REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Senate
Pasay City

Journal
SESSION NO. 32
Wednesday and Thursday October 4 and 5.2006

THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
THIRD REGULAR SESSION

SESSION NO. 32 Wednesday and Thursday October4 and 5,2006

CALL TO ORDER
At 4:51 p.m., Wednesday, October 4, the Senate President, Hon. Manny Villar, called the session to order.

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. Lapid, M. L. M. Arroyo, J. P. Lim, A. S . Biazon, R. G. Madrigal, M. A. Cayetano, C. P. S . Magsaysay Jr., R. B. Drilon, F. M. Osmeiia III, S . R. Ejercito Estrada, J. Pangilinan, F. N. Ejercito Estrada, L. L. P. Pimentel Jr., A. Q. Enrile, J. P. Recto, R. G. Flavier, J. M. Revilla Jr., R. B. Gordon, R. J. Roxas, M. Lacson, P. M. Villar, M. With 22 senators present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum. Senator Defensor Santiago was on sick leave, for anorexia.

PRAYER
Sen. Luisa Loi P. Ejercito P. Estrada led the prayer, to wit: Today, October 4, is the Feast Day of St. Francis of Assisi. St. Francis reminds us that we are called to bring about justice and peace in our world; to end violence and war, poverty and oppression; to protect animals and our fragile planet; and most importantly, to love ones enemies. Lord, make us an instrument of Your peace; Where there is hatred in this forsaken nation, allow us to sow love; Where there is injury inflicted by our enemies, let us forgive them; Where there is doubt in the integrity of OUT leaders, make us your tool to end the wickedness; Where there is despair and suffering amongst our people, allow us to
bring hope; Where there is darkness and injustice pervading our society, make us Your guiding light; Where there is sadness and desolation, allow OUT faith to keep us steadfast.

MANIFESTATION OF SENATOR DRILON

Adverting to Senator Lacsons motion to suspend the Rules of the Senate to accommodate the budget hearings, Senator Drilon stated that for the past two weeks, the Committee on Finance has been holding hearings practically all day in an attempt to finish the 2007 budget on time. He said that, currently, the country is operating on a reenacted budget which many believe is not good for the economy. He reported to the Body that the House of Representatives would soon finish the debate on the 2007 budget, and approve it on Second and Third Readings in a weeks time. He stated that the Senate is therefore under pressure to finish the measure because the country cannot afford to have another reenacted budget in 2007, the constitutionality of @

Grant that we may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console; To be understood, as to understand; To be loved, as to love; For it is in giving, that we receive; It is i n pardoning, that we are pardoned; And it is in dying, that we are born to eternal life. Amen.

466

WEDNESDAY, OCIOBER 4,2006

which, according to Senator Enrile, is doubtful. He hoped that the Senate would be able to finish the 2007 budget following the schedule drawn up by the Committee.

As regards the rule that no committee hearing shall be held while session is ongoing, Senator Drilon stated that the Committee has been trying hard to follow it but there were times when some senators were still asking questions at three oclock in the afternoon while some had patiently waited for their turn and so the Committee had to accommodate them.

He expressed appreciation for Senator Lacsons effort to accommodate the hearings, as he acknowledged that Senator Arroyo correctly opposed the motion to suspend the Rules. He advised the Body that, henceforth, he would see to it that every rule shall be followed.
MANIFESTATION OF SENATOR ARROYO
Senator Arroyo informed the Body that he was scheduled to deliver a privilege speech but he realized that there were more important matters to take up in the days session. In view thereof, upon his request and with the permission of the Body, the full text of his speech was entered into the Journal and the Record of the Senate, without prejudice to interpellations thereon at a later date.

...as a necessary consequence of such nullity and illegality x x x all payments made therefor, have no basis whatsoever in law. The public funds expended pursuant to the void Resolution and contract must therefore be recovered from the payees andlor from persons who made possible the illegal disbursements, without prejudice to possible criminal prosecution against them and decreed furthermore [that] Comelec and its officials concerned must bear full responsibility for the failed bidding and award, and held accountable for the electoral mess brought by the grave abuse of discretion in the performance of their functions.
The High Court intoned that: Comelec is further ORDERED to refrain from implementing any other contract or agreement entered into with regard to this project. The Blue Ribbon Committee Report as adopted by the Senate states that: It is serendipitous that the Findings of the Committees own independent inquiry coincide with the Highest Courts conclusions. xxx The remedy is for the Commissioners in the COMELEC who participated in the anomalous bidding and procurement, as well as the officials in the BAC involved therein, to vacate their positions so that their replacements can be appointed and thereby pave the way for renewed and earnest efforts to implement the law on automated elections. xxx The country faces the next elections in May 2007 and if the attempt to amend the Constitution prospers, a plebiscite may be held in 2006. xxx
In other words, since the COMELEC cannot conduct a clean and honest bidding and procurement, how can it be expected to conduct clean and honest elections?

PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF SENATOR ARROYO

The full text of Senator Arroyos speech follows:
C R I M E c o WlTHOW PERPETRATORS

The Supreme Court ruled that the MegaPacific-Comelec automation contract was null and void. The Senate likewise found the contract null and void. The Ombudsman, in its resolution, agreed that it was null and void. Despite the unanimity that the contract was null and void, why did the Ombudsman deviate sharply in respect to the remedy urged by the Supreme Court and the Senate? A capsule review of the Supreme Court and Senate findings will shed light The Supreme Court declared that:

xxx

WEUNESUAY, OClOBER4,2UU6

467

If the COMELEC officials involved do not voluntarily relinquish their positions, then the most feasible way to i t h the Ombudsman, remove them rests w which is in the concluding stages of its own investigation of the same public officials, and with the Solicitor General pursuant to the Supreme Court Decision.
xxx

to deliver a privilege speech on the issue. He said that in spite of the flu, he attended the session on Monday to hear the speech that never came but before he left, he asked the Majority Leader to relay his request to the Body to terminate the period of interpellations without prejudice to senators raising questions during the period of amendments. Senator Enrile stated that he reiterated his motion in yesterdays session but the Minority Leader objected and raised a point of order. He acknowledged that under the Rules, it is discretionary on the part of the Senate President or the Presiding Officer to consider or not to consider a point of order raised by a Member. He said that a while ago, the Senate President informed him that he would forego ruling the point of order. Thereupon, Senator Enrile called for a division of the House on his motion, pointing out that as provided for in Section 123, Rule XLIV, Unfinished business at the end of the session shall be taken up at the next session in the same status. He stressed that the motion, duly seconded, is now before the Body.

The Supreme Court felt that those who participated in the illegal contract involving public funds should be punished and directed the Ombudsman to look into it and the Solicitor General to recover the P 1.2 billion paid to Mega Pacific. On the other band, the Senate looked at what would happen to future elections run by a tainted and damaged Comelec and asked the Ombudsman to likewise look into it and asked the involved Commissioners to resign. What did the Ombudsgirl do? She dubiously looked for ways to exonerate the Comelec Commissioners and officials of wrongdoing despite the nullity of the contract and fashioned a curious resolution of a crime committed without perpetrators. The Ombudsgirl has a lot of explaining to do. This office is charged with investigating graft and conuption. It may well be asked Is it being used to conceal conuption?

REMARKS OF SENATOR PIMENTEL

Senator Pimentel observed that the facts narrated by Senator Enrile were essentially correct except that he never agreed to suspend the discussion on the bill just because he wanted to deliver a privilege speech on the issue. He clarified that he asked Senator Enrile if it was at all possible to discuss the matter in the next session day because other senators like Senator Madrigal wanted to interpellate on the bill. He stated that he found it unsettling that some Members would be deprived of their right to ask questions during the period of interpellations. He maintained that there are a wide range of matters or questions that could be discussed or raised during the period of interpellations like why other countries are not being asked to pass an antiterrorism law, or why the U.S. Patriot Act treat aliens differently. He pointed out that he would support the antiterrorism bill with the collatilla that the rights of the Filipino people are safeguarded. He emphasized that these concerns should not be construed as an effort to delay the bill because each senator has a different way of looking at a situation and while Senator Enrile

REMARKS OF SENATOR PANGILINAN

On the present parliamentary status, Senator Pangilinan recalled that consideration of the antiterrorism bill was not suspended when the session was adjourned the previous day so, technically, it is the first item in the agenda. Moreover, he pointed out that there was the pending motion of Senator Enrile to terminate the period of interpellations that has not been acted upon by the Body.

REMARKS OF SENATOR ENRILE

To put the matter into proper perspective, Senator Enrile recalled that last week, he already intimated that he would make a motion to terminate the period of interpellations on the anti-terrorism bill without prejudice to senators raising questions during the period of amendments. He stated that in the caucus, he was prevailed upon by the Minority Leader to defer it until Monday because, apparently, he intended

46X

WEDNESDAY, ocrown4,2006

has a broad range of experience, he might be unaware of these viewpoints. Senator Pimentel said that the period of amendments is different from the period of interpellations and there is no need to compress one into the other as it would unduly restrict the right of a Member to interpellate on a measure. Senator Pimentel noted that even American lawmakers are still refining the U.S. Patriot Act to ensure that the rights of U S . citizens are protected. For instance, he revealed that in his reading of existing literature on anti-terrorism in the U S , the anti-terrorism procedures there prescribe different periods for eavesdropping into and intercepting the communication or correspondence of an alien. He believed that Senator Enrile would not want to exclude any Member from making such inquiries, as he emphasized that it is important to craft a law that would not be used as a tool to harass the opposition. He expressed hope that the Majority would listen to the Minority because at some point, the situation could be reversed and the new Minority would be asking the new Majority for the very same consideration. He believed that the Members could discuss the issue more dispassionately.

MANIFESTATION OF SENATOR PANGILINAN

Senator Pangilinan stated that under the Rules, the motion of Senator Pimentel has precedence over other motions and since Senator Enrile objected and moved for a division of the House which is not debatable, the Body would vote first on the motion of Senator Pimentel.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION
With the permission of the Body, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 6:lO p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:14 p.m., the session was resumed.

VOTING ON THE PIMENTEL MOTION

At this point, the Chair requested those who are in favor of the motion of Senator Pimentel to raise their hands and, thereafter, requested those against it to do the same. With six senators voting in favor and 10 against, the motion of Senator Pimentel was defeated.

MOTION OF SENATOR PIMENTEL

Thereafter, Senator Pimentel moved that the Body hold an executive session, saying that the motion has precedence over all other motions with the exception of the motion to adjourn. Senator Enrile objected.

REMARKS OF SENATOR PIMENTEL

Senator Pimentel explained that his motion was designed to prevent a public discussion of contentious points that might unsettle some Members but he said that he would abide by the results of the voting. However, he believed that Senator Enrile could not ask the Body to terminate the period of interpellations and, at the same time, be willing to accommodate all questions. He noted that on Wednesday, Senator Madrigal was ready to interpellate but Senator Enrile was not feeling well and left early; and today, while Senator Madrigal was prepared to interpellate, Senator Enrile was no longer willing to entertain any interpellation. He disclosed that Senator Madrigal had prepared an extensive interpellation on new issues that would have been taken up were it not for the motion to terminate the period of interpellations. He reiterated that even if he was in favor of an antiterrorism law, he fears for the worse considering the penchant of the present administration for ignoring the rule of law and that President Macapagal Arroyo could not care less whether the Constitution and other &

MOTION OF SENATOR ENRILE

For his part, Senator Enrile moved for a division of the House on the motion to close the period of interpellations on Senate Bill No. 2137.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION
With the permission of the Body, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 5:12 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:07 p.m., the session was resumed.

WEDNESDAY, OCIUBER 4,2006

465,

important laws are followed for as long as she stays in power. He stressed that the danger of a good law being abused by a bad president is always present. Further, Senator Pimentel argued that illegal arrests and torture, and extrajudicial killings have been occurring notwithstanding laws against arbitrary detention, illegal arrest and torture and he noted that the victims included people who merely articulated ideas that were critical of the administration. Senator Pimentel pointed out that the requests of Members for reports on extrajudicial killings, illegal arrests and torture have been summarily snubbed by the law enforcement authorities who were supposedly instructed to look for the killers. He said that while the intentions for crafting an anti-terrorism law are noble, the Opposition are apprehensive that given the present situation, such a law might be used by the administration to abuse and curtail their right to speak out. This, he said, is the reason why the Minority believe that there must be a thorough discussion of Senate Bill No. 2137. Senator Pimentel reiterated that even the U.S. Patriot Act is currently undergoing revision because in the desire to stop the enemy of the U.S. that President Bush identified as terrorists, the lawmakers omitted many things. In fact, he said, one of the things that Senator Madrigal wanted to clarify is the meaning of the word terrorism and the circumstances in which a person could be considered a terrorist. He observed that the bill enumerates acts of terrorism but does not define terrorist. He believed that this is a weakness in the bill that needs to be debated and discussed because, at some future time, just in case an aggrieved party seeks redress in court for being arrested on suspicion that he is a terrorist, he would have recourse to the plenary debates. He argued while some questions could be raised during the period of amendments, they are in relation to specific amendments to certain provisions but not in relation to issues that have to do with the philosophy and operation of the law and matters that may not specifically be covered by the provisions. Senator Pimentel stated that he wanted to raise more questions on the issue but he was not among the four Members who were scheduled to interpelllate. While he expressed appreciation for Senator Enrile for graciously accepting some of the proposals of Senator Drilon, specifically with respect to the deletion of certain provisions, one being the

proposal to commit terrorism, there is much to be said for allowing the Members to articulate their concerns so as to perfect the bill and not to delay it. He said that he found it hard to accept the fact that the Body would readily revise the Rules on the ground that it had been done before; however, he insisted that this procedure should not be allowed when it comes to a very sensitive issue like antiterrorism. Senator Pimentel asserted that the implications of the measure are far-reaching; and people who have different views on matters affecting the country - the use of government funds, the governance of the Arroyo Administration -could be arrested on the basis of a provision of the law that could very well be used to advance the personal agenda of people in power. For instance, he drew attention to a provision allowing the detention of a suspect for 15 days, meaning, that the poor fellow who was picked up would probably languish in jail for a time longer than necessary. The fact that a person could be deprived of his liberty without just cause, he said, could be traumatic for him or cause anxiety to his family and, of course, wreck his life at least for the duration of his detention.

While the bill provides that the police would have

a logbook to list down the names of the people picked up on suspicion of committing terrorism and details attendant thereto, Senator Pimentel noted that the US., supposedly the bastion of democratic freedoms, flew suspects to Guantanamo for detention and deprived them of the right to counsel. He said that these abuses could happen in the Philippines, for which reason, it is important to have safeguards in the law, especially for those who do not have connections. He said that the Minority would like to articulate the dangers of abuse to prevent further injustice to people who already find themselves in an unjust situation. Senator Pimentel observed that the bill covers many acts that are punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and it provides the added element that an act intended to terrorize the people would be punishable under the Anti-Terrorism Act. He warned that if the bill is passed as presently worded, the prosecutor would have the leeway to prosecute a suspect under the Revised Penal Code or under the Anti-Terrorism Act which places Filipinos under a double threat. He said that he would have made a suggestion that in the matter of defining the offense,

470

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBEK4.2006

the participation of a foreign terrorist or element be a guiding principle; meaning, that if a Filipino connived with a foreign terrorist to bomb La Mesa Dam, for instance, he would be prosecuted under the AntiTerrorism Act. Senator Pimentel noted that even in the amendments to the U.S. Patriot Act, the American authorities are always looking for alliance with the al-Qaeda or with the jihadists. He stated that the U.S. went to war over Iraq because it believed that Iraq was the breeding ground of terrorists; it invaded Iraq on the pretext that the terrorists who slammed the planes into the Twin Towers in New York and Pentagon in Washington on September 11, 2001, had connections with Iraq. But he pointed out that subsequent investigations by U.S. intelligence agencies virtually cleared the Iraqis of any participation in these attacks. He cautioned that the Anti-Terrorism Act could turn out to be as defective as U S . Patriot Act. Senator Pimentel recalled that when martial law was declared, it was supposed to benefit the country but those who opposed it went to jail. In fact, he pointed out that the people who were arbitrarily arrested were the unlettered and had no connections with the powerful. He cited the case of Atty. Lutgardo Barbo, a lawyer for a softdrink factory in Pampanga, who was picked up without a warrant and tortured. He bared that Attorney Barbos only crime was that his name was found in the address book of Victor Lovely whom the military alleged to have threatened President Marcos with physical harm. Later, he said, it was proven that Attorney Barbo had no connection with Mr. Lovely except that they knew each other, both being from Eastern Samar. Senator Pimentel asserted that no one wants a repeat of martial law under the regime of an antiterrorist law, no matter how well-intentioned. However, he stressed that unless the proper safeguards are placed in the bill and the concerns of Members are thoroughly debated in the Chamber, there is danger that the law might be abused by people who want to please the President.

thanks to modem technological development, it does its job very well. The danger lies in the ability of the NSA to turn its awesome technology against domestic communications. He disclosed that the U.S. Senate is considering a new round of hearings on the Bush administrations domestic spying program - and a national security intelligence officer was fired after he publicly announced that he wanted to testify in the U.S. Congress on illegal acts of the government. Apparently, he observed, the Bush administration is intolerant of criticisms againsts its anti-terror policy. He said that he also intended to suggest to Senator Enrile the refinement of the provision in the bill regarding eavesdropping to minimize abuses by the government. Further, he believed that the U.S. situation was further complicated by President Bushs admission on October 3 that he allowed wiretapping more than thirty times and would continue to do with or without the approval of the U.S. Congress. He expressed concern over the imminent danger of allowing wiretapping in the country without adequate safeguards, a much greater danger than the one being faced by the American people. At this point, Senator Pimentel yielded the floor to Senator Madrigal to speak on the same concerns.

REMARKS OF SENATOR MADRIGAL

Objecting to the termination of the period of interpellations on the anti-terrorism bill, Senator Madrigal believed that the period of interpellations and the period of amendments are of two different natures, and the period of interpellations is not merely an exchange between the sponsor of the bill and the interpellator but it also enlightens the public on issues. Senator Madrigal clarified that even as the previous days Journal showed that she was not in the session hall when the measure, which was item no. 10 on the agenda of October 3, was called, she came nonetheless to interpellate the Sponsor. She added that she did not know that the Majority would change the Rules in midstream. She stated that she has nothing personal against the Sponsor and has no intention of using dilatory tactics to delay the passage of the bill, adding that she would be remiss in her duty as a senator if she went with the tide. Believing that the Filipino people f l

He recalled that as early as 1975, Senator Frank Church of Idaho observed that, We have a particular obligation to examine the National Security Agency in the light of its tremendous potential for abuse. The interception of international communication signal sent through the air is the job of the NSA. And

fi

WEDNESDAY, OCIOBBK4,2UU6

47 1

elected senators who follow their conscience, she said that last Monday, she objected to the motion to terminate the period of interpellations because of the apprehension of many constituents, especially those who might be affected by the law. Senator Madrigal stated that while it is easy to say yes and go with the tide, it is more difficult to stand in the Chamber to explain why there was a bottleneck for two days because of her insistence on interpellating. She believed that history would judge kindly those who erred on the side of human rights over those who erred on the side of being too arbitrary. Senator Madrigal stated that she has been thoroughly and studiously studying the measure since the first version came out, particularly the potential abuse of human rights; that is why she was most adamant in debating the bill during the period of interpcllations. In fact, she said that she got scared after reading all the literatures on terror and terrorism, prodding her to wonder why the Body should rush the bill. Further, she stated that she would not want to see a collegial body allow a little disgusto to cow it into acquiescing and to deprive the Minority of the chance to interpellate. She said that it would do no harm if the Senate had a few more days of very intense, thorough and meticulous debate to arrive at the meaning of terrorism. She read excerpts from a book showing that 150 world leaders tried during the 3-day U.N. Summit to arrive at a consensus on the meaning of terrorism but failed and that, in fact, efforts to write a global anti-terrorism treaty have been at an impass6 since 1996. She wondered how the Philippines could succeed where the U.N. failed. As regards the issue of allies being clones of America and following what big brother wants merely because it sounds good, she pointed out that according to a book she read, western governments have changed the rules of war, hurriedly introduced domestic legislation to combat an ill-defined enemy; and President Bushs decision in 2002 to set aside the Geneva Convention while fighting terrorists has legitimized the use of torture, and resulted in detaining suspects in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the secret network of prisons in Eastern Europe. Senator Madrigal believed that there are both international and national tendencies to abuse the law

as she noted the ongoing revisions to the US. Patriot Act under which major human rights violations are being committed daily. She cited the story in Time Magazine of a soldier who decimated a family, all in the name of patriotism. At this juncture, Senate President Villar relinquished the Chair to the Senate President Pro Tempore Flavier. She believed that the Senate should not allow the labeling of people as terrorists, similar to the labeling of people as heretics during the Inquisition and the labeling of a woman with a black cat a witch in Salem, Massachusetts in the early years of the settlement. Senator Madrigal said that legislators should learn from history, noting that in the past, human rights violations were committed against persons who were thought to be bad. Congress, she said, cannot pass a bill that the government or the State could use to terrorize the majority of Filipino people who fight for freedom and human rights. Senator Madrigal said that the Filipinos could see only one side of terrorism as presented by western channels like CNN, BBC and Fox News. She stated that the distressing events that took place in London in July 2005 are relevant to the people of U.K., which have proven that the war on terrorism was no longer a nebulous global phenomenon as these events have brought to their front steps the symptoms of war, panic, death and destruction. She stated that the Body should not close the debates on the proposed act until the exact definition of terrorism shall have been pinpointed, as she cautioned that the definition of the term mutates like a wild virus and according to who is in power, and who has more bombs and soldiers. Senator Madrigal pointed out that the BBC has made it clear in a memorandum that it does not label groups or acts as terrorists as the peoples idea of what constitutes terrorism is affected by their sympathy with the aims of the group concerned and their proximity to the events described, and even though there is a dictionary definition of terrorism, there is no doubt that it is always used as a political label. It is also the duty of the Senate, she said, to be as unbiased as possible so that the Members could craft the best legislation for the good of the people. She wondered how the Members can be dispassionateM

412

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4,2006

if the debates, which may lead to the parameters on the use of the terms terror, terrorism, and acts of terrorism, are cut short. Senator Madrigal said that the Oxford English Dictionary shows that the entomological root of the word terror comes from the Latin word terrere which means to frighten or to scare, and defines terrorism as a system of terror, government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the revolution of 1789 to 1794. Senator Madrigal stated that it is the duty of the Senate to examine all acts of intimidations and the conditions that would qualify an act as a form of terrorism. She believed that the definition of the word terrorism should be discussed very carefully, otherwise, it might endanger the rights of the people. She clarified that she was fighting the bill because she feared the people would have no recourse even to a lawyer. She urged her colleagues to craft a law that safeguards the human rights and freedoms of all Filipinos. According to Senator Madrigal, the second general definition of a terrorist suggests that it is simply someone who terrorizes which is too broad and has a highly pejorative meaning. She pointed out that the Russian revolutionaries and the French anarchists were branded terrorists by the government they sought to overthrow but to those who shared their cause, they were romantic and heroic figures. She warned, however, that labels stick. Still on the history of terrorism, Senator Madrigal stated that Mussolini and Hitler, applying statesanctioned terrorism through their armed thugs, were swept into power. She noted that the two dictators crushed internal opposition and in Germany, Hitler exterminated the Jews whom he branded as enemies of the state. Further, she pointed out that in Russia, Stalin used terror to subdue the people and through show trials, he sent millions to the Gulag, into exile or to their death. She warned that history could repeat itself. Senator Madrigal observed that the Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims. Precisely, she said, the provisions of the bill, specifically Section 3, needs further

clarification. She pointed out that under said section, any person acting in any manner described in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 127 of the Revised Penal Code and commits certain acts enumerated therein shall suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua or death, at the discretion of the court. If that section were to be applied to certain personalities like Cardinal Sin who promoted his political beliefs twice - in EDSA I and EDSA I1 - to topple two sitting presidents from power, she asked whether the Cardinal would be branded as a terrorist, or for that matter, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who took part and benefited from EDSA 11. If carried to the extreme, she said, by virtue of said section, anyone who blocks a street, promotes his religious belief, or even peacefully calls for a meeting, could be branded as terrorists. The anti-terrorism law, she cautioned, could stifle all types of dissent and the freedom of expression. Senator Madrigal asserted that it would be difficult to debate the issues during the period of amendments because some of the senators, who probably never had the time to study the bill as thoroughly as she did, were unfamiliar with concept and history of terrorism. Senator Madrigal said that she would risk being criticized for speaking endlessly rather than see millions of Filipinos lose their freedom because the senators did not debate the law thoroughly. It is not easy to craf a law, she stated, but it is even more difficult to craft a law when debates are shortened. She urged the Body to study the repercussions of the law, for instance, on a middle-class Filipino-Chinese businessman whose bank account could be examined by the authorities simply because he is suspected of being a terrorist. She expressed frustration over the defeat of the Pimentel motion, believing that the gentlemanly thing to do was to discuss the matter in an executive session. She maintained that she must fight for what she believed was right, and not yield to forces that might cause the blatant violation of human rights and freedom of speech. Senator Madrigal pointed out that a thin line separates freedom fighters from terrorists because one mans terrorist, she said, may be another mans freedom fighter. She cited Jose Rizal, Nelson Mandela and Yitzhak Rabin, freedom fighters or nationalists to their countrymen, but were considered enemies of the state by the foreign colonialists at one time or another. She underscored that movements in Third , &

WEDNESDAY, OCIOBEK4,2UUb

473

World countries in the 1950s that sought to overthrow colonial rulers refused to call themselves terrorists; rather, they described themselves as freedom fighters. militants, guerillas or mujahideens. There is much truth, she noted, in the statement of Yasser Arafat, the late Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), that anyone who stands by a just cause and fights for the freedom of his land from invaders could not be called a terrorist. She disclosed that at present, the term terrorist refers to a member of a clandestine organization aiming to coerce a government by acts of violence against citizens. But she noted that even the most comprehensive dictionary is unable to distinguish a violent struggle for freedom from terrorist activity. As such, she said that news organizations are very careful in choosing words such as terrorist to describe groups like the PLO, Irish Republican Army ( I R A )and the African National Congress (ANC), since their members who have fought violently, at times, for their cause are also considered defenders of nations. She pointed out that Mandela and Menachem Begin, once considered and vilified terrorists, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Thus, she warned that it is dangerous to label members of the legitimate opposition and progressive groups who choose to fight for civil rights as terrorists. Further, she maintained that the interpretation of the provisions of the law should not be left to the courts as it gives judges a wide latitude in interpreting the same according to their personal beliefs. Senator Madrigal stated that those condemned as terrorists in Ireland by the British government during the 70s were groups confronting racist regimes, but when the conflict was resolved, these people socialized at the Lancaster House in London, which illustrates how easily a terrorist today can become the freedom fighter and hero tomorrow. She expressed apprehension that rushing the bill would blur distinctions and many innocent people would be condemned as terrorists. She said that Congress should exert every effort to stop this from happening. Senator Madrigal wondered why the Arroyo administration was mshing the measure when no legislature in Southeast Asia has passed an antiterrorism law. She stated that the beauty of a democracy is that the people can agree to disagree; but each party must be willing to listen to the argument of the other dispassionately. She said that she cannot be bullied into submission because it

would be tantamount to a declaration of martial law, which shall weaken the very fabric of the collegiality and democratic principles by which the Senate was formed, and would make the senators hostages of the anti-terrorism bill. She underscored the need to guard the countrys freedom, saying that she was willing to stand to ensure that the civil liberties of the people would not be trampled upon.
MOTION TO ADJOURN

At this point, Senator Pimentel moved to adjourn the session for lack of quorum. Senator Pangilinan objected to the motion, explaining that the Rules of the Senate provides that when a question of quorum is raised, the session can either be adjourned or suspended momentarily to allow the Sergeant-at-Arms to call the senators into the hall. Senator Gordon said that the Members should follow the Rules, pointing out that under Section 75, subsequent speakers for or against the bill may consume two hours each for debates on bills or other matters, provided they are not on amendments. He said that Senator Madrigal has spoken for more than two hours. He stressed that when the Sponsor no longer yields the floor, the debate is finished. Senator Enrile said that he has given the Minority ample time to express their views. He said that the committee report is enough evidence of the fact that none of the Minority objected to the report. He requested the Chair to rule on his motion to close the period of interpellations. Senator Pimentel pointed out that the motion to adjourn is not debatable. Senator Pangilinan said that roll should be called to determine whether there is a quorum.
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. Biazon, R. G. Cayetano, C. P. S. Drilon, F. M. Enrile, J. P. Flavier, J. M. Gordon, R. J. Lacson, P. M. Lapid, M. L. M. Madrigal, M. A. Pangilinan, F. N. Pimentel Jr., A. Q . Villar, M.

414

WEDNESDAY, OCIUBEl14,2006

With 14 senators present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.

MOTION OF ADJOURN
Senator Lacson moved to adjourn the session due to the lateness of the hour. Senator Pangilinan objected to the motion.

specific case, the precedents of the Legislative Department of the Philippines shall be resorted to, and as supplement to these, the Rules contained in Jeffersons Manual, Riddicks Precedents and Practices, and Hinds Precedents. Senator Pangilinan called for a division of the House on the motion to adjourn.

VOTING ON THE MOTION TO ADJOURN

Senator Enrile pointed out that under the Rules, only one motion to adjourn can be entertained by the Chair. Thereupon, the Chair asked those in favor of the motion to adjourn to raise their hand and, thereafter, asked those against it to do the same. With three senators voting in favor and ten against, the motion to adjourn was defeated.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION
With the permission of the Body, the Chair suspended the session. It was 9:20 p.m.

MOTION TO TERMINATE THE PERIOD OF INTERPELLATION ON SENATE BILL NO. 2137

Senator Pangilinan reiterated the motion to terminate the period of interpellations on the bill.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 9:20 p.m., the session was resumed. Senator Pangilinan reiterated the previous motion to close the period of interpellations, saying a second motion to adjourn was not in order. Senator Lacson inquired into the particular rule which provides that no second motion to adjourn shall be allowed.

REMARKS OF SENATOR PIMENTEL

Senator Pimentel argued that Senator Madrigal should be allowed to finish her presentation because she had the floor when the motion to adjourn was raised. He emphasized that there is no cloture in the Senate and he warned that the Members would be starting a dangerous precedent if, by sheer force of numbers, they allowed a situation where a Member is prevented from articulating hisher views on the issue at hand.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION
With the permission of the Body, the Chair suspended the session. It was 9:21 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 9:24 p.m., the session was resumed.

He argued that the aforecited rule does not apply to the situation because the Members are not debating a particular bill but the motion to terminate the period of interpellations. Without yielding the floor, he allowed Senator Enrile to respond.

REMARKS OF SENATOR ENRILE

At this point, Senator Enrile read Section 71 of the Rules, to wit: Sec. 71.The Senate shall adopt the following procedure in the consideration of bills and joint resolutions: (a) Second reading of the hill. (b) Sponsorship by the committee chairman, or by any member designated by the committee. &

POINT OF ORDER OF SENATOR LACSON

Upon resumption, Senator Lacson raised a point of order, saying that there is nothing in the Rules that prohibits a second motion to adjourn. Senator Pangilinan stated that the Rules do not provide for a second motion to adjourn but Section 135 states that, If there is no Rule applicable to a

WEDNESDAY, OClOBE:K4,2006

475

(c) If a debate ensues, huns for and against the bill shall be taken alternately: Provided, however, That any committee member who fails to enter his objection or to make of record his dissenting vote after it shall have been included in the Order of Business and read to the Senate in accordance with the second paragraph of Section 24 hereof, shall not be allowed to speak against the bill during the period of general debate although he may propose and speak or vote on amendments thereto. (d) The sponsor of the bill or author of the motion shall have the right to close the debate. On the other hand, he pointed out that under Section 75, The sponsor may consume as much time as he deems necessary to express the contents of the bill. Subsequent speakers for or against a bill may consume two (2) hours each for debates on bills or other matters, provided they are not on amendments. He stated that the Body has discussed nothing else but the anti-terrorism bill. He added that the Majority have, in fact, allowed the Minority to speak out against the bill. Senator Pimentel believed otherwise, saying that the Minority were refuting the basis of the motion to terminate the period of interpellations and exercising their right, as senators, to speak out on a matter that does not directly address the bill. In response, Senator Enrile cited Section 78, to wit: Notwithstanding the provisions of this Rule regarding the time that each speaker may consume, the Senate may reduce or extend it with the consent of a majority of the Senators present when by reason of the nature or urgency of the bill the public interest so requires. But Senator Pimentel insisted that the Rule does not apply because the Members were not discussing the merits of the bill but the merits of the motion to terminate the period of interpellations. He feared for the institution, lest the Members accept a facile argument that it was only at the tolerance of the Majority that the Minority were allowed to speak. Senator Enrile posited that Senator Pimentel knew that the sponsor of a motion can close the debate after a Member has spoken for or against it for two hours.

Invoking Rule 71(d), Senator Enrile moved for the previous question. Senator Pimentel believed that the motion, if allowed to prevail, would unduly cut the right of a senator to speak that he can exercise by tradition, more than a rule. He asserted that when the motion to adjourn was voted down, it reinstated the right of Senator Madrigal to continue her presentation. Senator Enrile asked for a ruling from the Chair. REMARKS OF SENATOR GORDON Senator Gordon underscored that the Minority are aware that Rule 78 allows the sponsor of a motion to close the debate and that it is not a cloture. He exhorted the Members to abide by the Rules, otherwise, they may find themselves unable to move forward on important legislations. He maintained that public interest requires the Body to debate bills in an orderly fashion and the Rules were fashioned in such a way that the sponsor is allowed all the time in the world to explain his bill and those who oppose it to speak for two hours against it. He stated that Senator Madrigal has spoken for the last two hours against the bill and, during the period of amendments, she has another thirty minutes to state her position. He observed that when the question of quorum was raised, Senator Madrigal had already yielded the floor to him and, in fact, she had returned to her seat. He concluded that by then, her time had already expired. Invoking Section 78, Senator Gordon moved for the previous question. Senator Enrile seconded the motion, For his part, Senator Pimentel reiterated that Section 78 speaks of debates on a bill; on the other hand, the Minority were questioning the motion to terminate the period of interpellations. He stated that he has not yielded the floor and Section 74 states, No Senator shall interrupt another without the latters consent, which may not be obtained except through the President or the Presiding Officer. He said that Senator Enriles motion, in effect, adopts a cloture position which goes against the very thing that distinguishes the Chamber from the other chambers. Senator Enrile said that he made the motion to close the period of interpellations on the anti-terrorism #-

416

WEDNESDAY, OCIOBEK 4,2006

bill in accordance with Section 71 (d), Rule XXV which provides that the sponsor of the bill or author of the motion shall have the right to close the debate. At this point, Senator Gordon noted that under Section 77, the time spent in parliamentary interpellations shall be discounted from the period allowed for debates, which only means that the period of debates has to stop at some point. He said that if a Member failed to stand and ask the sponsor leave to interpellate him, he would then forfeit his right to interpellate; however, Section 76 provides that a senator may consume 30 minutes on amendments. He pointed out that that the Body has been discussing the bill since May 22,2006. He said that the people might no longer be tolerant about a Senate that continues to debate but does not act on important measures. He requested the Members to allow the Chamber to move on and come out with quality bills. Senator Pimentel said that neither he nor Senator Madrigal is against the bill; they were merely saying that there are certain aspects of the bill that need to be clarified in the period of interpellations. Senator Gordon stated that the Members should follow the Rules. He said that at the proper time, Senator Madrigal shall be allowed to propose her amendments to the bill with respect to the definition of terrorism. He said that it was time that the Senate worked on priority bills which the Members have agreed upon during the caucuses. Considering that the statements of Senators Pimentel and Madrigal were against the bill, Senator Gordon suggested that the Chair make a ruling on the Enrile motion. Senator Pimentel reasoned that the Minority precisely wanted to follow the Rules so that there would be no cloture on any senator who wishes to express his views on the bill. He recalled that it took the Senate five years to pass the Local Government Code because, indeed, many issues were raised during the debates. He underscored that if the Senate wanted to pass an anti-terrorism bill, it should do so with caution as the law would affect the rights and liberties of the Filipinos, especially the poor and the powerless. He explained that Senator Madrigal took time to express her anxieties over certain provisions of the bill because she was never given the chance to raise them during the period of interpellations.

He recalled that while Senator Madrigal was ready to interpellate Senator Enrile the other day, the latter was indisposed; and the next day, Senator Enrile was no longer willing to entertain interpellations; therefore, he concluded, it is not correct to say that Senator Madrigal forfeited her right to interpellate.
For his part, Senator Enrile stressed that a Member has the privilege, not the absolute right, to interpellate the sponsor of a measure and he, on the other hand, has the right not to yield. Precisely, he noted, a Member asks leave to interpellate the sponsor. Senator Pimentel maintained that it does not deprive a Member of his right to state the reasons why he wanted to interpellate the sponsor. Under the circumstances, he believed that Senator Madrigal should be allowed to ask questions on the bill. Senator Enrile countered that due process allows one to be heard and for almost five months, he gave everyone a chance to be heard. Senator Pimentel posited that nobody is questioning the right of Senator Enrile to decline any request to be interpellated but, on the other hand, he should not deprive Senator Madrigal of her right to explain her concerns over the bill which could have been addressed during the period of interpellations. Senator Enrile contended that for over two hours, Senator Madrigal has placed her concerns into the record and the Committee would consider them during the period of amendments and in crafting the final version of the bill.

In keeping with tradition and the Rules, Senator Pimentel reiterated that Senator Madrigal should be allowed to continue expressing her concerns over the bill. RULING OF THE CHAIR
At the instance of Senator Gordon, the Chair ruled that the matter has been sufficiently debated and declared that voting on the Enrile motion in order.

VOTING ON THE ENRILE MOTION

Thereupon, the Chair asked those in favor of the Enrile motion to raise their hands and, thereafter, those against it to do the same.f

WEDNESDAY

Z L THURSDAY.

OCTOBER 4 & 5.2006

411

With 10 senators voting in favor and four against, the motion of Senator Enrile to terminate the period of interpellations on Senate Bill No. 2137 was approved.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION
Upon motion of Senator Pangilinan, there being no objection, the Chair declared the session suspended until ten oclock in the morning of the following day.

MOTION TO SUSPEND CONSIDERATION OF SENATE BILL NO. 2137

Senator Pangilian moved to suspend consideration of the bill. Senator Pimentel objected, believing that it was unfair to say that the matter has been sufficiently debated when the Minority believed otherwise. On the contrary, he said that there was a great need to seriously discuss the bill. He reiterated that the long discussion should not have come about had it not been for the attempt of the Majority to rush the approval of the bill. He stressed that the right of the Minority to speak their views on the matter should not be curtailed by the Rules which are not applicable in this instance.

It was 10.24 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:16 am., Thursday, October 6, the session was resumed with Senate President Villar presiding.

QUESTION OF QUORUM
Preliminarily, Senator Drilon disclosed that because the session went beyond seven oclock last night, he had to ask DSWD Secretruy Cabral and 50 department officials, who came for the budget hearing, to go home with his apologies. He informed the Body that today, he was already in the Senate at 8:30 in the morning, together with Senators Flavier, Biazon and Lim, for the hearing on the DFA budget that was adjourned at ten oclock so that they could attend the session. But he pointed that it was already 11:16 when the session was resumed and the extra time could have been used to further examine the DFA budget. In view of the adherence to Rule 40 that committees shall not hold hearings while session was ongoing, he questioned the quorum.

REMINDER OF SENATOR GORDON

Senator Gordon reminded the Body that consideration of the automation bill was in the agenda for the day and he was ready to receive the proposals of Senator Osmefia. He stated that if the Body suspended the Rules, it could tackle the concerns of Senator Pimentel in the next days session, a Thursday, which is, however, reserved for local bills. Senator Pangilinan said that the Majority were willing to work late into the night but the staff were tired and have been working since morning. Senator Madrigal lamented that matters had been reduced to a numbers game. However, she expressed hope that there was goodwill when Senator Enrile said that he was willing to answer clarificatory questions during the period of amendments and that the Body could proceed in the manner the automation bill was being amended, that is without calling for a division of the House on contentious issues. She advised the Majority to go slow on the amendments, given the far-reaching impact of the bill.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION
With the permission of the Body, the Chair suspended the session.

It was ]]:I8 a m

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:25 a.m., the session was resumed.

REMARKS OF SENATOR ARROYO

Senator Arroyo stated that Senator Drilon was, in effect, proposing to suspend the Rules to allow the Committee to continue the hearings even when the session was ongoing but that, he pointed out, would, in effect, use even the time allotted for the session. He noted that what happened in the previous days session was exceptional because usually, the session

SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF SENATE BILL NO. 2137

Upon motion of Senator Pangilinan, there being no objection, the Body suspended consideration of the bill.

4=

478

THURSDAY,, OCTOBER 5,.2006

starts at 3:30 in the afternoon and adjourns three hours later. Even as he acknowledged that the budget is important, Senator Arroyo stressed that the other measures are also equally important. He stated that the session could not start because the senators who had made reservation to interpellate were not around and the Rules cannot be blamed for that. Nonetheless, he stressed that tradition and practice allow some accommodations, although any Member could insist that the Body proceed with the business for the day which, on a Thursday, would take around noon to finish. In terms of time devoted to the hearing and the session, he maintained that it would be unfair to allow the budget hearing, which could go on the whole day, to interfere with the session. He recalled that for two months last year, the Committee of the Whole heard the 2006 budget and the senators spent more time in hearings than in sessions. Senator Drilon clarified that it was Senator Lacson, not he, who made the motion to suspend Rule 40 to allow the hearings to proceed unhampered. He asserted that it was an exaggeration to say that the budget hearings have been using most of the time allotted for the sessions because the hearings were extended only on two instances - first, when Senator Madrigal, who waited two hours for her turn, was allowed to ask questions on the DENR budget at 4 oclock in the afternoon; and, second, when Senator Recto was allowed to continue asking questions on the DBCC until 3:30 in the afternoon.

Agreeing that the Rules must be adhered to, he questioned the quorum.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION
With the permission of the Body, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:35 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:41 a.m., the session was resumed.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
Upon motion of Senator Pangilinan, there being no objection, the Chair declared the session adjourned until three oclock in the afternoon of Monday, October 9, 2006.

It was 11:42 a.m.

I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.

Approved on October 10, 2006