Conclusion
SEPTEMBER 23, 1986, was a pivotal day for the political-dynasty issue.
This was the day it was decided whether the provision for banning political dynasties would be inserted in the 1987 Constitution.
The minutes of the Constitutional Commission showed that the ban on political dynasties almost never saw the light of day.
When it was suggested that the ban be included in the local government section of the Charter, the members of the Constitutional Commission rejected the proposal. However, the proponents of the ban didn’t give up after that setback.
Two members of the Constitutional Commission engaged in a fierce debate on the issue. On one side was Jose N. Nolledo, who was for including the ban in the Charter; and Christian S. Monsod, who disagreed with their view.
After Nolledo made his proposal, Monsod moved to have the prohibition deleted from the proposed Constitution.
The matter was put to a nominal vote.
Nolledo’s proposal survived by one vote. Seventeen votes backed Monsod move to have the ban deleted, while 18 members of the Constitutional Commission opted to retain the ban. One member abstained. He was Hilario Davide, who would one day be appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
After the vote, Monsod questioned the way the vote was conducted, a move that Rene Sarmiento opposed.
For the next several minutes, the members of the Constitutional Commission discussed which of their rules applied to their pending dilemma.
The matter was finally settled after Monsod withdrew his motion.
Davide then raised a new issue.
Instead of using the word “broaden,” he suggested that the phrase “ensure equal access to” be used. He also suggested that the phrase “public office” be changed to “public service.”
“So the entire section will read: ‘The state shall ensure equal access to opportunities public service and prohibit political dynasties,’” Davide suggested.
However, Davide’s suggestion gave Franciso Rodrigo an opportunity to ask for the deletion of the phrase “prohibit political dynasties.”
“By prohibiting political dynasties, we do not broaden but restrict opportunities for public office,” Rodrigo explained. “That phrase is even incompatible, inconsistent with the very substance of the proposed amendment.” Another round of discussions began.
More questions
SERAFIN Guingona then took the floor and asked if the commission had approved Rodrigo’s proposed amendment.
“May I respectfully request for a reply regarding my question if the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo is approved by this Commission whether we would be precluded from proposing another amendment relative to political dynasties?” Guingona asked.
“My opinion is, if the proposed addition is substantially the same as the portion that was deleted, then that cannot be considered anymore,” Rodrigo answered. “But if it is not substantially the same, then it cannot be considered.”
Guingona replied that his question was directed at the presiding officer.
Trenas answered: “Yes, the chairman agrees, if there is substantial change.”
Nolledo asked to be recognized and he was given the floor.
“I would like to respond to the statement of Commissioner Rodrigo that the prohibition of political dynasties is only correlative to the first part,” Nolledo said. “I was interpellated by Commissioner Ople and I agreed with him when he asked if it was the intention of the committee to prohibit political dynasties in order to widen opportunities to public office and I answered yes.”
Nolledo reiterated that he disagreed with Ople’s view. Ople had earlier suggested that prohibiting political dynasties would limit opportunities to public office. Nolledo then asked Rodrigo if he wanted to hear the explanation again.
“The gentleman has said enough,” Rodrigo replied.
Whatever way
AFTER Rodrigo had his turn, Christine Tan, a nun of the Religious of Good Shepherd and another member of the Constitutional Commission, asked to be recognized.
“The chairman recognizes Commissioner Tan,” Trenas said.
When Tan took the floor, she told her fellow commissioners that the “main content” of what they voted on so passionately was the issue of political dynasties.
“We can apply the law in whatever way we wish, so that it comes out that we are not returning what we tried to delete, but in our hearts, we know that the main point was political dynasties,” she said. “And whatever words we use, we know that the main point is political dynasties.”
“And I want to be put on record because those who vote against are voting against political dynasties, and those who vote for, want political dynasties to be perpetuated,” she added.
Crispino de Castro then took the floor and argued that the issue at hand was not about political dynasties. “We are talking here of Rule X, Section 50 of our rules, as well explained and expounded by Honorable Maambong,” de Castro said.
At this point, Commissioner Yusuf Abubakar took the floor. “It seems the debate centers on a proposition that is vital to our democracy,” he said.
Elect their own
ABUBAKAR sided with those in favor of deleting the phrase “prohibit political dynasties” from the provision currently under debate.
“How can we, on the assumption that we are only appointed or even if we were elected, suppress the voice of the people if they want an elected representative to continue with one, two [for] three terms?” he asked. “So be it. We are not here to suppress that voice.”
He also reminded his fellow commissioners of the dictum that the voice of the people is the voice of God.
“So I agree with the proposition of Commissioner Rodrigo, which is to eliminate that portion and let the beginning stand and eliminate ‘prohibit political dynasties,’” Abubakkar said.
At this point, Trenas, who was the presiding officer, appointed Maambong as acting Floor Leader in the absence of Commissioner Napoleon Rama.
Maambong then took the floor and announced that the commissioners present were now ready to vote on the motion to delete the phrase “prohibit political dynasties.”
A technicality
SARMIENTO prevented the vote from taking place by reminding everyone that the first attempt to delete the entire
provision on political dynasties was rejected by a vote of 18 for retaining the provision, against 17 who voted for deletion.
He added that Rodrigo’s attempt to delete the phrase “prohibit political dynasties,” was out of order.
“My submission, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that the motion to strike out is a violation of what we have approved favorably this noon and a violation of Section 50 of our rules,” Sarmiento said.
De Castro, who answered Sarmiento’s assertion, bluntly told Sarmiento to read the second sentence of Section 50.
“It states and I quote: ‘A motion to strike out’—and that is the motion of Commissioner Monsod to delete—‘being lost,’ which was lost by questionable votes, ‘shall not preclude an amendment,’” de Castro explained.
De Castro also pointed out that Rodrigo’s motion was in reaction to Davide’s amendment.
A point of order
RODRIGO, who agreed with de Castro, then said: “The body should vote on whether to vote for or against my amendment.”
Davide reacted to Rodrigo’s statement. “Mr. Presiding Officer, for the record, my amendment was not an amendment by substitution,” Davide said. “My amendment is to change only the following words—‘broaden’ and ‘office.’ And so, it is not to be considered technically as an amendment by substitution.”
Commissioner Jose Suarez took the floor and focused on Nolledo’s motion: “And the gentleman is saying that because of such a development, that should practically bar any further motion to delete the substance of this particular provision?” Nolledo replied that Suarez was correct.
“Before the motion to delete was filed by Commissioner Monsod, all the discussions were centered on whether or not to prohibit political dynasties,” Nolledo said.
“And that is the reason the gentleman is saying that the Honorable Rodrigo, with due respect to him, is out of order in this regard,” Suarez replied.
Rodrigo immediately responded to the development.
“I am only asking for the deletion of a portion of the section as reworded by the proponent, Commissioner Davide,” Rodrigo said. “I think the situation should be to let the body vote on my amendment. Why prevent the body?”
Commissioner Ambrosio Padilla, who was the vice president of the Constitutional Commission, took the floor and tried to clear the matter up by suggesting that a vote be taken.
Maambong then asked if Davide’s amendment had been accepted by the commission. Commissioner Gregorio Tingson told Maambong that Davide’s changes had already been accepted.
“Since that is accepted, there is now a pending motion to amend the amendment of Commissioner Davide by Commissioner Rodrigo,” Maambong said. “But just to keep the parliamentary situation in order, we cannot proceed to that, unless we resolve the point of order raised by Commissioner Nolledo. And the point of order raised is that we cannot vote on the motion of Commissioner Rodrigo to delete the words ‘prohibit political dynasties.’”
Maambong also explained that since the body was apparently split into those who believed that Section 50 applied to the situation and those who believed otherwise, the presiding officer must rule on Nolledo’s point of order.
“The chairman rules that the point of order raised by Commissioner Nolledo is not well taken because of Section 50,” Trenas said. Nolledo tried to appeal the ruling of the chairman, but was thwarted by Maambong, who said: “An appeal to the ruling of the chairman is not debatable.”
Maambong put the matter to the floor, so that the body can vote on it.
The commissioners upheld the ruling of the presiding officer with 18 votes in favor and 14 against with no abstentions.
This paved the way for the commissioners to vote either in favor or against the phrase “and prohibit political dynasties.”
Aborted attempt
AFTER the bell was rung and the commissioners called in, Jose Colayco tried to prevent the vote from taking place.
“I believe we are departing from past practice,” Colayco said. He warned that if this vote was taken, it would effectively paralyze their proceedings.
“We will be back to where we were,” he said. “Again, what will stop somebody with another amendment to amend the vote which, in effect, struck out the section, which we have agreed upon by a vote of 18 to 17 to remain?”
Colayco added that Rodrigo’s motion to delete the phrase was inconsistent with the first vote, which approved the retention of the controversial provision.
Trenas immediately responded that Rodrigo’s motion was in order.
Thereafter, Colayco conceded and dropped his objection.
The vote
MAAMBONG reminded everyone that those who vote “yes” would be voting for the deletion of the words “and
prohibit political dynasties,” while those who would vote “no” were for the retention of the said phrase.
The matter was finally put to the floor. The results of the nominal voting were 18 votes in favor of deleting the phrase and 21 votes against deletion.
“The proposed amendment of Mr. Rodrigo is lost,” Trenas said.
Guingona then proposed that the words “as may be provided by law” be added. Davide objected, saying that it was inappropriate to add such words to the Declaration of Principles.
Instead, Davide suggested that the phrase should be “as may be defined by law.” Guingona agreed with Davide’s proposal. Thus, the ban on political dynasties took its final shape and included in the present Charter.
And nearly three decades after the Constitutional Commission spent so much time and energy discussing the appropriateness of the ban on political dynasties, the prohibition is still just a hollow statement in the Constitution.
Image credits: BM Graphics: Ed Davad