THECASE SHALL BE A BAR TO ANOTHERPROSECUTION FOR ANY OFFENSE ORFELONY WHICH IS NECESSARILYINCLUDED IN THE OFFENSE CHARGED

UNDER THIS ACT.


Upo n motion of Senator Drilon, the session was

suspended.

It was 6:16 p.m.



28. Insert the following provision wheneverapplicable in the bill:

SEC.-, APPLICABILITY OF THEREVISED PENAL CODE.-TEE PROVISIONSOFBOOKIOFTHEREVISEDPCODE

SHALLBE APPLICABLE TO THIS ACT.

REQUEST OF SENATOR DRILON

Senator Drilon requested the Secretariat to

prepare a clean copy of the bill incorporating all the

approved amendments.

v

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47


TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5,2006 94 1



It was 6:19 p.m.

suspended.



SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION

OF SENATE BILL NO. 2137


no objection, the Body suspended consideration of

the hill.


Upon m otion of Senator Pangilinan, the session

It was 6:20 p m .

was suspended.


At 620 p.m., the session was resumed.

SUBCOMMITTEES

After conferring with Senate President Villar,

Senator Pimentel and the chairman of the Comm ittee

on Education, Arts and Culture and pursuant to

Section 18 of the Rules of the Senate, SenatorP a n g i l i n a n m a n i f e s t e d t h e c r e a t i o n o f t w o

subcommittees under the Committee on Education,

Arts and Culture: 1) A subcommittee that would

conduct hearings on Se nate Bill No. 1089 (promoting

the protection and creation of the National Heritage

Comm ission) with Senator Angara as chairman; and

2) A subcommittee to conduct hearings on Senate

Resolution Nos. 570, 108, 116, 183 and other matters

pertaining to the production, procurement and

distribution of textbooks in all public schools.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Upon nomination by Senator Pangilinan, there

being no objection, Senator Lacson was elected

member of the Committee on Education, Arts an d

Culture.

Senator Pangilinan manifested that Senator

Lacson shall chair the subcommittee to conduct

hearings on Senate Resolution Nos. 570, 108, 116,

183 and other related matters.

COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 59

ON SENATE BILL NO. 2232

(Continuat ion)


no objection, the Body resumed consideration, on

Second Reading, o f Senate Bill No. 2232 (Committee

Report No. 59), entitled

AN ACT REVISING REPUBLIC ACT

N O . 9 1 3 6 E N T I T L E D A N A C T

O R D A I N I N G R E F O R M S I N T H E

ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY,

AMENDING FOR TH E PURPOSE

CERTAIN LAWS AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES.

Senator Pangilinan stated that the parliamentary

status was still the period of interpellations.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized Senator Enrile,

Sponsor of the measure, and Senator Osmefia for the

continuation of his interpellation .


Upon m otion of Senator Pangilinan, the session

was suspended.

It was 6:26 p.m.



INTERPELLATION OF SENATOR OSMERA

(Continuat ion)

Senator Osmefia observed that the prices at the

WESM, where there is theoretically one owner and

one bidder, went up on a weekly average from P3.00

per k w h in the early days to P10.00 per kWh. in the

recent weeks. Se nator Enrile stated that this happen edbecause of the distorted nature of the power market

where the biggest buyer of pow er for distribution is

Meralco which, under the IPP agreements, has its

own suppliers - First Gas with its Sta. Rita and San

Lorenz o plants, Quezon Power, and two other smaller

companies, one being Duracom. Combined, he said

that these IPPs supply 52% of Meralco’s power

requirements for distribution. He pointed out that

while 48% of Meralco’s supply needs should have

been contracted with NPC, it did not happen in spite

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47


942 TUESDAY. DECEMBER 5 . 2006

of the law that mandates transition supply contracts

and/or bilateral contracts should be obtained by the

NPC power plants primarily with Meralco. He

underscored that the price distortion that resulted

from this situation should be corrected by C ongress

by imposing as a mandate on Meralco to cooperate

and enter into transition supply contracts with NPC

to ensure the stability of power prices.

I n reaction, Sena tor Osmeiia pointed out that the

law provides that from the establishment of the

WESM, no distribution utility should source more

than 90% of its total demand from bilateral power

supply contracts, meaning, the 10% could be source d

from the WESM .

But Senator Enrile stated that Meralco refused

to enter into bilateral power supply Contracts and

opted to buy its power needs from the WESM and

so it could almost dictate the price of power.

Senator Osrnefia disagreed, saying that there

was o nly one supplier, NPC, w hich is why the rates

went up to P10.00 per kw h. Meralco, he contended,

was willing to sign a contract with NPC so long as

it matched the price it sold to Meralco at the WE SM;

and when Mera lco was willing to buy at P4.90 per

kwh, NPC turned around and sold to consumers

within the Meralco franchise area at P4.60 per kWh.

However, he disclosed that Meralco just recently

signed a transition supply contract with NPC with

terms fair to both sides. He m aintained that as long

as there is one supplier of power, there would be amonopoly, for which reason, he has supported the

privatization of 70% of the NPC assets because

even when it controlled only 50% of the supply

market, it was such a dominant force.

Senator Enrile countered that in the same manner,

Meralco could control pricing on the demand side

since it distributes 60% of the national dem and.

Senator Osmeiia pointed out that the rates of M eralco

have to approved by the ERC , unlike the rates in the

WE SM. Anybody, he added, could go to the SupremeCourt to question the ER C-approved Meralco rates.


Upo n motion of Se nator Enrile, the session was

suspended.

I t was 6:39 p .m.



Senator Enrile insisted that the other side of the

story is that the NF'C wante d to e nter into a transitio n

supply contract with Meralco so that they could

arrive at a mutually beneficial pricing system rather

than have an ERC-regulated pricing system. He

stated that Mera lco opted to get its additional supply

from the spot market and so the price of power

became unstable. He pointed out that Meralco paid

a higher price that it wan ted to pass .on to itsconsumers so it went to the ERC to recover the

difference between the negotiated price and the spot

market price.

Senator Osmeiia maintained that regardless of

the buyer, NPC, being the only supplier, can quote its

own price at the WE SM. H e stressed that it is hard

to discipline the market unless there is competition.

Fo r his part, Senator Enrile maintained that both sides

have a responsibility - NPC, on the supply side

because it sells a bigger volume; an d Meralc o, on thedistribution side because it can also dictate its own

buying price. Sena tor Osmeria disagreed , saying that

Meralco has to buy power to supply its customers

and therefore, it is at the mercy of the prevailing

price in the market.

Senator Enrile asked why M eralco did not enter

into a contract with NPC when it was supposed to

benefit its consumers. In reply, Senator Osmeiia

stated that precisely, NPC offered a contract under

which it was allowed to sell to the very clients of

Meralco. He recalled that all that Meralco asked

NPC to do was to m atch the price it offers Meralco

when it sells at the W ESM. He pointed out that NPC

and PSALM have advanced the argument that once

the price of power is lowered, everybody would buy

excess electricity and experience proved this wrong.

Further, Senator Osmeila stated that even if power is

offered at P3.50 tomorrow, consumers would still

shut off their air-conditioners when they leave the

house. Power, he said, is not really price elastic in

the short term but in the long term, with a steady low

price, an investor would be encouraged to put up afacto ry somewhere . He sa id that con t rary to

expectations that an open access would encourage

more sale of excess power, there is no expansion of

demand when power is sold at the WESM at zero

price.

Asked by Senato r Enrile how he w ould solve this

dilemma, Senator Osmefia stated that according to

businessman Jaime A ugust0 Zobel, government should

finish the privatization of the pow er ind ustty because

P

7/29/2019 Senate No. 47


TUESDAY, DECEMBER5,2006 943

unless there is competition, here would be no realistic

power rates to encourage the building of world-class

infrastructure.

Senator Osmefia noted that NPC and Credit-

S u i s se F i r s t B o s to n b o th r eco m m en d ed th a t

government reorganize seven generating companies

with varied types of plants, and when that did not

work, they were bundled by category, and again,that also failed to work. He said that the buyers

bidded for variable, low-cost plants such as Masinloc,

rather than oil-based plants which remained with

the government. This, he said, is the reason why he

believed that the government’s 70% privatization

program, while not sufficient, was a giveaway to

NF’C because w hoever buys mid-me rit plants would

have to compete with NPC which has the advantage

of not paying taxes and duties on im ported materials

like coal, and can readily bring its rates down as well.

Asked by Senator Enrile whether he believed

that the government should rethink its policy of

hurriedly disposing assets of Napocor and/o r PSALM

even at giveaway values to attain its goal of having

70% privatization, Sena tor Osmefia said that there is

no such thing as a giveaway value since in a

legitimate bidding process, every bidder makes the

others honest. On a related matter, he noted that the

price for the assets of Mirant that has over 2,000

megawatts continues to go up as seven or eight

companies are bidding for them.


Upo n motion of Senator Enrile, the session was

suspended.

It was 6:53 p.m.


At 7:11 p,m., the session was resumed

Senator Enrile stated that after conferring with

Senator Osmefia and the resource persons, it was

agreed that the Body would discuss the bill in

January, at w hich time, a comm on position could be

presented to the Body.

Senator Osmeiia said that it would depend upon

the plan to privatize the NP C assets that PSALM-

NF’C has been instructed to draw up. He pointed out

that one of the reasons foreign investors do not

invest in the country is the high power rates.

SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION

OF SENATE BILL NO. 2232

Upo n motion of Sen ator Pangilinan, there being

no objection, the Body suspended consideration ofthe bill.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION


no objection, Senate President Pro Tempore Flavier

declared the session adjourned until three o’clock in

the afternoon of the following day.

It was 7:14 p.m.

I hereby cert ify

foregoing.

to the correctness of the

Secretary o the Senate

k i pApproved on December 11, 2006

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	shampoo2288
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Senate No. 47

Documents