Congressional Record

PLENARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE 15th CONGRESS, FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Vol. 2 RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 10:00 a.m., the session was resumed with Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. presiding. THE SPEAKER. The session is resumed. REP. TUGNA. Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER. The Floor Leader is recognized. SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. TUGNA. Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend the session for a few minutes. THE SPEAKER. The session is suspended. It was 10:00 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 10:17 a.m., the session was resumed with Rep. Roman T. Romulo presiding. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo) The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. CONSIDERATION OF H. B. NO. 3101 Continuation PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume the consideration of House Bill No. 3101 and ask that the Secretary General be directed to read the title of the bill. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo) There is a motion to resume the consideration of House Bill No. 3101. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the same is approved. The Secretary General is directed to read the title of House Bill No. 3101. THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 3101, entitled: AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE REP. GUNIGUNDO. For this purpose, Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the distinguished Gentleman from the City of Caloocan, the Hon. Oscar G. Malapitan, the Sponsor of the proposed budget of the DOLE. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). The Honorable Malapitan is recognized for his sponsorship speech. SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF REP. MALAPITAN REP. MALAPITAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Honorable Speaker and my fellow Members of the House of Representatives of this Fifteenth Congress: It is my privilege and honor to represent and sponsor the proposed budget of the Department of Labor and Employment for Fiscal Year 2011 amounting to P6.398 billion. The DOLEs proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2011 is P23.657 million or 0.4 percent lower than its budget for Fiscal Year 2010 of P6.21 billion. As contained in the General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, said budget will significantly be used to pursue the DOLEs programs and projects that will particularly focus on the platform and policy pronouncements in line with President Benigno Simeon C. Aguino IIIs 22-point labor and employment reform agenda. I ask my fellow colleagues in this Fifteenth Congress to join and support the approval of DOLEs budget for Fiscal Year 2011. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budgets of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), including its attached agencies. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). Is there any objection to the motion? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. Friday, October 15, 2010 No. 30i OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY-ONE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

2 REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, with permission from the Minority Leader, may we recognize the Gentleman from Anakpawis, Hon. Rafael V. Mariano, to be the first to interpellate on the proposed budgets of the DOLE and its attached agencies. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). The Honorable Mariano is recognized. REP. MARIANO. Maraming salamat po at magandang umaga po, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, dear colleagues. Maaari po bang magtanong ng mga ilang katanungan sa distinguished Sponsor? REP. MALAPITAN. Puwedeng-puwede po, Mr. Speaker. REP. MARIANO. Maraming salamat po, distinguished Sponsor. Sadyang napakahalaga po ang patuloy na paglikha ng trabaho at empleyo sa loob ng ating bansa at hindi po natin dapat iasa na ang employment o empleyo ng ating mga mamamayang nasa tamang gulang, may kasanayan, may karanasan, angking talino at kaalaman sa pandaigdigang palengke o labor market. Kung kayat napakahalaga po na kaysa bumaling tayo sa pag-export ng ating lakas sa paggawa ay tunay na mapaunlad ang sektor ng ating agrikultura, sektor ng industriya, lalo na sa manufacturing sector, para makalikha ng mas maraming trabaho sa loob ng ating bansa. Makakamit lang ang mga ito kung maipapatupad ang isang tunay na programa sa reporma sa lupa at pambansang industriyalisasyon. Subalit maraming kadahilanan kung bakit sa halip na lumaki ang bilang ng trabaho na malilikha natin para halos tumumbas sa pangangailangan ng ating kabuuang labor force, ay lumalaki pa po ang agwat. Mr. Speaker, ang ilan po sa mga dahilan ay ang pagpasok natin sa General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) noong 1994; ang pagiging miyembro natin sa World Trade Organization (WTO) noong January 1, 2005; at ang mga pinasukan nating mga regional trade and economic formations katulad ng APEC o Asia Pacific and Economic Cooperation, ng ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), kasama na rin ang bilateral agreement gaya ng JPEPA o JapanPhilippines Economic Partnership Agreement. Tinamaan pa tayo ng Asian financial crisis noong 2007 at global economic crisis noong 2008. Maaari po bang makahingi ng relevant materials, data and information, kung saan pagkatapos natin pumasok sa GATT-WTO, sa regional trade blocs or formations, sa bilateral agreement at ang epekto ng dalawang financial crisis ng 2007 at 2008, kung ano po ang naging impact nito sa ating ekonomiya? Mahalaga na makita natin dito kung ilan ang mga empresa, mga pabrika, mga establisimiyento ang naapektuhan, nagsara, nag-slow down sa production o bumaling sa kung ano-anong mga eskima o arrangement na ang naging epekto ay ang pagkawala ng trabaho sa marami nating mamamayan. Puwede po bang makahingi o mag- request ng mga pertinent at mahalagang impormasyon para makita natin kung ano na ang naging impact ng neo-liberal globalization policies at mga free trade and investment agreements na pinasukan ng ating bansa sa usapin ng ating ekonomiya, at sa usapin ng paglikha ng trabaho dito sa loob ng ating bansa, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor?

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010

REP. MALAPITAN. Mr. Speaker, we will send the Gentleman the data within the week. We have a complete data on what the Gentleman is asking for and probably within a week, we can send it to him. REP. MARIANO. Maraming salamat po, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. Kaya apat lang naman po ang aking hiling, dalawa pong tanong at dalawang request, at iyon po ang unang request. Iyon isa pa pong request ko ay hihingi lang po ako ng latest update. Una sa lahat, nais ko pong i-acknowledge ang akin pong pagtanggap ng liham o receipt of a letter mula sa kagalanggalang na Kalihim ng Department of Labor and Employment. Natanggap ko po ang liham last Oktober 4, 2010, bunga ng mga ilang punto ng aking pagtatanong sa briefing na isinagawa kaugnay sa proposed budget ng DOLE for Fiscal Year 2011. Ito po ay mga tanong tungkol sa trend on employment and unemployment rates; major final outputs from Fiscal Year 2009 up to the first semester of 2010; the 2001 to 2010 accomplishment report of the NLRC and BLR about rendered decisions with finality, but awaiting implementation from year 2001 to 2009 for certification election and the status report or updates on several cases. At ito po ang gusto kong ihingi ng latest update, ang kaso ng ABS-CBN IJM or Internal Job Market workpool sa isang banda, at ang ABS-CBN IJM Workers Union of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Network. Ang ikalawa ay hinggil sa kaso ng Amado Kadena at NAFLUKMU in South Cotabato. Ito po ay tungkol sa mga manggagawa natin sa loob ng Dole Philippines at kaugnay sa Robina Farms in Southern Tagalog. Mayroon po bang latest updates dito, Mr. Speaker, mula sa Department of Labor and Employment? REP. MALAPITAN. Sige ho, Mr. Speaker, isasabay na namin ang report na hinihingi ninyo by next week. Kaya dalawang report na po ang ibibigay sa Kinatawan by next week. REP. MARIANO. Maraming salamat po, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. Dalawang maikling tanong na lang po na ang natitira. Napag-alaman ko po noon sa ilalim ng pamumuno ng dating Labor Secretary at ngayon ay isa nang mahistrado ng Supreme Court, si Sec. Arturo Brion, na mayroong binabalangkas na isang panukala o draft administrative order sa DOLE kung saan ang mga kaso na dapat at karaniwang naihahain sa National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) o sa Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) o nasa arbiter level ay iniisip na maimbwelto na rin sa DOLE ang mga kasong hindi naman dati pinapakialaman, idinudulog o inihahain dito. Parang ang tawag po yata dito ay single-entry approach. Ano na po ang estado nito at ano ang ikabubuti nito sa pagbilis o pagresolba ng mga kaso, lalo na kung sangkot ang ating mga manggagawa, na inihahain sa ibat-ibang ahensya sa loob ng Department of Labor and Employment, mapunta man sa NCMB, BLR o NLRC? Ano na po ang estado nito? Ito ba ay naging isang ganap na administrative order na ngayon? Ano ang ikabubuti nito? Baka ang mangyayari po dito ay dadagdagan lang natin ng mas maraming mga kaso na matatambak lamang sa DOLE, kung saan may problema po tayo kaugnay sa speedy disposition of labor cases and

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 disputes. REP. MALAPITAN. Last October 20, the administrative order was already issued and so, after October 20, lahat ng mga kaso ay dadaan na sa conciliation board. REP. MARIANO. Thank you, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. Hihingi na lang po ako ng kopya ng nasabing administrative order mula sa DOLE hinggil sa, ang tawag nila yata diyan ay single-entry approach. REP. MALAPITAN. Single-entry, Mr. Speaker. REP. MARIANO. Ano ang rationale ng issuance na iyan, Mr. Speaker? Makakapagpabilis o makakapagpagaan ba ito sa takbo ng mga kaso ng ating mga manggagawa o mga labor cases? Hindi ba ito magiging dagdag na karga sa mga tauhan ng DOLE sa ibat ibang antas ng attached agencies nito? Ang mahalaga po dito ay, bibilis ba ang resolusyon ng mga labor cases? REP. MALAPITAN. We will give the Gentleman the copy of the order and the status reports, Mr. Speaker. REP. MARIANO. Maraming salamat po. Isang tanong na lamang po at pang-huli na sa ngayon. Tungkol po sa iba pang mga kaso ng ating mga manggagawa, may commitment naman po ang Department of Labor sa patuloy na dialogue at negotiation. Isang observation lang po hinggil dito sa statistics on the number of conciliation and mediation cases in the Philippines from 2001 to 2010. As of August 31, 2010: there were a total number of preventive mediation cases, 6,057; notices of strike filed, 4,534; actual strikes, 200; workers affected, 63,076; and man-days loss, 1,017. Wala lang dito ang percentage share of the number of actual strikes, which is 200, to the total number of notices of strike filed at sa number of total preventive mediation cases being received by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. Mahalaga po siguro rito ay kung ano ang nangyari sa mga actual strikes? Naresolba ba ang mga kaso ng ating mga manggagawa kung saan ay aktuwal na nagkaroon ng pagsasagawa ng strike? Ano naman po ang nangyari sa iba naman na hindi nagkaroon ng strikes, nagkaroon ba ng resolusyon ang problema sa pagitan ng employer at mga manggagawa, o ng management at ng mga manggagawa, Mr. Speaker? Hindi naman po siguro magiging malaking kaabalahan bagkus trabaho ito ng DOLEna humingi ng karagdagang pagpapaliwanag sa aking obserbasyon hinggil sa statistics na isinumite nila sa Kinatawang ito on the number of conciliation and mediation cases from the 2001 to 2010, or as of August 31, 2010. Maaari bang mapaunlakan ang aking request, Mr. Speaker? REP. MALAPITAN. Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the strike problems were already settled and the remaining 20 percent will be settled, perhaps, at the soonest possible time. Four cases were settled through conciliation and one case was certified for compulsory arbitration. We will give the Gentleman the full details on the striking companies, together with the other cases.

3 REP. MARIANO. Maraming salamat po, lalo na sa nabanggit na full details at hindi partial details. Maraming salamat sa distinguished Sponsor at sa Department of Labor and Employment, Mr. Speaker. Panghuling obserbasyon at pangwakas na punto ko po, Mr. Speaker. Maaari ba makahingi ng komentaryo mula sa distinguished Sponsor tungkol dito? Kasama rin po sa hiningi kong datos noon ay ang accomplishment report ng NLRC sa mga kasong hinawakan o umabot sa kanila. At nakita ko po sa panimulang obserbasyon sa mga kasong nahawakan ng NLRC since 2000 up to the first semester of 2010, sa dinamidami ng kasong nahawakan ng NLRC sa nasabing panahon, ilang kaso na ba ang mayroon kung saan ang desisyon ng NLRC ay pumabor sa mga manggagawa at pumabor sa management? Tinitingnan ko naman na halos hindi naglalayo sa rate na 1.2 o 1.3 pabor sa manggagawa, o puwede rin sabihin na 1.5 pabor sa management. Kaya hindi gaanong naglalayo. Ewan ko kung ganoon din ang average na pagtingin nila dito sa ratio. Pagdating po naman sa amount awarded in pesos, ang judgment award, sa lebel ng regional arbiter branches, mayroon lang kapansin-pansin na sa taong 2003, 2004 at 2007, halimbawa, noong 2003, ang kabuuang judgment award, o ang monetary award nito, at siguro kasama na dito ang mga damages, ay umabot sa P6.3 billion. Iyan po ay sa lebel ng regional arbitration branches. Ganoon din noong 2004 at P6.3 billion, and P9.3 billion for 2007, at ang lahat na pong iyan ay sa lebel ng regional arbitration branches. Pero nang umakyat na sa lebel ng commission proper, ang P6.3 billion noong 2003 ay naging mahigit P1 billion na lang; ang P6.3 billion na award noong 2004, naging P1.5 billion na lang; at sa taong 2007, ang P9.3 billion na award sa regional arbiter branches level, naging P1.7 billion na lang pagdating sa lebel ng commission proper. Ano po ang magiging paliwanag natin dito, Mr. Speaker? Bakit nagiging malaki ang diperensya at nawawalan ng halaga ang award? Kumakatawan ba ito sa talagang monetary awards ng manggagawa at excluding damages? General observation ko lamang po ito, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. REP. MALAPITAN. Out of 44,460 total cases handled by the Regional Arbitration Board, the NLRC disposed of 32,825 cases in 2009, and that is a 74 percent disposition rate. With regard to the commission proper, the NLRC was able to dispose off 13,504 cases out of 17,363 total cases handled in 2009, or a 78 percent disposition rate. Kung mapapansin natin, bumababa ang amount dahil nare-reconciliate. Mr. Speaker, we will give the Gentleman all the details, together with the other documents that he needs. REP. MARIANO. Maraming salamat po, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. Umaasa po ang Kinatawang ito na sa kanyang mga request, lalo na po at nagunguna sa mga request ko ay iyong hinggil sa latest updates sa mga kaso ng mga manggagawa natin, katulad ng spin-off outsourcing ng mga manggagawa sa Philippine Airlines at ang kaso ng mga manggagawa natin sa ABS-CBN IJM Workers Union. Sa pagkakaalam ko po sa desisyon yata ng NCR, BLR, dapat makapagsagawa na sila ng certification election para magampanan ng unyon ang kanilang tungkulin sa kanilang mga kapwa manggagawa bilang sole and exclusive bargaining agent.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010

Kaya makakaasa po ang Kinatawang ito na kung wala namang dahilan na makakapigil para maisagawa kaagad ang certification election ng mga mangagawa sa ABS-CBN na bahagi ng ABS-CBN IJM Workers Union ay mainam po na maisagawa na ito. Iyon lamang po, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues. Maraming-maraming salamat po sa inyong lahat. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, the next Member to interpellate on the budgets of the DOLE, including its attached agencies is the Honorable Padilla from the Lone District of Nueva Vizcaya. But before we recognize him to interpellate, he would like to rise on a parliamentary inquiry. I move that he be recognized for that purpose only. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). The Honorable Padilla is recognized. May we know the parliamentary inquiry of the Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya. REP. PADILLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank the Dep. Majority Leader. My parliamentary inquiry is based on the practice of the House, first, at the committee and second, at the level of the plenary that whenever the proposed budget of an agency is under consideration, the presence of the key officialsin the case of a commission, the chairman and the commissionersis required by the House. So, I intend to interpellate on the budget of the DOLE, specifically the PRC, but before doing so, Mr. Speaker, I would want to know if the Chairman and the Commissioners of the PRC are now with us in plenary. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). As the distinguished Sponsor would be in the best position to reply to the inquiry of the Honorable Padilla, may the Honorable Malapitan please reply. REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, PRC Chairman Lapea is already here with us. REP. PADILLA. What about the Commissioners, Mr. Speaker? THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). The distinguished Sponsor will please reply. REP. MALAPITAN. Commissioner Adriano and Commissioner Po are already here, Mr. Speaker. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). How many Commissioners composed the PRC? REP. MALAPITAN. We have only two Commissioners. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). The Honorable Padilla is recognized. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker, may we request the Chair to find out if the three officials of the Commission are indeed present.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). As far as the Chair understands, the distinguished Sponsor replied that the two Commissioners and the Chairman are present. May we have some confirmation from the distinguished Sponsor that all members are indeed present. REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, all the three members are already here,. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). Is the Honorable Padilla satisfied? REP. PADILLA. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, we have an understanding with the Majority Leader, because I understand that the Honorable Ilagan is about to interpellate on behalf of the Majority and it would be about the budget of the DOLE. In order that we can somehow expedite the consideration on the budget of the DOLE and the other agencies attached to it, I meanwhile would be willing to give way, at the pleasure of the Chair and the Majority Leader, to the interpellator who will come from the Majority, Mr. Speaker. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). Thank you, Honorable Padilla. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. TUGNA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the distinguished Lady from Gabriela Party-List, the Hon. Luzviminda C. Ilagan, be recognized. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Romulo). The Honorable Ilagan is recognized. REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the distinguished Sponsor be willing to yield to a few clarificatory questions? Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, I would like to take up the cases filed by OFWs against illegal recruiters. The question is, what is the percentage of decisions issued that were favorable to the complainants, if there are indicators? Would the Sponsor have an estimate of cases which were amicably settled, where the victim agreed only because he or she could no longer afford the cost of attending hearings? These are two related questions, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. REP. MALAPITAN. Mr. Speaker, we have the initial report on the highlights of their accomplishment. REP. ILAGAN. Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. If not, I would be willing to accept a written report on the percentage of cases where the decision was favorable to the complainants and also the estimated number of cases amicably settled between the victim and the recruiter. REP. MALAPITAN. We have an initial report here, but we will submit the final and full report, perhaps, by next week to the Ladys office, Mr. Speaker. REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 Sponsor. The next question is, when there are cases where decisions are in favor of the complainant, meaning, the recruitment agencies are directed to refund or even pay some kind of indemnification to the complainant or to the victim, does the DOLE and its attached agencies ensure that the victim is paid immediately to avoid further injustice to the victim? What steps are taken to ensure that no further injustice occurs because of the delay in the indemnification? REP. MALAPITAN. The indemnity order is charted to escrow deposit and is immediately implemented. REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, since the distinguished Sponsor brought up the issue of the escrow deposit, have there been occasions when this bond could not cover the obligations of the recruitment agency? What does the government do in such cases? REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes we suspend if the escrow cannot accommodate the bond. REP. ILAGAN. The deposit is suspended or the recruitment agency is suspended? REP. MALAPITAN. The recruitment agency is suspended. REP. ILAGAN. If the recruitment agency has been suspended because of its inability to replenish the escrow deposit, is it allowed to continue operation after it has replenished the same? Would the DOLE have a record of these agencies which have failed to the replenish the deposit, yet, they were able to continue their operation? REP. MALAPITAN. These agencies cannot deploy the workers and their licenses are suspended. Agencies are suspended for failure to replenish the escrow deposit bond. For 2009, land-based, there are 25 agencies, and sea-based, four; for 2010, land-based, it is five, from January to September, and for the sea-based, it is two. REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. I would appreciate it very much if we could have a copy of the updated list of recruitment agencies that have failed or have encountered problems with regard to the replenishment of their escrow bonds, and the action taken by the DOLE. REP. MALAPITAN. We will submit the report by next week. REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I go to a specific case where the victims had difficulty getting claims after their cases had already been decided, meaning they have not been paid. For example, there is one illegal recruitment case filed with the POEA versus the GNP Manpower Services Corporation, and the case number is 09040742. The complainants came to the office and said that they needed some assistance with their case. The decision had been handed down that they should be paid. However, the GNP Manpower Services Corporation no longer

5 had the money nor the collateral to give them what was due the poor complainants who came all the way from Batangas, Oriental Mindoro, Nasugbu and even Lanao del Norte. So, the question is, after a favorable decision has been handed down, what can be done so that the complainants could really receive the indemnification that is due them without their having to go after these corporations since it is the job of the government agency to ensure that the complainants are paid? REP. MALAPITAN. We require these agencies to declare their properties so that when something wrong happens and they run, we can give something to the complainants. REP. ILAGAN. In the case of these complainants, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, they went after this particular company and even searched their address. However, they discovered that the company had already left the premises and they were informed that the company no longer had any assets at all with which to pay back the complainants. So, what do we do about these cases? Is it still the responsibility of the victim to go after the company that had failed to give what is due them? REP. MALAPITAN. Mr. Speaker, if we cannot get anything from them, we will go personally to the assets of the directors. REP. ILAGAN. What if the directors would be difficult to find, or they have gone out of the country and can no longer be found? REP. MALAPITAN. Well, REP. ILAGAN. Do we have other ways At this juncture, the Presiding Officer relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Maria Isabelle Beng G. Climaco. REP. MALAPITAN. if worse comes to worst, Mme. Speaker, we can offer a livelihood program for those victims. The DOLE can offer livelihood programs. REP. ILAGAN. With due respect to the distinguished Sponsor, Mme. Speaker, I do not think a livelihood program would be an appropriate response to the victims of illegal recruitment whose cases had already been decided upon and the decision is that they should be paid by the agency. So that we do not lengthen the discussion, I suppose the DOLE should think of ways and means to help these unfortunate victims, the OFWs whom we call mga bagong bayani. Despite the fact that the decision on their cases was that they should be indemnified but unfortunately, they were not paid and they cannot go anymore after these agencies which simply declared that they have gone bankrupt or they have no assets anymore. REP. MALAPITAN. Mme. Speaker, if the Lady knows the complainants, she can refer them to us so that we will try to study how the DOLE can help them. REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, because I intend to raise this again out of sympathy and compassion for these people who deserve more in law because they have less in life now.

6 Let me go to one more issue, Mme. Speaker, which is the GCCAMCA issue. Section 23 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022, provides that: No group or groups of medical clinics shall have a monopoly of exclusively conducting health examinations on migrant workers for certain receiving countries. Every Filipino migrant shall have the freedom to choose any of the DOH-accredited or DOHoperated clinics that will conduct his/her health examinations To shorten this, this is the decking practice which requires an OFW to go first to the office for registration and medical examination, which examination of the OFW is farmed out to a medical clinic located elsewhere, which practice poses a lot of difficulties for those coming from the provinces. Now, after a lot of committee hearings, we have also received reliable information that, despite the Republic Act which gives the OFW the right to choose the medical clinics that will conduct this medical examination, a group of clinics called the GCCAMCA or the Gulf Cooperation Council Approved Medical Clinics Association is doing this in what appears to be a cartel which renders exclusive medical examinations to OFWs going to the Middle East, and they are still implementing the prohibited decking system. So, distinguished Sponsor, Mme. Speaker, what has the DOLE or the POEA done in order to ensure that we no longer allow this decking system? REP. MALAPITAN. R.A. No. 10022 prohibits decking and so, we are implementing the law. REP. ILAGAN. In other words, Mme. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, in the next months we will see that the GCCAMCA is no longer in operation and that the OFWs are at liberty to choose any medical clinic they want which will conduct this examination. Is that right, Mme. Speaker? REP. MALAPITAN. The Department of Health has issued a cease and desist order on the decking practice. Unfortunately, there is still an injunction case pending in the court. REP. ILAGAN. That will be all, Mme. Speaker and distinguished Sponsor. I hope that we will receive the reports that we have been asking for, and that we can continue to work with the DOLE since the Gabriela Womens Partys advocacy is with regard to the plight of OFWs or migrant workers, Mme. Speaker. REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, I assure the Lady, Mme. Speaker, that by next week, we will give her the full report. REP. ILAGAN. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). Thank you very much, the Hon. Luzviminda C. Ilagan of Gabriela Womens Party-List. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mme. Speaker, I move that the Minority Leader be recognized.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Hon. Edcel C. Lagman is recognized. REP. LAGMAN. Mme. Speaker, on behalf of the Minority, I move for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budgets of the Department of Labor and Employment, including its attached agencies except the PRC and the TESDA. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). There is a motion from the Minority Leader. We recognize the Majority Leader. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The session is suspended. It was 11:00 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 11:00 a.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mme. Speaker, before we comment on the motion of the Minority Leader, I ask that we recognize first the Hon. Rufus B. Rodriguez who would like to rise to also interpellate on the budgets of the DOLE and its attached agencies. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Hon. Rufus B. Rodriguez is recognized. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. First, let me signify my support for the budget of the Department of Labor and Employment. However, I would like to clarify this matter in relation to the sufficiency of the budget of the DOLE as far as the Workers Income Augmentation Program (WINAP) is concerned, because this is one program that has reached our informal sector in Cagayan de Oro City. Do we know whether there was an increase in the budget, because this is a program which we in Mindanao support, so that our Congressmen from Mindanao will likewise receive their allocations for the Workers Income Augmentation Program? REP. MALAPITAN. Right now, Mme. Speaker, we do not have an increase. The DOLE did not increase its budget. In fact, medyo mas mababa pa ng kaunti. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). May we know how much was the level for this year 2010 and how much has been included in the GAB of 2011? On the WINAP, specifically for the WINAP program to assist different REP. MALAPITAN. The DOLE budget is lower by P232 million pesos.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). How much? REP. MALAPITAN. Two hundred thirty-two million pesos. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). It was reduced by P232 million? REP. MALAPITAN. There was no increase, but there was no decrease also. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). So, the 2011 budget stays at the level of 2010, is that correct? REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, Mme. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Mme. Speaker, I am, therefore, proposing that, during the period of amendments, this particular item be increased. Would the distinguished Sponsor join me or lead in requesting the Committee on Appropriations, especially later in the Bicam REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, Mme. Speaker, if we have the capability REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). that this particular program be increased by another P200 million, so that we can have more to give as livelihood support to the different organizations in the informal poor sectors of society all over the country to assure that they will have an augmentation of their income? Will that be committed by our distinguished Sponsor? REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, Mme. Speaker, if we have the capability. I will join the Gentleman in asking for an increase of the budget. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you for that, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. The next item is regarding the budget of the OWWA under Administrator Carmelita Dimzon. This organization had supported the returning workers of Cagayan de Oro and Mindanao, and I would like to know whether the budget for the starter kits or the funding for the livelihood starter kits of returning OFWs is sufficient because this is one area which the House should support under the leadership of Carmelita Dimzon? REP. MALAPITAN. They have the same budget of P50 million compared to last year. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Only P50 million? Mme. Speaker, I think we should work for this kind of program which directly helps returning overseas workers all over the Philippines to have more budget because some workers have to go back home, and they have to be supported by livelihood starter kits. So, may we know whether our distinguished Sponsor will lead in working for an increase, not only in the Committee on Appropriations, but also in the Bicam Committee later on, in the budget by P50 million, to add this amount to the program of the OWWA? REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, I will join the Gentleman and perhaps, we will convince all the members of the Committee and the Members of the Fifteenth Congress.

7 REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Regarding the budget of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, this is one of the agencies in the forefront to prevent cases being filed in the NLRC, to encourage parties to have voluntary arbitration. Is Mr. Rey Ubaldo around? We would like to know whether the budget of the NCMB is capable of supporting the continuity of the voluntary arbitration program of our government to prevent the clogging of cases in the National Labor Relations Commission. REP. MALAPITAN. They will be operating on the same budget. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). How much is the budget for the NCMB, where I am a member as a voluntary arbitrator? REP. MALAPITAN. The total budget is P121,416,000. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). That is very small, Mme. Speaker, considering that we have offices of the NCMB all over the Philippines and therefore, I would propose that our distinguished Sponsor, a leading Member of this Congress, would lead the call for an increase of the budget of the NCMB by P50 million, at least, to enable us to continue to conduct the training of our voluntary arbitrators and prevent disputes from reaching the NLRC. Is that commitment agreeable to our distinguished Sponsor? REP. MALAPITAN. We will suggest it, Mme. Speaker, to the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Suggest is a mild word to be able to assure me that we are going to work for the budget of the DOLE, the OWWA and the NCMB. Is there a better word than... REP. MALAPITAN. With you, we can work hard in convincing the Chairman. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Work hard, that is better, Mme. Speaker. With that, I terminate my interpellation and give my full support for the budget of the DOLE and all the departments and agencies under the DOLE. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. (Applause) THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). Thank you very much, Hon. Rufus B. Rodriguez. We now recognize the Dep. Majority Leader. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mme. Speaker, there being no other Member from the Majority who wishes to interpellate on the budgets of the Department of Labor and Employment, including its attached agencies, we are joining the motion of the honorable Minority Leader in closing the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budgets of the Department of Labor and Employment, including its attached agencies, except PRC and TESDA. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). Is there any objection to the motion presented? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. (Applause)

8 SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. GUNIGUNDO. I move for a few minutes suspension of the session. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The session is suspended. It was 11:08 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 11:28 a.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The session is resumed. The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. TUGNA. Mme. Speaker, I move to resume the deliberations and the debate on the general principles and provisions, and for this purpose, may we recognize the Gentleman from the First District of Cavite, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Hon. Joseph Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Honorable Abaya is recognized. REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, this Representation is ready to accommodate all interpellations. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. TUGNA. Mme. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Honorable Marcoleta for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Honorable Marcoleta is recognized. REP. MARCOLETA. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. Good morning to everyone. Good morning, distinguished Sponsor. REP. ABAYA. Good morning to the good Gentleman from the ALAGAD Party-List. REP. MARCOLETA. Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, may I premise my few lines of questioning on the Presidents Budget Message which I would like to read, as appearing on page 5, and I quote: The budget proposal that we are submitting mirrors my Administrations commitment to lift the nation from poverty through honest and effective governance. This is a good foundation, Mme. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, insofar as our efforts to alleviate the nation from poverty are concerned. Am I correct? REP. ABAYA. I agree, Mme. Speaker. REP. MARCOLETA. Yet the proposed budget for 2011, which is P1.645 trillion, Mme. Speaker, is only higher by 6.8

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 percent compared to the present budget. Translating that into the national governments expenditure over the years, Mme. Speaker, I am premising my next question on the publication entitled Dimension of the FY 2011 National Budget as prepared by our very own Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department (CPBRD). It says here: The annual net of interest per capita national government spending was estimated to the level of P13,269.00 for 2011. Mme. Speaker, this annual per capita spending, which is P13,269, would translate to about a monthly per capita national government spending of P1,105, or a daily per capita national government spending of only P36.35. Would my calculations be accurate, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Going by the math, Mme. Speaker, it should be fairly accurate. REP. MARCOLETA. Thank you. To be able to provide a socio-economic face to those figures, Mme. Speaker, we may correlate the spending pattern of Filipino families based on the Family Income and Expenditure Survey report of the National Statistics Office. For example, Mme. Speaker, in the percentage distribution of the total family expenditure in 2006, which is the official estimate furnished by the National Statistics Office, the percentage of family expenditures on food alone is 41.4 percent, which means that in the total per capita national expenditure of P13,269, that will be about P5,493 per the 2011 estimates. This means, Mme. Speaker, that calculated on a monthly basis, this is only P457.78 per capita or a daily food allotment of fifteen pesos and five centavos. Would this estimate be fair enough, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Fair enough. I do not have such data but I assume that the data presented is accurate, Mme. Speaker. REP. MARCOLETA. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. Mme. Speaker, for the whole year of 2011, as we have already confirmed, the government will be spending P5,493 per capita, and that is in pesos for food. But if we relate this to the official statistics again furnished by the NSO, the per capita food threshold in 2006 is P10,000.25 or an equivalent of P27 in 2006. Even if we assume that the spending pattern of an average Filipino family did not change for the last four years, P27 per capita on food in 2006 was still higher than the extrapolated value of calculated daily per capita of P15 if we base it on the 2011 budget. Mme. Speaker, given the disparity between P15 per capita expenditure allotment based on the 2011 budget and P27 per capita in 2006, are we able to rationalize the budget in accordance with the Presidents message of alleviating poverty in this country? REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, just tracing back the first part of the question, if indeed, we are spending enough to address the problems of the poor and poverty, this basically will migrate to the question of what policy government would adopt. Would it be controlling the deficit, or would it be spending more for the poor? Apparent in all my studies is that the decision of the government or the policy of the government is to control the deficit rather than to spend more. However, this does not imply that when the policy is to control the deficit, it will not address the problems of the poor. It has

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 been explained that controlling the deficit would reinforce our standing in the international community. It will keep our interest rates down. It will likewise bring in the much-needed foreign direct investments. Likewise, it will create a culture that would nurture the growth of public-private partnerships, Mme. Speaker. REP. MARCOLETA. Mme. Speaker, thank you for that answer but our own CPBRD or the congressional planning unit of this House postulated a statement in accordance with that answer. May I read the first page of a submission entitled, Dimension of the FY 2011 National Budget. In the last paragraph of this page, it says: Moreover, of the proposed P104.4 billion budget increase in 2011, only P23.5 billion or 23.5 % will effectively finance services and activities that will have productive and immediate returns, while the remaining P80.9 billion or 77.7% will be spent on additional interest payments, given its existing huge debt amounting to P4.6 trillion as of June 2010. This is a matter of balancing: whether or not we should give more emphasis to the payment of debts and narrowing our deficit, but taking into account the plight of our poor in accordance with the central message of the President for the budget to address the poverty conditions of our people. I would like to hear, at least, a relieving statement on how we should be able to strike a balance given the, I would say, two horns of a dilemma. REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, I think we just have to swallow the hard fact that interest payments run up to the figures mentioned by the good Gentleman from ALAGAD Party-List. These are previously authorized appropriations due to an act of Congress, passing a law making debt servicing an automatically appropriated item. There is a great disparity between the percentage for debt servicing and what goes to either economic or social services. But to lend the good message, if we would read carefully the Budget Message of the President, very clear amongst the four thrusts of the budget, namely; first, transparency and accountability; second, which is very important to the advocacy of the good Gentleman, bias for the poor and the vulnerable; third, fiscal responsibility; and fourth, PPP projects. The second item plays a very major role and is reflected in the budget of the DSWD, for health and education, and that, indeed, whatever minimal resources that the government has, it is definitely putting them to the poorest of the poor, probably, for the first time and likewise, really addresses the poverty problems of the country, Mme. Speaker. REP. MARCOLETA. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. In biting the bullet by trying to allocate the meager resources of our country more efficiently, I think we should be concerned about an admonition, I would say, that our own CPBRD also made mention of. They made a study between our national government expenditures and those of our neighboring countries in Asia. For example, Mme. Speaker, it

9 is shown here that Vietnam has a spending ratio of about 28.2 percent to their GDP, followed by Malaysia at 26 percent, and with Indonesia and Thailand both having an identical 19 percent. If we compare their ratios to the ratio of the Philippines, we are lagging behind with 18.2 percent. What we are trying to suggest here is, Mme. Speaker, why are we so modest in our spending pattern when our own neighbors are, I would say, very aggressive in trying to spur economic activity by reasonably high spending? REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, we do recognize that the numbers for the Philippines in terms of spending as a percentage of GDP is much lower or even lower, based on the data given by CPBRD. However, we have to realize and, probably, shift the focus towards deficit control because, if we compare ourselves to those countries mentioned, they have a much lower percentage of deficits to GDP. I think the clear message of the new government is that the Philippines is now open for business, and that it will do things right and do things differently. For the past few years, we always set a deficit at the start when budget is being crafted, but at the end of the year, and this happened in both 2009 and 2010, we ended up way above the deficit planned. In fact, we ended up 3.9 percent of GDP just on the deficit, and this is a very bad trend that the world is looking at. So, definitely, the decision or policy is to put deficit control as a primary policy and hopefully, by showing that, indeed, we mean business this time, and with the interaction of the inflow of PPPs, hopefully and I think optimistically, we could see more spending in the 2012 budget, Mme. Speaker. REP. MARCOLETA. Thank you for the kind answer, Mme. Speaker. I am now going to the last point. I will quote from our colleague, Congressman Andaya, who is a Vice Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a seasoned legislator and former Budget Secretary, and I think he has shown enough integrity in terms of the issues on budgeting and that would justify a few quotations from his initial speech defending the 2011 budget. On page 5 of his sponsorship speech, it says, and I quote: Mr. Speaker, having a revenue viewpoint also accords us a preview of costs to come. Forty Filipinos are born every 12 minutes. At this rate, we must raise a million pesos every 720 seconds for their schooling seven years hence; P7,000 for a classroom, P200,000 for a teacher and the rest on books, chairs and other supplies, and this is just the impact of the population meter ticking every 12 minutes on education alone. What about peace and order? Ideally, we must hire 10 policemen everyday to catch up with the increase in population, and that carries a price tag of P2.5 million a day. Mme. Speaker, is there a categorical approach in the 2011 budget on how we should be able to properly address lessening our population, let us say, 40 Filipinos are born every 30 minutes and not every 12 minutes, in order for us to properly allocate our meager resources?

10 REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, on the General Appropriations Bill (GAB), page 458, under the Department of Health, there is an item on family health, including family planning, and that the appropriated amount is P931,349,000. REP. MARCOLETA. What is the impact of P931 million on mitigating, for example, that for every 12 minutes, not 40 Filipinos are born but maybe, four only? Are there estimates available, utilizing the amount of P930 million, to at least project the growth of our families not at 40 Filipinos every 12 minutes but maybe, four? REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, offhand, we do not have figures to really quantify the impact of the P900-million item on population control. However, the family planning component here which is given more funding, specifically on education and training, will have a multi-fold benefit in that the training and education given to one person is spread out and disseminated to different families. So, probably, given the meager resources, it is the decision of the government that the P931 million should be sufficient, given the other pressing needs of the country, Mme. Speaker. REP. MARCOLETA. Mme. Speaker, the paragraph I read from the sponsorship speech of our colleague, Nonoy Andaya, is backed up by his years of study and research on the DBM and, probably, in collaboration with the socio-economic agencies of our government. These estimates are true and for real. If we cannot provide, at least, a relieving answer on how the P931 million will operationalize a particular mechanism where, at least, we can anticipate the preview of costs to come, as he had said, because without estimates we are not even in a position to allocate properly because the costs that will be forthcoming will depend on the growth of our population. Mme. Speaker, the budget is an expression of public policy. We would like to hear a clear-cut and categorical public policy on how we should be able to rationalize our population growth because, at the end of the day, we talk here about how many people to feed, how many people to clothe, and how many people to place in classrooms, the teacher-pupil ratio, studentbook ratio, and everything. The amount for social services, as enunciated in our 2011 budget, is not much, and we have discussed that. We are fearful of getting more deficit and we are trying to balance the budget. But the Budget Message of the President is clear: we should govern on the basis of being able to alleviate poverty in this country, which is very important. Now, we cannot even correlate the costs that will come. We might be going back to the other paragraph of our colleague, Nonoy Andaya, when he said that we might be relying on the miracle performed by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago when he fed multitudes with a single piece of bread and one solitary jug of wine. We cannot perform that miracle, Mme. Speaker. I think we should be able to get a more categorical answer, not now but maybe in the next few days, if not months. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. Thank you for your patience, Mme. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). Thank you very much, Honorable Marcoleta from Party-List ALAGAD.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. TUGNA. Mme. Speaker, may we recognize the Gentleman from the Third District of Quezon, the Hon. Danilo E. Suarez. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Hon. Danilo E. Suarez is recognized. REP. SUAREZ. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. Good morning, distinguished Sponsor. Buena mano. Being a last-termer, Mme. Speaker, in my congressional years, I tried whatever is assigned to me, like being Chair of different committees, and let me say it is an oversight on my part that I did not know that there is such a General Provisions part in our deliberations; and so, I have some questions in mind. May I be educated? What other questions can I ask the Sponsor besides what I have in my mind? Are all these applications of what we are going to discuss about the 2011 budget? Is there anything new under the sun? Is it the basic provision of this bill that he is sponsoring or a particular item in our 2011 budget? REP. ABAYA. Actually, Mme. Speaker, I was tempted to tell the Gentleman to ask me, when do we want this budget passed? (Laughter) Actually, we should have been confined to the macroeconomic indicators and assumptions; likewise, the basic premise on the thrusts and how the budget was crafted. Given our nature, being Congressmen, in short and simple language, it should be anything under the sun, Mme. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. Thank you. I have an ongoing concern because the past two weeks have been a learning curve for all of us, especially for the firsttermersthis is how the budget is being craftedbecause at the end of the day, we will have a three-week break, we are going back to our districts, and we will have to make a report to our constituents. For the first-termers, they will be asked questions, particularly parochial questions, like When are you going to implement what you committed to us during the campaign period, and things like that. Kaya ang nakita ko ho sa ating dalawang linggong pag-aaral, Mme. Speaker, is, some issues are properly addressed and some are not really being properly addressed in terms of the problems, because the present ruling Majority and the Administration are more concerned with addressing the deficit rather than expanding the money flow, and this really runs contrary to the belief of this Representation. I think there should be more money in the money stream. Mas maraming pera, mas maraming project. Ang paniniwala naman po ng G. Sponsor ay kontrolin ang paggastos upang hindi lumaki ang deficit sapagkat we are worried about how we are being watched by the international financing institutions like Standard and Poors, Moodys and Fitch. Hindi ho ba ganoon ang sinabi niya kanina, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Ganoon po, pero siguro po ito ay initial na policy lamang. Kapag talagang tumakbo na po ang ating ekonomiya at maipakita ng ating Pangulo na maayos at tuwid na daan ang ating ginagawa, I could foresee that come 2012, our desire for more spending will actually be not a dream but a reality, Mme. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. SUAREZ. One of the nice news items that I read this morning is that the BIR had reached their target for September and they exceeded the target by P1.7 billion. Is that correct? I see the Lady Commissioner. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mme. Speaker, it has been confirmed by the good Commissioner. REP. SUAREZ. Ito ho ba ay hard peso o kasama na po iyong koleksyon ng gobyerno, iyong sinasabi nating one pocket to another? Is this hard peso na talaga hong nakolekta ng ating Rentas Internas at hindi ho ito iyong mga bayad ng pamahalaan na lumilipat mula sa isang bulsa sa kabilang bulsa? REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, hindi po lipatan ng bulsa ito; it is hard peso, Mme. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. I will first start with PAGCOR. Ang patakbo po ba ngayon, sapagkat 100 days pa ho itong administrasyon sa ilalim ng ating Pangulong Aquino, I would imagine that in the Cabinet meetings that the President conducts, even matters outside of the agendaeverything under the sunare being discussed. Anything that is proactive, anything that is progrowth, pro-development, considering that the thrust of our President is daang matuwid and kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap, is this discussion happening, distinguished Sponsor? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mme. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. Thank you. Now, on the intention of this Representation to privatize gaming, I think that that might be a cure, like an injection of steroids or new blood into our money stream, and if we can give a serious thought to this. The reason this Representation is so sensitive about gaming is, we are the administrator of PAGCOR which is the one running all gambling operations in the country. Tama po ako? Hindi ho ba ganoon? REP. ABAYA. Tama po, Mme. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. At the same time, kapag ho ikaw ay nasa casino dahil may bisita kang balikbayan or you are touring a foreign partner, at ikaw ay nahikayat na tumaya sa blackjack, ang kalaban mo ay gobyerno sapagkat ang bangka ay gobyerno. Tama ho ba ako? REP. ABAYA. Sorry, Mme. Speaker, I did not get the last part. REP. SUAREZ. Kapag ikaw ho ay tumaya ng blackjack sa casinobagamat tayong mga Congressman, tayo ay hindi ho dapat magsugalpero katuwaan lang po dahil may kasama kang guest, tumaya ka at nanalo ka kaya sinabi mo, Nanalo ako, tumaya ka na rin. Tumaya ka ng, kunwari, P1,000 sa blackjack, hindi ho ba ang kalaban mo ay gobyerno sapagkat sila ang bangka? REP. ABAYA. Opo, Mme. Speaker, kaya dapat ho magingat tayo sa ating pananalita dahil alam ko pong may batas na nagsasabing. REP. SUAREZ. Iyon nga ho, kaya nga ho...

11

REP. ABAYA. ... tayong mga naglilingkod ay dapat wala sa casino. REP. SUAREZ. ... ehemplo ko lamang iyon dahil alam ko na bawal sa Congressman ang magsugal. Sa puntong iyon, ang ipinapakita ko lang ho ay, hindi ho ba alanganin po ang ating pamamalakad dahil ang nag-a-administer ng pasugalan ay gobyerno at ang bangka ay gobyerno din? REP. ABAYA. Tama po, Mme. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. Ngayon, sa ganito hong punto, PAGCOR is one of our biggest revenue earners and I think they rank number three right now on an increasing basis. Hindi ho bawal iyon kasi gobyerno ang bangka at gobyerno ang nagpapatakbo. Pero lumayo ka ng limang kilometro mula sa casino na iyon at mayroon pong isang kabo at isang kolektor ng jueteng na nangongolekta ng taya. Iyon ho ay bawal. Kaya ano ho ang diperensya ng blackjack at jueteng? Bakit iyong jueteng ay iligal at bakit iyong blackjack ay ligal? REP. ABAYA. Siguro po ang pagkakaiba noon, Mme. Speaker, ay ang Kongreso ang nag-decide nito and although gambling in general is illegal, we have provided an exemption by creating PAGCOR, thereby allowing gaming to be treated as a legal activity, Mme. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. I will take that answer as valid and I will not debate with the Sponsor on that issue, Mme. Speaker. But my point is this: look at Singapore. If you are going to look at any one country that is righteous, that is near-purist, that has strong discipline, it is Singapore. Look at their tremendous growth. Nagbukas sila ng casino but why did they had it privatized? It is a pragmatic approach dahil kaysa ang kanilang mga citizen ay lumabas ng Singapore at pumunta sa Genting para magsugal, siguro ang sabi nila ay kaysa lumabas ang pera ay dito na lang natin laruin iyan sa Singapore. But here, Mme. Speaker, we are talking of curtailing our expenditures because of lack of funds. That is precisely the reason I will go back to the issue na bakit hihigpitan mo ang money stream because you are careful of having a deficit. How much did Singapore earn on the rights alone just to allow two players to operate in their country? They earned billions of dollars on the license alone. Mandated pa ho kaya secured ang kanilang revenue taun-taon. Kaya ang isa hong sinasabi ko ay dapat siguro sa susunod na Kongreso ay pag-aralan natin iyon hong sinasabi ng Representasyong ito that there are four sources of gambling in our country. Number one, sabong. Ilan po ang sabungan sa ating bansa? Mayroon ho bang bayan o siyudad na walang sabungan? Siguro mabibilang natin sa ating kamay ang wala. At kung mayroon mga bayan na walang sabungan, mayroon namang bayan na dalawa ang sabungan. Ngayon, ano ho ang sabungan? Sabungan is a place where you can see the biggest concentration of all kinds of personalities in any given municipalitynandiyan na ho iyong pulitiko, nandiyan na ang doktor, nandiyan na ang magsasaka, nandiyan na ang lahat ng tao. Kumikita po ba ng buwis ang pamahalaan mula sa sabungan? Ang sagot ay hindi. Wala hong kinikita. Maaaring ang munisipyo ay may kaunting

12 income at maaaring nagbabayad iyong iba pero at the end of the day, the government does not earn a single centavo from these cockpits. Kaya ang sinasabi ho natin is that we should create a deputy commissioner, we should create a National Gaming Commission. I think that, sa pag-uusap po ng leadership ng ruling Majority, kayo pong mga Congressman na nakakausap ang mga taga-Executive at ng ating Pangulo, dapat pag-aralan po talaga natin ang pagtatayo ng National Gaming Commission sapagkat maaalis po iyong issue ng principles. Kahit po ang Simbahan siguro ay masisiyahan na, once and for all, na umalis na po ang gobyerno sa pasugalan because then it will be regulated by a different body. So we have now a proposal from the Minority which is to create a National Gaming Commission with one commissionersomebody who is honest, somebody who is clean, a purist whose intention is just one thing:, run, operate, administer and control, with a certain degree of limitations, gambling in our country with the end objective of raising a hefty amount of revenue for this country. If I may suggest, there is nobody else I have in mind but I think the most qualified candidate is the Lady from PCSO who, I know, is a basic example of a person with sterling character, of being honest. Kaya mayroon na po tayong commissioner, mayroon po tayong deputy commissioner for cockfighting. Lahat ng ating sabungan ay kailangan na pong hingan ng lisensya ng pamahalaan bago mag-operate. The amount should not be big because a cockpit makes no less than, at the minimum, half a million a year. Ang hingin na lang natin ay 10 percent sapagkat kulang pa nga iyan kung ilalagay natin sa corporate income o personal income tax na 33 percent. Tama na po ang 10 percent but it is more of tax education, not really on the amount. Doon ho ay mako-control natin sapagkat ngayon may bago na tayong guidelines. Halimbawa, pag magbubukas ka ng sabungan, it must be orderly, it must be clean, may mga tama nang palikuran. It will be a tourist attraction. Sa ngayon, huwag kang magdadala ng turista sa mga sabungan sapagkat pag gusto niyang pumunta sa comfort room at nakita niya ito ay talagang hindi na siya babalik sa sabungan. You can see how dirty the comfort rooms in our cockpits are. Kaya ito po ang aking proposal: one, we must appoint a deputy commissioner for cockfighting who will issue licenses and at the same time collect yearly franchise fees, which will amount to billions of pesos every year. In addressing these two things, we also address the issue of tax education. Number two, I would propose that we come up with a deputy commissioner for horse racing. Why horse racing? Thirtyfour percent of the revenue of Hong Kong comes from horse racing. Alam po ba ninyo kung magkano ang kailangan ng Hong Kong para paandarin ang kanilang gobyerno? Hundreds of billions at 34 percent ho nito ay sa karera lang ng kabayo nanggagaling. As a matter of fact, if my information is right, because I think the GM of PCSO is also a horse racing enthusiast,, mukhang ang revenue nila sa isang linggo ay isang taon nating kita. Just to show the Gentleman the magnitude of the difference between our revenues, iyong isang linggong revenue ng karera sa Hongkong ay isang taong operation ng karera ng Pilipinas. Kaya para na ho maayos natin ang industry na iyan at magkaroon ito ng better revenues, better regulations, one deputy commissioner for horse racing ang kailangan.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 Ang distinguished Sponsor po ba ay tumataya sa karera? REP. ABAYA. Hindi po. Hindi ho tayo nagsusugal at kung maaari lang po ay itigil ho natin itong pagsusugal ganoong hamak na Chairman lang ho ako, Mme. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. Ang pangatlo ho ay iyon pong tungkol sa PCSO at ito ho ay itinanong ko na sa ating distinguished Madam Chair ng PCSO: bakit po ang nagpapatakbo ng lotto ay banyaga? Sino po bang pinakamagaling magsugal at magoperate ng sugal, may tatalo pa ba sa Pilipino? Mayroon pa bang iba? Bakit kailangan pa nating mag-import ng Malaysians upang paandarin ang ating lotto? REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, the Malaysians are not operating the lotto, they own the equipment. We lease the equipment from them and the PCSO is the one operating the lotto, Mme. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. I know, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. Ang point ko lang ay, at the end of the day, you repatriate money to Malaysia. Taun-taon po ay naglalabas ka ng pera at ipinadadala mo sa Malaysia. You have to pay them. But what is so special about their software, hardware and betting mechanism that a Filipino cannot make these? REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, the situation with the Malaysians is only confined to Luzon. The situation in Visayas and Mindanao is that the operations there are 100-percent run by the PCSO. But we do agree that there would be no need for any foreign parties in terms of lotto operations. We have no reason not to own such machines, learn the technology and eventually produce such machines. A review is currently being conducted for us to learn how to achieve such situation, Mme. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. Precisely, Mme. Speaker, we do not have to invent the wheel in running the lotto. Kaya nga ho ang point ko lang is this will be the thrust of this Representation in the forthcoming congressional year of 2011, that, indeed, we have to take a hard look on the earnings of foreign companies in the country, and that it is high time that we take a hard look at this. There is nothing wrong with making a business, but it is better if the business is being run by Filipinos. So, a mere assurance from the Lady that they will take a look at this, kung kailan ba mag-e-expire ang kontrata natin sa Malaysia at pag dumating na ito ay pag-aaralan na po nila kung ito para tayo na ang maglalagay ng hardware at software doon sa betting station. Along that line, then we will have the deputy commissioners for cockfighting, for horse racing, and for the lotto and the STL. I just would like to address this following concern, which I took up last night with the DILG. Ang reason po kung bakit ang Representasyong ito ay nag-suggest na ma- legalize ang jueteng is you cannot stop it. Hindi mo po maihihinto ang sugal sapagkat, gaya ng sinabi ko, isa lang po ang nakapagpahinto ng jueteng for a certain period of time at ito po ang Pangulong Ferdinand Marcos at mayroon pa po siyang kasamang Amerikano dito. Bakit napahinto ang jueteng? Ang tawag po diyan ay si Mr. Colt. Iyon po ang gumagawa ng M16 armalites na ginamit kaya napahinto po ang jueteng, and for a certain period of time, wala pong jueteng. They needed

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 to use a radical measure, but we do not want that to happen again, hindi po ba? Kaya ang akin lang pong punto ay ito: the reason this Representation is so adamant and strong in my position of having jueteng legalized is that the influence of the gambling lords on locally elected official is so strong that they can practically dictate the result of the elections in some areas. Kaya po we should come up with a more radical approach. The administration of gaming, which is local in nature, should be locally controlled and at the end of the day, it is the duty of the PCSO to monitor and collect what is supposed to be collected, and administer the money properly to the beneficiaries. Napakarami nilang tinutulungan na mga maysakit na nasa ospital. Pagalingin po nila ito ngunit ibigay po nila sa provincial leaders at local leaders ang karapatang magsabi kung sino ang dapat na maglaro. Sapagkat pag iyan po ay inalis natin sa kontrol ng local government unit, babalik na naman tayo sa dating punto na madidiktahan ng mga gambling lords ang local elections. REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, on that last item, the Charter dictates that the responsible agency is PCSO. If, indeed, the policy would be to give the responsibility to the local government, then that would require an amendment of the Charter. REP. SUAREZ. Mme. Speaker, I am not going to debate with the Sponsor on that. I agree it is the PCSO which gives the franchise upon the recommendation of the local government. Iyon lang po ang hihingin kong mandato. Kasi po, kapag bigla na lang susulpot sa isang lugar ang isang operator without even consulting with the local government ay mawawala po ang prinsipyo na ating ipinaglalaban, that we should not be influenced. REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, currently, the implementing rules require certain resolutions to be passed by the local government and so, in one way or another, there is participation by the local government in the decision-making process. REP. SUAREZ. I would just like to be clarified and assured that this practice where you need the recommendation of the local government like the Sangguniang Panlalawigan must continue. REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, given the governments thrust of empowering the LGUs, the practice shall continue. There is nothing wrong with consultation, Mme. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. Along that line, I will just highlight the point that here is one legislative approach that we can do in the next Congress if the four suggestions on gaming of this Representation can be implemented. I have a ballpark figure that there will be a balloon collection of no less than $2 billion from gamingthat is from the casino onlyand a hefty increase in the amount coming from these four agencies compared to what we are receiving now. Easily, it will double up and so, we will address the issue of what we are going to debate on nowthe deficit vis--vis the expenditure. If there will be an enhanced revenue collection, not just coming from

13 the BIR or Bureau of Customs but from other sources as well, ang pag-aawayan o pag-dedebatehan natin ay, are we going to be sensitive on deficit, or are we going to be sensitive on pro-active growth in infrastructure? Hindi po ba ganoon dapat ang ating pinag-uusapan? What we are saying is that here is a source of revenue that is worth studying, Mme. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, I fully agree. In fact, the direction that the PAGCOR and what the President has ordered them to do is to, indeed, privatize its operational aspect, where PAGCOR should remain as a mere regulating body, Mme. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. My last concern, Mme. Speaker. As I have said, the two weeks was a learning curve for us. We addressed the issue of the DOST and they say that henceforth, by next year, there will be no blind spots in the country, where all of our regions will be given better warning services on weather forecasts. Last night, with the DOTC, we suggested a combination of both, wherein our maritime and aviation industries can make use of these facilities. Meaning, a ship setting sail or an aircraft taking off can easily call the destinations port or airport and find out the weather thereat. Iyon po bang in advance ay alam na natin kung ano ang kondisyon ng panahon kung saan tayo magta-touchdown, sapagkat maaaring napakasama ng weather sa pinaggalingan pero there is an assurance and a statement from the pilot na okay naman pala ang weather sa pupuntahan as provided by the weather radar. Hindi po ba, Mme. Speaker? Dito sa pagsusuri ng budget ng 2011, nakita natin ang working tandem on how we can maximize the peoples money at the end of the day, because we can now forecast the weather, we are able to tell our farmers na mag-harvest one week before. Halimbawa, mayroon parating na masamang panahon, puwede na nating sabihin sa kanila na mag-ani, ganoon po baga. But what is alarming is this: katulad ng sinabi ng DOTC kahaponand the Lady from Zamboanga travels regularly by air from Manila to Zamboangapag nag take-off na ang eroplano kung saan nakasakay si Deputy Speaker, after 50 kilometers, kasi iyon lang po ang coverage ng precision apparatus nito, ay bulag na po ang eroplano at hindi na natin alam kung nasaan na tayo. We were only given the assurance na kapag na-upgrade na natin ito, that is the only time we can know the ins and outs, even all the birds, of the Philippine aerial identification zone. It is a very nice program but it is still in the drawing board. Mme. Speaker, it should be this Congress that should address this issue. Kaya po sinasabi ko, are we going to take this risk na for the next three years, we are still handicapped in our navigational aids? Mme. Speaker, narinig ko po mula sa black box ng eroplano ng Cebu Pacific na nag-crash sa Cagayan de Oro at ng eroplano ng Air Philippines na nagcrash sa DavaoI heard itang sigawan at hiyawan ng mga pasahero, ang iyak at panic cries bago naputol ang recording. Narinig ko po iyan sa black box. Can you imagine the ordeal of an aircraft that was short in its landing approach in the Davao airport because there was no radar? Our program says it will take us three years to do that. We can accelerate that program but we must spend more. That is my pointmay trade off. We control our deficit, but at the same time, we must control our safety measures for the benefit of our riding public in the air, land and sea.

14 It is up to the leadership to decide on that because at the end of the day, we will be outvoted. Kakaunti lang po kami, but it is our duty to highlight that to the ruling Majority and this Committee, and this subject we are discussing should be an eye-opener, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. Maybe in the early part of next year, if revenues would start to come in, with better governance and the stretching of the peso because of the imposition of the Presidents bulwark program of kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap and ang daang matuwid, it may be a good suggestion for us to come up with a mid-year assessment of expenditures and find out where we can accelerate further expenditures. With that, may I thank our distinguished Sponsor for giving this Representation an opportunity to discuss further our noble intention of doing something for the benefit of our constituents for next year. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). Thank you very much, Gentleman from Quezon. REP. ABAYA. Thank you, Mme. Speaker It is soothing to the ears that we will eventually outvote the Minority. Whatever, the Minority should still play a very important role when the LEDAC would come in. The active participation of the Minority, especially in the Medium-Term Development Plan, is vital and is most welcome in a democracy, Mme. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. AVANCE-FUENTES. Mme. Speaker, may we recognize the distinguished Gentleman from the Lone District of San Juan, Hon. Jose Victor JV G. Ejercito, for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Hon. Jose Victor JV G. Ejercito is recognized. REP. EJERCITO. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. Good morning, distinguished Sponsor and distinguished Chairman. This is just a short manifestation regarding my position, and I guess this is also the position of a hundred other colleagues in this august Chamber. Mme. Speaker, in behalf of the Filipino youth who dream of good quality and accessible tertiary education, I would like to present to this august Chamber, to the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, a manifesto signed by more than 100 of our colleagues, appealing to the administration for an increase in the subsidy for our State Universities and Colleges (SUCs). I will be giving this manifesto to this august Chamber, again, signed by more than 100 of our colleagues. That is all, Mme. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Thank you, distinguished colleague. We will very much welcome the said document, Mme. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. AVANCE-FUENTES. Mme. Speaker, may I request that the session be suspended for a while. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The session is suspended. It was 12:29 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 12:30 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. AVANCE-FUENTES. Mme. Speaker, may we now recognize the Minority Leader, Hon. Edcel C. Lagman. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Hon. Edcel C. Lagman is recognized. REP. LAGMAN. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. I have here a thick compilation of materials on the Presidents Social Fund, and the contribution of PA G C O R a s a f u n d i n g s o u r c e . To e x p e d i t e t h e proceedings in a virtually empty hall, I would not pursue my interpellation, Mme. Speaker. I would rather ask certain questions and the proper agency should be able to answer those in writing forthwith, though it is not necessarily a condition for the process we are undertaking. 1. What is the legal basis of the Presidents Social Fund? Is P.D. No. 1869, which categorically created the PAGCOR, the legal basis? 2. What are the projects and who are the beneficiaries of the Presidents Social Fund as projected in 2011? 3. Should the amount from PAGCOR for the Presidents Social Fund be remitted to the national treasury for budgetary support and congressional appropriation to be implemented by the appropriate government agencies, including the Office of the President? May I request that these questions be answered in writing soonest by the appropriate government agencies, including PAGCOR. With that manifestation, Mme. Speaker, no other Member from the Minority has requested to interpellate on the General Principles and Provisions. I therefore move, on behalf of the Minority, that we terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the General Principles and Provisions. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). There is a motion from the Minority to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the General Principles and Provisions. What does the Dep. Majority Leader say? REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mme. Speaker, before we join the motion of the Minority Leader, may we recognize the Hon. Ben P. Evardone for a brief manifestation.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Honorable Evardone is recognized. REP. EVARDONE. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. May this Representation manifest that, to expedite the proceedings, I will just submit my observations on the General Principles and Provisions of the budget. I am making that reservation now. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mme. Speaker, with that, there being no other Member from the Majority who wishes to interpellate the Sponsor, we join the motion of the Minority Leader in moving for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the General Principles and Provisions of House Bill No. 3101. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. (Applause) SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. GUNIGUNDO. May I ask for a few minutes suspension of the session, Mme. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The session is suspended. It was 12:35 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION It was 1:31 p.m. At 12:36 p.m., the session was resumed. RESUMPTION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 3101 REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mme. Speaker, I move that we suspend the deliberations on House Bill No. 3101 until 1:30 p.m. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The session is suspended until 1:30 p.m. It was 12:36 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 1:30 p.m., the session was resumed with Deputy Speaker Raul A. Daza presiding. At 1:38 p.m., the session was resumed.

15 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 3101 Continuation PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume the consideration of House Bill No. 3101 and that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). I so move, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The consideration of the measure is hereby resumed. The distinguished Sponsor may now begin sponsorship. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the distinguished Gentleman from the Lone District of Nueva Vizcaya, the Hon. Carlos M. Padilla, who wishes to rise and interpellate the Sponsor. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya is recognized to interpellate the Sponsor. SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. GUNIGUNDO. I move to suspend the session for a few minutes. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is suspended for a few minutes.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is resumed. The distinguished interpellator would be the Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya. REP. PADILLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure by this time, the distinguished Sponsor, the Honorable Malapitan, is now ready to entertain a few questions, Mr. Speaker. REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker, as a preliminary statement, I would like to point out that during the budget hearing on the proposed budget of the DOLE, and particularly the PRC, there were issues raised by this humble Representation. I would not be very repetitive, and so, I will try to abbreviate my interpellations. I would not anymore belabor the Body on those issues that have been properly addressed by the Department of Labor and Employment, being the mother agency or department within which the PRC is lumped. Mr. Speaker.

16 For example, on the issue of midnight appointments, both for the DOLE and the PRC, I received a letter from the honorable Secretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz on September 29, 2010. The letter includes a report regarding the action so far taken by the DOLE in order to address this particular concern of this Representation. By the way, Mr. Speaker, before I will shoot the first question, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the newly-appointed Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, Secretary Baldoz. When she appeared before the committee, she was only an acting Secretary. But I read in the newspapers a few days ago that she is no longer acting Secretary and I presume that she is now a full-fledged Department Secretary. Congratulations, Secretary Baldoz! I know that you have done your job very competently and you deserve, therefore, the promotion. Now, Mr. Speaker, considering therefore that the issue on midnight appointments is properly met by or addressed by the letter of the Secretary and so, I would leave this issue during this period of our debate on the budget, Mr. Speaker. A major issue that I also raised was on the computerization program of the PRC. This Representation would like to point out that one reasonbecause our friends in the PRC family might be wonderingCongressman Padilla is so interested in this computerization program of PRC is, for the record, when the law on the modernization of the PRC, which is now R.A. No. 8981, was being crafted, I was a Member of that Congress when it was considered and this Representation was a coauthor. When this was approved by the House and eventually by the Senate, it went to the Bicameral Conference Committee, and this Representation was a member of the Bicameral Conference Committee representing the House. Modesty aside, I had an active role during the deliberations of the Bicameral Conference Committee on the provisions of the bill, which is now R.A. No. 8981. One of the concerns of this Representation at that stage was already this program. I do not have to elaborate. One benefit, perhaps, that we could get if this is put in place, is that we will be able to minimize the long queue of applicants who would like to take the board exams, Mr. Speaker. Imagine every year, for the students who graduated from nursing and who would like to take the exam, hindi po bumababa ang bilang nila sa 100,000. Ganoon din po ang bilang ng mga teachers or mga graduates ng teachers education, napakahaba po ng pila. Mr. Speaker, I want to place it on record, and this is being overlooked by our colleagues in the House, for 2011, the proposed amount that we will be able to derive from fees paid by these applicants, including those who would like to renew their licenses, the estimated amount is P1.2 billion. I would like to congratulate the PRC because, somehow, it is able to contribute more than P1 billion to the coffers of the government. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the PRC is fully computerized, it could easily generate P2 billion to P3 billion. Regarding our professionals who are abroad and who would like to renew their licenses, they are reluctant to come home just to go to the PRC kasi mahaba ang pila. If the PRC is already online, I assure you, my optimism that the PRC would be able to contribute about P2 billion pesos more for the government will be easily realized and so, I can cite many reasons on why I am interested in this. Mr. Speaker, the law mandatesI refer Section 7(q) of

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 the lawthat this computerization program should have been fully implemented not later than Fiscal Year 2003. It is now 2010, seven years after the deadline and we have yet to see its realization. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a good report. The Licensure Examination and Registration Information System or LERIS is already closed. The Walk-in Examination System or WES is already closed. The various ICT projects, if not closed, are almost closed or are almost done, but let me just cite one, Mr. Speaker. The law provides for the computerization of the examinations for the various board exams. I wonder, could the Sponsor tell me how many professional regulatory boards are in the PRC today? My recollection is that there are about 43 or 44, but may I ask for a more accurate figure. REP. MALAPITAN. There are 46, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Forty-six? But reading the report on computerization, I see that there are only two sets of examinees which benefit from this. Sino po sila? Iyong bang kumukuha ng metallurgical examination? On the average, only 32 to 50 are taking the. Thank you. Palakpakan sila. Papalakpak tayo. Second category, iyon pong kumukuha ng Marine Deck Officers Exam. Ilan po sila? On the average, there are 300 to 500 a year. Palakpakan na naman. Let us go to the teachers. There are more than 100,000. Kasama po ba rito? Definitely, not. What about those who are taking the nursing exams? Sometimes, there are 120,000. Hindi pa rin kasama. Iyon pa pong mga nagtapos ng accounting, iyong gustong kumuha ng accountancy exam, ilang libo iyan? Samakatuwid, iyong ibinabandila natin na closed na, andiyan na iyong marine exam, andiyan na iyong metallurgical exam, pero wala palang 500 ang nakikinabang taun-taon. Mr. Speaker, I hope I will not anymore ask questions on this. I would just get a commitment from the Sponsor and from the PRC. I see the Chairman of PRC here and of course, I would like also to ask the indulgence of the Secretary of the DOLE. Can we be favored with a progress report for Congress, which appropriated P225 millionang kinakailangan po nila ay P250 million pero ang ibinigay ay P225 millionthat 90 percent of the funding was already released, but not even one percent of the beneficiaries, or shall we say, not even one percent of the prospective clientele benefited. Hindi ko na ho tatanungin kung saan napunta ang pera. Hindi ko na tatanungin kung bakit nagkaganyan. Pero hihilingin ko na lang po ay ang progress report. REP. MALAPITAN. Mr. Speaker, if the Gentleman can give us at least a week, we will submit to him all the additional documents that he needs. REP. PADILLA. If the documents that the Gentleman will be giving me were the same documents given to me two or three weeks ago, forget it, Mr. Speaker. REP. MALAPITAN. No, these are different documents now, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Thank you for that assurance. May I now go to another point.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 Mr. Speaker, if we look at Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8981, which is a statement of the policy of the State, among other things, it reads: ...Promotes the sustained development of a reservoir of professionals whose competence has been determined by honest and credible licensure examinations and whose standards of professional service and practice are internationally recognized. Siguro ay nagkakaintindihan po tayo dito, Mr. Speaker. Gusto namin, ay mayroong honest and competent board examinations and the integrity of the examinations must always be protected. So while we expect those who are taking up the examinations to be honest, and are not cheating, I think the best thing that will happen is that the people manning the examinations should set the example. Mr. Speaker, let me go to the Board of Professional Teachers (BPT). May I point out that this Representation received a position paper prepared by teachers from all over the countryamong them is the Philippine Association for Teacher Education (PAFTE), but this is not the only one, marami pa po sila, Mr. Speakerthey are questioning the appointment of three members of the BPT of the PRC. Why? I will just read the names in their position paper, and they are referring to Jesus Nieves and Aquilina Rivas, and the third would be coming from another letter, a certain Faith Bachiller. They are saying that in the case of Nieves and Rivas, they are not eligible for appointment under Section 8(d)(e), Article II of Republic Act No. 7836, which section mandates that they must be professionals, that they are registered members of the profession, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Gentleman from Caloocan would have a copy of the law, because this is indicated paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 8. If he has a copy, I wonder if he could offer me what could be, perhaps, the gist of the said paragraphs. . SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. MALAPITAN. Can I ask for a suspension, Mr. Speaker? I move for a suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is suspended for a few minutes. It was 1:55 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 1:56 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is resumed. REP. MALAPITAN. With regard to the qualifications of those two appointed officials, rest assured that we will review and determine their qualifications. We will try to see what is needed for them to qualify, and if they do not, perhaps, the appointment will be terminated. REP. PADILLA. I am reassured by that statement from

17 the Gentleman from Caloocan City, who is a good friend of this Representation. However, if I would base it on the actuations of people in the PRC, from the Chairman of the PRC to the board members, I am not reassured because this issue was already brought to their attention much earlier. But to the dismay of the organization, notwithstanding the disqualification of these board members, their appointments to the President were favorably endorsed by the Chairman of the PRC, unless of course, with the Sponsors assurance now, the Chairman of the PRC would try to revisit, review and check whether or not this allegation is correct. Can we get an assurance, Mr. Speaker? REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will make an honest review, and it is now the word of the Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya and of this Representation. REP. PADILLA. I would take your word, Mr. Speaker, because you are a good friend. Although if you ask me if I would listen to the Chairman of the PRC, I have my greatest reservation, Mr. Speaker. I am willing to give the Sponsor the benefit of a doubt, especially since even the DOLE Secretary is nodding, and the Undersecretary is behind his back and so, I would assume that your assurance REP. MALAPITAN. Can I add to my answer, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Secretary and the Undersecretary of the DOLE have made an assurance that we will review this matter. REP. PADILLA. If the allegation is found true, can we be assured that the steps will be taken that, if error had been committed, they will rectify that error, Mr. Speaker. REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, if we find out that there is an error, we will recommend their immediate removal. REP. PADILLA. If it is difficult for the PRC to establish the veracity of this allegation, I am willing to offer a document also coming from the PRC. For the record, I would like to quote a portion from the document: This is to certify that, according to the records of the Commission, Jesus Loretizo Nieves is a registered professional secondary teacher by virtue of Resolution No. 386, category B dated September 15, 1998, with Certificate of Registration Professional License No. 0573636 issued August 18, 1999. His professional identification card has expired last December 25, 2002. The expiration in 2002 makes him disqualified because he must be in the active list of the Book of Registry of the PRC. Further, this is to certify that the name Aquilina Sienna Rivas does not appear in the roster of registered professional teachers of the Commission and yet, this certain Aquilina Sienna Rivas became a member of the board of examiners. This certification is done by the Office for Professional Teachers under the Professional Regulations Commission. So, Mr. Speaker, if the Sponsor has difficulties looking for the evidence...

18 REP. MALAPITAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Gentleman that Aquilina Rivas has already resigned and if he can give us the documents that he has, perhaps, they can help us in our review. REP. PADILLA. But if she has resigned, or if her resignation is because it was established that she did not meet the qualifications, I do not know if there should still be sanctions. Mr. Speaker, when a graduate takes the exam but had been found to have cheated, we still run after him or her. But as I had said, the ones who should set the example are those administering the examination. Anyway, I would not anymore ask for a further answer to this particular question. The third issue, which is a violation of paragraph 7 of Section 8, involves a certain Faith Bachiller. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the provision of paragraph (f) of the law, it disqualifies officials of universities and colleges from being appointed to the position of being a member of the Board of Professional Teachers. I think the law is such because of the conflict of interest and I believe, per practice, such person should not be connected with a university or college three years prior to the appointment. But this board member was appointed at a time when she was a member of the board of regents of a state university. She could have also resigned now to rectify this situation, but as I have said, there has already been a violation and so, this is another issue that I would like to raise. One last issue, Mr. Speaker, still on the integrity of exams. Based on the same law, Republic Act No. 7836, there is such a thing as a grandfathers clause. I wonder if the Sponsor is familiar with what is meant by this. If not, he can ask his principal. After all, right behind him is the Chairman of PRC. Can we give the Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, a few minutes to ask his principal what is meant by this grandfathers clause? SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. PADILLA. May I just ask for a one-minute suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is suspended. It was 2:05 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 2:06 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is resumed. The distinguished Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya is recognized. REP. PADILLA. I have a pending question, Mr. Speaker, to be answered by the distinguished Sponsor. REP. MALAPITAN. Mr. Speaker, the answer is that it allows registration without examination by considering experience and qualification. REP. PADILLA. This is so provided in Section 26 of the law, Mr. Speaker, and if I may

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, Professionalization Act of 1994. in the Teachers

REP. PADILLA. attempt to help the distinguished Sponsor. By virtue of this law, the subject teachers are given the opportunity, within a period of time, to apply as professional teachers. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker? REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. But not every Tom, Dick and Harry can just be given a certification. There are steps or there is a procedure that must be followed. Would the distinguished Sponsor agree with me, Mr. Speaker? REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, there are criteria given. REP. PADILLA. Assuming, Mr. Speaker, that all the criteria, the steps and the procedure have been complied with before he or she can take his oath as a professional teacher, before his or her name will be included in the database of the PRC first, there must be a PRC resolution which would be the license for the PRC to enter his or her name in the database. That is part of the procedurethat it should be covered by a PRC resolution. REP. MALAPITAN. It is through a resolution of the board and approved by the PRC. REP. PADILLA. The PRC, okay. So, there are two requirements herea resolution of the board and approval by the PRC. Now, I would not ask for one week. Perhaps, we can take our time. Considering that the list could be quite long, I wonder if two weeks, three weeks or one month would be sufficient. I would be very generous, Mr. Speaker, to the Sponsor and to PRC. Can the Gentleman give us a list first, of those who are covered by this by virtue of those resolutions because I am sure they are not covered by just one or two resolutions; and second, a list from the database. REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will submit them within one week. REP. PADILLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will put it in my calendar so that I would tell the Sponsor after one week that the document is in my possession. Mr. Speaker, why am I raising this? I am raising this because, if they are trying to accuse Members of Congress of resorting to Congressional insertions, we also have received reports that there are names in the database that do not appear in the resolutions approved by the board and validated or approved also by the Commission. Their names do not appear in those resolutions. In other words, they are telling me that, mas marami pong mga pangalan doon sa database kaysa doon po sa mga resolutions, mayroong mga insertions, at ang sabi nila, for every insertion ay may kumikita ng at least P30,000 bawat pangalan, Mr. Speaker. I am willing to give the PRC the benefit of the doubt. I am not saying right now that we should believe what these people are telling me or telling us, and that is why I am asking that this be looked into, Mr. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 Please take note, Mr. Speaker, that the effectivity of this grandfathers clause has long expired. Under the original law, they are only given two years within which to register, but I know for a fact, and I was the coauthor of that law, that there was a joint resolution to extend the life of this clause to, I think, another five years but I am not so sure by now. I think even the five-year period extension has already expired, but the insertions could still be going on, Mr. Speaker, the illegal insertions. At least in Congress, the insertions are done in accordance with our procedure and the principles enunciated in the Constitution, because Congressional insertions are, per se, amendments; and in any parliamentary body, be it here or abroad, amendments are part of the legislative process. But these insertions are, Mr. Speaker, not even legitimate. They are illegal amendments, illegal insertions. Anyway, I would cut my interpellation short because I was informed that a fact-finding committee was created to look into this. Can we verify from the Sponsors principal, Mr. Speaker, if this is correct? REP. MALAPITAN. Yes. Actually, Mr. Speaker, last month,... REP. PADILLA. Just a yes or a no. REP. MALAPITAN. ... a fact-finding committee was created. REP. PADILLA. Okay, thank you. So I will end my interpellation by asking that, again, as soon as the fact-finding committee has done its job or has submitted its report, a copy of that report will be submitted to the House of Representatives of the Congress of the Philippines, Mr. Speaker. REP. MALAPITAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker. As soon as we finish, we will immediately submit the report of the fact-finding committee. REP. PADILLA. My concluding statement or question is, how long perhaps will it take for the fact-finding committee to finish? I am not asking that it should do its job haphazardly, but what is important is that they undertake a thorough investigation. REP. MALAPITAN. Give us at least a month, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Okay, I will be comfortable with that, Mr. Speaker. There are other issues but I know that these would be discussed in another forum in Congress because an inquiry is now being set by an appropriate committee of the House to investigate further issues confronting the PRC. So, meanwhile, I would like to terminate already my interpellation. Again, I apologize to Secretary Baldoz because she should have gone to the office already, because earlier, Mr. Speaker, we already terminated the deliberations on the budget of the DOLE; but she had to stay behind because of this agency. I would like to thank the Sponsor, including the entire PRC family, for the patience they have given me in order that this Representation could ventilate these issues.

19 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Majority Leader. Considering, Mr. Speaker, that this Representation is the only Member of the Minority who has registered to interpellate on the budget of the PRC, may I therefore take this opportunity, on behalf of the Minority, to move for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the PRC. I so move, Mr. Speaker THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). What is the pleasure of the Dep. Majority Leader? REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, there being no other Member of the Majority who has registered to interpellate on the budget of the PRC, we join the motion of the Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya, who belongs to the Minority, to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Professional Regulation Commission. I so move, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). Is there any objection? The Chair hears none; the joint motion is carried. The Sr. Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I now move that we take up the proposed budget of the Philippine Sports Commission PSC and in line with this, I further move that we recognize the Sponsor of said agency, the Hon. Josephine Veronique Jaye R. Lacson-Noel. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The distinguished Sponsor is recognized to sponsor the budget of the Philippine Sports Commission. SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. GARIN (J.). May we request for a few minutes suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is suspended. It was 2:17 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 2:18 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is resumed. REP. GARIN (J.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that we recognize our distinguished Minority Leader, the Hon. Edcel C. Lagman. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The distinguished Minority Leader is recognized. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, considering that the Philippine Sports Commission has submitted a signed undertaking which reads, as follows, and I quote:

20 Considering the huge amount of accounts payable assumed by the new PSC Board, we are committed to settle all of our outstanding obligations by allocating a certain amount from the national sports development fund to cover them, including infrastructure and sports development program already completed. I would understand that the program here would include projects, and this is signed by Chairman Ricardo R. Garcia and Commissioners Chito Loyzaga and Akiko ThompsonGuevarra. With this as the premise of my manifestation, I manifest that no member of the Minority has signified any intention to interpellate on the proposed budget of the Philippine Sports Commission and accordingly, I move for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Philippine Sports Commission. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). What is the pleasure of the Sr. Dep. Majority Leader? REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, may we recognize the Hon. Rufus B. Rodriguez for a brief manifestation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro City is recognized. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. May I just make a very short manifestation as already indicated by the Majority Leader. First, we have the commitment of Chairman Ricardo Garcia that all the obligations incurred by the past administration of the PSC, headed then by Hon. Harry Angping, will be paid and they will be able to use the National Sports Development Fund to cover infrastructure and sports development programs already completed by the administration of Harry Angping, the husband of Hon. Maria Zenaida B. Angping. Second, in view of the fact that Chairman Ritchie Garcia has already told this Representation that the grassroots program for sports in the different barangays will be supported by the PSC, this Representation has no more questions and would therefore manifest that he is in support of the budget of the PSC. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (Applause) THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, there being no other Member of the Majority who wishes to interpellate on the proposed budget of the Philippine Sports Commission, we join the motion of the distinguished Minority Leader in moving for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Philippine Sports Commission. I so move, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). Is there any objection to the joint motion? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the joint motion is approved. REP. LACSON-NOEL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. TUGNA. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on budget of the Department of Justice (DOJ). For this purpose, may we recognize the Gentleman from the Fourth District of Laguna, the Hon. Edgar Egay S. San Luis, to sponsor the department. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Sponsor to commence sponsorship of the budget of the Department of Justice. SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF REP. SAN LUIS REP. SAN LUIS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Distinguished colleagues, the DOJ family, ladies and gentlemen: Today, we are going to deliberate on the budget of the Department of Justice. The DOJ is the governments principal law agency and as such, the DOJ serves as the governments prosecution arm and administers the governments criminal justice system by investigating crimes, prosecuting offenders and overseeing the correctional system. The DOJ, through its attached offices, is also the governments legal counsel and representative in the litigation and proceedings requiring the services of a lawyer, and implements the Philippine laws, especially those on the admission and stay of aliens within its territories. Mr. Speaker, kung nais nating makamtan ang matuwid na landas na dapat tahakin ng bawat Pilipino, simulan natin ito sa pagsasa-ayos ng ating hustisya. Kung ang bawat isa sa atin ay pantay-pantay sa mata ng bataswalang mayaman, walang mahirap, walang malakasmagiging madali at walang lubak ang pagtahak sa daang matuwid. Mr. Speaker, there is a need to augment the budget of the DOJ in order for it to realize its vision of a just and peaceful society, anchored on the principles of transparency, accountability, fairness and truth. There are several challenges being faced by the DOJ and one of these is the huge backlog of cases which constitutes the bulk of the prosecutors work load with a total case load of 350,000 vis--vis 1,908 prosecutors. The prosecutor to the case ratio relative to preliminary investigation is 1:183. The manpower complement of the National Prosecution Service support staff is mostly provided by the local government units. According to the Justice Department, this practice somehow affects the independence of the field offices. The Department of Budget and Management has recommended a budget of P7.7 billion for the DOJ for the year 2011, and this is only 13.6 percent higher than the DOJs current budget of P6.8 billion. The President submitted to Congress a proposed national budget of P1.64 trillion. The share of the DOJ and its attached agencies in the national budget is only 0.46 percent or less than one half of one percent. There are items in the budget of the DOJ that should be given serious consideration like the hiring of additional prosecutors, creation of positions for new support staff to complement the inadequate staff of the city/provincial

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 prosecution offices; building and structures outlay, including the construction of various Halls of Justice under the Justice System Infrastructure Program or JUSIP; rehabilitation and improvement of MBP primary and secondary; and the funding of the computerization program of the Bureau of Immigration. Even with meager and limited resources, our justice system should be given our utmost priority and concern. We can only gain back the trust and confidence of our people if they can be assured of a speedy and compassionate administration of justice. Mr. Speaker, the economic development of our country hinges on a just and orderly society which can only be achieved if we uphold the rule of law. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Representation is now ready to entertain questions from our distinguished Members. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. TUGNA. Mr. Speaker, may we recognize the Gentleman from the Second District of Maguindanao, the Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The eminent Gentleman from the Second District of Maguindanao, the Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, is recognized. REP. DATUMANONG. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the distinguished Sponsor yield to a brief interpellation that would seek to clarify some points? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. Thank you, distinguished Sponsor. Before I ask my first question, Mr. Speaker, may I state very briefly that since I left the Department of Justice to return to the Congress of the Philippines, to the House of Representatives, some six years ago, I have always tried to help in whatever way I could on any measure pending before the House of Representatives pertaining to the Department of Justice. I authored or co-authored some of these measures, and some of which I personally sponsored on the floor of the House of Representatives. Today, I will simply ask a few questions to clarify some points regarding some of these laws that the Congress of the Philippines had enacted for the Department of Justice. My first question, Mr. Speaker, is on the implementation of Republic Act No. 10071. I want to find out if this law has been implemented, especially with respect to the upgrading of the salaries of the prosecutors and the counsels, considering the fact, as the distinguished Sponsor has rightly stated, that these are the people who deserve to be assisted. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the lament of the prosecutors because for two to three years already, it has not been implemented due to budget constraints. REP. DATUMANONG. Has there been any step taken by the department to complain about the non-implementation of this law? This law was just enacted in 2010.

21 REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. This has been coordinated already with Secretary Abad of the Department of Budget and Management. REP. DATUMANONG. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the appropriate support for Republic Act No. 10071 has been included in the proposed budget of the Department of Justice for the year 2011. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is included thereat with about P900 million in allocation. REP. DATUMANONG. P900 million? REP. SAN LUIS. But that is the entirety of the requirement of the Prosecution Service, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. Mr. Speaker, how much of that P900 million, which responds to the totality of the requirement of the Prosecution Service, is allocated for Republic Act No. 10071 with respect to upgrading the salaries of the prosecutors and the state counsels? REP. SAN LUIS. That is the total, Mr. Speaker, the P900 million, but the fund is not yet available. Although it is included in the 2011 proposed budget of the DOJ to the DBM, it has yet to be given or is subject to the availability of funds, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. What I am asking is, is it included in the 2011 budget, considering that there is the P900 million allocation for the prosecutors? REP. SAN LUIS. The P900 million was the proposed allocation, but it was not included by the DBM. REP. DATUMANONG. How much is included, if there is any, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Zero, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. Zero? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. So, that is contrary to what the distinguished Sponsor has said. He is saying a beautiful language for the state prosecutors, but the government is not listening to him. How can we upgrade the activities or spur the eagerness and the inspiration of the state prosecutors and counsels if we do not implement the law favoring the upgrading of their salaries? REP. SAN LUIS. The Department of Justice is pushing for P300 million at least, or a partial of the P900 million, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. I am happy about that, and I hope the Department of Justice, the Secretary particularly, will be able to succeed. I am very sure that that will inspire the state prosecutors. They are the soldiers of the Department of Justice.

22 REP. SAN LUIS. I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. Under the same law, R.A. No. 10071, there is a provision that requires the automatic appropriation of some P50 million from the unappropriated funds of the national treasury for the Office of the Prosecutor General. Was there any step taken to realize that objective, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. None that I know of, Mr. Speaker. There was no release yet. REP. DATUMANONG. No, I am not asking for the release, I am asking if there was a step taken to realize such objective, especially in the budget for 2011, since there is a need to include this because it is only good for one year from the effectivity of the law. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the DOJ had already asked the DBM to release a partial amount. REP. DATUMANONG. Likewise, I really hope that the DOJ, through its Secretary, would be able to push that because all of these had have been intended by the Congress of the Philippines to help the Department of Justice and help the government in its entirety. REP. SAN LUIS. Actually, Mr. Speaker, there is a continuous meeting between the DBM and the DOJ regarding this matter. REP. DATUMANONG. Thank you for that information, Mr. Speaker. There is another lawas I said, I am going to take up with the distinguished Sponsor some laws enacted by Congress about and in favor of the Department of Justice. There is another law, Republic Act No. 9279 which grants additional compensation in the form of special allowances for the members of the National Prosecution Service and state counsels. May I know if anything has been done about this. SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. SAN LUIS. May I request for a one-minute suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is suspended. It was 2:36 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 2:37 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is resumed. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is an ongoing process, they are collecting said fees and these are being distributed to the different prosecution offices nationally.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. DATUMANONG. Thank you for that information, Mr. Speaker. May I go to the next point and this refers to the Witness Protection Program. I noticed that in the budget for the Department of Justice for the year 2011, there is no substantial increase in the appropriation for the Witness Protection Program, yet, there is a steady increase of witnesses who would like to avail of this program. What has the Department of Justice done, if there is any, that would really make the government realize that there is a need to support the Witness Protection Program? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the DOJ has about P180 million in the proposed budget for the Witness Protection Program, but the actual budget allocated in the 2011 budget is only P151 million. The DOJ has been strengthening the Witness Protection Program. In fact, it already has 95 percent conviction rate since they started the Witness Protection Program. REP. DATUMANONG. That is a very encouraging information, that we are strengthening the National Prosecution Service because the Witness Protection Program supports this. REP. SAN LUIS. Definitely, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. I am happy with that information, Mr. Speaker. I would like to go to the last law on which I would like to get some information, that is Republic Act No. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. I remember that I sponsored this in plenary as I presided over the deliberations on this before the Committee on Justice. Is the implementation of this law successful? That is my first question. The second question, so that it will not take long is, so far, how many children had been considered as children in conflict with the law? The third question on this point is, are there comparative data that will show the number of minor offenders before the enactment of the law and after the enactment of the law? REP. SAN LUIS. As to the first question, Mr. Speaker, I think the 2011 budget has been increased from P8.3 million to P9.4 million. As to the statistics, as of this date, Mr. Speaker, the DOJ has released 7,426 juveniles and they are in the process of localization of the juvenile intervention. REP. DATUMANONG. In the point of view of the Department of Justice, was the implementation of this law successful, at least, for the last three or four years? Were there any complaints about its implementation received by the Department of Justice? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, generally, its implementation was successful and satisfactory, but there are still certain issues just like the criminal responsibility age. REP. DATUMANONG. Does the Department of Justice intend to make any recommendation for the amendment of Republic Act No. 9344?

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, definitely, they are studying it but Can I have a one-minute suspension of the session, please. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is suspended. It was 2:44 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 2:46 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is resumed. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, as I have learned from the good Secretary, they are still studying the age of discernment, between 15 and 12 years of age, because now, it is 15 but if we lower it to 12, it is too low. I think there will be a lot of children who will be in jail if we do that. The DOJ is currently studying this matter, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. I thank the Sponsor for that information, Mr. Speaker. I assure the DOJ that even now that I am with the Opposition, I will continue to support any effort towards making this law more successful for the children and for the entire community. On the matter of the comparative data, I will not press this upon the distinguished Sponsor, but I would like to request that this Representation be given comparative data on the minor offenders before and after the effectivity of the law, so that we will be guided accordingly if there is a need to amend the law to make it more effective for the community and the people. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will personally deliver it to the Gentlemans office. REP. DATUMANONG. Thank you very much, my good friend, Mr. Speaker. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chair and the distinguished Sponsor. Let me reassure the DOJ and the DOJ family that I am always a friend. Thank you very much. REP. SAN LUIS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank the Gentleman. (Applause) THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. TUGNA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Gentleman from the Second District of Cagayan de Oro, the Hon. Rufus B. Rodriguez, be recognized. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The distinguished Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro is recognized.

23 REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. This Representation was one of the principal authors of Republic Act No. 10071, entitled: AN ACT STRENGTHENING AND RATIONALIZING THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE. This law has many features: first, there is the increase in number of deputy provincial prosecutors and assistant and associate prosecutors; second, there is also the increase in number of the provincial and city prosecutors in the different provinces; third, this law likewise provides that there should be automatic creation of positions of prosecutor whenever new courts are created to immediately serve and prosecute cases filed in those courts; fourth, Section 20 of this law has also given special allowances to members of the National Prosecution Service which is to be placed in the regular budget of the DOJ; fifth, it provides for the retirement benefits that they should receive, with the retirement pension based on the highest salary plus the highest monthly aggregate transportation, living and representation allowances; and sixth, this provides for the automatic increase of prosecutors pay if there is an increase in such position. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, will the budget of the DOJ for 2011 fund precisely this Republic Act No. 10071, in recognition of the important task of the Department of Justice in bringing to the bars of justice the criminals in this country so that we can have more peace and order and compliance with laws? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, there is a P1.4 billion budget that is available in the implementation of the said law. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). How much is the total budget of the DOJ and how much is specifically earmarked for this law? We do not want this to be another unfunded law. This was approved last February 2010 and so, it should have caught up with the budget process, such that the budget for the implementation of this law should be have been included already in the DOJ budget. If it was not included, then during the period of amendments, we should amend the budget of the DOJ to include funding for this new law which took the entire Congress more than two years to approve. REP. SAN LUIS. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, there is a P1.4 billion budget. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). How much is the budget of the entire DOJ? REP. SAN LUIS. This is under the Office of the Secretary which has P2.3 billion, plus the P1.4 billion as Miscellaneous Personnel Benefit Fund, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). So, the Secretary of Justice and the entire DOJ are satisfied with that amount to enable them not only to implement this law but likewise to pay for additional prosecutors. During the committee hearing, it was clear to my ears that there will be no fund for new prosecutors and no fund in that budget for an increase in prosecutors pay. Now, do we have a different stand on this law?

24 REP. SAN LUIS. I think that is the initial amount for the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefit Fund, Mr. Speaker, but personally, I think they are satisfied with this. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). So, how many new prosecutor positions are not funded? Were these new positions, for about 126 new prosecutors? What will happen to the salas wherein there are no prosecutors because we have not funded additional new positions as required by Republic Act No. 10071? How many were not funded? REP. SAN LUIS. Around 700 positions, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Imagine that, 700 positions, and these are not included in the budget? REP. SAN LUIS. I do not think so. It is not included. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Would the distinguished Sponsor take the lead in assuring us that as part of the committee amendments, and in the Bicameral Conference Committee, we will restore this? I have a letter here addressed to the honorable Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations requesting for an additional P200 million as augmentation for the new positions of prosecutors and for the increase in the salaries of the old prosecutors. Would that be assured by our colleague? If we do not act, and the Department of Justice only receives 0.46 percent of the entire budget, is this the way to treat our Department of Justice when we are trying to maintain peace and order, to maintain the rule of law, and to maintain our safety against criminals? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, at the proper time, we will include that in the amendments. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). I thank the Sponsor very much for the P200 million which should be restored to the DOJ. On another question, I received information that yesterday, the Globe Asiatique president has lined up at the US Embassy to secure a visa to the United States. May we know whether there has been an issuance of a hold-departure order (HDO) on Delfin Lee, the architect of the P8 billion fraud committed on Pag-IBIG? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, I think the case has not been filed yet, but as I understand it, they are putting him in the watch list. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Has an order been issued against Delfin Lee of Globe Asiatique to put him in the watch list? REP. SAN LUIS. At the moment, Mr. Speaker, not yet, but they can issue an order to put him in the watch list. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). We urge the Department of Justice to direct to the Bureau of Immigration to issue an order putting him in the watch list to prevent him from leaving the country because he might leave tomorrow. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they will issue the order immediately to put him in the watch list.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). I would also like to know whether the officials of Shell, which has been charged by the Bureau of Customs with a P34 billion tax evasion, have been placed in the HDO or in the watch list of the Bureau of Immigration. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the DOJ will also consider issuing that order for the Shell executives. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. These are very important cases which might leave the government holding an empty bag if these officials and businessmen are allowed to leave this country. Has Vice President Binay already filed criminal charges for falsification and other charges against the officials of Globe Asiatique and Pag-IBIG officials? REP. SAN LUIS. The DOJ was notified already, but there is no formal complaint yet, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). It was stated in the newspapers that a complaint will be filed. Anyway, the Secretary can put them in the watch list. I am happy that the Secretary will direct the Bureau of Immigration, under the Hon. Roy Ledesma, to already put them in the watch list, so that later on, we can issue an HDO against Delfin Lee and likewise, the officials of Shell who have defrauded this country by misdeclaring their oil importations. My next question, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, is about the immigration cards of the Bureau of Immigration. There is now the face and body of someone printed thereon. Can you imagine that somebody elses face had replaced the face of the President in our Bureau of Immigration cards, which cards are now being distributed, which also contain advertisements of certain hotels and restaurants? May we know the current status of these Bureau of Immigration disembarkation cards? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the DOJ has directed the cancellation of the contract and the recall of all the cards. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Okay. During my time as Immigration Commissioner, we did not contract this out because the association of airlines gives this to us for free. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Is that being done now? Let us allow the Council of Philippine Airline to be the one to print these because it will facilitate their passengers. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Again, the DOJ Secretary has directed already the cancellation of the contract and the recall of the cards. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). So there will be no more cards that the government will have to spend for? REP. SAN LUIS. No more Belo cards, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter)

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Next question. When I was the Immigration Commissioner, then President Erap Estrada gave us a 7,000-square meter lot at Bonifacio Global City to transfer the Bureau of Immigration office from Aduana, beside the river in Intramuros, to a better location because our foreign guests would not want to go from Makati and Pasig all the way to Intamuros, and P400 million was given by President Estrada for this. May I know whether that new building had already been set up to showcase modernity and progress in the Philippines, replacing the present Bureau of Immigration building which was constructed way back in the 1950s? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the property was acquired by the DOJ but unfortunately, there are no funds for the building. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). When are we going to get the funds? May I know how our Secretary and our Immigration Chief REP. SAN LUIS. Maybe at the proper time, we can request the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee so we can have a new building for the Bureau of Immigration. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Okay, with the assurance that the distinguished Sponsor will lead in including our building fund in this budget. This was way back in 1999 when I was the Commissioner and yet, there is still no building. Can the distinguished Sponsor lead in putting into this budget for 2011, a budget for the much-needed Bureau of Immigration head office? REP. SAN LUIS. As a matter of fact, it was included in the 2011 proposed budget, Mr. Speaker, but rest assured that this humble Representation will push for its approval. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). So, there is already a fund for 2011 for the building? REP. SAN LUIS. No, it is not available yet; it is just proposed. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Was it slashed? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). It was taken away. REP. SAN LUIS. But it was proposed. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Removed by the DBM? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Would the Sponsor, the Hon. Egay San Luis, take the lead as our patron of the Department of Justice budget in making sure that they will have money for the Bureau of Immigration building? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will try my best. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you very much.

25 Now, I would like to go to the NBI. The NBI is issuing one-year clearances, which procedure our people find to be very cumbersome and very expensive. Would the NBI adopt a process similar to the LTO which issues licenses that are good for three years? The Bureau of Immigration, when I was then the Commissioner, had already expanded the working visa from one year to three years. This three-year extension greatly helped our people, especially those who would like to go abroad. However, every year, our people have to go back to the NBI to get this NBI clearance. Will the NBI, through the Honorable Gatdula who is a good friend, now consider issuing a NBI clearance with a two-year effectivity so that our workers going abroad will not go to the NBI every year? The procedure is so cumbersome and so expensive that I am sure the applicants are willing to pay for two years. Just like our LTO license, we are practically paying for three years at the usual rate. Can the NBI give an announcement to the whole world that henceforth, the NBI clearance, for all of us, would be valid not only for one year but for two or three years? Would you agree to that, distinguished Sponsor? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the NBI Director, right now, is at the Palace and I think he has an emergency meeting with the President, but he has proposed already a one-year clearance. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). That is the currentone year. REP. SAN LUIS. He proposed one year, yes. It is six months at present. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). No, it is one year. You look at the clearance, it is for one year. REP. SAN LUIS. No, it is only for six months. I just got one and it is only for six months. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). May we know from the representative of the NBI? REP. SAN LUIS. Six months. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Can they make it two years, is that possible? Even in the absence of the NBI Director, our Secretary is here and the NBI Director is under the supervision of the Secretary of Justice. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, the Secretary of Justice, Mr. Speaker, will take it up with the NBI Director. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). So, it should be two years to afford everybody not to go back and forth every year to the NBI. May I go now to my final question which will be on local concerns. I hope the Secretary will listen to this. As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, all politics are local. First concern, Mr. Speaker, is the appointment of five additional prosecutors in Cagayan de Oro. We already said that in the last meeting of the Committee on Appropriations. When can we have the appointments since we lack prosecutors in many branches of the RTC in Cagayan de Oro?

26 REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, I was informed that within a month, they would... REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). A month? That has been pending for quite sometime, about six months already. But I understand that there is a ban. REP. SAN LUIS. Within two months, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). The ban stops in November and so, it is one month. REP. SAN LUIS. After the election ban. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). So, after election ban, will there be action on that? REP. SAN LUIS. After the election ban. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Including the appointment of four staff members? We have five prosecutors and so, a staff of five in the city prosecutors office. I am in constant touch with my city prosecutor. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, it is already considered by the selection board and so, after the election ban, it will be decided upon by the honorable Secretary of Justice. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you. When the former Secretary Agnes Devanadera went to Cagayan de Oro, she had a meeting with the prosecutors where she promised that, first, she would make sure that the city office would have two split-type airconditioners and two motorcycles for the process servers. Can that be considered as done already as the process servers have been waiting for that, and also the air conditioners? Can that be done? REP. SAN LUIS. Consider it done, the Secretary said, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Consider it done. Thank you very much. Lastly, the Regional State Prosecutor, Prosecutor Umpa, is in need of a vehicle. Is that also considered done, that we give a service vehicle to the entire regional office? REP. SAN LUIS. I was informed, Mr. Speaker, that it was delivered last week. It was done already. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). I see. You see, I have not even been apprised on that. So, Mr. Speaker, with the delivery of the service car, with the future deliveries of airconditioners and motorcycles and, of course, with the commitment of the Hon. Egay San Luis for the inclusion of, at least, P200 to P300 million for the new positions, I, therefore, terminate my interpellation and I, therefore, manifest my 100 percent support for the budget of the DOJ and its allied agencies, plus the augmentation that they need. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. REP. SAN LUIS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (Applause)

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). Before the Chair recognizes the Floor Leader, the Chair would like to state that it has been following very conscientiously the discussion on the long-delayed transfer of the Bureau of Immigration to another site. For purposes of clarifying the record, the Chair would like to inquire from the distinguished Sponsor whether at present, the Bureau of Immigration has any plan or intention to migrate to another site? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, can you repeat the question please because I was informed that there is always the intention but the resources are limited, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. TUGNA. Mr. Speaker, may we recognize the Gentleman from the First District of Davao del Sur, the Hon. Marc Douglas C. Cagas IV. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The distinguished Gentleman is recognized. REP. CAGAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Happy birthday to the Floor Leader. Good afternoon to the distinguished Sponsor as well as to the DOJ family. Mr. Speaker, before I begin to ask questions, let me make a manifestation. I think it was two days ago, Mr. Speaker, that a Member of this House, a Congresswoman nonetheless, was insulted by a Secretary. This Representation felt very much offended because the good Congresswoman was merely asking questions regarding the upcoming peace process and peace talks in Mindanao. This good Congresswoman was only asking whether or not, for example, the Secretary of the OPAPP considers cultural sensitivity. The good Congresswoman from Lanao got a reply of, You should have checked my background and you should have read my books. Mr. Speaker, we cannot be insulted in our own House because we are supposed to be the Members of the House of Representatives. That is why this Representation will manifest as early as this afternoon that on Second Reading, I will move for the reconsideration of the budget of the OPAPP, Mr. Speaker. I will now go to the Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker. I may not be as eloquent as the Hon. Rufus B. Rodriguez as this Representation has only a very simple mind. But, distinguished Sponsor, please enlighten me, in the immigration cards, for example, why did we remove the face of our President and replaced it with the face of Vicky Belo? Are not immigration papers supposed to be public documents? Why did we put the face of Vicky Belo, distinguished Sponsor? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, as I had answered it already during Congressman Rufus Rodriguez interpellation, the DOJ Secretary already directed the cancellation of the contract because they were never consulted on the contents of the contract. Also, they already recalled the immigration cards, Mr. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. CAGAS. Why did the immigration chief not consult his immediate boss, the Secretary of Justice, Mr. Speaker, on this matter? This is very important. because it will look funny when tourists or balikbayans arrive and they now see the face of Vicky Belo on the immigration cards, Mr. Speaker. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, as far as I can recall, everytime that we travel, not only Vicky Belos face is printed in the immigration card but also Smart and other advertising companies. That was before and has been a practice already, not only during the past administration but also in the other administrations. Now, it has been stopped and that is the status, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. I think it would be unfair to Dr. Calayan also if only Vicky Belos picture will be placed in the immigration card. REP. SAN LUIS. I agree with the Gentleman, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, I am looking right now at the budget of the National Bureau of Investigation. I wish General Gatdula was here though, Mr. Speaker. I have noticed that under Operations, the budget in our General Appropriations Bill, under scientific criminal investigation services, the Capital Outlay is allotted P25 million, Mr. Speaker; for MOOE, P127 million plus; and for PS, P115 million. Now, my question is: with the new leadership of General Gatdula in the NBI, what is henceforth the new vision of the NBI, Mr. Speaker, before I go to further questions about the National Bureau of Investigation? SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. SAN LUIS. May I request for a one-minute suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is suspended for one minute. It was 3:16 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 3:17 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The session is resumed. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the NBI Director is, at the moment, in a meeting in Malacaang. The vision of the institution is for it to be reliable and dynamic in providing quality investigative and support services by committed professionals to serve the ends of truth and justice founded on the fine ideals of nobility, bravery and integrity, specifically modernization of the services thereof and the crafting of a law which clarifies the jurisdiction of the NBI over particular crimes, limiting it only to high-level crimes, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. I could not agree with the Sponsor more. In fact, General Gatdula himself said it, during our testimonial

27 dinner for him, that he will now prohibit lawyers from the NBI to raid night clubs or strip clubs because it is insulting to lawyers who are also agents of the National Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Speaker. I hope that with such a vision, the NBI lawyers should be tasked with lawyering and should not be tasked with raiding because it demeans their profession, Mr. Speaker. Now, I am interested in what the Sponsor mentioned about modernization. May this Representation know the current status as to the crime scene capabilities of the NBI, their equipment like computers, probably, or DNA machines, and other equipment which can be used for taking evidence in crime scenes, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the intention is there to upgrade not only the NBI but also the other law enforcement agencies of the government, but we have limited resources that we have. I think we have to consider also this. But I was informed that they have plans already to upgrade the crime laboratory, the forensic department, in every crime-solving agencies and departments of the DOJ, especially cyber crime, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. But that will entail a huge amount of money. Maybe we can slash the budget of the CCT and give it to the DOJ. (Laughter) Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, I was informed that the camera being used in the NBI general headquarters is not a digital camera but a film camera, iyong may film pa kapag dini-develop, kapag may binibitay sila. Is this correct, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. SAN LUIS. That is one of their plansto modernize, even the CCTV, Mr. Speaker. I think they already have some state-of-the art equipment. REP. CAGAS. I am bringing this up, Mr. Speaker, because I want to illustrate to our colleagues that the NBI, whose main function is similar to that of the FBI, is really in dire need of help and modernization. This Representation last visited the office of the NBI probably four years ago and I was really touched by their situation, Mr. Speaker. I even fell in line to get my NBI clearance. This is one concern, a complaint by my constituents and friends, that sometimes when they go to the NBI or to any branch of the NBI to get the NBI clearance, and the NBI gets a hitthe NBI calls it a hitat kapag nagka-hit, for example, somebody bearing the same name has a criminal record, the result thereof is that the applicant for the NBI clearance has to renew his clearance every year, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. Has the NBI done something about this so that this would not be repeated in the future? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they have upgraded some systems already but not up to the desired level of the department. They are trying to upgrade the systems with the meager resources available to them. REP. CAGAS. The Sponsor has mentioned again the word meager. So, is the distinguished Sponsor amenable to slashing the budget from the CCT and transferring it to the DOJ?

28 REP. SAN LUIS. I leave it to the judgment of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Speaker, at the proper time. REP. CAGAS. All right, thank you. Before I go to the budget of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), may I ask this first since we have a new and idealistic Secretary: are we now trying to cleanse the ranks of the DOJ, particularly the Prosecution Service and probably, also the NBI? This Representation is very familiar with a former NBI executive officer assigned in Regional XI who facilitated the bribery of witnesses so that a particular case can be dismissed. In fact, then Secretary Raul Gonzales sacked this former NBI executive officer in Region XI for doing the same. Can you imagine, an NBI executive officer himself facilitating the bribery of witnesses so that a case can be dismissed? A murder case, nonetheless, a case wherein a former Mayor in Malita, Isidro Sarmiento, and his son Danny Sarmiento were shot and killed in front of their house, Mr. Speaker. Can we have the assurance now that there are no such mercenary agents in the National Bureau of Investigation with the leadership of the new NBI Director, Magtanggol Gatdula? REP. SAN LUIS. The case is now under investigation and the agent involved is under investigation by the internal affairs office of the NBI, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Mr. Speaker, one wonderswhile so many witnesses executed their affidavits, then suddenly, even the widows would, nonetheless, recant their sworn statements. Now, would it be a surprise to know what circumstances led to the recantation, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, I was informed that they would thoroughly investigate this and expedite the investigation of the circumstances surrounding the recantation. REP. CAGAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can we now go to the Public Attorneys Office? Forgive me, the PAO chief is waving her hand because she was my professor in the College of Law. How much do PAO lawyers usually receive, Mr. Speaker, for example, the PAO lawyers in Cagayan de Oro City, the district of Congressmen Jun Benaldo and Rufus Rodriguez? Are they compensated in proportion to the number of dockets that they receive on a monthly basis, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, it depends on the rank of the attorney. REP. CAGAS. What are these salary grades or ranks, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, Salary Grade 18 is given P25,259; Salary Grade 22 is P32,973; Salary Grade 25 is P39,966, with RATA of P8,000; Salary Grade 26 is P42,639, with RATA of P11,000; Salary Grade 27 is P45,505, RATA is P13,000; Salary Grade 28 is P48,579, P14,000 is the RATA; then, Salary Grade 29 is P51,876, with RATA of P15,600; the Deputy Chief Public Attorney is Salary Grade 30, P54,274, with RATA of P15,600; and the Chief Public Attorney, Salary Grade 31, is P72,839, with RATA of P22,000, all these as per DBM Circular No. 1, series of 1990.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. CAGAS. Compared to last year, has there been a significant increase as to the salaries and emoluments of members of the PAO, particularly those in the rural areas, in the cities and provinces outside of Metro Manila, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, because of R.A. No. 9406, to which the distinguished Gentleman also sponsored. REP. CAGAS. I am very happy to hear that, Mr. Speaker. For a time, I was puzzled because in Digos City, those who recently passed the Bar would not want to become members of the Public Attorneys Office. There is no turn on as to the salaries concerned, and if there are no lawyers under the PAO, then who else would defend pauper clients, Mr. Speaker? I am very glad that we have already increased the salaries of the PAO attorneys. My next question, Mr. Speaker, is on the item on the Special Provision found in page 512 of the General Appropriations Bill, under also the Public Attorneys Office. It says here under Use of Income that: In addition to the amounts appropriated herein, the PAO is authorized to use fees collected from the cost of suit, attorneys fees and contingent fees imposed upon the adversary of PAO clients after successful litigation to constitute the Special Trust Fund for the payment of special allowances to the Chief Public Attorney, the Deputy Chief Public Attorneys, the Regional Public Attorneys, the Provincial, City and Municipal Public Attorneys, and other lawyers of the PAO and officials who have direct supervision over PAO lawyers May this Representation know whether or not the PAO has devised a very efficient plan as far as the implementation of this specific provision is concerned. REP. SAN LUIS. At the moment, Mr. Speaker, they have collected P260,000 from this provision. REP. CAGAS. Maliit lang pala ano, kawawa talaga ang PAO. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, I would really love to have an increase in the budget of the PAO as well as in the NBI budget because talaga naman kawawa ang mga ahensyang ito. Gusto ko na ang mga lawyers ng NBI at saka ng PAO ay magkaroon ng as much dignity as possible because they are the ones that are in the frontlines. These lawyers are sacrificing so much and so, they should be rewarded. Since the good Chairman is looking at me, maybe the good Chairman is amenable already to slashing the budget of the CCT. Anyway, thank you, PAO Chief. My last question would be: are fiscals or prosecutors allowed to hold other positions, for instance, to be members of the board of directors of cooperatives and at the same time, receive salaries and emoluments as such? For example, can they be members of the board of electric cooperative and receive salaries and emoluments over and above the salaries and emoluments that fiscals receive by virtue of their being fiscals, Mr. Speaker?

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. SAN LUIS. To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, they are not allowed to do so. REP. CAGAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am about to wind up. As Congressman Rodriguez also said, and to quote President Roosevelt also, All politics is local. In the province of Davao del Sur, for a time until we held people power in our province, two fiscals held positions in the Board of Davao Del Sur Electric Cooperative despite the letter of then DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez, prohibiting public prosecutors from holding other positions. Mr. Speaker, up to now, they are still fiscals. This particular provincial fiscal, has even the audacity and the callousness, Mr. Speaker, not to inhibit himself from being the Chairman of COMELEC Board of Canvassers when, in fact, his wife is also serving as chief of staff or private secretary of an incumbent municipal official. That is very sad because, number one, as a provincial fiscal, he is supposed to be a man of the law, but he is serving as the Chairman of the COMELEC Board of Canvassers and he is not ashamed. Why did he not inhibit himself? Is this allowed, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. SAN LUIS. As I had said, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, it is not allowed. But I think they have resigned already from the cooperative and the good Secretary REP. CAGAS. No, they did not resign; we ousted them. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, you ousted them. REP. CAGAS. We had people power because they were not holding elections for eight years. They held positions illegally and immorally, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the good Secretary has said that she will make sure that this will not happen again in the Department of Justice. REP. CAGAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I wind up, I thank the distinguished Sponsor and I hope that the Department of Justice under the new leadership will truly implement the reforms espoused by President Aquino and will prevent such occurrences from happening again in the future. With that, Mr. Speaker, I end my interpellation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (Applause) REP. SAN LUIS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). Before the Chair recognizes the Dep. Majority Leader, for the information of those who may be interested, the Chair would like to state that the slogan, all politics is local, has been attributed by political tradition to the late Speaker Tip ONeill who was a long-standing Speaker of the US House of Representatives. The Chair notices the approving nod of the distinguished Minority Leader. The Dep. Majority Leader is now recognized. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this point, we move that we recognize the next Member who wishes to interpellate on the budgets of the Department of Justice and its attached agencies, the Hon. Neri J. Colmenares of Party-List Bayan Muna.

29 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The distinguished Gentleman from Party-List Bayan Muna is recognized. REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would our distinguished colleague allow a few questions? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions would center on the PCGG, Mr. Speaker. May we know the total amount, in dollars, of the forfeited deposits turned over to the Philippines as early as January 31, 2002, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the PCGG has already recovered in cash the amount of $85,614,020,867.23 as of June 30, 2010, which amount has already been remitted to the Bureau of Treasury. It has also recovered various real estate properties, shares of stocks, television networks, radio stations and other properties amounting to $18,331,136,837.76, for total recoveries amounting to $103,971,157,704.99, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to ask, however, Mr. Speaker, if I may, on the total amount turned over by the Swiss banks, the forfeited Marcos accounts, the Swiss deposits turned over in 2002. May we know how much was actually turned over to the Philippine government, to the PNB for that matter? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, I was informed of a total of about $658 million of forfeited Swiss deposits and from which amount, P35 million was remitted already to the Bureau of Treasury. REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, that tallies with a report by the COA here that I have. The report, for the record, is entitled: Utilization of the Forfeited Swiss Deposits for the Implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, Management Services Report No. 2006-01 by the Commission on Audit and signed by Assistant Commissioner Arcadio Cuenco of the COA. That, actually, tallies, Mr. Speaker. May we know, however, how much, including interest, was held in escrow with the PNB as of January 30, 2004 in terms of pesos? Once the amount is turned over, it, of course, accrues interests. I have here the report of COA, but may we know if the data is similar, Mr. Speaker. REP. SAN LUIS. I have here about $30 million and so, when we convert it at the present exchange rate, that should be around REP. COLMENARES. Just to clarify, Mr. Speaker. Actually, the $658 million was turned over to the PNB in 2002. However, according to the COA report here, the Trust Banking Group of the PNB certified that the market value of the assets subject to the writ of execution, as of January 30, 2004, was in the aggregate amount of $688 million, Mr. Speaker. It grew by about $30 million and so, it is $688 million. Does the Gentleman confirm that, Mr. Speaker?

30 REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. May we know how much of the Swiss funds was actually turned over later to the Republic of the Philippines by the PNB, as per the custodianship agreement dated January 30, 2004? REP. SAN LUIS. I have here $5 million from Romualdez and REP. COLMENARES. Just to clarify, Mr. Speaker, my question is REP. SAN LUIS. $88.2 million from the Jimenez Swiss accounts. REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just cite again the report of the COA. Out of the $688 million, as mentioned a while ago, on January 30, 2004, the parties entered into a custodianship agreement where the amount of $624 million to be transferred and delivered to the Republic of the Philippines will be held under the custody of the PNB. Does the Gentleman confirm this transfer of $624 million out of the $688 million under the custodianship agreement? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is confirmed, but we retained the 5 percent litigation fund. REP. COLMENARES. Yes. In this COA report, the 5 percent litigation fund amounted to $1.319 million. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, out of the total $688 million dollars, $624 million was turned over. May I ask, what happened to the difference between $688 million and $624 million? What happened to the difference of $63 million that was not turned over to the Republic by the PNB? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the 5 percent litigation fund, of course, and then the $30 million is in Singapore for litigation also, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. So, this $63 million which has not been turned over is still with the PNB? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. May we know the status of this $63 million as of now? How much is the total, and is it still there or has it been disbursed? REP. SAN LUIS. We do not have the exact details, but I would ask the PCGG to furnish us a copy of the accounts in the PNB. REP. COLMENARES. Is the PCGG here, Mr. Speaker.? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. Yes, because the PCGG should be

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 conscious of the fact that $63 million, that is a huge amount of money, is still left with the PNB in 2004. It has been a long time and we really hope the PCGG would also be monitoring these funds; otherwise, this can escape our attention because all along, we thought that all the Swiss funds have been deposited with the Republic of the Philippines and we may forget the $63 million left with the PNB. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Gentleman is correct. It is already with the PNB, but the PCGG would just reconcile the accounts and we will submit to this to the Gentlemans office if necessary, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Other than the $624 million turned over, there is still $63 million left with the PNB that needs to be accounted for, and we would appreciate a document from the PCGG to that effect. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. My next question is, in last years BESF on the 2010 budget submitted, specifically page 525 of the GAA 2010, for the PCGG, there is a special provision thereat that says: The proceeds realized from the sale or administration of assets by the PCGG shall be deposited with the National Treasury, provided that one percent of such proceeds shall be used for the payment of lawful claims which includes: recovery expense, selling expense Then, additionally, it says, Provided, further, that the remaining balance of said proceeds shall be utilized subject to the provision of pertinent laws. The DOF, in coordination with COA, shall make the necessary adjustments for the recording of the sales. May we ask for confirmation if this is actually found in the 2010 budget, Mr. Speaker. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is in the 2010 budget. REP. COLMENARES. Thank you. It is again found in the current budget for 2011 submitted by the Executive Branch. May we know how long has this special provision been in place? Since 2002? Since 1987? May we know how long this Special Provision has been part of the budget,. REP. SAN LUIS. It started in 1999 with P20 million, up to 2007. Then, in 2008 the 10 percent was already included and so, it grew to P94,760,000. In 2010, it was P45 million, for a total of P275,760,000, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. So, the P275 million was deducted from the sales of the assets and left with the PCGG for the payment of lawful claims. Is that the total amount of this 10 percent withholding fund since 1999 until 2010, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Can the Gentleman please repeat the question?

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. COLMENARES. I will repeat the question. How much all in all were the funds withheld, the 10 percent withheld since it started in 1999? Ilan po ang total na na-withhold sa mga sales ng assets mula 1999 hanggang sa kasalukuyan? Malalaki po kasi ang sales ng PCGG and so, I was thinking that the 10 percent withheld would be a huge amount by now. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I had stated, from 1999, it started with P20 million per year, up to 2007. Then, in 2008, we have the 10 percent and so, it grew by P94,760,000. We have a total of P275 million REP. COLMENARES. Lahat-lahat, since 1999. REP. SAN LUIS. Since 1999, Mr. Speaker? REP. COLMENARES. I have here a document from the PCGG about the estimated value of surrendered/recovered assets. I presumed na dito manggagaling iyong 10 percent withheld, mula sa mga sale ng mga estimated value ng recovered assets. Nakalagay dito, for real estate properties, P14,930,000,000; for shares of stocks, P3,283,000,000; for TV networks and radio stations, P3,125,000,000. Ang total na estimate ng PCGG in this document is a huge amount of P21 billion of surrendered or recovered assets. Kaya sa sale nito manggagaling ang 10 percent proceeds. Tama po ba, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. Kapag nabenta po ang mga ito, saka lang natin makukuha ang total. REP. COLMENARES. Salamat po. So, out of the sale of these assets worth billions of pesos, ang na-withhold na 10 percent ng PCGG amounts only to P275 million. REP. SAN LUIS. It is not more than 10 percent of the total assets to be sold, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. As stated. Thank you. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes. REP. COLMENARES. All right. How much was spent on legal claims, on lawful claims, out of this amount? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, since 1999, from P19,303,573 as of August 31, 2010, it is now P37,454,068. REP. COLMENARES. So, we have a total of P238 million ang na-disburse, if I am not mistaken. REP. SAN LUIS. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it is P214,8352,270 REP. COLMENARES. Ang na-disburse? REP. SAN LUIS. out of the P275 billion. REP. COLMENARES. Was this P214 plus million spent on lawful claims, or was this spent on other items? Kasi hindi naman sa isang taon ay mauubos natin ang 10 percent and so, may natira diyan. Under this provision, any remaining

31 balance of said proceeds, ibig sabihin, hindi ito naibayad sa lawful claims, shall be utilized, subject to the provisions of pertinent laws. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, some amount was spent for local claims, but most of it was spent for the operational expenses already. REP. COLMENARES. Operational expenses of the PCGG? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr, Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. Meaning trainings, salaries, allowances, am I right, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and it was subjected to the special release order of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) since there is no budget allocated for maintaining the sequestered assets. REP. COLMENARES. So, the amount was spent, as I mentioned a while ago, on operations, trainings, allowances, salaries, et cetera. REP. SAN LUIS. Excluding allowances, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. For salaries, trainings, et cetera except allowances. REP. SAN LUIS. This is purely for maintenance and operations, not even for the salaries, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. Does this not violate the law that says that it should be turned over to the Agrarian Reform Fund or rather, I do not see that maintaining the operations of the PCGG should be part of the expenses for such funds, Mr. Speaker. REP. SAN LUIS. I agree with the Gentleman on that, Mr. Speaker, but 90 percent of the funds was turned over to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Only 10 percent is utilized for the said expenses, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. Precisely, Mr. Speaker, the 10 percent withheld was not a small amount, but it is P275 million. Some amount is spent on lawful claims but not all. In fact, I think this provision which says that the remaining balance of the 10 percent ay puwede nang gamitin para sa ibang bagay is subject to the provisions of pertinent laws. For me, that is a bit vague and may already have been used to circumvent the legal requirement. Mr. Speaker, may I just ask therefore for an accounting of these funds so that we will really know if nagastos na ito sa salaries or allowances which the good Sponsor had said was not spent on salaries but rather on operations. Para lang malinaw, maybe, he can just give a document later on stating the operations of the PCGG for which this amount is being used. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will see to it that they submit the documents to the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker.

32 REP. COLMENARES. Yes, but copy furnished my office, Mr. Speaker. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. Thank you very much. The next question I have is with regard to the Bayles case. This April of 2010, Benjamin Bayles was killed in Negros Occidental, my home province. As I mentioned before, during the deliberations on the DND budget, the killing of Benjamin Bayles may have been one ordinary case of those routine extra-judicial killings except for one very major difference, Mr. Speaker. The difference is this: this time around, the perpetrators of the killings were arrested by the PNP of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental. These suspects were arrested when they went through a checkpoint and later on, they were charged with the murder of Benjamin Bayles, who is a member of Bayan Muna, by the way. These suspects said that their names were one Ronnie Caurino and another by the name of Roger Bajot. Later on, due to the assertion of the families of the victims and of human rights advocates that these two persons were members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and not fishermen as they claimed to be, we asked the DND, during the interpellation on their budget, whether or not the two suspects arrested in the Bayles killings were members of the AFP. The AFP readily admitted that, indeeddespite the protestations, despite the previous denials of the 61st Infantry Battalion (IB) of the AFP, despite the denials of the accusedboth were actually members of the AFP and that their names are actually Pfc. Reygine Laos and Pfc. Cordova. May we know if these two accused are still under detention in Negros Occidental? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are under detention and they have been arraigned already and set for pre-trial. REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to manifest, therefore, that this is what I call the missing link. In fact, the good DOJ Secretary, probably when she was still the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), would have been looking for this missing link. After all the years that extra-judicial killings were being committed, here comes a case where two members of the AFP, riding on a motorcycle, were arrested, with two 45caliber pistols confiscated from them and are now currently detained. We would like to get a commitment on the part of the DOJ that they would seriously prosecute the case of Benjamin Bayles. REP. SAN LUIS. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the good DOJ Secretary has been making that commitment not only to the Gentleman but to the House of the People. REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We hope that that commitment will translate into the first ever resolution of extra-judicial killings in the country. There was a decision by the Supreme Court before in the case Ladlad vs. the Department of Justice where the Supreme Court castigated then Secretary Raul Gonzalez forthe term

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 of the court then, in that case, was that the Department of Justice prostituted its office and they were used for the harassment of political opponents. This case actually stemmed from what was claimed even by Members of the House of Representatives, notably Satur Ocampo and Crispin Beltran, that trumped-up charges were filed against them as a harassment suit which, of course, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed. In that situation, the charge of Ka Satur Ocampo and the rest of the Batasan 6 and many others who were victims of harassment suits from the Department of Justice was that they were meant to harass them. In fact, none of the cases prospered and many were dismissed. So, we would like to ask from the Secretary of Justice, because this was done by what we considered was the IALAG or the Inter-Agency Legal Assistance Group, if IALAG still exists and if there is a budget for IALAG functions under the current budget, Mr. Speaker. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, it does not exist anymore. REP. COLMENARES. So, there is no budget for the IALAG? REP. SAN LUIS. There is no budget for the IALAG, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. We asked this because the cases filed by IALAG, even the one against Satur Ocampo, continue until now. In fact, until now, Teddy Casio still has a criminal case somewhere in Leyte. May we ask the Department of Justice to review these harassment cases and if they are found to be harassment suits, as concluded by the Supreme Court in the case of Ladlad, to withdraw all these charges because it is within the power of the Department of Justice? Actually, it is not within the court, but rather, within the Department of Justice, with its sense of justice, to withdraw criminal complaints filed to harass opposition leaders or political dissenters in the previous administration. May we get that commitment that the DOJ will review the cases, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the good Secretary is aware of these cases and she will make the appropriate actions in due time, Mr. Speaker. REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the appropriate actions will be reflected not only in the harassment cases against Members of this House, but also the previous Members. One of them already died. Ka Bel is already dead. There are current Members of the House who are still experiencing these harassment suits. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to terminate my interpellation. I would also like to thank the Gentleman for answering my questions. Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker. REP. SAN LUIS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The Chair notes that in todays budget deliberations on the Department of Agrarian Reform, the so-called Swiss funds or Swiss deposits were extensively discussed. During the deliberations on the

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 budget of the Department of Justice, these same deposits or funds were again extensively discussed. For reasons of history or a more ample factual background, the Chair would like to put on record that the so-called Swiss funds or Swiss deposits were frozen by the Swiss authorities in 1986, during the time of the first PCGG that was organized under Executive Order No. 1, the first executive order issued by President Cory Aquino. That commission consisted of Chairman Jovito Salonga of Pasig, Rizal, and the four members were Commissioner Pedro Yap of Cebu, Commissioner Ramon Diaz of Camarines Sur, Commissioner Mary Concepcion Bautista of the National Capital Region and a certain Commissioner Raul Daza of Northern Samar. Commissioners Ramon Diaz, Mary Concepcion Bautista, and Pedro Yap have passed away. Commissioner Yap subsequently became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Commissioner Concepcion Bautista became Chair of the Human Rights Commission, in which the distinguished Secretary of Justice, Leila de Lima, once served. Chairman Salonga lives and is now 91 years old. The Chair would like to assure the House that Commissioner Raul Daza is still alive. (Laughter/Applause) The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding us. The next Gentleman who has signified his intention to interpellate on the proposed budgets of the Department of Justice and its attached agencies is the Hon. Rafael V. Mariano of Party-List Anakpawis. I move that he be recognized. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Daza). The distinguished Gentleman is recognized. REP. MARIANO. Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. Dear colleagues, magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat. Maaari po bang makapagtanong ng mga ilang katanungan ang Kinatawang ito? REP. SAN LUIS. Opo, Mr. Speaker. REP. MARIANO. Marami pong salamat. Idurugtong ko na po ito roon sa mga punto ng pagtatanong ni Kagalang-galang Neri Colmenares ng Bayan Muna. Alam po ng Kinatawan na marami po sa ating mga lider ng mga samahang magsasaka, mangingisda at iba pang sektor ang nakaranas o dumaranas hanggang ngayon ng pagsasampa ng mga gawa-gawang kaso o fabricated or trumped-up charges. Ang pinakahuli po ay katulad nila Ginoong Felix Paz, chairman po ng Kilusang Magbubukid ng PilipinasBicol Chapter, na sinampahan ng gawa-gawang kasong carnapping at frustrated murder. Ito rin pong tinaguriang Lumban 3, distinguished Sponsorkabilang dito si Ginoong Darwin Liwag, vice chairman naman po ng Katipunan ng Samahang Magbubukid sa Timog Katagaluganna sinampahan ng gawa-gawang kaso na illegal possession of firearms and explosives; at ito pong si Ginoong Edito Namion, secretary general ng Pamalakaya, Negros, na kinasuhan naman ng kasong arson. Ganyan po ang nararanasan naming mga magbubukid o magsasaka, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, at kasama

33 po ako roon sa tinagurian noong Batasan 6 o Batasan 5 na sinampahan ng gawa-gawang kasong rebelyon, na ibinasura naman po ng Supreme Court. Ngayon ay may mga pending pa na mga ibat ibang mga gawa-gawang kasong common crimes. At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Daza relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Pablo P. Garcia. Yamang naririto naman po ang mga taga-Department of Justice, lalo na po ang kagalang-galang na Kalihim ngayon ng DOJ, sana naman po, kung may ganitong mga gawagawang kasong isinasampa sa mga lider ng mga progresibong samahan ng mamamayan, kasama na ang samahang magsasaka at mangingisda, ay nirirepaso po nang maigi kahit ang kaso ay nasa antas pa lang ng habla o complaint sa piskalya. Ang nangyayari po kasi sa karanasan ng Kinatawang ito ay nakapaglalabas kaagad ng resolution ang prosecutors office at nakapagsasampa ng information sa court nang hindi man lang nabibigyan ng pagkakataon ang mga akusado na makapag-apila for review sa Office of the Secretary ng DOJ. Mas nauuna pa po ang mga tauhan ng CIDG doon sa labas ng sala, at nag-aabang na dahil baka maglalabas na ang prosecutor ng kanyang desisyon at kaagad tatakbo na sa court para magsampa ng information. Kapag naisampa na ang information, nakaabang na rin po kung lalabas ang warrant of arrest. Matitiyak po ba sa ilalim ng administrasyong Aquino na hindi na po mangyayari itong mga ganito? Pero tuloy-tuloy pa rin po ang mga pagsasampa ng mga gawagawang kasong criminal. REP. SAN LUIS. Kagalang-galang na Speaker, kagalanggalang na kasama sa mababang Kapulungan, sa akin pong paninging personal, sa kakayahan po ng ating Secretary of Justice o Kalihim ng Kagawaran ng Katarungan ay maaayos po lahat at magiging pantay-pantay ang pagtingin at pagproproseso ng mga kasong ito. Siguro po, mas maganda kung mapapadalhan po kami, ang DOJ, ng Kinatawan ng listahan ng lahat ng mga kasong ito para po matingnan nang maigi ng ating magaling na Secretary of Justice at para po mareview at makita kung ano po ang dapat gawin nang ang gulong po ng hustisya ay umusad nang tama at wasto sa ating bayan. REP. MARIANO. At ang mga maliliit po at mahihirap nasa ilalim man ng gulong, subalit hindi po nasa ilalim ng gulong ng hustisya. Salamat po, distinguished Sponsor. REP. SAN LUIS. Alam ninyo, Mr. Speaker, when I was in the campaign trail, may lumapit po sa akin. Ang sabi po, bakit daw ang batas natin sa Pilipinas ay parang sapot ng gagamba? Ang maliliit ay nahuhli at ang malalaki ay nakakalusot. Pero sa tingin ko po, sa pangunguna ng ating Secretary of Justice na si Secretary De Lima, pantay-pantay na pong mahuhuli ang maliit at malaki sa sapot ng hustisya ng bansang Pilipinas. (Applause) REP. MARIANO. Maraming salamat po. Sana nga po, ang sapot na iyan ng gagamba ay wasak na at wala na sa ilalim ng bagong administrasyong Aquino. Alam po ninyo, mainam po nalalo na sa ilalim ang Secretary ng Department of Justicemarepaso ang mga

34 kasong isinasampa sa antas ng mga prosecutors o sa piskalya dahil po kahit po ang kaso na very nature ay agrarian ay ang isinasampa ay kasong kriminal o common crimes. Halimbawa po, iyong namimitas ng mangga na mga magsasaka natin dahil sila ang nagtanim noong mangga; inaruga nila, ngunit nang sila ay mamimitas na, kinasuhan sila ng robbery of mangoes. Iyon namang mga kapatid nating magsasaka, mga kababaihan sa Leyte, may karanasan na sila po ay mag-aani na ng niyog. Kinasuhan naman po sila ng qualified theft of coconut. At iyon pong mga magsasaka natin, kapag hindi sila nakabayad ng kanilang renta sa lupa o lease rental, hinahabol po sa korte at sinasampahan ng estafa. So, maganda pong tingnan din ng DOJ ang mga iyan. Ang mga prosecutors ng DOJ ay dapat huwag naman po basta-basta magsampa na mga kasong kriminal na gawa-gawa lamang. Kaagad pa naman silang iniisyuhan ng desisyon o order finding probable cause kahit walang pagbabatayan ng pagsasampa ng impormasyon sa korte. So, maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. Ang isa pa po, I mean, dalawa na lang po, palagay ko po ay aware naman po kayo at alam na alam ninyo po itong isang kasong ito kung saan naglabas ng legal opinion o tatlong legal opinions ang Department of Justice. May kaugnayan po ito roon sa proyektong Laguna Lake Rehabilitation Project. Briefly nga po, pakibigyan ninyo nga po kami kung ano ang katangian nitong proyektong ito at ano ang layunin diumano. Hindi po natin tatalakayin dito iyong laman noong tatlong legal opinions. SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, may I request for a oneminute suspension of the session, please. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The session is suspended. It was 4:14 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 4:15 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The session is resumed. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, dalawang bagay po ang katanungan dito sa Belgian dredging loan package. Una, kung ito pong loan agreement ay OMB buyer agreement o isa pong Executive agreement, ano po? Pangalawa po, kung ang bidding po ay karapat-dapat na naging proseso sa pagbibigay po ng kontrata sa Belgian company. Iyon pong mga technical at saka iyong mga financial na aspeto, ito po ay hindi po kasama sa hininging opinyon sa Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker. REP. MARIANO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. Ipinapalagay ko po na naging masinsinan din po at malaliman ang ginawang legal research ng DOJ na pinagbatayan ng tatlong mga opinyong legal na kanilang in-

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 issue. Sana rin po ay kung hindi man napabilang o saklaw ng kanilang legal research ito, baka pwede pong tingnan nila iyong iba pang mga pertinent, relevant provisions ng mga existing laws, at isa na po riyan siyempre iyongna ipinapalagay ko ay sinaklaw ng kanilang legal research malinaw na itinatadhana ng 1987 Philippine Constitution, ang Section 29 (2), Article VI ng ating Saligang Batas; ang Sections 46, 47 and 48 ng Chapter VII, sub-title (b), Title 1, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987; at gayon din po ang Section 5.1 of the implementing rules and regulations for the Official Development Assistance Act of 1996. Ipinapalagay ko po na sinaklaw at inabot ng kanilang masinsin at malaliman na pananaliksiklegal ang akin pong mga tinuran at binanggit na mga pertinent sections and provisions ng existing laws, including the Administrative Code of 1987, Republic Act No. 9184 at ng Republic Act No. 8182, o ng Official Development Act of 1996. Ipinapalagay ko rin po na sinaklaw ng research nila ang tinuntungan ng tatlong mga opinyong legal na inisyu ng DOJ, ang Section 73 po ng General Provisions ng General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010 o Republic Act No. 9970. Ganito po ang isinasaad nito: Certification of Availability of Funds.Before entering into contracts involving the expenditure of public funds, all departments, bureaus, offices or agencies shall secure certification of availability of funds for the purpose from the agency chief accountant subject to Section 40, Chapter V and Section 58, Chapter VII, Book I of Executive Order No. 292. Provided that the certification of availability of funds sufficient to cover the cost of the contracted activities shall be contained in, and made part of, the contract duly signed by the chief accountant of the contracting agency as provided by Letter of Instruction numbered 968 dated December 17, 1979. Ito po bang mga nabanggit ko ay naikonsidera at nasaklaw ng malawak at masinsinang pananaliksiklegal ng DOJ bago po inilabas ang kanilang desisyon? Ito po ba ang tinuntungan ng kanilang inilabas na tatlong mga opinyong legal, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, ang sinabi ko nga po kanina, opinyon lang ang nakalagay doon sa dalawang bagaykung ito ay executive agreement o subject to bidding. Ang tinatanong po nila, sa aking palagay, ay responsibilidad ba ito o saklaw ng DBM kung ito ay lalagyan ng subject to the availability of funds o mag-issue ng sertipikasyon na mayroong tamang pondo. REP. MARIANO. Kasi nga po sa pagkakaalam ko doon sa P8.7 billion na kabuuang halaga ng proyekto, kung hindi ako nagkakamali, 62 or almost 63 percent nito ay loan component and 35 percent plus is from the grant component. Bagamat hindi ko pa nababasa ang mismong kontrata, sinasabi na kapag hindi naipatupad o na-implement ang programa o proyekto, may obligasyonewan ko po kung sino ang may obligasyonang Department of Finance ba, DENR ba o ang gobyerno ng Pilipinas, na magbayad ng kung magkano, parang P15.8 billion yata. Iyon pong may sakop ng pondo, saan kukunin iyon? Kaya nga po hindi ko hinahangad ang buo at detalyadong sagot. Sana po ay maisaalang-alang

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 lang ang mga tinuran ko ngayong hapon, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. REP. SAN LUIS. Opo, Mr. Speaker, marami pong salamat. REP. MARIANO. Isa na lang po para tumungo na tayo sa pinakahihintay-hintay ng buong pamilya ng DOJ. Inaacknowledge ko ang pagkakatanggap at pagbibigay sa akin ng kopya kaugnay sa legal opinion na inilabas ng Department of Justice tungkol sa 3,100 hectares na bahagi ng Fort Magsaysay Military Reservation. Ang pagkakaalam ko po at ang aking interpretasyon dito, makaraang matanggap ito kapwa ng Department of Agrarian Reform at ng Department of National Defense, lalo na ng 7th Infantry Division ng AFP based in Fort Magsaysay, wala nang magiging balakid pa para matuloy ang pamamahagi ng lupa na nakabase sa deed of transfer, executed by then Secretary De Villa of the DND and then Secretary Benjamin Leung of the DAR, kung saan ang 3,100 hectares na ito ay ipamamahagi sa mga biktima ng Mt. Pinatubo, mga farmer-beneficiaries o potential farmerbeneficiaries doon sa area or even within the immediate vicinity of the area. Ang pagkakatanda ko sa deed of transfer, ito ay at no cost to the victims of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and farmer-beneficiaries. Ganoon po ba ang tamang interpretasyon, na wala nang magiging balakid pa sang-ayon sa nilalaman ng legal opinion na inilabas ng DOJ dated September 21, 2010, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, opo, wala na raw magiging balakid sabi ng DOJ. Ito ay Presidential proclamation kaya talagang dapat isulong , Mr. Speaker. REP. MARIANO. Maraming salamat po. Ngayon, sa aking palagay, wala na ring balakid upang sabihin ko na dito nagtatapos ang aking pagtatanong sa kagalang-galang na Sponsor ukol sa panukalang budget ng Department of Justice. Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor at sa buong pamilya ng DOJ. REP. SAN LUIS. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, the last Member from the Majority who will rise to interpellate on the proposed budgets of the DOJ and its attached agencies is the Hon. Teddy A. Casio from the Party-List Bayan Muna. May the Gentleman be recognized. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Hon. Teddy A. Casio from the Party-List Bayan Muna is recognized. REP. CASIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. I just have a few questions. I will not take long. Earlier, after the new Secretary was appointed, she mentioned about adding special prosecutors for human rights cases, considering the backlog of the various human rights cases pending with the previous administration. May we just be clarified what has been done on this matter, and if the 2011 budget reflects this concern for human rights of the department.

35 REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is being organized already and I think the good Secretary has already assigned an Undersecretary to see to it that there is a special team or task force for this matter. REP. CASIO. May we know the Undersecretary assigned for this matter, Mr. Speaker. REP. SAN LUIS. He is Usec. Francisco Baraan, Mr. Speaker. REP. CASIO. Thank you. In which case, Mr. Speaker, we shall be directly coordinating with the said Usec for the cases which we feel have been left unattended for a long time. REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. CASIO. The second issue, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speakerin the newspaper todaythe President has been quoted as giving favorable or receiving favorably recommendations, as well as reports from the Department of Justice on the case of the Morong 43. However, the President says that it will be up to the courts now whether to release the Morong 43. May we know, considering that the President himself mentioned that this is an instance of the poisonous tree and, apparently, there have been irregularities in the arrest and in the serving of the warrant, et cetera. May we know what options does the DOJ have in ensuring the release of the Morong 43, especially in the light of the impending release of the rebel soldiers who went against the previous administration? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the honorable Secretary already sent a confidential memorandum to the President with recommended courses of action for him to consider. REP. CASIO. So, there are steps to be taken by the department. This is not a case of, Lets just wait. Since this case is the kind of case that can drag on for years considering that we have a pregnant mother and one who just gave birthI think it will be an injustice if we allow the normal course of things. So, will the department, without having to reveal the details, ensure that this does not go with the regular route of prolonged injustice, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, those are addressed in the confidential memorandum sent by the honorable Secretary. REP. CASIO. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GUNIGUNDO. At this point, Mr. Speaker, may we recognize the distinguished Minority Leader, the Hon. Edcel C. Lagman, for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Hon. Edcel Lagman, the distinguished Minority Leader, is recognized.

36 REP. LAGMAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will not request for the procurement and delivery of motor vehicles and equipment to the appropriate agencies and offices in the First District of Albay. I will defer to the judicious discretion of the Secretary of Justice who will render justice where justice is due, in the same manner that she rendered justice in the report of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC) which, to my mind, was an embodiment of justice except for the officials who were not investigated by the Committee, like the DILG Secretary who curiously was even named vice chairman of the Committee. I will preface my interpellation with a statement that the Secretary of Justice, as a presidential appointee and a member of the Presidents Cabinet, is bound by the decisions and opinions of her principal, the President of the Republic. As long as this hierarchical relation exists and continues, the Secretary of Justice is constrained to respect the decision and opinion of the President, irrespective of her own personal view on certain crucial and important matters. May I first go to the role of the Secretary of Justice and the function of the Department of Justice under Executive Order No. 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987. Mr. Speaker, would the Sponsor now yield to some friendly questions? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, could the Sponsor please reiterate what is the role of the Secretary of Justice and the function of the Department of Justice under EO No. 292. REP. SAN LUIS. Under EO No. 292, the DOJ is the governments principal law agency. As such, the DOJ serves as the governments prosecution arm and administers the governments criminal justice system by investigating crimes, prosecuting offenders and overseeing the correctional system. The DOJ, through its attached offices, is also the governments legal counsel and representative in litigations and proceedings requiring the services of a lawyer; implements the Philippine laws on the admission and stay of aliens within its territory; provides free legal services to indigent Filipinos; and settles land disputes, among others. In the administration of the criminal justice system, the DOJ is the legal counsel of the government, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, to summarize, the Secretary of Justice is the governments principal lawyer and the governments principal legal adviser. In a way, she is the attorney-general of the Republic. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. All right. On questions of law and appreciation of facts, on which conclusions of law would be ascertained relative to the discharge of functions of officials of the government and the bureaucracy, the principal legal adviser of the President is the Secretary of Justice. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. LAGMAN. Is it not the Executive Secretary, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. No. I think it is the Justice Secretary, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. In the same manner, is it not the Presidents legal counsel in Malacaang. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. I assume, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. During the budget briefing before the Committee on Appropriations, this Representation asked for a copy of the legal basis for constituting the Incident Investigation and Review Committee of the DOJ Secretary. The Secretary of Justice gave the Committee a copy of said legal basis, and I appreciate the Secretarys compliance with her commitment. I got a copy of the Joint Department Order No. 01-2010 from the Appropriations Committee this morning. Would the distinguished Sponsor be in possession of that legal basis, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Will the Sponsor kindly refer to Section 2, on Functions, more particularly letters (a), (b) and (f). Letter (a) reads: Make comprehensive findings, facts on the sequence of events of the hostage-taking incident culminating in the shoot-out between the hostagetaker and the assault team including the detailed accounts of the negotiation process, the police actions and inactions, and the causes of the deaths and injuries of the victims. Could the distinguished Sponsor tell us whether this particular function was faithfully and fully discharged by the review committee as stated in its report? REP. SAN LUIS. I believe so, Mr. Speaker, according to the IIRC report. REP. LAGMAN. Letter (b), Section 2, reads: Evaluate the response of officers and private entities to the Rizal Park hostage-taking incident and determine whether their actions complied with applicable operation plans, rules of engagement and protocols. May we know from the distinguished Sponsor whether the report of the review committee complied faithfully and fully to this particular function? REP. SAN LUIS. I believe so, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Could the Sponsor be more categorical instead of believing so, which could be ambivalent, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it is correct, Mr. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. LAGMAN. And letter (f), reads: Recommend the filing of appropriate criminal, civil or administrative actions, as the case may be, against persons who may be found to have acted culpably in the course of the Rizal Park hostagetaking incident. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, would we categorically say that the report of the review committee complied fully and faithfully with this function? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I think they have recommended administrative and criminal charges. REP. LAGMAN. Thank you for those affirmative and candid answers. Now, let us go to the report of the review committee vis-vis the review of the legal eagles in Malacaang. In the report of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee, who were the persons and/or officials recommended for administrative sanctions? SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. SAN LUIS. I ask for a one-minute suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The session is suspended. It was 4:40 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 4:42 p.m., session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The session is resumed. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, those who were recommended for the initiation of administrative and criminal proceedings were Undersecretary Puno, General Verzosa, Mayor Lim, General Magtibay, General Santiago, Colonel Pascual, Vice Mayor Dumagoso (Isko Moreno) and Superintendent Yebra. For further investigation is the Deputy Ombudsman and the Ombudsman. For referral to the KBP are Mr. Erwin Tulfo, Mr. Michael Rogas and the station manager from RMN station. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, how about Mayor Alfredo Lim? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, he is included. I mentioned him, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Could the Sponsor tell this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, the variances between the recommendation of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee versus the recommendation of the legal team of Secretary Ochoa and Atty. De Mesa which the President adopted? SUSPENSION OF SESSION

37

REP. SAN LUIS. Again, I ask for a one-minute suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The session is suspended. It was 4:44 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 4:45 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The session is resumed. REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, Secretary Puno, General Versoza, Mayor Lim, General Magtibay, General Santiago, Colonel Pascual, Vice Mayor Isko Moreno and Superintendent Yebra, in the DOJ version and in the IIRC report, both administrative and criminal proceedings are recommended, but in the presidential report, except for Undersecretary Puno, General Verzosa and Vice Mayor Domagoso were cleared of both criminal and administrative charges. Mayor Lim, General Magtibay, General Santiago, Colonel Pascual and Superintendent Yebra were charged administratively. No criminal cases. REP. LAGMAN. Let me go specifically, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, to the recommendation of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee on possible criminal charges against practically all of the officials involved, but in the recommendation of the Malacaang legal panel, all of these officials were cleared of criminal culpability, and the recommendation of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee was quashed by Malacaang and ultimately by the President. Is that a correct statement, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Substantially, Mr. Speaker, that is correct since there were no criminal cases initiated or ordered to be initiated against these persons, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. It is so not only substantially but completely, because no one was recommended to be criminally charged. Is that correct? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. The Executive Secretary and Attorney De Mesa, including the President do not exercise quasijudicial powers. Is that a correct statement? REP. SAN LUIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are the executives. REP. LAGMAN. When they quashed the recommendation for possible criminal charges against the officials involved, were they not exercising quasi-judicial powers? REP. SAN LUIS. Not exactly, Mr. Speaker, because the IIRC is just fact-finding and recommendatory, Mr. Speaker.

38 REP. LAGMAN. I could grant that because under the recommendation of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee report, with respect to then Police Director General Verzosa, it says, and I quote: At the same time, it is recommended that a preliminary investigation be conducted by the appropriate government agency for any possible criminal liability arising from the commission of the above offenses and in the course of the execution of his command during the hostage crisis. With respect to Usec. Rico Puno, it says that it is recommended that a preliminary investigation be conducted by the appropriate government agency for any possible criminal liability arising from the commission of the above offenses and in the course of the execution of his duties as DILG Undersecretary during the hostage crisis and in assuming the position of the DILG Secretary as NPOC CMC. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, would it have been more judicious and appropriate for the President of the Republic to recommend, instead of quashing the preliminary investigation of these officials, considering that eight foreign tourists perished in that hostage fiasco, because of the irresponsible bungling of the officials, constituting almost criminal negligence? Is that a correct assertion, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Well, I think it is the discretion already or the call of the President since it is his prerogative. Since the IIRC is only recommendatory and fact-finding, it is his call, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. We do not dispute the call, but we say it could have been more judicious and appropriate not to end everything in the Office of the President, but to refer it to the appropriate prosecution arms of the government. Is that not the correct way of assessing the recommendation of the committee, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, I think, it is a question of perspective, and the presidential perspective was to be very, very certain that the cases to be filed would stand scrutiny before the appropriate bodies, so maybe, to handle this with extreme caution. REP. LAGMAN. Not extreme caution. It could not be appreciated because we are not saying that the officials should be prosecuted immediately. We were just following the recommendation of the review committee, that preliminary investigation should be conducted, and that should have been the proper way. That preliminary investigation should be conducted by the prosecution arm of the government, and that prosecution arm of the government is the Department of Justice. Is it not? REP. SAN LUIS. Well, I think so, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. I have read news accounts consequent to the issuance by the President of Proclamation No. 50 on amnesty that the Secretary of Justice, the legal counsel of the Republic, was not thoroughly consulted before the amnesty

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 proclamation was issued. Could the Sponsor confirm that, Mr. Speaker? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of Justice was informed before the issuance of the proclamation, but she was not part of the discussions on the decision. REP. LAGMAN. In other words, she was informed but she was not consulted. Is that the distinction the Sponsor would like to make? REP. SAN LUIS. I think it is the prerogative of the President who to consult, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Despite the provisions of E.O. No. 292 or the Administrative Code of the Philippines that it is the Secretary of Justice who is the principal legal adviser of the Republic, I am sure, if the Secretary of Justicewith all her competence and legal expertisewere consulted, we will not have an aberration of a provision in the effectivity clause. The effectivity clause says, The proclamation shall take effect immediately upon the signing thereof, as if there is no more Congress who, under the Constitution, is supposed to give concurrence, not by a simple majority of the quorum but a majority of the entire membership of the House and of the Senate. Would the Sponsor not think the Secretary of Justice saw this aberration, and if she was properly consulted, she would say that we should follow previous proclamations, that the effectivity should be upon the concurrence of a majority of the Members of Congress? Is that correct, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. SAN LUIS. I think the good Secretary has noticed that already and it is still up to the Presidentit is his decision, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. It is up to the President to commit legal mistakes or it is up to the advisers of the President to commit these mistakesor it is a propensity; it is not a mistake but a propensity on the part of the President or of the Executive to disregard or derogate from the powers of this House, of the Congress. Which is which? REP. SAN LUIS. It was probably an oversight, Mr. Speaker. I do not know. REP. LAGMAN. Well, it was an oversight which conveyed a completely wrong impression that the amnesty proclamation was effective upon the signature of the President. Now, there are also reports that the President would like the Visiting Forces Agreement to be re-filed. May we know whether, as principal lawyer of the Republic, the President has consulted the distinguished Secretary of Justice on this particular issue? REP. SAN LUIS. Mr. Speaker, the good Secretary is a member of the committee tasked to review the said agreement. REP. LAGMAN. Membership in that committee is not synonymous to a prior consultation or securing the advice of the Secretary.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. SAN LUIS. She has been informed that she is also part of the reviewing Committee, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. I hope the President will actively involve the Secretary of Justice if ever there is any refinement which involves renegotiation of the Visiting Forces Agreement. REP. SAN LUIS. Precisely, Mr. Speaker. That is why she is a member of the Committee, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Possibly, the President is learning from past mistakes or oversight. REP. SAN LUIS. I do not want to comment on that, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. No comment. Well, I have no further questions. I would like to join the distinguished Sponsor in his proposition that we augment the budgetary allocation for the Department of Justice and its attached agencies. (Applause) There are no more Members from the Minority, Mr. Speaker, who have signified their intention to interpellate on the proposed budgets of the Department of Justice and its attached agencies. (Applause) Consequently, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minority, I move that we terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budgets of the Department of Justice and its attached agencies. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. SAN LUIS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Majority, we join the motion of the Minority Leader to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budgets of the Department of Justice and its attached agencies. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Is there any objection to the joint motion of the Majority and the Minority to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Department of Justice? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 3101 REP. GUNIGUNDO. I move that we suspend the consideration of House Bill No. 3101. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to the Additional Reference of Business.

39 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS The Secretary General read the following House Bills and Resolutions on First Reading and the Deputy Speaker made the corresponding references: BILLS ON FIRST READING House Bill No. 3506, entitled: AN ACT ALLOWING FOR THE USE OF INTERNET SHOPS AND CAFS AS DISTANCE EDUCATION CENTERS TO STREAM ONLINE SECONDARY COURSE INSTRUCTIONS, LESSONS AND MATERIALS FOR PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR By Representative Tinga TO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION AND CULTURE House Bill No. 3507, entitled: AN ACT RECOGNIZING THE EARLY YEARS FROM 0 TO 6 YEARS OLD AS THE FIRST CYCLE OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR THIS PURPOSE AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8980, STRENGTHENING THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES By Representatives Escudero, Angara and Almario TO THE COMMITTEE ON WELFARE OF CHILDREN House Bill No. 3508, entitled: AN ACT BANNING THE USE OF MERCURY AND OTHER TOXIC CHEMICALS IN SKIN WHITENING PRODUCTS, COSMETICS AND OTHER PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH House Bill No. 3509, entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE PLANTILLA MEDICAL SPECIALISTS I AND II ITEMS FOR THE POST-RESIDENCY FELLOWS (SUBSPECIALTY TRAINEES) AT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES MANILA-PHILIPPINE GENERAL HOSPITAL (UPM-PGH) AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS House Bill No. 3510, entitled: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A SIMPLIFIED INCOME TAX RETURN AUDIT FOR INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS BY PAYING A CERTAIN AMOUNT HIGHER THAN THE PRIOR YEAR INCOME TAX PAYMENT By Representative Mandanas TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

40 House Bill No. 3511, entitled: AN ACT REGULATING THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS IN ALL MAJOR GROCERY STORES AND SUPERMARKETS BY DISALLOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF FREE OF CHARGE PLASTIC BAGS AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF By Representative Singson (R.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY House Bill No. 3512, entitled: AN ACT TO IMPLEMENT FREE HOUSING PROJECTS IN SELECTED URBAN AND URBANIZABLE AREAS UNDER THE LOCAL HOUSING PROGRAM AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE PARAGRAPH (e) SECTION 4 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7835, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRATED SHELTER FINANCING ACT OF 1994 By Representatives Leonen-Pizarro, Valencia, Abayon, Guanlao, Arquiza, Ortega (F.), Estrella, Marcoleta, Canonigo, Ping-ay, Paez, Mendoza (R.), Dalog, Ortega (V.) and Bernos TO THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT House Bill No. 3513, entitled: AN ACT FURTHER AMENDING THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT 9337 By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS House Bill No. 3514, entitled: AN ACT TO PROMOTE AND SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF THE PHILIPPINE FILM INDUSTRY, CREATING FOR THIS PURPOSE THE PHILIPPINE FILM COMMISSION, DEFINING ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION AND THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INFORMATION House Bill No. 3515, entitled: AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 5 AND 8 OF REPUBLIC ACT 8048, ALSO KNOWN AS THE COCONUT PRESERVATION ACT OF 1995 By Representative Suarez TO THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD House Bill No. 3516, entitled: AN ACT REDUCING THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS, STYROFOAM CONTAINERS, DISPOSABLE PLASTIC UTENSILS AND SIMILAR ITEMS IN ALL ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE COUNTRY By Representative Mercado-Revilla TO THE COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY House Bill No. 3517, entitled: AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 2 OF REPUBLIC ACT

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 NO. 8187, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE PATERNITY LEAVE ACT OF 1996 By Representative Mercado-Revilla TO THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENTAND THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION House Bill No. 3518, entitled: AN ACT ESTABLISHING AN ARTS AND TRADE SCHOOL IN BARANGAY SAN NICOLAS 2, MUNICIPALITY OF BACOOR, PROVINCE OF CAVITE, TO BE KNOWN AS BACOOR ARTS AND TRADE SCHOOL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR By Representative Mercado-Revilla TO THE COMMITTEE ON HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION House Bill No. 3519, entitled: AN ACT ESTABLISHING PAMITINAN CAVE IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF RODRIGUEZ, PROVINCE OF RIZAL AS A PROTECTED AREA UNDER THE CATEGORY OF PROTECTED LANDSCAPE PROVIDING FOR ITS MANAGEMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES By Representative Rodriguez (I.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES House Bill No. 3520, entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUPER HEALTH CENTER AND LYING-IN CLINIC IN BARANGAY STA. MONICA, QUEZON CITY AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR By Representative Castelo TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH House Bill No. 3521, entitled: AN ACT DECLARING SEPTEMBER 26 OF EVERY YEAR AS SAVE SIERRA MADRE DAYAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES By Representative Bonoan-David TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES House Bill No. 3522, entitled: AN ACT REAPPORTIONING THE PROVINCE OF COTABATO INTO THREE (3) LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS By Representatives Catamco, Sacdalan, Mendoza (R.) and Palmones TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT House Bill No. 3523, entitled: AN ACT CREATING FIFTEEN ADDITIONAL BRANCHES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT AND NINE ADDITIONAL BRANCHES OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN THE FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION TO BE STATIONED AT VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES AND CITIES IN THE PROVINCE OF CAVITE, FURTHER AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980,AS AMENDED,

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR By Representative Mercado-Revilla TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE House Bill No. 3524, entitled: AN ACT CREATING AN ADDITIONAL REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN THE PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL WITH A SEAT IN THE CITY OF SIPALAY, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE PARAGRAPH (G), SECTION 14 OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980 By Representative Alvarez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE House Bill No. 3525, entitled: AN ACT TO REGULATE THE TRADE, MARKETING, ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONS OF INFANT FORMULA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES By Representative Gunigundo TO THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND INDUSTRY RESOLUTIONS House Resolution No. 530, entitled: A RESOLUTION URGING THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE ISSUE OF THE XRAY MACHINES BOUGHT BY THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS BEING A BURDEN TO THE TAXPAYERS By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES House Resolution No. 531, entitled: A RESOLUTION URGING THE PSALM NOT TO BID OUT THE REMAINING FOUR POWER BARGES AND INSTEAD MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE POWER IN MINDANAO SPECIALLY WHEN A DROUGHT WILL OCCUR IN MINDANAO AND FOR THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY TO INVESTIGATE THE PROPOSED PLAN OF THE PSALM TO SELL THESE BARGES TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PEOPLE OF MINDANAO By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY House Resolution No. 532, entitled: RESOLUTION URGING THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION IN AID OF LEGISLATION ON THE UTILIZATION OF THE PHILHEALTH RESERVE FUND, AND THE FEASIBILITY OF USING SAID FUND TO IMPROVE PHILHEALTH SERVICES OR TO AUGMENT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHS BUDGET FOR ASSISTANCE TO INDIGENT PATIENTS AND FOR THE UPGRADING OF HOSPITAL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT By Representative Acop TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

41 House Resolution No. 533, entitled: A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN TO URGENTLY INVESTIGATE, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, VARIOUS CASES OF GRAVE RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST CHILDREN COMMITTED BY GOVERNMENT ARMED FORCES AND PARAMILITARY TROOPS By Representatives De Jesus, Ilagan, Casio, Mariano, Palatino and Tinio TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES House Resolution No. 535, entitled: A RESOLUTION URGING THE HONORABLE VICEPRESIDENT JEJOMAR C. BINAY, CHAIRMAN, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL (HUDCC) AND NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA) TO FULLY IMPLEMENT THE LOCAL HOUSING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (e) SECTION 4 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7835 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRATED SHELTER FINANCING ACT OF 1994 By Representatives Leonen-Pizarro, Valencia, Abayon, Guanlao, Arquiza, Ortega (F.), Estrella, Marcoleta, Canonigo, Ping-ay, Paez, Mendoza (R.), Dalog, Ortega (V.) and Bernos TO THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT House Resolution No. 536, entitled: A RESOLUTION URGING THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT TO INCREASE THE HONORARIA OF THE TEACHERS WHO WILL WORK DURING THE BARANGAY AND SANGGUNIANG KABATAAN ELECTIONS FROM P1,000 PER DAY TO P2,000 PER DAY By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON SUFFRAGE AND ELECTORAL REFORMS House Resolution No. 537, entitled: A RESOLUTION URGING THE PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER CERTAIN REFORMS ON THE CONDUCT OF THE BAR EXAMINATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE House Resolution No. 538, entitled: A RESOLUTION URGING THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION ON THE ISSUE OF THE COMMERCIALIZATION AND EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN BY REQUIRING THE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS OF CEBU PACIFIC TO DANCE WHILE DEMONSTRATING THE AIRLINES SAFETY PROCEDURES By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

42 House Resolution No. 539, entitled: A RESOLUTION URGING THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY TO CONDUCTAN INQUIRY, INAID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE ISSUE OF THE NON DEACTIVATION OF THE PENSION FUNDS OF THE AFP DESPITE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER ISSUED ORDERING ITS DEACTIVATION By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES House Resolution No. 540, entitled: A RESOLUTION URGING THE PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION NOT TO INCREASE BY 100% THE PREMIUM CONTRIBUTIONS OF NEW MEMBERS OF PHILHEALTH AND TO URGE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH House Resolution No. 541, entitled: A RESOLUTION URGING THE COMMITTEE ON GOOD GOVERNMENTTO CONDUCTAN INQUIRY, INAID OF LEGISLATION ON THE ISSUE OF THEALLEGED UNAUTHORIZED BONUSES THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTIALADVISER ONTHE PEACE PROCESS RECEIVED IN 2009 AND OTHERANOMALIES By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES House Resolution No. 542, entitled: A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION AND RECOGNITION OF PROF. RICHARD F. HECK, A GREAT SCIENTIST, A RECIPIENT OF THE 2010 NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY, AND A RESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES By Representative Palmones TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY House Resolution No. 543, entitled: RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND INDUSTRY TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, INTO THE ALLEGED DECEPTIVE, UNCONSCIONABLEAND FRAUDULENT SALES ACTS OR PRACTICES OF WATER CARE INTERNATIONAL SALES, INC., IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7394, ALSO KNOWN AS THE CONSUMER ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES By Representative Cagas TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES House Resolution No. 544, entitled: RESOLUTION URGING THE TOLL REGULATORY BOARD TO ISSUE THE NECESSARY PERMIT FOR THE OPENING AND OPERATION OF THE TOLL ROAD 3 (TR3) EXTENSION OF THE SOUTH LUZON EXPRESSWAY By Representatives Collantes and Macapagal-Arroyo (G.)

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 TO THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISES AND PRIVATIZATION ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS RESOLUTION House Resolution No. 553, entitled: RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE JESUS IS LORD MOVEMENT (JIL), UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF BRO. EDDIE C. VILLANUEVA, ON THE CELEBRATION OF ITS 32 ND ANNIVERSARY ON OCTOBER 29, 2010 By Representatives Belmonte (F.) and Gonzales (N.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES ADDITIONAL COAUTHORS Rep. Pedro P. Romualdo for House Bill No. 840; Reps. Imelda Quibranza-Dimaporo, Jose S. Aquino II, Amado S. Bagatsing, Jesus N. Sacdalan, Abigail Faye C. Ferriol and Victor F. Ortega for House Bill No. 2142; Rep. Joel Roy R. Duavit for House Bills No. 2142, 3133 and 3200; Rep. Maria Zenaida B. Angping for House Bill No. 2142 and House Resolution No. 529; Rep. Mark Llandro L. Mendoza for House Bills No. 2510 and 3045; Reps. Karlo Alexei B. Nograles and Joseph Victor G. Ejercito for House Bill No. 2510; Rep. Alfredo Albee B. Benitez for House Bills No. 2510 and 3252; Reps. Albert Raymond S. Garcia and Napoleon S. Dy for House Bills No. 3133 and 3200; Rep. Rachel Marguerite B. Del Mar for House Bill No. 3225; Reps. Emmanuel D. Pacquiao, Reena Concepcion G. Obillo, Vincent P. Crisologo and Christopher S. Co for House Bill No. 3252; Rep. Winston Winnie Castelo for House Bills No. 3264, 3278, 3280 and 3281; Rep. Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales for House Bill No. 3268; Reps. Ponciano D. Payuyo, Jesus Crispin C. Remulla, Antonio C. Alvarez and Rodel M. Batocabe for House Bill No. 3045; and Reps. Sherwin N. Tugna, Teddy Brawner Baguilat Jr., Teodorico T. Haresco Jr., Juan Edgardo M. Angara, Mercedes K. Alvarez, Florencio G. Noel, Jeffrey P. Ferrer, George P. Arnaiz, Eufranio Franny C. Eriguel, M.D., Pryde Henry A. Teves, Jocelyn S. Limkaichong, Daisy Avance-Fuentes, Raymond Democrito C. Mendoza, Tomas V. Apacible, Juan C. PonceEnrile Jr., Cesar V. Sarmiento and Josephine Veronique R. Lacson-Noel for House Resolution No. 529. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up the Business for the Day. I move for a few minutes suspension of the session. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The session is suspended.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 It was 5:08 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 5:12 p.m., the session was resumed. SEVERAL MEMBERS. Aye. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my motion to take up the Business for the Day. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. VIVA VOCE VOTING

43

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). As many as are in favor of adopting House Resolution No. 553, please say aye.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). As many as are against, please say nay. FEW MEMBERS. Nay. ADOPTION OF H. RES. NO. 553 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The ayes have it; House Resolution No. 553 is hereby adopted. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. SUSPENSION OF SESSION

REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Yes. CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. NO. 553 REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Resolution No. 553. May I ask the Secretary General to read only the title of the measure. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. * With the permission of the Body, and since copies of the measure have been previously distributed, the Secretary General read only the title thereof without prejudice to inserting its text in the Congressional Record. THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Resolution No. 553, entitled: RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE JESUS IS LORD MOVEMENT (JIL), UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF BRO. EDDIE C. VILLANUEVA, ON THE CELEBRATION OF ITS 32ND ANNIVERSARY ON OCTOBER 29, 2010. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GUNIGUNDO. I ask for a few minutes suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The session is suspended. It was 5:13 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 5:14 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 3101 Continuation PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume the consideration of House Bill No. 3101 and direct the Secretary General to read the title of the bill. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the Secretary General will please comply. THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 3101, entitled: AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY- ONE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period

REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move for the adoption of House Resolution No. 553. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Yes. REP. PADILLA. On behalf of the Minority, may I be privileged to second the motion. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The manifestation is noted.
* See MEASURES CONSIDERED (printed separately)

44 of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Department of Budget and Management. For this purpose, we recognize the Hon. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya for his sponsorship, and the Hon. Carlos M. Padilla for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The honorable Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is recognized for his sponsorship and the Honorable Padilla of Nueva Vizcaya is recognized for his interpellation. REP. PADILLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Sponsor is now ready to answer a few questions from this Representation. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker, I know that in the last three or four days, the issue about the CCT has been the subject of our interpellations, but considering that there are budgetary implications that we wish to be clarified, I feel that the most appropriate department to which these questions must be directed would be the DBM, and so, therefore, my thrust would be more on the financing of the CCT, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem with 2011 because in the submitted budget proposal to us through the Internet, the amount of P29 billion is properly spelled out. This is for the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program or 4Ps. Then part of that is the implementation of the CCT which is P21.1 billion, Mr. Speaker. My first question is whether the funding for this, the bulk of which will come from loans just as what we read in the dailies a few weeks ago, which is $400 million from the ADB or another $405 million from the ADB, will the bulk of the financing come from the loans or the more substantial amount will come from the Republic of the Philippines, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, majority of the funding will come from local funds. The loans are spaced over a five-year period. These are program loans rather than project loans. The difference of which is just to assure the creditor that there will be government funds that will, indeed, be available for the program, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. So, the bulk or the bigger portion will come from the Philippine government. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Based on sources coming from the Asian Development Bank, their estimatewhen the application of the Philippine government was considered, the total financing scheme of this to include Philippine government counterpartswould be to the tune of $1.29 billion and, therefore, if translated into pesos, that will be perhaps just an estimate in the vicinity of P50 billion. I am using the exchange rate of $1 to P45, Mr. Speaker, but assuming that we adjust a little, as what I have said, it is within that vicinity. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because my reference would be from the ADB, I would assume that must be accurate, which is now contrary to what we are being told before this Body. According to our source, out of the P1.29 billion, one-third

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 will come from the ADB, another one-third will come from the World Bank and the remaining one-third will come from the Republic of the Philippines. Therefore, on that assumption, the bulk will come from foreign funding, Mr. Speaker. So, how come now, the distinguished Sponsor is telling us that in spite of the $805 million coming from the two banking institutions, what the Philippine government is going to give is much bigger? I just want to be clarified on why there seems to be a divergence of positions between that of the ADB and that of our distinguished Sponsor. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, allow me to modify my answer. In the first P1 million, the arrangement is a one-third, onethird, one-third proportion, that is, one-third from the ADB, one-third from World Bank and one-third from the GOP, the Government of the Philippines. However, in the succeeding P1.3, that will be purely GOP. So, that qualifies my answers that, eventually, the bulk of the funds for the full P2.3 would be the Government of the Philippines, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. If I will use again the ADB sources, I have to beg to disagree, Mr. Speaker, with the distinguished Sponsor because when the application was considered, it was on the assumption that it is intended for a bigger bulk of the CCT program. Iyon pong P1 million beneficiaries right now ay hindi kasama rito sapagkat they are already covered by previous appropriations and covered by Philippine money. So, I seem to be confused now, Mr. Speaker, between what the Sponsor is telling us and what we could gather from sources including the Asian Development Bank. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, indeed, the loan that we are taking out is over a five-year period; however, the GOP has to comply with this on a yearly basis, shouldering one-third every time. REP. PADILLA. That is right, Mr. Speaker. So, if the total P805 million will be spread out in five years, the Philippine Government will be shelling out a much bigger amount if our basis would be the 2011 budget. Now, the 4Ps is P29 billion. I am just wondering if the P805 that will come from the two institutions will only be for the CCT, which is the component of the 4Ps, although the CCT is being given the biggest P21 billion out of that P29. Even if we limit ourselves to P21 billion, Mr. Speaker, I could not be easily convinced that the P805 will be spread out in five years because I already made the computation. It is only P50 million, Mr. Speaker. So, if we divide it by three, I think our figure would be much lesser, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, again, I would reiterate that the one-third, one-third, one-third is applicable for this year for the first one million. For the succeeding 1.3, that would be a purely activity, purely paid for by government funds, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. So, that means that next year, 100 percent will be shouldered by the Philippine government, if I were to rely on that answer, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, to clarify, the one million is a five-year activity. So, for the one million, for the next five years, the ADB, the World Bank and the Government of the Philippines will shoulder one-third each for the next five years; however, talking about the next 1.3 for the next five years,

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 that would be purely the Government of the Philippines, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. That is why my apprehension is getting stronger, and my suspicion is also getting bigger, Mr. Speaker, because if right now there is a sharing among the three onethird, one-third, one-third, and as it was pointed out during the interpellation of the former President a few nights ago, to support that, hinila natin ang NFA rice subsidy. Hinila natin ang farm-to-market roads. Sinakripisyo natin ang SUC budget. Dinala natin sa CCT to support the CCT. So, if you look at the budget, what we are appropriating for other agenciesover all, bumaba, Mr. Speaker. I was even pointing out during our period of debate when I interpellated the distinguished Sponsor again on the budget, in our discussion on macro, Mr. Speaker, where the total new money appropriated was only P1 trillion, while the budget was P1.645 trillion, and it is bigger than last year, but the new money is lesser. Why? This is because malaki nga po ang P1.645, and the bulk will go to automatic appropriation and one of the biggest components of this would be pambayad ng utang. Kaya after mo inalis ang pambayad ng utang and other components of automatic appropriation, mas kakaunti ang kuwarta at our disposal. Kaya, is it inevitable, Mr. Speaker, that when you have a budget for CCT which is a big amount, it will adversely affect the budgets of other programs, Mr. Speaker? We are not questioning the CCT. Even the former President was saying, Well, it started from my administration; we are supporting it, pero kaya ba natin nang biglaan? The first one million was achieved in two years. So, iyong 1.3 to make it 2.3 ay biglaan na po, Mr. Speaker. At least, iyong first one million CCT beneficiaries, it did not involve foreign funding, but when we did that, ang budget po from farm-tomarket roads total to P9.6 billion from the 2010 budget. The 2011 budget for farm-to-market roads is only P5.6 billion nakulangan ng P4.4 billion. The total budget of the SUCs is much bigger. Ngayon pong 2011, sa 112 SUCs, zero ang kanilang capital outlay. At least, in the previous years, mayroon silang capital outlay. Pero kung ngayon pa lang ay one-third, onethird, nasasakripisyo na tayo, Mr. Speaker. Kung sinolo natin iyan, aba, humanda kayo mga kasamahan sa Kongreso, baka pumunta lahat sa CCT, at wala na tayong farm-to-market roads, wala na tayong irrigation, wala na tayong electrification, wala na tayong pang-SUCs, wala na po tayong para sa mga water system, at iba pa, Mr. Speaker. I have nothing against it, but I just want to clarify this, because it is unfair that we approve the budget without knowing the financial implication. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Would the distinguished Sponsor care to respond? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the stand of the government is that this is something sustainable. Although it may seem that the future would look gloomy, if the financial position improves, then we might be able to indeed continue with the program without necessarily taking out loans. REP. PADILLA. All right, Mr. Speaker. Before I leave this point, I just want to go to the nitty-gritty of these two loans, if only to be able to validate and support my thesis. In the BESF, Mr. Speaker, so that the distinguished Sponsor will not have difficulty in looking into what I am trying to read, let me go to page 246 and we have here at the

45 upper portion Table D.2, Asian Development Bank. Under this, Mr. Speaker, is the Social Protection Support Project, with the DSWD as the implementing agency, to the tune of US$400 million. Do you believe that this is what is earmarked for the CCT, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. That is part of it, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. No, because during the Committee on Appropriations deliberations, it was the committee which identified this for the committee. Iyon po bang inutang or uutangin or matatanggap nating utang, dito po ba manggagaling? The reason I am using the document coming from the DBM is that if I will use another document you might say that my source is unreliable; and so I would consider this as the best and the most reliable source. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, both the Social Protection Support Project and the National Program Support for Social Welfare Program will be part of the one-third that we were talking about and both are for CCTs. REP. PADILLA. Yes, but my specific question is, is this $400 million one the same with the $400 million that we have been saying and quoting as the ADB loan component of the CCT? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. All right. Thank you for that. Let us go to the right portion of the details, under Program Availment. I want to get a clarification from the Sponsor and from the DBM Secretary, because it is said that for 2010, the Program Availment would be US$56 million, and for 2011, it is $84 million. What does this mean, Mr. Speaker? Does it mean that what is to be availed of is only $84 million for 2011? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the $84 million would be the one-third to be used for the year. REP. PADILLA. Yes, but it says here, for 2011, Program Availment $84 million. It seems this would be something technical that a layman like me would not be able to comprehend. That is why I am asking, bakit $84 million lang ang availment for 2011 out of the $400 million? If the $400 million constitutes the one-third, and it will finance the 2011, pero ang sabi dito ay $84 million lang, so ang ibig sabihin ng availment, baka $84 million lang ang pwedeng gamitin, hindi iyong $400 million. Hindi po ba? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is the one-fifth since it is a five-year period, so $84 million is roughly one-fifth, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. So, if you would agree with me now that it is the $84 million and not the $400 million, lalong llaki pala. Hindi pala iyong 21 billion, hindi lang one-third ang counterpart ng Philippine government because the $84 million does not constitute one-third of the entire 21. It is only 84 times 45 or times 50, Mr. Speaker. How much would that be? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the cost of one million households is roughly P10 billion. If you compute for one-

46 third of that, that would be roughly P3 billion. $84 million roughly would land around P3 billion, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. All right. P3 billion, but you were saying earlier that for 2011, iyong pong 21 billion ay one-third ADB, one-third World Bank, and one-third GOP. Assuming lang na it is not even P3 billion, let us make it P4 billion for ADB for the $84 million, then if you go to World Bank, Mr. Speaker, please take note, the same page, World Bank, $405 million, 2011 availment is $78 million. So, if you sum up the two, $84 million, ADB; $78 million, World Bank, this would be about $160 plus million times 45 REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, am I supposed to THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Yes, would the... REP. ABAYA. What is the question again, Mr. Speaker? REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker, if the availment for 2011 under ADB is US$84 million, and the availment for 2011 for World Bank is US$78 million, the sum of the two would be only more than... REP. ABAYA. One hundred sixty-two million. REP. PADILLA. One hundred sixty-two times forty-five. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, if we convert that to peso, it is P7 billion. The amount needed in order to run one million household is roughly about P10 billion. Therefore, if we divide the P10 billion into three, the Philippine government should produce P3.3 billion. If combined together with the World Bank, it should roughly be around P6.7 to P7 billion which is the peso equivalent of the $162 million, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. So, the remaining P1.3 billion would be assumed by the Philippine government and that would be more than P14 billion. REP. ABAYA. No, Mr. Speaker, if we have a P21 billion for the CCT, deduct... REP. PADILLA. Precisely. REP. ABAYA. ...the P10 billion, and we will be left with P11 billion. So, roughly, we will need P11 billion to cover the P1.3 billion. REP. PADILLA. So, that makes my argument stronger because it means the counterpart of the Philippine government will get bigger under your formula, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Well, under the formula, the commitment of the two lending institutions is only on the one million households. So, the P1.3 billion is purely for the government of the Philippines. REP. PADILLA. So, if we go by next year with the same formula, that will be observed, Mr. Speaker?

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. ABAYA. For 2013, if indeed, we will push this up to around three million households, then, you could foresee a budget of around P30 something billion, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker, the target already for 2011 is 2.3 households, not one million. The original target of one million started from the past administration, carried over to the new administration, plus 1.3. I have with me the budget proposal of the DSWD, where it is clearly spelled out that the budget for 2011 will cover 2.3 million households. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. So, therefore, if the computation that you have given us is only good for the one million, which is the original number of households; and the Philippine government will subsidize 100 percent of the additional 1.3 billion, so the expense that will really come from the Philippine government is much bigger. That is our thesis, Mr. Speaker. Dahil nagmamadali po tayo, kaya nahihila po natin ang mga ibang programs, Mr. Speaker. Kaya siguro, ang apela natin ay isubo lang natin ang kaya nating lunukin dahil baka ma-indigest tayo, Mr. Speaker. While we join the Gentleman in the desire that this should succeed, may kasabihan nga po: ang taong lumalakad nang matulin, kapag matinik ay malalim. So, ayaw ko pong matinik tayo nang malalim, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, ang mahalaga po rito sa tingin ko, nais po nating lahat na ma-achieve din ang ating MDGs, and admittedly, nahuhul tayo. Kaya kailangan po nating paspasan. Ingatan lang ho natin na hindi tayo matinik, at sa tingin ko, nag-aaral tayo nang mabuti upang hindi po talaga tayo matinik. REP. PADILLA. Yes, the MDGsthese, too, are intended to address two of the MDGs, and these are education and health. Number one in the list of the MDGs is the eradication of poverty or at least to minimize or to reduce poverty. By 2015, at least, it must have been reduced to one-half of the 1990 figure. Yet, Mr. Speaker, if I will quote portions of the WB report that is available in my possession, the approach must be holistic. The report states that, While you need some amount for CCT, this must be complemented by other programs. That is why even in other countries that went into this, because of their desire to reduce poverty, they also went into the building of projects like farm-to-market roads, irrigation systems, and facilities for the schools. They also mentioned electrification, for there is a need to energize. This is the formula of other countries; but here, for 2011unless of course, the Gentleman is telling us that in the period of amendments, he is willing to provide some amount for energization, because as submitted to us, it is zero. So, lumalabas ngayon, the CCT got the bulk but the rest of the programs are left behind, and the funding is even lower than the previous year. So, sa ibang countries po ay sabaysabay po lahat ito. Mag-CCT ka, pero ang ibang projects ay sumusunod, kaya ang budget po ay inilalaan din ng kanilang gobyerno. Dito sa atin, kinakalimutan natin ito. Bakit kinakalimutan? Simple, sapagkat bumaba ang budget para

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 rito sa mga projects na ito, kaya kung gusto nating successful ang CCT, pagsabayin nating lahat, Mr. Speaker. In Brazil, they were telling us that the CCT alone would not have made the program successful in Brazil if it was not twinned by other programs like generation of employment. After five years of depending on government, what? Kung wala na tayong ibibigay, kawawa lalo sila. We are not eradicating poverty. We are perpetuating poverty, Mr. Speaker. That is why, in other countries, the formula is that there are complementary projects. Kaya siguro ang appeal po ng Representation na ito ay ituloy natin ang CCT, pero huwag tayong magmamadali para huwag makalimutan ang ibang complementary projects. Laanan din po natin ang ibang projects. Mr. Speaker, if the Gentleman would tell me na ituloy na natin iyong P21 billion at may makikitang tayong pondo for the other projects, perhaps the Gentleman can assuage, not only the feeling of this Representation, but even the other Members of the House; not only those belonging to the Minority, but also the Members of the Majority, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the MDGs that we want to achieve here are two: one is maternal health and the other is education. The good Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya mentioned the holistic approach. The government is not blind to that perspective because, indeed, the government prepared and adopted the holistic approach. If we will look at the budget of the DOH, there is either doubling or tripling on constructing health facilities at the RHU level since it is perceived that these are the health units where the poorest would readily go to rather than the tertiary or the DOH-related hospitals. Likewise, there is doubling in immunization. The DepEd budget is the largest we have ever had. So, probably, these are the components of this holistic approach that we should look into. We should not confine ourselves to the DSWD budget, but likewise, consider the other departments involvement. However, it is very important that we try or at least do our best to achieve these MDGsthese two particularly, because we have actually suffered the reversals. Imbes na tayo ay umusbong at lumapit sa target ay umatras pa ho tayo. I am sure the good Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya is fully aware of such reversal, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker, when the ADB considered this project, it was on the assumption that the two, health and education, would complement the effort of the government to combat poverty. I was saying that to combat poverty, while it is important that we give more money for education and for health, it should not be at the expense and sacrifice of the other programs which are also vital to the achievement of that goalthe reduction of poverty incidence in this country. My thesis is, with the CCT alone at the expense of the other projects, the efforts will be put to naught, Mr. Speaker. So, the prescription actually is, yes, we review the US$400 million for health, for education, but there are other things that we have to bear in mind. REP. ABAYA. Well, Mr. Speaker, my thesis is, we are putting focus and resources into the CCT without compromising the need for complementary programs in health and education.

47 REP. PADILLA. No, Mr. Speaker, this amount of US$400 will go to health and education. So, properly taken care po ang health and sanitation under this CCT program to be funded US$400 by ADB and US$405. Ang sinasabi ko, ang overall goal ay improved education and improved health because kaagapay po nito, kailangan po ang mga ito para ma-target natin ang pagbaba ng poverty incidence sa ating bansa. Pero sinasabi ko rin po na even ADB would tell us, huwag mong pababayaan ang ibang components katulad ng mga infrastructure that would provide more funds to the rural areas. In fact, may binanggit pa po sila. In China, to help reduce poverty, aside from giving money like the CCT, part of the money went to the greening of China, so that the people will be involved in the reforestation of China and they will be employed, et cetera. So, parang sinasabi po ng ating thesis, hindi pwedeng diyan ka lang sa health and education. Tama na palakasin mo ang health and education, pero huwag mong kalilimutan ang iba. Kung mayroon kang limang anak, tama lamang na bigyan mo ang anak mong una at pangalawa, pero huwag mong kakalimutan ang tatlo pa because if you want to build a strong family, the family will only be strong if the individual members are all strong, but if you only provide support to children one and two, and neglect three, four and five, then it is not a strong family. Kaya ang appeal po namin ay simple lang. Una, huwag po tayong magmamadali dahil kung magmamadali tayo, makakalimutan natin ang ibang projects that are also needed, required and complementary to the CCT. Baka after five years, lalong walang mangyayari rito sa ating bansa, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you are still open to suggestions, I appeal that we support the CCT kasi ang sinasabi po ninyo ay hindi naman namin kinakalimutan dahil ang basehan ko po ay na-reduce ang pondo. I do not have to argue anymore, but for purposes of emphasis, the allocation for farm-to-market roads for 2010 was more than P9 billion; for 2011, it is only more than P5 billion, so nabawasan ng P4.4 billion. Saan ngayon iyong sinasabi nating we are also strengthening the other programs? The bottomline is more funds; otherwise, you may articulate to us that we are not neglecting, hindi namin pinapabayaan pero wala kaming makitang pera, kaya hindi po kami maniniwala niyan, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, because I know there are other Members of the House who would like to interpellate, I hope that by raising those issues, we were able to help enlighten our colleagues on the implication of the CCT program. Uulitin ko po, ito pong inyong lingkod from Nueva Vizcaya ay hindi po tumututol sa CCT. Ang Minority po ay hindi rin po tumututol sa CCT. Ang ayaw lang namin ay nagmamadali tayo. Gusto nating lunukin, pero baka hindi natin kaya. Mai-indigestion tayo. Kaya siguro iyong paglunok natin ay dapat calibrated, in so doing, hindi po natin napapabayaan ang other areas which are also vital and strategic doon sa target ng CCT to reduce the incidence of poverty. Mr. Speaker, I have made my point very clear and it is now up to my colleagues whether they would appreciate or not what we are saying here. I can be wrong, but at least, should I be wrong, my constituents will not say, You did not tell the House what you believe must be done in order that we can have a better CCT and a better strategy to eradicate, if not reduce, poverty incidence in this country. On that note, Mr. Speaker, I conclude.

48 Thank you for the patience and thank you, Mr. Sponsor. I have my best admiration to our DBM Secretary who was my colleague for many terms, Mr. Speaker. Pareho kaming bumalik niyan kaya I hope you could be more sympathetic and more sensitive to the issues being raised by your former colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The suggestions of the good Gentleman is very much appreciated. However, we should have faith in the new government. Likewise, our good Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya should have faith in his former colleague, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, may we recognize the Hon. Teddy A. Casio for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Honorable Casio is recognized. REP. CASIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. This is not really about the budget of the department itself but as to how the new administration regards the budget and the process that we are undergoing. Mr. Speaker, when the budget was introduced a few weeks ago, one of the things that struck me was the statement of the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, our former colleague, who said that this is a transparent and accountable budget, and measures have been put in place to ensure that this budget is transparent and that on the basis of the budget, our people can demand accountability, not only from Congress, but from the Executive and other branches of government. Now, one of the issues related to that is the issue of lumpsum allocations. We were told that this budget is a lean budget in the sense that the lump-sum allocations have been reduced significantly, but in the course of the hearings in the past few weeks, in repeated committee deliberations that I had attended, our colleagues always pointed out to the presence of big amounts of lump-sum allocations. And there has been a perennial, chronic question among our Members asking for the breakdown of these lump sums, asking for comments from the Executive whether these lump-sum budgets will be used equitably or will it be, as in the past, used to favor certain districts. It has been a recurring question which, in fact, led to a lot of tension these past few days. So, for the record, may we know exactly how much are these lump-sum allocations? How are they going to be allocated and, in the first place, why are they still there? How can we now say that the budget is still transparent and accountable considering the huge lump-sum allocations? I think one of our colleagues, if I am not mistaken, the Honorable Rodriguez from Cagayan de Oro, even mentioned that lump sums would now total to P507 billion, more or less. So, may we just have the position of the department on that issue, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, what we have here are the special purpose funds, which total to P164 billion. However,

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 I do not think this is what the good Gentleman from Bayan Muna Party-List is referring to because what we have here are the Calamity Fund, the Contingent Fund, the general SPFs that we know and have clearly itemized. So far, we have not culled together the little lump sums that we see per department and are not part of the traditional special purpose funds. REP. CASIO. Yes, but they are there. Every department has this lump-sum account which, we are told, will be allocated in the future. I am being coached by my colleague here. Anyway, it is of public knowledge to most of us, especially those who have attended the hearings, that there are those little, sometimes big, lump-sum allocations per district. The question always in the mind of our colleagues, whether from the districts or from the party-list, is: where will these lumpsum allocations go? Then again, my question is: why are they still there? Why are they still there if this budget is a transparent budget? We have also been told that the lump sums have been decreased. Was that only referring to the special purpose funds? Meaning, ang binawas natin na lump sums were only the special purpose funds, but the lump sums tucked into the budgets of each department are still there and have been retained. Of course, the biggest of these lump sums would be the fund for public-private partnerships at P15 billion, I think, plus some smaller PPP allocations within the budget of the various departments. You have the CCT, the roads and bridges, so REP. ABAYA. Well, Mr. Speaker, given the situation, we had a change in administration, the budget was received halfbaked; thus, much more in this situation, we just could not plan everything out. The budget also depends on the priorities of the different Secretaries. So, it is a small flexibility that is within the departmentgiven to the Secretary to carry out his programs. It has always been there. In fact, during our consultations with civil society organizations, the two schools of thought were, one: whether you eliminate lump sum and itemize everything. The consequence of this is having a much thicker budget book, lesser flexibility and lesser contingency. The other is to maintain a reasonable amount of lump sums; however, we must put in enough special provisions such that the lump sums could not be abused and it will not be purely discretionary on the Secretarys part, Mr. Speaker. REP. CASIO. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, I am sure that when these lump sums were made, because we are talking about numbers, we were talking about concrete and real amounts, and I am sure that each department already had it worked out. Each department already knows where these lump sums will go because, otherwise, what will be the basis of the amount? Hindi naman ho natin hinuhugot iyan mula sa hangin. May pinanggagalingan ho iyan. You have a budget call at ang mga district engineers po, ang mga departments mo sa ibaba, nagfo-formulate ho ng budget iyan, pataas nang pataas. Kaya iyong mga lump sums na iyon, may laman ho iyon at alam natin na alam ng departamento na may patutunguhan po iyon. Now, if it is a question na masyadong kakapal ang budget, 21st century na ho tayo ngayon. Pwede naman ho nating samahan ang budget book natin ng isang CD, and then the CD will now contain the information of where these lump

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 sums will go. These are the reforms that we have been pushing for in the last six years. At least, Bayan Muna has been doing so. We were hoping that under the new administration, we would really have a transparent budget, and technology allows us to do that. Alam ko naman ho na lahat ng mga projects na iyan, that all those files are in the computers in some departments. It is just a matter of retrieving the files. I-burn ho natin sila sa CD, isama natin as an annex to the white book. Then, every Congressman who wants to know where these lump sums will go, pwede ho niyang tingnan at pwede niyang i-check kung saang distrito pupunta o saang proyekto ang lump sums para hindi tayo nagkakagulo. It does not become a guessing game. The budget is not subject to horse trading. My question is: is it too late for us to have that kind of system? Will we have to wait until 2011 for this budget to be truly transparent? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that this is not, at least, an attempt to be a truly transparent budget. It might be too late at the end of the day, given the desire of the President that no reenactment, if, indeed, it is avoidable, would happen to the 2011 budget. We are just constricted by time; however, there are no compromises when it comes to transparency since there are much reduced lump sums within the departments. We have put in tighter, specific special provisions and, likewise, as part of the transparency provision, all releases under this department lump sums will be put in the website. Therefore, we will eventually see if, indeed, this was subject to horse trading. If this was purely a discretion of the Secretary, then it would be seen, Mr. Speaker. REP. CASIO. Would the distinguished Sponsor agree na dahil tayo ay zero-based budgeting na ngayonat ito po ang paulit-ulit na sinasabi sa atin, zero-based budgeting, meaning, we start from scratch, and we identify what projects, what allocations are there that will start from scratchthe more logical presentation of the budget would really be to include these items so that it will be clear to everyone? Kasi ho, sa nakita ko, kaya sumulpot itong problema ng controversy about the P50-million additional allocation for the DPWH lump sums is because the Congressmen do not know kung saan ba talaga mapupunta iyong pera? We are all basing it on the previous budgets. In the previous budgets, lalabas na napaka-one sided at napaka-unfair noong allocation. For 2011, we are being promised that the budget will be equitably distributed, but we cannot see that in the budget. We will only know kung ganoon nga ang nangyari next year. Probably, in the next budget hearings, magsisingilan na naman ho tayong lahat at sasabihin na naman ng mga kasama natin na iyong kanilang mga allocations ay hindi ibinigay and then it will be another cyclesingilan na naman. My feeling is, if we really want to put a stop to this kind of practice, maganda ho iyong budget natin na talagang nakalinya na. If the department wants some measure of flexibility, maglagay ho tayo roon ng small amount for contingency. Mayroon naman ho tayong calamity fund, mayroon din tayong special purpose funds. I think the budgets of the departments should be better itemized, so that there will be no confusion and everything will be clearer and we know that the budget that is approved by Congress is a definite budget and we will know if the Executive is trifling with the

49 budget or the power of the purse. If we approve lump sums, wala ho tayong panghahawakan. Would the distinguished Sponsor agree and would the department agree that that would be the ideal budget? We do not even have to have a thick book. Pwede hong i-attach na lang as an accompanying CD iyong napakaraming listahan ng kung anu-anong proyekto. Hindi ho ba mas maganda kung ganoon ang ating budget, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. I do fully agree, Mr. Speaker. Probably, we just could not do it in one count. We look forward to the day when, indeed, everything will be itemized and be very transparent; but in the meantime, we have to adopt such a system and this is compensated, indeed, by posting the information in the website. Although this is done as an afterthought or, at least, post-execution, that should be enough incentive to do what is right and, indeed, program the budget better also. It is just too difficult because, as Congressmen, we also try to plan out our PDAF and, given our situation right now, we find it quite difficult to go through that planning process, too. So, I assume that at the department level, trying to plan out schools or scholars might be such a tedious task that they just could not put them down right before the budget is turned over to the legislature, Mr. Speaker. REP. CASIO. I thank the Gentleman for agreeing with me, Mr. Speaker, because I really think that will speed up the process. Kasi ho kung nakalinya na ho ang bawat proyekto na pupuntahan ng lump sum, wala nang patumpik-tumpik pa ang magiging trabaho rito. Masasabi na natin na, O, kulang ito, dagdagan dito, at hindi iyong manghuhula pa tayo kung saan ba mapupunta ito and then all we are shown are pieces of paper and verbal commitments. Unless it is actually in the books, our experience is that it is really the Executive who has discretion over all these funds. So, that is my point, Mr. Speaker. Now, for the 2011 budget, ano ho ang pwedeng habulin pa natin? The Gentleman mentioned earlier that the agencies plan to put up this information in their websites. Could we just be enlightened kung hindi po naisama sa kasalukuyang budget itong transparent system, paano ho natin maihahabol ito sa implementation para matiyak natin na transparent nga and accountable ang budget? What are the measures that the DBM plans to implement to address this deficiency in the present 2011 budget bill? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, all the transparency and accountability provisions should also apply to the lump sums. Therefore, regular posting of contracts, suppliers, quotations and status of the project should be done. Everyone is compellednot only the departments but likewise, the Congressmen, tooto put this on the website. That is a mandatory requirement. What we can do is to continue studying the budget and to put in special provisions the use of lump sums or not even the lump sumps per se. In the much-talked about article this morning, there are efforts to put in special provisions to make sure that certain funds for the agrarian reform beneficiaries are, indeed, given to the agrarian reform beneficiaries and not diverted elsewhere. So, these are the things that we could do. Congress, having the power of the purse, must at least ensure that the funds go to the right place and, likewise, that accountability and transparency would always be present, Mr. Speaker.

50 REP. CASIO. For my last point, Mr. Sponsor, let me again go back to the budget process. We will be approving this budget probably in a few hours. Per newspaper reports, the Chairman has stated that what we will approve tonight will be exactly the same budget that we received a few weeks ago. There will be no amendments to this budget and those amendments will come at a later time. Again, may we ask, if amendments will not be introduced tonight, how can we say that this budget is a transparent budget? How will our people know what the amendments to the budget proposal of the President will be if they will not be discussed? If these will not be discussed in the Plenary Session, when will the amendments be made? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the good Congressman from Bayan Muna Party-List is a colleague of mine, and we started in 2004. This process is nothing new; it has been the process for the last nine years and, probably, if we could ask our elderly statesmen, this has already been the process way, way before we came here. So, let us not be alarmed. For the first-termers, this may sound a little bit irregular or somewhat different; but this has been part and parcel of how the budget process goes. It has been discussed in the mother Committee, that even the former Chairman, the good Majority Leader, concurs that Congress traditionally merely passes the budget on Second Reading as it was filed when the Executive turned this over to us. This should not be something alarming. This should not trigger any behavior that we think would cause distortion or demoralization among our colleagues. This is just a tradition, a practicenothing irregular about it. However, as practiced, the Committee forms a small Committee where the Minority and the Majority will be represented, where the Speaker will be represented, where the Majority Leader will be represented, and of course, the Chairman and the Sr. Vice Chairman will be around. Such a small Committee will be tasked to study, discuss and eventually decide upon the amendments proposed by the Members of the House. REP. CASIO. Mr. Speaker, this has been the practice for the last nine years, but it is not necessarily a good practice. Now, we have a new administration that promises transparency in the budget. Is it not about time that we change the practice? Would it not be a better process to allow Members of the House to introduce amendments on the floor or even submit them in writing, and then, we approve a budget that already incorporates these amendments, rather than approve a budget in principle and we do not know what the amendments will be. Again, if that has been a practice for the last nine years, I am not so sure if that is the best practice, if we are talking about transparency. Can we not do otherwise that will probably delay the budget for a few weeks? I think it would be better if we approve the budget with our amendments already incorporated, rather than approve a budget which will be tinkered with over the break and we will not be aware of the changes that this budget will undergo. What commitments do we have? What assurances do we have that our written proposals will be reflected in the final outcome of the bill that we will be approving on Third Reading, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, let us remember that we are merely approving this on Second Reading. There will be a

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 Third Reading where everyone will nominally vote on it. Actually, there are no assurances that all amendments submitted to the Committee will be approved. I was just listening to the Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro who would typically submit 200 amendments, and I think it is realistic. It might be a bit low. It could be more, but it just could happen and, realistically, I could not imagine if it will only delay us for weeks. It will probably, delay us for a decade if amendments are done on the floor. Given that we have 287 Congressmen, we could have 287 great ideas, Mr. Speaker. REP. CASIO. The question is: how will we know what amendments were accepted and what were not? Will the version on the Third Reading, for example, already reflect the amendments? Previously, when I was still in the Minority, we always asked the Committee that prior to the approval on Third Reading, we will be given, at least, a list or a booklet of the amendments that were introduced in the GAB, but that has never been done. I do not know this time, under the new administration, which promises a transparent budget, if on the Third Reading of the bill, amendments will already be incorporated. Would it be possible for the Committee to provide the Members a copy of the approved amendments to the budget? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the budget book for Third Reading will already incorporate the amendments that have been approved or are indeed included in the budget. We will study the possibility of printing out the approved amendments prior to the Third Reading, but I could not give that assurance. I am learning on the job; if it is possible, then I will try to do so, Mr. Speaker. REP. CASIO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, because that will cure another problem that we usually encounter, that is why it is always said that the Bicameral Conference Committee is the key, and that everything is decided in the Bicameral Conference Committee, where even our amendments or everything can be overturned. So, if we are aware of the amendments that were introduced in our bill, then we can effectively check what is happening in the Bicameral Conference Committee. Otherwise, again, we will be kept in the dark and our colleagues will be blaming the Bicameral Conference Committee, when in truth, their amendments were vetoed even at the level of the House. So, we hope that this is again one of the reforms that we can do to ensure that we have a more transparent and accountable budget. Would that be a possibility for this year, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. The Chairman will strive to achieve such desire, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact that a Bicameral Conference Committee is there and the reality is, whatever we do here could still be changed. But in the view of being transparent, all efforts would be made for whatever amendments were incorporated, so that when they reach the Bicameral Conference Committee, we know which amendments or provisions were taken out, Mr. Speaker. REP. CASIO. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, if these procedures were put in place earlier, sana wala na po tayong problema riyan sa sinasabing additional pork na P50 million. Hindi na naging usapin ang reklamo ng

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 ilan nating kasama, because if it were put in place earlier, then things would have been more simple at maiiwasan ang kaguluhan na naganap nitong nakaraang tatlong taon. So, ang problema talaga ay ang sistema. Under the new administration, it is just unfortunate that it is the same system that we are still using. We are hoping that by the next budget hearing o kahit man lang mahabol natin before the Third Reading, sana magkaroon na talaga ng tunay na pagbabago. The way I see it, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, this is the same process that we are undergoing probably for the last several decades. The change that I have been looking for on the budget process has still not been observed. Anyway, thank you, distinguished Sponsor for your time. Mr. Speaker, salamat po. REP. ABAYA. Thank you. The Chairman will try to be creative and innovative to indeed introduce reforms, but he could not do it alone. Probably, we ourselves, as Members of Congress, could also innovate and be creative in our behavior, so as to indeed comply with transparency and accountability. Likewise, may I clarify that the P50 million that we have been talking about is not pork barrel; this is a national fund to be laid in the respective districts that have somewhat been overlooked by the planning of the Executive, Mr. Speaker. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Dep.Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, may we recognize the Hon. Marc Douglas C. Cagas IV for his interpellation. REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Honorable Cagas is recognized. REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Will the Lady please state his parliamentary inquiry. REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). It is with regard to a letter we received, though I do not know if it is a realignment of P4 billion intended for the Tulay ng Pangulo Program. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Will the Sponsor or the Majority Leader please respond. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, what is the parliamentary inquiry? REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, a letter has been handed to us with regard to a request of a certain legislator from the House of Representatives, telling the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, if they could kindly address the concerns of the DAR budget because of the failure to comply with Sections 13 and 14. That was the letter of Rep. Joseph Emilio Abaya, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, to Secretary Singson of the DPWH.

51 Now, for purposes of transparency, it would be best that the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations explain the letter, so that it will also ease the questions raised. I think most of us read the column in the Manila Standard-Today this morning. The letter states: Dear Secretary Singson: Representative Kaka Bag-ao of Akbayan PartyList brought to my attention the concern regarding the conformity of the budget for the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program as reflected in the proposed budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform in the proposed General Appropriations Act of 2011, House Bill No. 3101, with the provisions of RA 9700 or the CARPER Law. The concern I am referring to is the failure of the proposed budget of the DAR to comply with Sections 13 and 14 of RA 9700 which provides for the following budgetary mandates: 1. Earmarking of 40% of the allocations for provision of support services of agrarian reform beneficiaries. 2. Allocation of 30% of the support services budget for agricultural credit facilities and the onethird of this amount should be allocated as subsidy for the initial capitalization of new agrarian reform beneficiaries. Upon consultation with Secretary Florencio Abad of the Department of Budget and Management, we are proposing to introduce a provision to reflect an erratum in the DPWH budget into the budget, to reflect an erratum that provides that the P4.052 billion budget for the Tulay ng Pangulo Para sa Kaunlarang Pang-agraryo be allocated/earmarked for CARP areas, ARCs and agrarian reform beneficiaries. Furthermore, this allocation should not be realigned for other purposes. The introduction of the erratum is in compliance with the above-mentioned provisions of RA 9700. We are submitting this for your consideration. Sincerely, (Sgd.) Representative Joseph Emilio A. Abaya Chairman Committee on Appropriations Noted: (Sgd.) Secretary Rogelio Singson Secretary Department of Public Works and Highways May I just know from the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, can we please be enlightened with regard to this letter; and are we realigning the budget for the Tulay sa Pangulo to the two provisions that the Chairman cited in the letter, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, yes, I recognize this is my signature. It is one of those documents that the Chairman

52 would sign in order to facilitate whatever amendments that each individual Congressman would desire, whether to realign or to have a congressional authorization. It is one of the few that I have already signed, because as Chairman, it is my duty to facilitate such processes. This would not trigger any realignment. The Chairman is not empowered to do realignment unilaterally. It is in plenary, it is in Congress where real amendments are done. What was really, probably mischievous in the article is that, if we read it carefully, and hopefully everyone gets to read the letter, the mention of earmarking of 40 percent for support services or 30 percent for credit facilities was stated as a premise. It is not part of the request, but the way we read it in the article, it would seem we are now aligning the Tulay ng Pangulo for credit facilities and support services. If we read it strictly, on the last portion where the actual objective of the letter is stated, it is merely ensuring that the P4 billion for the Tulay ng Pangulo Para sa Kaunlarang Pang-agraryo will indeed go to CARP areas, ARCs and agrarian reform beneficiaries. Just by its name pang-agraryo, it should have been quite clear and this should not have been necessary. However, probably, for the advocacy of Representative Kaka Bag-ao, she just wanted to make sure that there would be no diversion made, that not a single peso for the Tulay ng Pangulo para sa Kaunlarang PangAgraryo will be diverted elsewhere. REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, even in the GAA, it is already stated there that the Tulay sa Pangulo Program will really be intended only for the Department of Agrarian Reform, and the areas will be identified with the concurrence of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary. What we found confusing in the letter is the last statement that said that the introduction of the erratum is in compliance with the abovementioned provisions of Republic Act No. 9700, wherein the Chairman cited two provisions which are, first: the earmarking of 40 percent and the allocation of 30 percent for support services budget for agricultural credit facilities; and second, the one-third which is for subsidy for the initial capitalization of new agrarian reform beneficiaries. So, if we look at the letter itself, we will glean from the last sentence that the Chairman is trying to comply with the two provisions. We thought that he might be realigning the budget, which is a French loan, and is only earmarked really for the Tulay ng Pangulo para sa Kaunlarang Pang-Agraryo. That is why we found the letter a bit confusing, and I brought it out in plenary just to clear the air, because apparently, there is a lot of talk going around. If we read the article in the Manila Standard-Today, it will really put someone in a bad light, and I know that we would rather talk to the Chairman and raise it on the floor. At least, it will be official and will be heard by everybody. REP. ABAYA. Yes, that is why I do appreciate that the honorable Lady from Zambales, indeed, really had the chance to express this, but clearly, no realignment was made. It is not within my power to make such realignment, and it is not logical for me because, clearly, the P4 billion which is a loan for the Presidents Pang-Agraryo Program, which is to build bridges, could not be realigned. It is just ensuring that, indeed, it can only be used for such purpose, Mr. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I think in the GAB, it was very specific that it is only for agrarian reform. It is just the last sentence really that confused everybody, because the Chairman was saying that he wanted to comply with the two earlier provisions mentioned above. That is why I seek a clarification from the Chairman, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I admit there could have been confusion in the wordings, but may I clarify and reiterate that such funds will be purely used for bridges to benefit CARP areas, ARCs and agrarian reform beneficiaries. REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). In that case, Mr. Speaker and Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the Members of the House of Representatives may identify their agrarian reform communities that need bridges coming from this bridge program of the President. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). One last point, Mr. Speaker why did the Chairman call it an erratum and not an amendment? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, there is such a thing as an erratum where it is treated as if it were submitted when the budget was passed. For the Chairman, indeed, it would not matter. In fact, I would prefer that this should be reflected as a Congressional authorization, of course, with the blessing of the Plenary that, indeed, we can see that it is Congress who is acting, rather than the Executive doing it as an afterthought, Mr. Speaker. REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, it is the Congressional district Congressmen plus the party-list Congressmen who will be allowed to identify if they have agrarian reform communities which need bridges. They can write a letter to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform and, probably, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, so that they can make their request there and forward them to the Agrarian Reform Department. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I also thank the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. REP. ABAYA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, may we again go back and recognize the Hon. Marc Cagas for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Hon. Marc Cagas is recognized. REP. CAGAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when I woke up this morning and read the Manila Standard-Today, the word gravy caught the interest of this Representation. So, I immediately thought of

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 P4 billion worth of Kentucky fried chicken gravy, but for purposes of my interpellation, I would like to limit myself on the DBM. One of the most fundamental principles in our Constitution is that the Philippines is a democratic and republican state, that sovereignty resides in the people, and that government authority emanates from them. As an effect of republicanism and the principles of democracy, the Philippine government follows the doctrine of separation of powers. So, we have the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. There are also the constitutional commissions which are independent from the three branches in terms of mandate, functions and budget allocation. Each of the branches of government, including the three constitutional commissions, have their own subordinate agencies and offices to execute their essential functions and duties. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, I am not assuming that I am a learned legislator. It is for this purpose that I am standing right now and will ask questions to the distinguished Sponsor, as I want to learn what the DBM is, how it operates in relation to the Philippine budget, and in relation to the national government. So, will the distinguished Sponsor, therefore, oblige to these questions, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the DBM is the office primarily in charge of being the countrys financial economic manager in order to plan out revenue generation, and likewise the expenses in order to spur national development and accomplish government thrusts. That is it, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The DBM is part of the DBCC. Am I correct, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the DBM is part of the DBCC. The DBM chairs the DBCC, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. What are the other departments which consist the DBCC, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. The other members of the DBCC are: DOF, NEDA, OP, with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) as a resource person, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Represented by the governor of the BSP? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Does the DBM establish macroeconomic policies, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. ABAYA. It would be the DBCC which sets such macroeconomic policies. REP. CAGAS. When does macro become micro? In other words, if the DBCC is here, then when does it become micro, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. It becomes micro when a budget is actually drafted, because from the macro assumption of the GDP, of interest rate, of inflation, of deficitnow, this is projected in order to come up with specific programs with peso values, so

53 the thick book is a manifestation of transforming macro to micro, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Thank you. Simply put, it becomes micro when all of these budgets are placed in each departments and agencies as reflected in the NEP as well as in the General Appropriations Bill. Do I have the correct impression, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. ABAYA. Well, that is also my impression, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Does the DBM, as an organization or a department, have regional offices? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. So, we have regional offices in Davao, for instance. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. I am confused, Mr. Speaker, because I attend Regional Development Council meetings. We have NEDA Region XI meetings, we have RPOC meetings, and now, we just passed a new law last Congress creating the MinDA headed by Congresswoman Lualhati Antonino. I am confused, Mr. Speaker, before I go to my next question. Is there an inter-agency communication or do they work in tandem, as far as this regional office is concerned, in relation to the regional office of the Department of Budget and Management? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they do interact. REP. CAGAS. For example, Mr. Speaker, I have been attending RDCs and we have been proposing projects to RDCRegion XI which used to be chaired by Vic Lao. He always asks us to submit our concerns as far as Region XI is concerned, and we do submit our concerns to the RDC, which is also represented by other regional offices of the DepEd, the DPWH, the DOH and the PNP. My question is that, more often than not, 80 percent of our requests before the RDC do not usually materialize. It does not even appear in the NEP. So, Mr. Speaker, who really decides? Is it the RDC, the NEDA Region XI, the MinDA, or is it the DBMRegion XI? Who decides and finally incorporates the concerns, as requested by the chairmen of these different regional organizations, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, I think the very reason for the non-inclusion is primarily late submission, and the tendency is for the RDCs to submit at the time when the budget is almost prepared. So as an advice, probably for next year, it is best to come in when the budget call happens. Therefore, in the first quarter of the year, that would be the best time for the RDCs, not only to convene, but to actually submit concrete proposals or programs. Likewise, it would be advisable for the RDCs to also come up with a regional development plan so that the evaluation by the DBCC will have some logic, some rhyme or reason that these are not

54 merely parochial listings, but indeed, a comprehensive plan and a vision for the future, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Following the Sponsors line of answering, Mr. Speaker, who then decides which items are carried for consideration of the DBCC? In other words, does the RDC, the MinDA, or all of these other regional development council organizations really have a say in the preparation of the budget, or are these organizations useless, anyway? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the RDCs would usually submit to the DBM, and the DBM in turn pushes this up to the DBCC, which then probably gets to streamline, choose or siphon out which projects could be accommodated given the limited resources. This is eventually prepared in a budget presented to the Cabinet and approved by the President, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. So, they are not totally uselessthese RDCs, the MinDA and the other regional development organizations. REP. ABAYA. No, Mr. Speaker. They are vital in the crafting of budget. We just have to be early enough because, I think, punctuality is the main cause of non-inclusion, but we just have to give importance and think through the process, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Sponsor talked about punctuality. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this Representation has been submitting to the RDC my requests. Fortunately, one of my requests went through the General Appropriations Act of 2010, but unfortunately, the gravy was recalled from this Representation. So, I wonder who controls the buck. There is a saying that the buck stops here, but in this case, who controls the buck? I am confused, Mr. Speaker, because on page 569 of the General Appropriations Bill book, the white one, if the Sponsor would notice, under item B. PROJECT(s), I. Locally-Funded Project(s), (a). National Arterial and Secondary National/Local Roads and Bridges, what does local mean in this item, specifically letter (a) of item I under letter B? Ano ba itong local, Mr. Speaker? Sino ba ang nagpla-planning dito, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, this is a reflection of human frailty. Admittedly, this is an error of the committee. To explain further, the Committee on Appropriations is also organized in the same way as the other departments. The particular staff who was in charge of this, given that we have to transform the NEP into a GAB, used this old CD and this is not a permanent error. Once we go to Third Reading, this shall be deleted, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. For a time, Mr. Speaker, this Representation was actually delighted because I thought that the word local on page 569 thereof would actually mean allowing us or authorizing us to make Congressional insertions. I am just clarifying, Mr. Speaker, from the distinguished Sponsor, ano ito? Masaya na sana ako kasi may gravy na nadagdag para sa distrito ng ibat ibang Congressmen. So, I thought and I interpreted this term local under page 569 thereof as a sort of authorization for Congressional insertions, Mr. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. ABAYA. No, Mr. Speaker, the word local will be deleted. The committee has no such authority. Likewise, let us take it easy on the talk of gravy because the people might just think that we eat gravy for breakfast, lunch and dinner. REP. CAGAS. I am just following the article in the Manila Standard. I always enjoy interpellating the good Chairman and he has been very helpful to me. I have learned a lot from him, Mr. Speaker, and I am also learning now that gravy might be interpreted in another manner, and so, I will refrain now from using the word gravy, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the DBM. Meron bang attached agency ang DBM, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, there are two attached agencies. The first is the GPPB, the Government Procurement Policy Board; and the second is the Procurement Service. REP. CAGAS. So, the Government Procurement Policy Board... REP. ABAYA. and the Procurement Service, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. How is the GPPB different from the Procurement Service as far as functions are concerned, or probably, as far as their policy is concerned, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. ABAYA. The GPPB is the policy board. It sets policy and direction. The Procurement Service is the operating arm; it does the actual procurement, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, as the Sponsor has said, the DBM has two attached agencies. Under the setup of the DBM, are there bureaus within the DBM which plan the entire budget, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? Within the DBM itself, mayroon bang mga planning bureaus? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are planning bureaus. There are 19 bureaus roughly parallel with the department that we have. REP. CAGAS. So, for each department, there is a corresponding bureau, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Thank you. Is there a Budget Management Bureau under the DBM? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a Budget Management Bureau. REP. CAGAS. What does a Budget Management Bureau do, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Management Bureau is more of an operating arm. It handles the operations to ensure that the release of funds and, indeed, the processing of documents are efficiently executed.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. CAGAS. Does the Budget Management Bureau have something to do with, for example, the release of SAROs or NCA, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think this is the engine that processes the SAROs, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is the wish of each legislator that at the end of this budget hearing, we will see the light of a SARO. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, I think some have seen the light. REP. CAGAS. Kawawa naman ako, wala nang gravy, wala pang light, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the assurance is, if indeed the good Congressman from Davao has submitted... REP. CAGAS. I already did, Mr. Speaker, about three to four weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, does the DBM have Budget Technical Services? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. What is its main function, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, it is the office that looks over and supervises the bureau, and sets standards as to the release of funds. REP. CAGAS. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, we do have special purpose funds. Am I correct? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. These special purpose funds are supposed to be budget items that are permanent or non-permanent, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Not necessarily permanent, Mr. Speaker. I recall, if it was the good Gentleman who asked me such question. I remember particularly the national identification fund and we look forward that there will be no purpose for that fund anymore, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Yes, and these special purpose funds are used to augment the regular budget of selected agencies or departments of the government, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Actually, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about government budget here. In one way or another, we could relay it to the department. However, given this very nature of being for special purpose, it is administered differently from department funds. However, the thrust of the government is to slowly push all these special purpose funds into the respective departments as one of the measures for transparency and accountability, Mr. Speaker.

55 REP. CAGAS. So, they still augment the departments, over and above the regular budget of concerned departments and agencies of the government, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Yes, for various special purposes, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Are they subject to special provisions? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Also subject to the approval of the President? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sabi ko nga po, gusto ko lamang matuto. Sabi rito sa Constitution, under Sections 24 and 25 of the 1987 Constitution, ang power of the purse daw is lodged within Congress, within the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker. Is it true, Mr. Speaker? Nasa atin ba talaga ang power of the purse? Or are we just here, you know, just talking and talking and cannot do anything about the budget, Mr. Speaker? Nasa atin ba talaga ang power of the purse? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, ganoon din po ang paniniwala ko. Hopefully, we could indeed show that the power of the purse is in Congress. However, in my first two terms, I did not see such power, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Unfortunately, up to now, Mr. Speaker, I still do not feel that power. I feel that I am still under the mercy of the Executive, Mr. Speaker, to tell you the truth. That is why I am asking all these questions, so we could give reality to this constitutional provision, Mr. Speaker. All of these debates would probably be more effective if, indeed, the House of Representatives is given the real power of the purse, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. I agree, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Thank you. For this purpose, is the DBM itself allocated a special purpose fund, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. None, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Then can you please give this Representation at least five departments or agencies of the government wherein special purpose funds are allocated apart from the regular budget. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, one of the special purpose funds is the DepEd educational facilities fund, so that is within the DepEd. One of the former special purpose funds is the AFP modernization fund. Now, that has been moved as a regular item in the Department of National Defense, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Meaning, it has been transferred to the...

56 REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Previously, that was a separate chapter. Now, it is within the chapter of the DND. REP. CAGAS. In our budget, there are lines which say, transfer to and transfer from. So, is the Gentleman saying that the AFP modernization fund was transferred to? Am I correct, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, I think the transfer to and transfer from talk about funds being transferred from one department to another with all savings incorporated. No, the transfer here is not the usual transfer to or transfer from transactions. Here, it is making clear a policy that such special purpose fund should be put into the department for better management, transparency and accountability, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Thank you, distinguished Sponsor. May this Representation be allowed to read a comparative summary of special purpose funds. Let us start with the year 2005, so that we will not waste so much time. I will only read probably two agencies. Let us start with the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Agricultureif we will refer to Republic Act No. 9401, and that is in 2007, with all its agencies such as the National Dairy Authority, the NFA, the National Tobacco Administration, the Philippine Coconut Authority and the Quedancorreceived a total of P5,084,935,000. If I go over this quickly, under the Department of Health, Mr. Speaker,for example, the Lung Center, the NKTI or the National Kidney Institute, the Philippine Childrens Medical Center, the Philippine Heart Center, et cetera,for 2007, also got a special purpose fund worth P1,015,560,000. If we do it forward, these two agencies or departments also received special purpose funds in 2010. In 2007, the DA received P1,625,000,000 instead of the five billion that I mentioned, Mr. Speaker. For 2010, the DA received a special purpose fund for a total of P9,672,411,000. The Department of Health, under RA No. 9970, for 2010, received a total of P1,767,960,000. Under the NEP or the GAB, the projected SPF for these agencies would amount to a measly P796,305,000 for the DA from the original P4,777,000,000, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Health also got a drop, Mr. Speaker, and as recommended under the NEP and the GAB, it now has P797,360,000. Mr. Speaker, my query is: for example, under the Department of Agriculture, how come there is this a sudden drop as far as the budget or special purpose funds allocated for the Department of Agriculture is concerned? I am sure that the DBM will know this because as the Gentleman said, the DBM is one of the agencies comprising the DBCC, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, particularly on the drop in the DA, that is attributable to the NFA, the removal of the NFA. The P8 billion is not there, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Kawawa naman ang NFA, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Hindi po, ginagawan po ng paraan iyan ng ating gobyerno at ibabalik po natin, Mr. Speaker. In fact, ang pagbalik po niyan ay baka mas higit pa doon sa nabanggit na numero as a congressional authorization, Mr. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. CAGAS. The distinguished Lady from Pangasinan, the Honorable Cojuangco, has informed me 30 minutes ago that in Pangasinan, the selling price of ricebecause it is not the NFA who buys rice anymoredropped tremendously, Mr. Speaker. If we are really to follow the message of the President under the Explanatory Note as contained in the white book, in this GAB, would zero allocation for the NFA not be doing injustice to our farmers and, therefore, running contrary to the budgetary message of the President? REP. ABAYA. Just to clarify, was that rice or palay? REP. CAGAS. Palay. REP. ABAYA. I assume we should be happy with the drop in the price of rice. REP. CAGAS. Hindi iyong pagbenta. Di ba pagkatapos ng harvest ay ang pagbenta? REP. ABAYA. As mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we are doing adjustments and hopefully we could incorporate, if not restore, the funds for the NFA. REP. CAGAS. Could this adjustment, Mr. Speaker, be taken from the controversial CCT? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, that is always an option. However, this is a democracy and who has the numbers will most likely be followed, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are here to lose. REP. ABAYA. No, we are here to listen to all ideas and come up with the best solution, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Funny, Mr. Speaker, because the former Congresswoman Custodio, who is now Mayor Custodio and was always an eager Member of the Minority before,would always fondly tell me, because I was in the Majority before, that the job of the Minority is to lose. So, even if we lose, because as you have said this is a democracy and the Majority rules, we will still hold steadfast to our commitment that maybe it is too soonin fact, very soon, to fully digest the total amount of the CCT and it will probably give us indigestion instead, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. Sana naman ma-touch ka, Mr. Speaker, that we have been talking here about the CCT for the longest time. It is just too much, Mr. Speaker. You see, sabi kapag may CCT na, marami na tayong estudyanteng mapapag-aral kasi may kanin na sa tiyan, may konting baon pa. O, sige, kapag pumasok na ang maraming estudyante, ang tanong, dahil sabi dito sa budget, sa libro, wala namang Capital Outlay ang DepEd, papaano make-cater ang influx ng mga estudyante? Kaya ba natin, Mr. Speaker? Kaya ba ng DepEd, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, hindi kakayanin. In fact, I think Congressman Nava has developed such expertise and, hopefully, when he comes on deck later ay mapapagod na po talaga tayo sa pagtatanong tungkol sa CCT, Mr. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. CAGAS. All right, Mr. Speaker. We will forego the CCT for now. Does the DBM have SAOB? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. or a total of P376,462,433,000. REP. CAGAS. Ano po ang laman ng SAOB? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mme. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. SAOB, for the information of all, is the statement of allotment, obligations and balances. I assume that would be the content, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Yes, and for what purpose is the SAOB, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, it is a sheet that tallies the ongoing balance between allotment and obligations. Probably, in Congressmens lingo, this would be the tally sheet balancing SAROs and NCAs or the obligations when they are bidded out, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. In other words, are SAOBs similar to financial report, probably, or to a fiscal report of the operations of the DBM or is the SAOB, may be a statement of a balance or a sort of a balance sheet, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? At this juncture, the Deputy Speaker relinquished the Chair to Rep. Janette L. Garin. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mme. Speaker, it could roughly be a financial report on the operations of the DBM, Mme. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Does the DBM right now, actually, have a SAOB? I am just asking. Kung wala, okay lang. I am just asking. Kung mayroon REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mme. Speaker, we are fortunate enough to give you a copy of the SAOB, Mme. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Can I request one of the Pages to bring me a copy of the SAOB? REP. ABAYA. Well, Mme. Speaker, I think it is not a complete presentation. Probably, give us time to give you a complete sheet, Mme. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Hindi. Okay lang, Mme. Speaker, kahit it is not complete. In fact, I have my own SAOB here. I just want to compare and see whether my numbers are correct or not. For example, I want to know how much for 2000; or under the NEP this Representation would want, Mme. Speaker, for instance, to know how much were the unused appropriations, for example, Mme. Speaker, for, let us say, 2009 vis--vis unobligated allotment. REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, for 2009, for the whole of the national government, unreleased appropriations is P260 billion, roughly, and for unobligated allotment, it is P116.3 billion. REP. CAGAS. P116,372,583,000. REP. ABAYA. P116,372,583,000, Mme. Speaker.

57 REP. CAGAS. Unreleased appropriation, P260,089,850,000 REP. ABAYA. P260,089,850,000, Mme. Speaker.

REP. CAGAS. So, in other words, my numbers would be correct. REP. ABAYA. Yes, up to the last peso, Mme. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Thank you. I have here a SAOB from year 2002 to the present, Mme. Speaker. I hope that during the next budget deliberations, for purposes of education, the DBM will furnish the House a copy of SAOB, so that we will know, and we will not rely mainly on the BSEF because it is so hard to toggle over the pages of BSEF. REP. ABAYA. We will try to do so, Mme. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. So, Mme. Speaker, I will probably wind up. I do not want to belabor you anymore. My Uncle-Lolo, the distinguished legislator from Camiguin, has expressed that we will have dinner. This is my request to the good Chairman and the Secretary, Butch Abad, that for next year, sana po Congress will be more involved. This Representation would really appreciate it if from the DBCC pa lang, mayroon na ho tayong partisipasyon. Mayroon namang counterpart ang House of Representatives, iyong tinatawag na House Budget Management Bureau ng House. So, sana po, mayroon hong mas magandang coordination para pagdating ho sa floor o sa budget briefings ay hindi na ho tayo nagkakagulo masyado. So that we will feel more the power of the purse really and that it truly exists. Can I get the assurance of the Chairman as well as Secretary Abad, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mme. Speaker, there is such a commitment. However, the preparation of the budget is really an executive function. This is the stage where we really have an active role. However, it is encouraged that Congressmen, in their little way, would indeed come in early enough in the budget call so that inputs will be entertained and our theses could be proven to be effective and indeed vital projects are accomplished, Mme. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Thank you, distinguished Sponsor, Mme. Speaker. Thank you for educating me. It has been a very fruitful exercise as far as this Representation is concerned. Thank you very much. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. BINAY. I move for a few minutes suspension of the session, Mme. Speaker. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The session is suspended.

58 It was 7:23 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 7:24 p.m., the session was resumed. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I move that we suspend the consideration of the proposed budget of the Department of Budget and Management. I so move. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). There is a motion to suspend the consideration of the proposed budget of the Department of Budget and Management. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the TESDA, and for this purpose, I move that we recognize the Honorable Almario to sponsor its budget. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. We now proceed with the proposed budget of the TESDA. For this purpose, the Hon. Thelma Almario is hereby recognized to sponsor the said agency. REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The distinguished Dep. Minority Leader, the Hon. Augusto Boboy Syjuco, PhD is likewise recognized for his interpellation. REP. SYJUCO. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. Thank you, Mme. Dep. Majority Leader. Mme. Speaker, at the outset, I wish to make of record two documents that I have. One document is entitled, Reports/ Documents Requested, and it was sent by the DOLE, the Department of Labor and Employment. In response to that, Mme. Speaker, I have written a letter, dated October 13, 2010. It is a three-page letter. I would also like to make that of record. It is a letter that I sent to Secretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz and Secretary Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva regarding certain questions and concerns I had at that time. Since then, Mme. Speaker, I have sat down with members of the TESDA. I have spoken with Secretary Joel Villanueva, Director General of the TESDA; I have also spoken with Director Pilar de Leon of the OCSA of TESDA. OCSA means Office of the Chief of Services for Administration; and I am satisfied with the responses. They have made certain commitments and I trust that those commitments will be fulfilled. That being so, Mme. Speaker, I move for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the TESDA for FY 2011.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, on the part of the Majority, there being no other Member who wishes to interpellate, we join the motion of the honorable Dep. Minority Leader to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the TESDA. (Applause) REP. ALMARIO. Thank you. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). There is a motion to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. ALMARIO. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. I am most appreciative of our Congressman, the former Secretary, Director General Augusto Syjuco, thank you very much. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The session is suspended. It was 7:29 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 7:32 p.m., session was resumed. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I move that we resume the consideration of the proposed budget of the Department of Budget and Management. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; we now resume the period of SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The session is suspended. It was 7:33 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 7:33 p.m., session was resumed. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The session is resumed. REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I reiterate my earlier motion that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the Lump-Sum Funds. I move that we recognize the Sponsor, the

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 honorable Chairman Abaya, and the honorable Minority Leader for his manifestation. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. We now proceed to the period of sponsorship and debate insofar as the proposed budget on the Lump Sum Funds is concerned. For this purpose, the Honorable Abaya is recognized, as well as the Minority Leader, the Hon. Edcel Lagman. REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, I would defer to the manifestation of the good Minority Leader. REP. LAGMAN. Mme. Speaker, on behalf of the Minority, we do not have any questions with respect to the Lump Sum appropriations, and accordingly, I move that we terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the Lump Sum appropriations. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. On the part of the Majority, there being no Member who wishes to interpellate, we join the motion of the Minority Leader, to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the Lump Sum Funds. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). There is a motion to terminate the period of debate insofar as the consideration of the Lump Sum appropriation is concerned. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I move that we resume the consideration of the proposed budget of the Department of Budget and Management. I so move. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. BINAY. I move that we recognize the Hon. Rufus Rodriguez for his interpellation. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The Hon. Rufus Rodriguez is hereby recognized. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. Last August 24, before the 30-day period for the Executive Department to submit a proposed expenditure program expired, we received this thick bookthe National Expenditure Program. This Representation, Mme. Speaker, started to browse over this, especially on the general information hoping that it will include a general background on first, sectoral expenditures, and second, regional expenditures. A reading of pages one to three showed a very short general information and introduction which do not include sectoral allocation nor regional allocation. Nothing is

59 stated on how much the island of Mindanao will get, as well as the Visayas islands, Luzon and Bicol regionsnothing in this yellow National Expenditure Program. Because these are absent in the general information, this Representation wrote the Secretary, the Hon. Butch Abad of the Department of Budget and Management, on September 7, two weeks after the submission of the National Expenditure Program. The letter says: Sir, I am writing to respectfully request for data regarding the share of Mindanao in the proposed 2011 National Budget and its percentage compared to the entire budget. Further, may I also request for data on the share or allotment of Mindanao in the budget of each of the departments and agencies of the government as compared to the entire budget of each department or agency. At this juncture, the Presiding Officer relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Lorenzo R. Taada III. I thank Secretary Abad for replying to my letter. As a response, he wrote a letter dated September 20, stating that: As requested, I am giving you two tables: Table 1, showing the share of Mindanao in the total national budget; Table 2, Mindanao allocation by department, special purpose funds reflecting the share of Mindanao region in the budget of each department and special purpose funds. Now, Mr. Speaker, my question is: is it the policy of first, the Executive Department, that in its general introduction the NEP will not provide information as to sectoral allocation, whether social sector, economic sector and general services sector? It does not provide the Congressmen the share of their regions in this National Expenditure Program? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the breakdown by sectors and by region actually can be seen in the BESF; therefore, there is no attempt to try to hide these from the people. However, as committed earlier by the Chairman, in the next introduction of the 2012 budget, there will be a paragraph or two on sectoral and regional allocations, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). I thank the distinguished Sponsor and also the Secretary that the next National Expenditure Program will include already the allocation for all the regions of this country, so that at first glance, we will know how much will be going to our respective regions in this country. Mr. Speaker, after we received the NEP on September 4, we started the hearings of the Committee on Appropriations. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). After three weeks, and for weeks of discussions, we received what we call the white book,

60 as distinguished from the yellow book. This white book is now called the General Appropriations Bill (GAB). Is that not correct, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). In other words, under Article VI of the Constitution, this yellow book is the basis of our GAB. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). The white book is already our proposed appropriations bill, as sponsored by some colleagues of this House. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Much to our dismay, after four months of discussion in the Committee on Appropriations, on pages 2 and 3 of the yellow book, which is the Congress and the Senate, we see here a total expenditure of P2.2 billion. What are the expenditure items here? If we will look at the white book, it states exactly the same amounts with no change whatsoevernot a single centavo had been incorporated. If we go to Agriculture, the first line agency that is being mentioned here, on page 67 of the yellow book, it reflects a total expenditure of P37 billion or P37,257,973,000 exactly. If we go to the white book, under page 55, it reflects exactly the same amount of P37,257,973,000. No amendments that were proposed and discussed during the Committee on Appropriations hearing were incorporated in the white book. Mr. Speaker, after discussions in the committee, can we not just copy everything that the Executive has prepared from the white book to the yellow bookin view of the admission that in the preparation of this yellow book, no official participation of Congressmen was even allowed. It is provided in the 1987 Constitution ,in Article VI, Section 24 that Congress has the power to originate any appropriations bill. So, at the very start, ab initio, this book should not follow and copy everything in the yellow book, because this book would have been the product of our committee hearings after calling and after getting the sentiments of all the Congressmen, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the good Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro City, should not be dismayed, but this is his fourth budget and he has been quite familiar with how the budget process goes. As explained earlier, it is not an easy job even for the large membership of the committee and the technical staff checking and converting a NEP into a GAB. Probably, it is just not possible yet, technologically, to prepare a GAB instantaneously while adopting all discussions in the mother committee and, likewise, printing 278 copies of such a thick book. This has been the practice for the last 22 years and if, indeed, we could come up with a different method, then probably we could greatly contribute to humanity if we come up with a more instantaneous and receptive GAB, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is about time. The 22 years of experience have shown that

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 Congress has abdicated its power of the purse. At this point of the new administration of President Aquino, everybody should have made concerted efforts that we, in Congress, should not just state what is in the yellow book and transfer everything to the white book. We have committee hearings so that the Committee on Appropriations should have been able to bring in the proposed amendments and alignments, and then present to this Congress what is ours so that we will not call our proposals insertions because we are not inserting; we are originating. That is the difference between insertion or initiative. We are not talking about any initiative here. There is an original power and we are originating the budget after receiving the yellow book, which is just the basis according to the Constitution. May I go now to my next point, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, just to enlighten everybody, the NEP was received on August 24. Briefings were conducted from September 1 to September 29. The GAB was filed on September 7. So, when the GAB was filed, despite the conversion in the thick book and the printing, we were still conducting hearings. Probably, what we could innovate on is for the GAB to be discussed using a soft copy; however, that will have to meet the hard copy requirement in our Rules. We could probably innovate on this and make a change in our Rules, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the next Congress, we will have a committee who will still be chaired by our very industrious Chairman. By that time, we would already exercise our power, so that the white book originating in the House would already contain what has been the consensus. There was in certain matters consensus that we found in the Committee on Appropriations hearing. For example, there was a consensus about giving P2 billion to rural electrification and we will energize the barrios and the sitios. That would have been included in the white book; that would originate from Congress. In other words, we are going to say that the yellow book of the Executive is a basis, but we feel that there should be money and not zero for rural electrification. Another example is the consensus in the House. We should restore the budget of the National Food Authority (NFA), so that they will be able to buy the palay and the corn that are produced by most of our constituents in almost all provinces in this country. It should be placed there, there is a consensus. The honorable distinguished Sponsor said that I have 200 amendments. That is not correct. I cannot have 200 amendments. I submitted to his office on September 29 after we are almost done. It only contains 18 amendments. One amendment is rural electrification. The second amendment is the NFA. The third amendment is on the Judiciary. To give them the P1 billion for the retirement of the judges pursuant to our law, which I was the principal author of, the survivorship law for the Judiciary which is not funded and the P1 billion for the Halls of Justice where the courts here, even in Metro Manila have been deluged by the storm of Ondoy and Pepeng. They were therefore, submerged and destroyed, and we have to repair them. So, I propose that we have this P2 billion. In other words, there were only 16. Was it not possible, in the exercise of the power of the purse, for this yellow book to have already contained alignments for as long as we do

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 not exceed the P1.64 trillion which is the only prohibition in our Constitution? May we know the answer of the distinguished colleague in relation to what has been the consensus in the hearings of the Appropriations Committee and should have been included in the yellow book which originated from us. I think it should never be called an initiative, it should not be called an insertion; but it should be called origination as in originating from the House of Representatives and this should already include the amendments that we should have. May we know the response of our Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. REP. ABAYA. First of all, Mr. Speaker, on the very first question, if I could actually do this in the next Congress, that would be unconstitutional because I will be violating my three terms. Second, we will, indeed, try to innovate and if it would be acceptable, a soft copy would be the basis of our discussions; then it would need a mere amendment to our Rules. If such is allowed, then that would save a lot of trees and, indeed, we could make amendments on the fly. However, given the limitations of printing and paper, we could then adopt such, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). After the plenary deliberations on the departments, after the lump sum has been approved without interpellation, there is the period of amendments. Could this period of amendments, which will happen hours from now, allow the particular amendments that were already approved during the Committee on Appropriations hearings? Would this be accepted by the Plenary so that it will guide the small select committee, and there will be a small appropriations committeea small group that will now be able to proceed with the next step after we approve on Third Reading the Bicameral Conference Committee. Would the Sponsor, therefore, accept my 18 amendments when the period of amendments comes because this is the consensus of most of our Congressmen? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the period of amendments mentioned in the schedule is not a period wherein we could accept in the meantime the amendments that we have. As practiced before, the small committee would then be the better body to accept and study all of these, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). That would not be in consonance with what we have in our schedule. Our agenda for today includes what we call the period of amendments because for any bill, after the period of sponsorship, interpellation and debate, the next is the period of amendments; and therefore, it will be the right of each and every Representative to present amendments and, probably, it will be the small committee. We can probably cut that, so that instead of a plenary voting, the committee will study and now practically be able to include the amendments in the Bicameral Conference Committee. Can I get the response or the goal of the chairperson, the distinguished colleague? Now, this is the book. As the papers would say, this book will be approved tonight or early morning tomorrow; but hopefully, tonight. REP. ABAYA. With your cooperation, Mr. Speaker.

61 REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Now, this will be the book and the entries will be what will be approved during the Third Reading. Is that the situation, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. No, Mr. Speaker. The book as raised would not be the book on Third Reading. There will be amendments to it on Third Reading, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). There will be amendments REP. ABAYA. on Third Reading, yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Therefore, that is now where we exercise our power of the purse. Is that the situation, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). How does the Gentleman get from the Representatives their suggestions, motions and their amendatory proposals? During the period of amendments, correct? REP. ABAYA. No, Mr. Speaker. We will be creating a small committee to receive all the amendments and recommendations of all the Members of the House, and this small committee will be compelled to work over the break, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you. Mr. Speaker, why do we not accept them in the proper period and that is the period of amendments because that is provided for here? I do not see here a statement in our agenda that says, period of amendments, please submit your written amendments, pass the papers. It does not say so. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, we will hear that from the Majority Leader later. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). To have us pass the papers. REP. ABAYA. To submit the amendments, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). So, we have lost our power of the purse in the preparation of the white book. Now, we will lose the power to amend it in open session. Mr. Speaker, how can our advocacies and those of the Representatives be assured that they will be considered in the Third Reading? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the small committee would give assurance to all Members that important and due consideration is given to all the submitted amendments. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Therefore, it will be before the Third Reading. My inquiry is, will this be the same book that will be given to us for Third Reading or will it be another book? Are we going to print another book because it will now contain amendments that the Sponsor has said? This will not be the book that will be given to us; there will be another. Are we printing another book? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Have mercy on the trees, but unfortunately, we will print another book, Mr. Speaker.

62 REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). There will be another book. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). When will that book be available, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Upon resumption, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). On resumption, November 8. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Therefore, we are assured that on November 8, a new book will come out and the 16 amendments proposed by this Representation and the others have already been considered. Will that be the situation, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. It will be considered, 100 percent, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Then, Mr. Speaker, we have a possibility, therefore, that we are able to exercise our power of the purse. Despite the failure in the first two, there is a chance and I have to see, therefore, on the assumption that our proposals have been included. If not, therefore, the ordinary course of proponents will be to not vote for the amendments, on the Third Reading, if our proposals have not been included. Would that be a fair statement, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is 100 percent consideration; however, there is no guarantee as to inclusion. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you. Now, I would like to go now to another point and this is on the letter of the honorable Secretary. This letter says that the regionalized budget of the Philippines for GAA will comprise only Regions I to XVI plus the NCR17 regions will only receive 37.7 percent. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). The 31.7 percent or P521 billion is for what is termed by the Secretary as a central office. Is that correct? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). In other words, the rest of the Philippines, Region I, NCR up to Region V, Bicol, up to ARMM and the SOCSARGEN area, will get 37 percent and the central office people will get 31 percent. That is now in the hands of the central officials reminding us at the time of the Roman Empire when the emperor of Rome controlled all the provinces of Rome. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, yes, that is how the government is organized and the central office could not be disaggregated to show the regional distribution.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Mr. Speaker, the entire Philippine operations, or all regions, 17 regions will receive 37 percent. The central office, the office for example of the DA near the Quezon Circle, all the central offices in Manila, receive 31 percent? Can we ask the honorable Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management whether it is about time that, instead of concentrating on 31 percent of all the resources of our country in the budget for the central office, they distribute it to the regional and the provincial offices of the national government agencies, so that they will not lack funds for their supplies and their staff? If we centralize 31 percent of the budget in Manila, can you imagine the people from Apayao, the people from Kalinga, the people from Batanes, and the people from Tawi-Tawi will have to write a letter to the Secretary for the release of something out of the 31 percent or P521 billion? In the next budget, because apparently we now have a situation where this is now written in stone, will there be a possibility that we can tilt the balance so that not so much, 31 percent, is given to the central offices while the rest of the Philippines only gets 37 percent? Probably, we can give 20 percent to the head office and 57 percent to the rest of us mortals from the regions and those not staying in the central office. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Quick answer. I hope that it is with sincerity that that was said because we are really serious here. Like in Mindanao and the Visayas, we believe that it is about time that we pull our resources from our offices here in the national office and the central office, and bring them to the regions so that they will be able to serve us. After all, Article XII of the Consitution, National Economy and Patrimony, provides the goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth and an expanding productivity all over the country. In paragraph 3 of the Article on National Economy and Patrimony, it says that in pursuit of these goals of equal distribution of opportunities, income and wealth, all the sectors of the economy, and this is very important as it shows that it is constitutional, all regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Now, how can we in the regions, Mr. Speaker, develop, if Mindanao is only given 10 percent and Visayas is only given 7.7 percent? That is the question. How are we going to, therefore say, follow the Constitution if the central office gets 31 percent and the rest of the Philippines gets 37 percent or just six percentage over the budget of a central office? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, on the very first question on sincerity, the Chairman does not open his mouth without sincerity, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is clarified. How about the proposal that we move that money, P527 billion? What are the Secretaries going to do with that money? Do the Secretaries here in the central office want our regional directors and provincial directors to beg here and say we need it? Why can we not push the funds already to the regions so that Mindanao will receive more than 10 percent and Visayas will receive more than 7.7 percent?

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, how I wish I could move all departments to Cagayan De Oro but it is just impossible to do that at this point. We just have to deal with the fact that the capital of the Philippines is Manila. I am sure the department heads are doing everything to have operational efficiency, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Let me thank the Gentleman for that answer, Mr. Speaker. The third point is that while the regions of the country, the 17 regions, receive 37.5 percent and the central offices receive 31 percent, these are DBM figures. Another whopping 30 percent is described as nationwide. These are the lump sums, the nationwide funds. Is it not possible, Mr. Speaker, for the nationwide funds, the lump sums, to be directed and apportioned in the budget to the different districts all over the Philippines, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, if the good Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro is interested, I could give him a document that will show the breakdown of nationwide funds. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). We must admit that the lump sums are in many departments of the government and, therefore, have not been distributed. Would it be possible, in the next budget, to move and to itemize them so that we can already give lesser discretion to the Cabinet members and the moneys will be allocated towards the regions of this country? REP. ABAYA. It really depends, Mr. Speaker, on the policy as described earlier. There is an option to itemize everything and lose all contingency and flexibility on the part of the Executive branch. Another option is to maintain minimal lump sums and, at the same time, put in tighter and stricter special provisions, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). We met Secretary Abad who came over last week and he has promised that lump sums will be given to the projects already identified by the departments in the different districts and regions. Would that hold that the lump sum maintained in this 30 percent will, in fact, be equitably distributed to all the regions of this country? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). We thank the Gentleman for that because if that is done by the Secretary, then the DBM remains to be the Department of Budget and Management. If he fails, DBM will mean Dyutay Bahin sa Mindanao. Is that the situation? Dyutay bahin sa Mindanao ug Visayas. Bisayan ka? Did you understand? REP. ABAYA. In Tagalog, please. I did not get the foreign language, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). DBM is the Department of Budget and Management, but if there is a failure to distribute the central offices funds to the regions, there is a failure to distribute the countryside funds, then the DBM will have another meaning. It would mean Dyutay Bahin sa Mindanao ug Visayassmall share for Mindanao and the Visayas.

63 Would we be assured that we will not change the name of the DBM as far as Mindanao and Visayas are concerned? REP. ABAYA. There is an assurance that the DBMs name will not be changed, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Mr. Speaker, I am really satisfied with the answers of the Chairman because we believe in his stewardship. My letter is with the Gentleman and so are the letters of the others. Tonight, I think, we will be asked to submit them again. I hope our letters are read and summarized, and included in the next publication of the GAA for Third Reading. We thank Secretary Abad for his forthrightness. No Secretary before has answered a letter that I had written. Two years ago, I wrote letters and there were no answers from the NEDA nor from the DBM; but Secretary Abad, after reading my letter, answered and truthfully gave us the percentages. That truthfulness got him into trouble, but that is the prize for people who are transparent and truthful. In the end, if you are transparent and truthful, we would understand how it came about especially when there is an explanation that there will be, during recess, a reevaluation of the lump sums with the end view of distributing them all over the Philippines, from Aparri to Jolo. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, I terminate my interpellation and I really praythis time it is already a prayerthat our suggestions and proposals for amendments will be taken up by the honorable Committee Chairman and Secretary Abad in the next budget. Secretary Abad will now think of giving more budget to the regions Luzon, Bicol, Visayas and Mindanaoand less for central office expenses and much lesser for nationwide funds, and have statements in the general introduction that will contain all of these. With that, Mr. Speaker, I end, and I thank the honorable Chairman of the Committee and also the honorable Speaker for this time. Thank you and good evening. REP. ABAYA. I thank the Gentleman for his questions. Mr. Speaker, I know that time is running but please allow the Chairman to explain a little. I thought about this and I was asked in a radio program to explain why Mindanao is getting only 10 percent and why is Visayas getting only 7.7 percent. That is not an accurate presentation of numbers and I tried to explain this on the radio in order for listeners to understand how the budget is cut. I said that Malacaang gave to us dalawang bayong. Dalawang bayong po ang ibinigay po sa atin ng Malacaang. This is the budget. Isang bayong diyan ay nagco-contain ng two loaves of breadunsliced but in full. One loaf is called central office, one loaf is called nationwide. So, at this point, the bread has not been sliced, and you could not determine whether it goes to Luzon, Visayas or Mindanao. The other bayong is a bayong full of eggs. Assuming that the total cost of items in the two bayongs is P100, the two loaves of bread cost P62 and the cost of the eggs in the other bayong is P38. Of the P38.00, assuming you have onepeso eggs and there are 20 eggs, P20 goes to Luzon; 7.7, or round it off to eight, you have eight one-peso eggs going to Visayas; and 10 one-peso eggs going to Mindanao. I would

64 be dismayed indeed if Mindanao only gets 10 percent and Visayas gets 7.7, meaning, they only get 10 eggs or eight eggs. But that is not the fact, Mr. Speaker. Dalawang bayong po ang ibinigay sa atin. Malacaang did not just give one bayong full of eggs, but they gave us two bayongsone of eggs and one of loaves of bread. So, that is the presentation I made and hopefully that would make it clear to our simple folks that there are two bayongs and not just one bayong of eggs, Mr. Speaker. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Taada). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. ORTEGA (F.). Mr. Speaker, may we now recognize the Gentleman from the Third District of Pampanga, the Honorable Gonzales, for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Hon. Dong Gonzales from the Third District of Pampanga is now recognized. REP. GONZALES (A.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Magandang gabi po sa ating lahat. Ito pong mga tanong na ito, hindi lang po ako na-satisfy at gusto ko pong malaman ang sagot dito sa mga clarificatory questions. Ito pong DBCC, hindi ba ho sinabi ng Chairman kanina na it is composed of the Department of Finance, the NEDA, the Office of the President, and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas? Am I right, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, however, the official from BSP is a resource person not a member, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Yes, I thank the Chairman for that. Ang tanong ko po noong una sa inyo, kung halimbawa po iyong ating MOOE, iyong Capital Outlay at saka iyong Personal Serviceskung pagsama-samahin ninyo po ito, that is our budget for 2011. Am I right, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Dito po sa tatlo, saan po pumapasok ang mga revenues, ang mga taxes sa ating budget for 2011? Para at least alam ko lang po ang aking sinasagot at malaman ko rin po kung saan pumupunta itong mga taxes of these three that I mentioned, Mr. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 employee ay sumasahod ng halimbawa X amount, magkano po ang nakakaltas na taxes sa ating mga empleyado sa gobyerno? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, for employees such as the good Gentleman, just like us, there is a withholding tax and it would depend on the salary that we receive; there is a schedule. May ladder po iyan at hindi po fixed ang percentage, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Kasi po base sa aking pag-aaral, kung sumasahod po ang isang empleyado, ang nakakaltas po sa kanyang sweldo ay almost 30 percent. So, kung susumahin ko po iyon, mula sa sahod sa bawat grado ng ating empleyado sa ibat ibang ahensiya ay parang napakalaki po ng nakakaltas sa ating mga empleyado. Is that part of our revenues, as indicated in our BESF, MOOE and Capital Outlay, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, probably, the 30 percent is not all taxes. I am sure the deductions for Pag-IBIG and GSIS, and other personal deductions or dues are part of that deduction. So, the 30 percent might be a little too high as pure tax deductions, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is the employees overtime pay, nata-tax na po iyon. Iyong honoraria ng bawat empleyado, nata-tax na po iyon. Iyong pagkaltas po ng GSIS, alam ko po nakakaltas na po iyon. Ito po ay dumideretso sa National Treasury o ang BIR ang kumukolekta sa lahat ng mga taxes and the BIR remits to the National Treasury, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the BIR is a collection agency and they remit to the National Treasury, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). So, for those taxes included in our budget as far as the 2011 budget is concerned, how did the agency arrive at these taxes? Ito ba ay kasama na sa ating budget for 2011? Kung hindi po kasama, nag-a-add on pa po ba tayo sa ating budget sa 2011? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, if the question is: does the BIR tax government projects, the answer is yes, it does, and the taxes exacted by the BIR are already included in the projected revenue, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). So, meaning, in short, ang mga taxes ng lahat po ng ating mga empleyado ay pumapasok na po roon sa mga taxes na sasama na natin sa revenues ng ating budget for 2011? REP. ABAYA. Opo, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Salamat po. Iyong pangalawa po, mayroon po tayong tinatawag sa budget, in one agency like, for example, the DA, the Department of Public Works and Highwaysif we are the Congresspersons in this Chamber, we have a P70-million budget for a year and, of that, 30 percent is for soft projects, and 40 percent is for hard projects. In the 40 percent budget for the hard projects, we make a request to the Committee on Appropriations and, if it

REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the taxes are revenues. The BESF, MOOE and CO are expenditures. Partially, the BESF, MOOE and CO are funded by our taxes, revenues, and also we have non-revenue sources like loans, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). So, you mean, Mr. Speaker, this is a chop suey of where our taxes go? Part of it goes to MOOE, Capital Outlay and Personal Services. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Mayroon lang po akong tanong dito at medyo nalilito lang po ako. Kung ang isang government

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 gets the approval of the Speaker, the Speaker and the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations will submit that to the Department of Budget and Management. If the Department of Budget and Management accepts that, of course, that is our budget, and they will prepare the Special Allotment Release Order. Hindi po ba ganyan, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Ang tanong po, kung ang isang Kongresista ay may request na P20 million, and the DBM will release the SARO for example to the DPWH, ang alam ko po, ang P20 million ay didiretso sa Department of Public Works and Highways at hindi kakaltas ang DBM dito. Hindi po ba ganyan ang proseso, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Kapag nasa DPWH central office na po ang Special Allotment Release Order, the said office will release this sa ibat ibang distrito natin. For example, that P20 million, I understand mayroon po silang tinatawag na regional at central office fees. Para sa kaalaman po ng mga kasama nating Kongresista at para matututunan natin ang proseso, if we have P70 million and that P40 million for our hard projects, the DPWH central office will deduct 0.75 percent, the DPWH will deduct 0.50 percent, the DPWH subengineering office will deduct 2.25 percent, and that will total to 3.5 percent. So, tama po ba na sa P20 million na pondo, makakaltasan na kaagad ito ng 3.5 percent, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Kapag ang proseso ng budget na iyan ay pinasubasta na natin or this implementing agency will apply the Procurement Act, kung sinuman po ang mananalo riyan, mayroong two percent withholding tax at five percent na value-added tax. Tama po ba, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Taada relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Maria Isabelle Beng G. Climaco. REP. GONZALES (A.). In short, Mme. Speaker, if we add the 3.5 percent and the 7 percent, magiging 10.5 percent na po ang mawawala sa P20 million budget ng bawat Kongresista rito sa House of Representatives na dapat mapupunta sa ating constituents. So, 10.5 percent is automatically deducted sa ating mga pondo. Am I correct, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mme. Speaker, there is such a deduction. REP. GONZALES (A.). Mme. Speaker, 10.5 percent of P20 million is already P2,100,000. Kung ang isang Kongresista ay makakaltasan ng P2,100,000, sa P40 million ay makakaltasan ng P4,200,000 ang bawat Kongresista. Tama po ba ito, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mme. Speaker.

65 REP. GONZALES (A.). So, ang P40 million po natin ay makakaltasan ng P4,200,000. Ang P40 million natin ay magiging P35,600,000, at iyon lamang ang mapupunta sa hard project na maiuuwi sa bawat distrito natin, Mme. Speaker . Kung makakaltasan tayo ng P4,200,000 times 277 Members of the House, magkano po lahat, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Hindi ko po nasundan, Mme. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Ang sinabi ko po, kung sa P40 millionhalimbawa lamang ito sa atin mga Kongresistana pondo natin para sa hard projects ay kakaltasan ng 10.5 percent, magkano ang P40 million each hard project times 10.5 percent, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mahigit ng kaunti sa P4 million, Mme. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). I think that is P4,100,000, if I am not mistaken, Mme. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Assuming that is P4,100,000, Mme. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Let us multiply that to 277 Congressmen, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Roughly that is, P1.135 billion, Mme. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Malinaw po na P1.135 billion for a year ang makakaltas sa ating PDAF na ukol sa P40 million hard projects natin. The question is: is this P1.135 billion included already in our 2011 budget, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, it is included because in a P40 million SARO, that is fully a part of the budget. However, we have a tax that is part of the 10.5 percent that goes to BIR, and that is likewise included in the projected revenues. For the 3.5 percent of the administration cost on engineering and planning, that is actually spent on the project implementation. However, that is not part of the MOOE of the DPWH, thus, it is not a part of its budget. REP. GONZALES (A.). I understand, Mme. Speaker, that those taxes will not go to the Department of Public Works and Highways but will be collected by the BIR, which in turn will remit them to the National Treasury. So, hindi po napupunta iyan sa bawat ahensya. At the end of the year or every 10th of the month, sinisingil ito ng BIR to be remitted to the National Treasury. Ang ibig sabihin, hindi nare-remit ito sa bawat ahensya ng gobyerno kundi sa National Treasury. So, at the end of the year, with all these pending, lahat po ng pera na natitira sa national agencies ay bumabalik sa National Treasury. Tama ba, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Opo. Ang 7 percent ng 10.5 percent ay kinokolekta ng BIR at pumupunta sa National Treasury, Mme. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). So, malinaw po na ang P1.135 billion ay nawawala na kaagad sa mga Congressmen at napupunta sa ating gobyerno. Kaya hindi neto ang P40 million

66 na nakukuha natin sa gobyerno because this is less 10.5 percent of our yearly budget, Mme. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, halos pinapaikot lamang ng gobyerno ang pondo dahil hindi po talaga sa atin ito. Binibigyan po tayo ng P40 million ng gobyerno at itinuturo naman ng mga Congressman kung saan ito dadalhin. Ang nakokolektang buwis at bahagi ng admin cost ay muling bumabalik sa gobyerno. REP. GONZALES (A.). Tama po iyon, Mme. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Umiikot lamang sa ating ekonomiya ang pondo, Mme. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Yes, Mme. Speaker. I understand na ito palang P1.135 billion ay kasama na po sa backup ng ating budget for a year. This is one institution na mayroon na tayong P1.135 billion, na kung pagsasama-samahin natin ang lump sum, pagsasama-samahin natin ang ibat ibang dapat gawin pa ng gobyerno, with the proposed P1.645 trillion budget kung saan nata-tax na ang ating mga empleyado, natatax na ang ating mga proyekto, I think almost 60 percent of our budget ay nanggagaling na po sa atin mismo. Umiikot sa atin. Nagre-revolve na sa ating bansa ang taxes na ginagawa sa ating budget. In the next three hours, I think we will approve this budget on Second Reading. Iyon lang po ang gusto kong malinawan o iklaro sa ating Chairman, Mme. Speaker. At least nalaman ko na ngayon na ang taxes ay pumupunta at sinasama na sa budget for 2011. REP. ABAYA. Opo, Mme. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Salamat po, Mme. Speaker. Sana po sa susunod, para hindi na tayo magtagal, kasi in our practice, pinupuntahan lang tayo ng mga Usec, ng mga Asec, at ng mga regional directors every budget hearing. Sana huwag ganyan. Sana pagka-approve ng budget na ito, tapos gagawa na naman ng budget for 2012, let us invite to this august Bodyfor example, as I have said before, I gave my copy to Sec. Butch Abad before my privilege speechthe Regional Development Assembly as embodied in EO No. 308 during the time of Pres. Cory Aquino or the Regional Development Council during that time of President Ramos. Members of Congress are only advisory members of the Regional Development Council where the budget emanates. Ang pondo po ay nanggagaling sa regional offices natin. Marami rito ang mga gobernador, mga mayor at mga executives na kung saan sila ang nakikipag-meeting sa Regional Development Council. I have no objection on that, Mme. Speaker. Sana po, kahit isama lang tayo sa Regional Development Council para makipag-meeting, kahit hindi tayo regular members, just to suggest the concerns of our districts, ng ating lalawigan at rehiyon, Mme. Speaker. Alam ko po that NEDA is a member of this DBCC, and they did not convene the RDC in my region. Kung alam ko lang, sana naimbita ako. Kaya nga lang, ang Congressman ay hindi naman miyembro ng Regional Development Council, kaya nagkakaroon ng medyo mahabang diskusyon at deliberasyon sa pag-approve ng budget. Ang akin lang

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 sinasabi rito, sana sa next budget, from the Cabinet Secretary down the line to the regional directors, like the department order of the DepEd, there will be coordination among us with the RDC. Kahit po observer lang tayo, we may suggest na ito ang ating mga prayoridad, na dapat gawin sa bawat ahensiya ng gobyerno. Iyon lang po, Mme. Speaker. Mme. Speaker, sana po, NEDA would inform the regional directors because they are the vice chairmen of the Regional Development Council. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mme. Speaker. I think by law, this is purely an Executive function. However, if the wisdom of Congress is to allow a Congressman to be a member or an observer in the RDC, then we could pass such amendment; but lacking that, I am sure a phone call or two could suffice in inviting a Congressman to sit in, Mme. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (A.). Thank you, Mme. Speaker. Although we are not a voting member, kagaya ng nasabi ko, sana po ay maisama ang Members of the House of Representatives. Salamat po sa pagsagot at sa panahon na ibinigay sa akin. Isa na lang po, Mme. Speaker, gusto ko lang bigyang linaw ang sagot ng ating butihing Chairman ng Appropriations Committee sa aking tanong during my first interpellation, sa pagkakasma ng Bacolor Rehabilitation sa unprogrammed funds for 2010, as well as its non-inclusion in the 2011 National Expenditure Program. Sa veto message po ng dating Presidente, si Presidente Arroyo, tungkol sa special provision ng ungprogrammed funds, there is an item number six, entitled: Support for the Infrastructure Project and Social Program. The amount authorized under purpose number five, P50 billion may be used for the implementation of the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Master Plan for the town of Bacolor, Pampanga, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9506, dated September 28, 2008. Hindi po tinanggal ang nasabing probisyon, pero ito ay isinailalim sa conditional implementation. Ang veto message para sa nasabing item ay matatagpuan sa pahina 1,234 ng 2010 GAA. Number seven is the unprogrammed funds special provision; and number six is support for the infrastructure projects and social programs. Makikita po natin ito on page 993. Ito po ang veto message ng dating Pangulo, kung saan nasasaad: To ensure uniformity in the implementation on the special provision, I hereby task the DBM to coordinate with the various agencies concerned and come up with a set of rules, criteria in lining up the proposed projects to be funded under purpose number five, support for infrastructure projects and social programs under the unprogrammed fund. Ako po ay naniniwala na talagang may intensyon ang ating pamahalaan na bigyang pansin ang hinaing ng aking mga kadistrito lalo na ang nasalanta ng lahar, katulad ng bayan ng Bacolor, kung kaya isinama sa unprogrammed fund ang gastusin para sa pagsasaayos ng munisipyo at iba pang pagagawa sa nasabing bayan. Umaasa ako na ganoon din ang gagawin natin para sa 2011 budget, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, tulad nga ng nasabi ko, kung hindi mailalagay sa specific line items ang pondo sa pagpapagawa ng bayan ng Bacolor. Ako ay magagalak, masisiyahan at

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 pwede pang ibalita, makita ko lang ito muli under the unprogrammed fund for 2011, at sasaya na ang aking mga kalalawigan, ang aking mga kadistrito at aking mga kababayan. I have here a letter which I shall be submitting to the Chairman, Mme, Speaker. On that note, distinguished Sponsor, Mme. Speaker, maraming, maraming salamat po. Magandang gabi. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). Thank you very much, Hon. Aurelio Gonzales. REP. ABAYA. Salamat po, and I will gladly accept the letter. Mme. Speaker, if it is of any good news, I heard the administration tax has been brought down from 3.5 percent to 3 percent or a drop of 0.5 percent. REP. GONZALES (A.). Thank you, Mme. Speaker. REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, may we recognize the Hon. Rafael V. Mariano for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Climaco). The Hon. Rafael Mariano is recognized. REP. MARIANO. Maraming salamat po, Mme. Speaker, magandang gabi po distinguished Sponsor, dear colleagues. Sa ilalim po ng Republic Act No. 9970 o ang General Appropriations Act for the Fiscal Year 2010, sa pahina 926 at 927, naglaan o nag-appropriate tayo ng P8 billion para sa National Food Authority. Malinaw dito na ang P8 billion ay gagamitin para sa stabilization and food security. Mayroon din pong special provision hinggil diyan na atin naman pong matutunghayan at mababasa sa pahina 947. Ganito po ang isinasaad at nais ko pong i-quote, sa number 11: Subsidy to the National Food Authority.The amount of Eight Billion Pesos (P8,000,000,000) appropriated as subsidy for the NFA shall be used exclusively for its price stabilization and food security program. The NFA shall buy directly from farmers or their organizations, whose names together with the quantity purchased and the price paid shall be listed and verified under oath by the NFA, and posted in the municipal hall, public market or other conspicuous public places in the municipality where the farmers live: PROVIDED, That funds for the purpose shall be released in time for the harvest season: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That in cases of calamities, fortuitous events, or shortfall in production, such amount or a portion thereof, may be used for the importation of rice and corn as recommended by the NFA Council and approved by the President: PROVIDED, FINALLY, That the pricing scheme for imported rice and corn shall, as far as practicable, consider the full cost recovery.

67 Maitanong nga po ng Kinatawang ito, gaano na po ang nai-release ng DBM para sa National Food Authority bilang pag-alinsunod sa partikular na probisyon o special provision na akin pong binasa? Iyon po ang parang implementing provision noong paglalaan po natin ng P8 billion para sa NFA, for stabilization and food security, as contained in Republic Act No. 9970, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, iyong buong halaga na P8 billion ay na-release na po. REP. MARIANO. Ang ibig pong sabihin, hawak na po ngayon ng National Food Authority, na-download na sa mga NFA provincial offices at namimili na po ang NFA. Ang balita ko po ang halaga lamang ng isang kilong palay ngayon ay naglalaro sa P11 hanggang P12 kada kilo. REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, ang alam po natin ay naibaba na po. Hindi ko lang po masagot kung namimili na po ang NFA. REP. MARIANO. Hihingi na lang po ng balitang totoo ang Kinatawang ito. Hindi ko na po uulitin. Na-quote ko na po ang batas na lumikha sa National Food Authority, ang PD No. 4, na sinusugan pa po ng mga kasunod na mga batas na nagmamando sa NFA na mamili directly sa mga magsasaka natin ng palay at mais para tiyakin ang food security at stabilization ng supply at presyo, lalo na ng bigas sa ating bansa. Sa pagkakaalam ko po, sa National Expenditure Program natin, wala pong nakalaan for Fiscal Year 2011 para sa National Food Authority. Ibig po bang sabihin nito, ang mga ahensya at mga korporasyon natin na may original charter at may malinaw na mandato ay zero budget, at iyong wala namang mga legal bases o tinutuntungang mga batas ay bilyun-bilyon po ang nakalaang pondo? May I have the comment or the response of the distinguished Sponsor, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, the DBM submitted an errata and now we have a P2.5 billion under the NFA. REP. MARIANO. So, hindi po ang kabuuang P8 bilyon na dating naka-allocate po sa NFA para sa taong 2010. Hanggang P2.5 billion na lamang po ba iyon o maaari pa pong maikonsidera na kahit man lamang ang P8 billion na appropriated for the National Food Authority for the Fiscal Year 2010 ay maipagkaloob din po for the Fiscal Year 2011? Pwede po bang makahingi ng commitment mula sa DBMDBCC, distinguished Sponsor, Mme. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mme. Speaker, probably their errata or a congressional authorization would be P2.5 billion na manggagaling po sa EPP. Isa pong source iyan na pwedeng pagkunan. However, as to the additional, maaari pong umutang ang NFA kung kailangan para makapamili pa nang higit sa P2.5 billion kung kailangan, Mme. Speaker. REP. MARIANO. Ibig pong sabihin, pupunuan na lang po nila ang kulang pa para umabot sa P8 billion sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng kanilang credit line.

68 REP. ABAYA. Opo, iyon ang direksyon na pupuntahan natin, Mme. Speaker. REP. MARIANO. Sana po ay maikonsidera pa rin ng kasalukuyang administrasyong Aquino ang panawagan ko at ang hinaing ng ating mga magsasaka na ma-restore man lamang sa kagyat ang P8 bilyon para sa NFA for Fiscal Year 2011. Susunod po, pakikonsidera rin po ang zero budget na inilaan para sa Quedancor. Mayroon din pong original charter iyan. Kung babalikan po natin ang kasaysayan ng Quedancor, ito po ang dating Quedan Guarantee Fund Board na naging Quedancor bilang isang korporasyon at itinatag noong ika13 ng Abril 1993 sa bisa ng Republic Act No. 7393, sa ilalim ng administrasyon ng dating Pangulong Corazon C. Aquino. Subalit ngayon po, for 2011, una vez, wala nang budget para sa Quedancor. Napakahalaga po ng Quedancor dahil ang mandato po niya ay palakasin ang daloy ng puhunan at pautang sa bansa upang mapaunlad po ang produksiyon, mapataas ang bilang ng hanapbuhay at mapagkakakitaan, upang maging daan sa pag-angat ng pamumuhay ng bawat mamamayan lalo na po ng mga mahihirap na magsasaka at mangingisda sa kanayunan. Kaya, hinihiling po na pakikonsidera naman. Nais po nating i-address iyan, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, sa DBM, sa DBCC at sa buong gobyernong Aquino sa kasalukuyan. At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Climaco relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Lorenzo R. Taada III. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the previous administration of Quedancor loaned the amount of P5 billion without authority. This is then being studied and reviewed on how to rehabilitate or put into order the Quedancor. On the PS-MOOE requirements of the Quedancor for 2011, they have a P150 million collectible, so I think that should be sufficient to shoulder the PS-MOOE for 2011. However, the review of the Quedancor is currently being undertaken, Mr. Speaker. REP. MARIANO. I thank the distinguished Sponsor. Sana ay maikonsidera pa rin po ang apila ng Kinatawang ito hinggil sa pagbibigay ng kaganapan kung paano maipatutupad ng Quedancor ang ipinagkaloob na mandato sa kanya sa pamamagitan po ng batas na lumikha sa kanya, sa charter niya, ayon sa Republic Act No. 7393. Matanong ko lamang pothe Quedancors remaining P100 million equity appropriation for Fiscal Year 2009 and the P190 million equity for Fiscal Year 2010ito po ba ay narelease na ng DBM sa Quedancor? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the 2010 equity has not been released. We are checking if the 2009 equity has been released. REP. MARIANO. So, baka kailangang i-release na kung ano po ang ipinagkaloob sa kanila for 2010. Huwag na po nating hintayin ang December 31 o January 1 para ma-release na iyan. Iyan naman po ay appropriated. Pwede po bang makuha ang commitment ng DBM, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Pag-aaralan po, Mr. Speaker, because this is all part of the review in order to assess and rehabilitate the Quedancor.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. MARIANO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sana po ay ma-consider ito at bahagi rin po ng pag-aaral sa economc point of view, hindi lang sa fiscal and financial points of view, ang kahalagahan ng pag-iral at pagpapatupad ng mandato ng Quedancor. Susunod po, kasi kanina po, napagsarhan ako ng pinto on General Principles and Provisions at maging sa lump sum ay napagsarhan din po ako ng pinto at bintana. Kung mamarapatin po, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, may dalawang tanong lang po ako patungkol dito sa General Provisions. Kung hindi naman po ako maa-out of order, Mr. Speaker, dalawang clarificatory questions lang po. REP. ABAYA. Sige po, buksan natin ang balkonahe. REP. MARIANO. Salamat po. Dito po sa Section 12 on General Provisions, kaugnay po ito sa donations. Babasahin ko po: Donations.Departments, bureaus, offices or agencies may accept donations, contributions, grants, bequests or gifts, in cash or in kind, from various sources, domestic or foreign, for purposes relevant to their functions: PROVIDED, That in case of donations from foreign governments, acceptance thereof shall be subject to the prior clearance and approval by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That the DA through the National Agricultural and Fishery Council is hereby authorized to determine the utilization of the United States Public Law 480 Title I Program Grant and the RP-Japan Increased Food Production Program Grant in accordance with the objectives of R.A. No. 8435. Ano po ang ibig sabihin nito? Ang poder po ng pagdedetermina ng utilization ng US Public Law 480, commodity loan man o commodity grant ay nasa NAPC po. Ang kagyat na approval nito, sa Secretary po ba ng Department of Agriculture, sa Secretary ng Department of Budget and Management o mismong sa Presidente ng Republika ng Pilipinas, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the approval process would start from the NAPC to the NEDA, and ultimately to the President, Mr. Speaker. REP. MARIANO. Thank you, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. Huling clarificatory questions na lang po. Pakitingnan lang po ng Sponsor ang pahina 1,642 ng NEP, Section 83 po. Ganito po ang sinasabi: Allocation for Mindanao.Thirty percent (30%) of the applicable lump sum appropriations integrated in the budget of agencies under this Act shall be allocated for projects, programs and activities for the development of Mindanao. Pwede po bang makahingi ng paliwanag dito? Bakit wala naman pong para sa Luzon at sa Visayas? Ang ibig po bang sabihin ng tig-35 percent ay sa Visayas sa halip na 7 percent

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 at 35 percent po ang sa Luzon para sa development naman ng dalawang malalaking isla? Ganoon po ba? Maari po bang makahingi po ng kaukulang paliwanag hinggil dito dahil baka po sa 30 percent na ito, kung saan maaprubahan natin ang special provisions sa Section 83, ay hindi naman po nagrereflect dito sa mga lump sum ang ibat ibang departamento at ahensya. Makahingi nga po ng paliwanag, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, that provision has been there all along and most likely put in by a good Gentleman from Mindanao. However, we would very much welcome a new provision putting in what is for Luzon and Visayas. However, that would open a debate on how much should Luzon and Visayas get. Probably, it would be better to debate on it after the approval of the budget, Mr. Speaker. REP. MARIANO. After the approval of the budget po. So, for now, hanapin na lamang po natin ang para sa Luzon at sa Visayas doon sa mga lump-sum allocations ng ibat ibang departamento ng NCR. Ganoon po ba, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. ABAYA. We must be mindful that it is probably just a safety provision reflective of the sentiments of the people in Mindanao, kaya po siguro nilagyan ng 30 percent diyan, Mr. Speaker. REP. MARIANO. Napansin lang po ng Kinatawang ito na maikli lang po ang probisyon pero malaki po at mahalaga ang ibig sabihin. Tayo po namang lahat, maging ang Kinatawan pong ito, simulat simula pa, ay para sa tunay na pag-unlad ng Mindanao. Kaya po humihingi ng paglilinaw ang Kinatawang ito sa kapakinabangan na rin po ng ating mga kasamahan dito ngayon sa Fifteenth Congress sa House of Representatives, at upang mapag-alaman din naman ng mga mamamayan natin sa Visayas at Luzon kung nasaan ba iyong 70 percent dahil ang 30 percent ay nasa Mindanao. So, iyon lamang po, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. Tingnan na rin po sana bago maaprubahan ang budget for Fiscal Year 2011 at hindi iyong after na maaprubahan natin ang budget, saka pa natin hahanapin kung ilan naman ang ilalaan natin for the development of the Visayas and the development of Luzon? Maraming-maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, at sa atin pong mga kapwa Kinatawan. Magandang gabi po sa inyong lahat. REP. ABAYA. Salamat po. Pag-aaralan po natin bago ma-approve ang budget kung mailalagay po natin ang tamang porsyento para sa Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Hon. Danilo E. Suarez be recognized for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Gentleman from the Third District of Quezon, the Hon. Danilo Suarez, is recognized.

69 REP. SUAREZ. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, it will be very brief. The good Secretary used to be a Member of the House of Representatives, and when we go to our district, there is this feeling of respect, admiration and a sense that we are too influential and powerful. Iyan po ang tingin sa Congressman. This will be my sixth term. I remember during my first term, nagkaroon ho kami ng malakas na bagyo, and my first order to the district engineer is to buy a GI roofing and have an immediate replacement. I was politely told that we cannot buy GI roofing or construction materials. So, sabi ko bakit? Hindi ba karapatan natin? Bagyo eh, sira ang mga schools? Hindi ho pwede kasi ang inyo hong funds ay capital outlay. Kaya para magamit mo at ma-repair mo iyan, ipapa-bid mo at gagawa ka ng notice na invitation to bid, which is the usual procedure. Iba ang calamity. Nariyan na nga na wala ng bubong ang ating mga classrooms, and yet, gaya ng sinabi ko, ang expectation ng ating mga constituents ay we have some influence on funds, and yet, it is a disappointment. Kaya hindi lamang noong Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Congresses. Mukha namang ngayon ay may kaliwanagan na. Ang purpose ko lang ho ay, maliwanag na ho ba ito na, henceforth, for the benefit of the first termers at second termers, pwede na ba naming utusan at pakiusapan at bigyan ng order ang aming district engineer na bumili ng construction materials kapag nagkaroon ng calamity? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify. Ito bang ibibili ng DE ay saan manggagaling ang pondo, sa Public Works or sa PDAF ng Congressman, Mr. Speaker? REP. SUAREZ. Pangalawang issue po iyan sapagkat may mga Congressmen na malaki ang pangangailangan sa PDAF na soft at mayroon po namang Member na mas malaki ang pangangailangan sa hard. Hindi ho talaga magkakaroon ng equity iyan na pantay-pantay. Kaya, iyon hong sinabi sa atin, although you are giving us the leeway of being flexible on how we can adapt to our controlled funds, my point is that, I think, it will be better if we allow our respective district engineers to do the procurement themselves considering that because of their vast experience in the area, they can get the best price for the money that is allocated to themmeaning, the cheapest, the fastest. So, kung ang line of thought ho ng ating Secretary ay gamitin ang PDAF, then we go back to the issue of giving the money to the local government units. Then we go back to the basic politics, again, na ang tinamaan ng bagyo o nagkaroon ng calamity, because of the color of politics, hindi natin mayor, we are adamant. We are not comfortable. So, ang akin pong interpellation, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, ay on stretching the funds that we can use, stretching and making it countmeaning, transparency in the expenditures. REP. ABAYA. Kailangang pag-aralan dahil hindi ko pa rin kabisado ang paggalaw ng pondo sa district engineer. I suppose there should be funds alloted for the district and as to how it wouldI guess we are talking about hard funds here. REP. SUAREZ. That is correct.

70 REP. ABAYA. Not soft funds. On soft funds, probably assistance to indigents could actually accommodate such situations during calamities. On the hard funds, I have to check on the procedures of the DBM and the COA, how to make funds available part of the DE and how emergency procurement could be done in cases of calamity, Mr. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. Let me clarify further, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. I mentioned on several occasions, as we discussed, the honorable Sponsor and this Representation as members of the Minority, trying to thresh out the meaning of stretching our budget. There are but several occasions wherein we have different schools, high school and elementary; we have schools with a population of a thousand, even 2,000lalapit po sa atin at hihingi ng covered court. Noong araw, iyan ho ay napakalaking pangarap na magkaroon ng isang covered court o covered hall ang isang eskwelahan, ngunit ngayon, ito ay pangkaraniwan na lang. It costs us. Malaki ho ang nawawala sa ating pondo at maaaring kapag dumating na ang calamity ay wala na ho tayong pera sapagkat napakahirap tanggihan ang ating mga teachers at principals na humihingi sila ng isang gusali na may bubong at napakahirap ding tanggihan iyong katwiran na may graduation at uulanin at masisira ang araw because there is no roofing. Ngayon, ang atin pong hamon ay akin ang materyales pero sa iyo ang labor. With that, na-stretch na ang pera natin, nagkaroon ng magandang kulay ang gusali, working in tandem with the local residents that will be going there, doing the constructions themselves and, thereby, making it memorable. Itong building na ito ay napagawa sa pagtutulungan ng national government, public works, mga Congressman at samahan ng mga guro. Iyon po ang stretching na sinasabi ko. Kaya bakit hindi hindi ho natin bigyan ng karapatan ang Congressman na mag-identify na pwedeng sabihin, Bumili ka ng isang libong semento, o Bumili ka ng tatlong daang GI roofing at structural steel bars. Sila ho ang mag-iipon at magkakaroon sila ng mga contests na kung anu-ano para makapag-raise ng funds sa PTA at babalik sa iyo at sasabihing, May pera na kami sa labor, materyales na lang po kagaya ng inyong ipinangako. Mas hahaba po at, for the clarificatory issues, kapag nagpagawa ka ng isang covered court ngayon na sumusukat ng mga 150 square meters, ito ho ay hindi bababa sa dalawang milyon. Ngunit kung ang gagawin natin ay sosyo tayo ng PTA, maaaring kung gusto ng local government units, sumama sila. Ito ho ay hindi aabutin ng P800,000, distinguished Sponsor. Naging makulay pa iyong gusali. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, kung pakikinggan po natin ay parang construction ho ito by administration. In fact, the purchase of materials could be done through the soft. However, kailangan po nating pag-aralang mabuti kung pwedeng gawin ito sa hard at kung ang purchase of materials ay pwedeng gamitin sa hard, Mr. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. By the way, the budget is being presented to us, distinguished Sponsor. Hindi na ho ito Capital Outlay. Iyon pong pera, hindi na ho classified as Capital Outlay. So, may leeway na ho tayo kasi iyon po ang sinasabi that we will be questioned by the COA. Sapagkat ang sinasabi riyan, sa Capital Outlay mo lang pwedeng gamitin iyong hard mo.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. ABAYA. Kailangang pag-aralan po talaga, Mr. Speaker. Mahirap pong sagutin ngayon, pero ipinapangako po na pag-aaralan natin iyan. REP. SUAREZ. Habang pinag-aaralan po nila ay babanggitin ko na itong napakaselang issue. Siguro ho, kalahati sa ating mga Congressmen ay nasa typhoon belt. Tinatamaan tayo ng typhoon taun-taon. Gaya ng sinabi ko, napakahirap ipaliwanag na binibisita mo iyong damaged area mo at wala kang magawa nang mabilis sapagkat kahit na gamitin mo ang iyong soft ay iikot ka pa rin sa dating pamamaraan na gagamitin ko, ia-allocate ko, hihingi ako ng sulat mula sa leadership ng House, addressed sa Committee on Appropriations, at pipirmahan ng Speaker. Maglalagay ako ng isang milyong piso sa DSWD para bumili ng construction materials para sa rehab ng mga nasirang eskwelahan, buwan-buwan po, distinguished Sponsor. Yet, we feel helpless on this issue. Ang sinasabi ko lang, tayo ay sa puntong daang matuwid. Heto ho ang daang matuwid. Pahabain natin ang ating nakalaang salapi na pwede nating pagtuunan ng ating kapangyarihan bilang Congressman sa tamang pamamaraan at sa mabuting paggastos. REP. ABAYA. Opo at maganda po iyong suggestion, at sisiguraduhin po na mapag-aaralan at kung maipapasok po natin sa menu natin, then, bakit hindi, Mr. Speaker? REP. SUAREZ. So, can we have a firm assurance, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, from our former colleague, Secretary Abad, na Congressman din naman noong araw? Palagay ko ay naiintindihan po niya iyong handicap natin bilang isang mambabatas na pinaniniwalaan ng ating mga constituents ang ating wholesome power and influence REP. ABAYA. Well, the REP. SUAREZ. na gaya ng sinabi ko, nasisira po ang paniniwala sa atin, sapagkat hindi pala kaya ng kita mo na iyong mga bata ay pumapasok nang walang bubong iyong eskwelahan, and yet, we cannot do anything, but there is money. Hindi ho ba napaka-helpless natin sa ganoong kalagayan? REP. ABAYA. Totoo po iyon, at pag-aaralan lang pong mabuti at REP. SUAREZ. Okay. REP. ABAYA. kakausapin po nating mabuti ang ating butihing Secretary. REP. SUAREZ. Pangalawa hong isyu ay iyong tungkol po sa bidding. Iyan hong bidding ay tamang pamamaraan para makuha natin ang lowest contractor that will comply. Ang nakita ko, at educate me on this because, I have said, it is very difficult to be in the Minority. Ngayon ko lang ho kasi nakita itong mga isyung ito. Now, I have the option to stand and raise my concern. Noong araw ay tumatahimik na lang ako, although, I can see that there may be some rooms for improvement. Ang problema po ng mga biddings ngayon ay ito. Nakaonline po iyan. Nag-advertise ang isang Congressman.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 Magpapagawa siya ng isang maliit na footbridge na nagkakahalaga ng P2 million. Mayroon po riyang sasali na iyon pong lugar ay sa Cavite, sa iyong distrito. May darating diyang bidder na taga-Baguio, may taga-Cebu, may tagaDavao. Pupunta ho riyan, may dalang mga qualifying papers at sasali na alam naman nating wala namang planong gawin talaga iyong project at gusto lang sumali, with the intention of making a warning to qualified bidders na pag ako ay hindi mo inareglo, ida-dive ko ang presyo. Marami kaming experiences and I think my colleagues will vouch for me. Marami kaming instances na kumuha kami ng kontratista na hindi tagaamin at kapag palpak ang trabaho, hindi mo na makita. It would be far better with our limited money for very important projects na makita natin na tamang mai-apply sa project at natapos nang maayos. Ang tawag ho natin diyan ay sahuran. Papano kaya natin mabibigyan ng katugunan ito na iyong peso namin ay hindi namin ma-stretch sapagkat pagdating ng bidding, iyong kontratista natin ay iiyak at sasabihin na mayroon po ritong sasali tapos pag i-award mo, hindi naman gagawin; sapagkat wala namang plano talagang gawin iyong project at ang gusto lang ay sumali at kumita. Can we come up with a remedial measure so that the leadership of the DBM can address this very sensitive issue? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, our procurement process is governed by the new procurement law. REP. SUAREZ. I am aware of that. REP. ABAYA. Offhand, probably, we could amend the law and put a bidding, carefully thought of, the same as how ABCs are set, then we have arranged legitimate bids. So, that offhand is a suggestion. However, I am sure that given time, we could come up with more suggestions, Mr. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. We did have an audience. The Secretary of Public Works is most amenable to some improvement in the system. Meaning, certain amount of money should be done only by local contractors, extra amount of money in a certain project, and a qualifying bidder must only be coming from the area. Ang isang dahilan doon, pareho tayong Congressman, nag-award ka sa isang kontratistang tagaCavite. Mahihiya iyon na hindi gawin nang tama ang trabaho dahil naroon siya eh. Kapag ibinigay mo iyan sa isang estrangherong kontratista, pagkatapos, maaring iyong quality ng pagkakagawa ay hindi ayos, hindi mo na mahahanap kung nasaan siya. So, along that line, if indeed the answer of the good Secretary of the DBM is that there must be an amendment to the law, is it in the section of the law that online bidding is a prerequisite, that online bidding is allowed and a requirement? REP. ABAYA. It is mandatory, Mr. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. Therefore, if you want to have some amendments to the law and thereby encourage growth in the industry of our local contractor, then we must come up with amending the Government Procurement Act. Is that the answer of the good Secretary? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the good Gentleman from Quezon should not worry because one of the priority

71 bills of the President is indeed an amendment to the Procurement Law, Mr. Speaker. REP. SUAREZ. Well, along that line, Mr. Speaker, I just aired out the basic concerns of this Representation. Gaya ng sinabi natin, maaring sa Kongresong ito ay maayos natin iyong kamalian at maging kapakipakinabang sa mga darating na Kongreso. With that, I would like to thank our distinguished Sponsor for giving me this opportunity to air our concern. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the active participation of the good Gentleman from Quezon once we deliberate on the Government Procurement Law, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we recognize the honorable Minority Floor Leader, the Hon. Edcel C. Lagman. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The honorable Minority Floor Leader, the Hon. Edcel C. Lagman, is recognized for his interpellation. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, before I make a motion on behalf of the Minority on the proposed budget of the Department of Budget and Management, I would like to give some manifestations and a few questions. I would like to confirm what the distinguished Chairman said earlier that amendments will have to be affected by a small Committee based on the individual written proposals of the Members of the House, wherein the Members will be given a deadline within which to submit the proposed amendments. This would be for purposes of reflecting the amendments for Third Reading of the General Appropriations Bill. This has been practiced not only for the last nine years. In fact, it has been for the last 22 years since the Eighth Congress, which began in 1987. Several Members of the Eighth Congress are still with us in the Fifteenth Congress, and they could attest to this practice, like Reps. Rodolfo B. Albano, Salvador Sony H. Escudero III, Carlos Carling M. Padilla, Thelma Z. Almario, Victor F. Ortega, Orlando Lando B. Fua, Roger Oging G. Mercado, Pablo Pabling P. Garcia, Raul A. Daza, and this Representation, and also a part of that Eighth Congress is the honorable Secretary of the DBM, Butch Abad. And that is the practical reason for this practice because, if we allow amendments on the floor, it may take an eternity to finish the proposals only, not even the approval of these amendments. So, that is the reason we have this practice. However, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, in law, there is a principle, and our distinguished colleague, the Hon. Rudy Farias, would attest that there is no blind adherence to precedents or to jurisprudence, because the Supreme Court can depart from a settled ruling in subsequent cases. So, following that principle, this does not have to follow very strictly that tradition because there should be no idolatrous adherence to precedents. On very selective cases, we can depart when there are very contentious issues which

72 we have to resolve in order that a small committee can get a mandate from the plenary, but always, subject to the collective wisdom of the House. That is the practice and a possible departure from that practice on a very selective basis. Now, Mr. Speaker, may I now go to my questions. I am informed that the DBM has been forwarding communications to the Chairman, collectively identified as errata. How many errata have been submitted by the DBM as of tonight, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, there have been three sets. REP. LAGMAN. The three sets would constitute how many individual erratum? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the rough estimate is 50 items. REP. LAGMAN. And, would these be, exclusively, items of expenditure or are there errata on special or general provisions? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, it is a combination of special provision, correction likewise, on typographical errors. REP. LAGMAN. And how much is involved in these errata with respect to items of expenditure? Just more or less, Mr. Speaker , distinguished chairman. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, roughly, the major ones would be P2.5 billion for the NFA and P250 million for the communications office of the OP. The rest would be much minor, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. So, from that answer, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Chairman, we are made to understand that there is no erratum with respect to the proposed budget of the DSWD. REP. ABAYA. None, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. None. So, in particular, the conditional cash transfer allocation remains intact. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. And for the information and education of Members of the House, what is an erratum in relation to the National Expenditure Program? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, it is a correction to the NEP which dates back to the time that the NEP was forwarded to the House. REP. LAGMAN. In other words, an erratum is deemed to be retroactive? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. And how does an erratum differ from a Congressional insertion or a Congressional authorization? REP. ABAYA. An erratum, Mr. Speaker, is an act of the Executive while a Congressional initiative or actualization is an act of Congress.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. LAGMAN. Is it not that once the NEP is forwarded and received by the House of Representatives, any change, modification or alteration should already be a Congressional authorization? REP. ABAYA. I did not get the question. Sorry, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Is it not that once the National Expenditure Program is forwarded and received by the House of Representatives, any modification, alteration, correction or realignment should already be a Congressional authorization? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the errata merely correct the original submission. Honestly, when I, as the Chairman, first heard of the term, my immediate reaction was to ask if this was done by the previous Chairmen, and the Secretariat said that it was. So, I presumed there was a regularity to its practice and nothing irregular of it, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. That is correct. That is nothing novel. But before, the errata would constitute a few corrections or rectifications, but now, it appears to be a wholesale correction or rectification. REP. ABAYA. I generally agree. However, in 2010, the staff could recall that there was a P50-billion errata on the unprogrammed funds, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Unprogrammed, but not on the programmed funds. But anyway, I think the House should be happy with this kind of procedure of having errata, rather than Congressional initiative, because once there is an errata, we are certain that the items of expenditures will be released by the Executive. But if it is Congressional initiative or Congressional authorization, there is no certainty that these expenditures would be released. So, in that context, we should appreciate the practice of having errata. Would the distinguished Chairman agree to such statement? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the term is very much advantageous to the House. Likewise, I would like to relay an incredible errata story. One time at a bicameral conference committee meeting, an errata was introduced in order to address a convention or a summit at that time, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. On the other hand, this would inflame the apprehension of Members of the House that once they introduce Congressional insertions, the possibility is that it would not be released by the Executive. The Executive frowns on Congressional initiative, which I actually call Congressional authorization. Would that be also an accurate assertion? REP. ABAYA. Naturally, if the power of the purse is in Congress, the Executive which merely implements would frown upon the initial submission. However, they have nothing much to do when Congress, indeed, exercises its power of the purse, Mr. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. LAGMAN. On the contrary, we might have the power of the purse, but the power to disburse is superior to the power of the purse once they approve the General Appropriations Act. This has been validated by practices of the Executive, probably since time immemorial. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thus, a modification in our behavior should, indeed, be adopted such that a close coordination and continuous communication should be made. When, indeed, congressional authorizations are included then the chances of release would be much greater than before, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. But for the very selected cases, I would submit, Mr. Chairman, in order to underscore the power of the purse, that we should be able to take a vote on some very crucial issues so that the small committee would have a mandate from the floor. At the proper time, we would be proposing such a departure from the general practice. REP. ABAYA. I leave that to the wisdom of the plenary, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Just a last question. Is there any erratum with respect to the allocation for the Tulay ng Pangulo project? REP. ABAYA. None, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Thank you. Distinguished Chairman, that would allay the fears of some Members that the Tulay ng Pangulo had been re-aligned for other purposes under the budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform. Mr. Speaker, there are no other members of the Minority who have manifested any intention to ask questions on the proposed budget of the Department of Budget and Management. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minority, I move for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate with respect to the proposed budget of the Department of Budget and Management. (Applause) THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, since there is no member from the Majority who wishes to interpellate, we join the motion of the Minority to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Department of Budget and Management. I so move. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Department of Budget and Management is hereby terminated. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume the consideration on the proposed budget of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. SUSPENSION OF SESSION

73

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is suspended. It was 9:35 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 9:36 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is resumed. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume the consideration on the proposed budgets of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, including its attached agencies, and for that purpose, I move that we recognize the Sponsor, the Honorable Nava, and the Honorable Palatino, for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Honorable Nava and the Honorable Palatino are recognized. REP. NAVA. We are ready to answer the questions as far as the budget of the Department of Social Welfare and Development is concerned, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Please proceed. REP. PALATINO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. Mr. Speaker, I have several questions about the Conditional Cash Transfer program. I understand that the CCT, which was first implemented by the previous government, is a program which we copied from other countries. Is that right, Mr. Speaker? REP. NAVA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, there are dozens of CCT programs around the world. Ano po iyong model ng ating 4Ps? REP. NAVA. Actually, it is not a copy of what was implemented, but the principles, in a way, are the same with the other Conditional Cash Transfer programs implemented in the rest of the world. This Conditional Cash Transfer focuses on the targets. One of the targets is to improve the attendance of school children at least by 85 percent. Number two is to comply with the health protocols established by the Department of Health, as far as the DOH is concerned, as well as to meet the established protocol on maternal health, Mr. Speaker. This is an investment to promote human capital as well, and in a way, it provides emergency grants for household beneficiaries, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, I will cite a few examples of CCT programs in different countries. Mexicos CCT program was called Oportunidades. It was implemented in 1997 as the first nationwide CCT program in the world. Brazils CCT was named Bolsa Familia, implemented in 2003. It was and is still

74 the largest CCT program in the world. Chiles Solidario was implemented in 2002. Mr. Speaker, please take note of the years. CCTs program in Mexico was in 1997; Brazil in 2003; and Chile in 2002. After many years, Mr. Speaker, after more than a decade in Mexico, these countries are still implementing CCT programs. I understand, ito ang naging model ng DSWD para sa ating 4Ps. Tama po ba, Mr. Speaker? REP. NAVA. I think there are several existing CCTs all over the world before we came in. In fact, there are two CCTs in our region as well, one in Indonesia and one in Cambodia. At least in every continent, there is CCT being implemented. Even New York City has one. Maybe one way or another, there may be similarities. It may be safe to say that ours was packed according to my needs as well, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. I understand that our 4Ps is designed for only five yearsin the next five years. Is that right, Mr. Speaker? REP. NAVA. This is a five-year program. Yes. REP. PALATINO. Iyon po iyong aking next question. Why only five years if our model ay mga CCTs ng ibang bansa. What is unique with our 4Ps? What is its edge compared to the CCT of Latin American countries which need more than five years of implementation? The Mexicos CCT was implemented 1997 pa po. REP. NAVA. We cannot say that our existing traditions are the same with some other countries. Even in various programs like social health insurance, which may be seen in almost every continent in this world, but there are differences in the means of implementation and the ways they are designed. Ours in particular, the CCT or Conditional Cash Transfer has accompanying programs that in a way reciprocate the effects of the targets or the goals that we intend out of this Conditional Cash Transfer and in a way enhance the totality of various poverty reduction programs in the country. REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, what is the guarantee from the DSWD that after five years the inter-generational poverty will be finally solved? REP. NAVA. We can put it in a way that it is considered an inter-generational intervention because it aims to make children healthier than their parents. It aims to make children more educated than their parents on a long-term goal, Mr. Speaker. For that matter, the concept of inter-generational intervention to mitigate poverty is conceptualized in this program. REP. PALATINO. Learning from the experience of Latin American countries, it seems impossible to eradicate extreme poverty in the next five years. My fear is that after five years, the government or the DSWD will argue once more for the extension of the CCT. So, is there an assurance from the DSWD that the CCT program will be effective

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 only in the next five years and that there will be no more appeals for extension? REP. NAVA. I suppose that in case we consider it an effective intervention as far as poverty reduction is concerned, I think it may be quite difficult for us to stop it if we really need this program in the future. REP. PALATINO. So, there is still a possibility that the CCT will be implemented even after five years from now. REP. NAVA. Maybe, if we see that it delivers positive results, why not, Mr. Speaker? REP. PALATINO. The concept of the CCT is an emergency program that is aimed to intervene in and to eradicate extreme poverty in the country. So, are we saying that there is really no assurance that we can eradicate extreme poverty in the next five years which is our original target? REP. NAVA. I suppose it is a matter of eradicating or minimizing. We might not scale up, we might scale down. We cannot say. What I hope is that the implementation of this project or program will succeed, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Thank you for that clarification that the CCT can be implemented even after five years from now. We go to my next point, aside from the budgetary expansion. What is the difference of the 4Ps during the Arroyo government and the 4Ps under the Aquino government? Ano po iyong bago dito sa daang matuwid? REP. NAVA. It is practically the same, although there are some modifications that are being planned recently. One is the release of the grants. As of now, grants are released every quarter. Considerations as far as the release of these grants monthly instead of quarterly are being contemplated. REP. PALATINO. That is only one modificationthe release of grants every quarter. Mayroon pa po bang ibang bago dito sa 4Ps under the new government? REP. NAVA. It is also established that there is a need for additional involvement of some other agencies, particularly in the evaluation and monitoring of the program. The involvement of the offices of each Representative in the said district is being contemplated as well, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. So, we are encouraging the involvement of elected officials in the CCT program, Mr. Speaker. REP. NAVA. Particularly in the validation of beneficiaries. REP. PALATINO. Validation of intended beneficiaries. But, in other countries, the intervention of elected officials has been criticized. REP. NAVA. I think this is a matter of validating whether a person is truly and correctly poor, and that he is, indeed, entitled to receive such program, Mr. Speaker.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons cited for the expansion of the CCT is its positive impact on enrolment in our elementary schools. Mayroon na po ba tayong empirical data na nagpapatunay that there was an increase in school attendance? REP. NAVA. So far, there were only two tests conducted. The one was the so-called spot check which was conducted in Northern Samar and then another evaluation or qualitative evaluation was conducted somewhere in Agusan and Samar. These were the only tests so far. An initial evaluation of the CCT and the generalities as far as conclusion is concerned point towards positive results, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, aside from spot checks, mayoon na po bang parang comprehensive assessment on the implementation of the CCT? REP. NAVA. In a two-year period, I suppose this can be done except for these two evaluation tests but it is already scheduled. Several tests will be conducted to know whether this program is, indeed, effective as far as poverty alleviation is concerned. So as of now, maybe, the time would not warrant a good test that would give us significant conclusion as far as the effectivity of the program itself is concerned. REP. PALATINO. So, if there is really no conclusive evidence that the CCT has a positive impact on childrens nutrition, on school attendance, what is then the main motivation of the new government in expanding the CCT program? REP. NAVA. There were, as I said, tests like the so-called spot check and qualitative tests that were conducted earlier this year but it is only the fitting test that we can use so far in a two-year old project. If we intend to further look into or find more specific tests, then it needs more time for those specific tests to be quite conclusive in its results. As to the two tests that were conducted, results showed that as far as the intended goals of the CCT are concerned they are on the positive side, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the DSWD consult the DepEd on this matter because just a few days ago, the DepEd presented its report. The DepEd reported that there is a decreasing enrollment in our public elementary and high schools, so there is really no positive impact of the CCT program on school enrollment of the poorest of the poor in terms of improving school attendance in the country. REP. NAVA. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) had noted that there is an increase in poverty incidence in the country based on the 2006 survey and we are only presently handling one million families under the Conditional Cash Transfer Program. I suppose at this moment, with a 32 percent poverty incidence and one million household to deal with, we can expect an impact as far as CCT is concerned, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. My next point is about the impact of the CCT on the urban-rural divide. Magkano po ba ang matatanggap ng mga CCT beneficiaries sa mga syudad?

75 Pareho lang po ba ang matatanggap ng mga nakatira sa urban areas and in rural areas? REP. NAVA. For each beneficiary, it is the same everywhere, that is P300 per child times ten months for a maximum of three children. The mother will have a maximum of P500 monthly for 12 months. REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, for clarification, if one is a CCT enrollee in an urban area, does he or she receive the same amount that a CCT enrollee in the rural area receives? REP. NAVA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Pareho lang po. There is no distinction. REP. NAVA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. I asked this question because the cost of living varies from region to region. The impact of the CCT in urban poor areas will be different in rural poor areas. The CCT program planners in other countries are aware of this. Kaya po sa Mexico at Brazil, ang CCT ay sa urban areas lang. Sa Colombia and Honduras, ang CCT ay sa rural areas lang. So, did the program planners of our 4Ps consider the ruralurban dynamics when they conceptualized the 4Ps? REP. NAVA. Presently, it is considered that these grants would not necessarily augment the income of these household beneficiaries but rather mitigate emergency needs, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Does the sponsor not think that this CCT as devised and designed by the DSWD will only widen inequality in our society. In particular, it would worsen the urban-rural disparity. REP. NAVA. As far as the present available data are concerned, there is no such thing that would indicate that it is happening, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. My next set of questions will be about the proposed allocation of the CCT. I understand that the Capital Outlay is P217 million. Is that right, Mr. Speaker? REP. NAVA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, two years na po ang 4Ps pero bakit malaki pa rin po ang Capital Outlay? REP. NAVA. Inasmuch as we are expanding, we need more materials and equipment, particularly in expanding the information system of the Department, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, in the next five years, will the DSWD ask for the same amount every year? REP. NAVA. I suppose it will depend on how we will be scaling up in the next years to come, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. The funding for the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR) program is P1 million. Is that right, Mr. Speaker.

76 REP. NAVA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Last year, ito po ay P722 million. So, bumaba po ang ating funding for the NHTSPR program. Every year po ba ay hihingi ng pondo ang DSWD for this NHTSPR? REP. NAVA. One, this is for maintenance. Two, we are still continuing to improve and collect more data for this database. Presently, there is around P5 million in the data base. For 2011, it is hoped that this would be increased to at least P9 million, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, ang target po natin ngayon is 2.3 million families. Tama po ba? REP. NAVA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. We plan to expand it to 4.6 million families? After five years, ilan po iyong target natin na members ng CCT? REP. NAVA. On the fifth year the estimated target is 40 million plus. REP. PALATINO. So, 4.6 million? REP. NAVA. But we have to remember that it is only a target, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, I have here a ranking of provinces provided by the DSWD last year. Ang figure po niya is 4.6 million. Ang kanyang standards for poverty incidence ay year 2006 pa. So in the next five years, itong standards natin na 2006 poverty incidence po ba ang gagamitin nating yardstick to determine the threshold of beneficiaries ng ating CCT? REP. NAVA. I suppose a new CCT will be coming up with new data in due time, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. Mr. Speaker, in many CCT programs, the selection process is really problematic and politicized from the very start. I am not just referring to the meddling of local politicians, but the main criticism with the selection process is that it leads to the possible exclusion of the legitimate poor from being enrolled in the program. Other Members have already raised that point. I have a somewhat different concern. My concern is that our CCT is biased against very poor families without children. The criticism with the CCT is that we only provide help to the poorest of the poor but the condition is that they should have children. How about the homeless, the indigents, the elderly without dependents who are still in school? REP. NAVA. I suppose there are several programs that the DSWD is presently implementing. I think you can find it there that other than CCT, we have REP. PALATINO. They do not have the same level of REP. NAVA. this Food For Work Program for the internally displaced persons. We have also the project for

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 the senior citizens, the elderly which will be initiated next year. There are rice subsidy programs and supplemental feeding for children. We have the KALAHI-CIDSS as well as SEA-K. There are also protective services items that are being implemented by the department, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. But the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that these programs do not have the same level of funding compared to our CCT. Anyway, my point, Mr. Speaker, is that from the very beginning, the CCT excludes certain segments of the very poor population of the country. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will proceed to my next point, and I will refer to the six conditions for the CCT. I will mention some of these conditions: one, pregnant women get pre-natal care; and two,the mothers must attend family development sessions. Mr. Speaker, my comment on these conditions is that we are assuming that mothers will be responsible for the children. We are assuming that mothers are more responsible when it comes to investing in human capital. Does the Gentleman not think, Mr. Speaker, that by giving more responsibility to the mother, we are reenforcing traditional gender roles? If you are a woman, your duty is to take care of your children. Instead of empowering the women, we are promoting, if I may say, feudal gender stereotypes in our society. REP. NAVA. At this time, with this program, at least, they budget everything, Mr. Speaker, considering that it is the mother who receives the funds. REP. PALATINO. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will now proceed to the special provisions of the CCT. Special provision number two, and I quote: The DSWD shall submit to the DBM, the House Committee on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Finance separate quarterly reports on the disbursements made for the program or post on its official website, at least on a quarterly basis, the beneficiaries identified under its National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction. Now, Mr. Speaker, my interpretation of this special provision, and I think the DSWD has already announced this in our committee hearing, is that we are going to publish the names of the 1.3 million household beneficiaries in a website. Tama po ba ito, Mr. Speaker? REP. NAVA. If there is any Representative who wishes to know who are on the list, the DSWD is very much willing to provide them the listing. In a way, they want to provide some confidentiality as far as the beneficiaries are concerned, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. So, itong special provisions po na ito na nasa ating budget bill ay tatanggalin na po because nakalagay dito, the names of beneficiaries will be published. REP. NAVA. The list will be there, but the names, the exact names, everything, the data, will not be there. The list

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 of beneficiaries or maybe the number of beneficiaries for every barangay or municipality, the entitlements, as well as the money will be published, but the names would not be indicated in the website, Mr. Speaker. However, they can be requested by any concerned official, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. That is good to know, Mr. Speaker, because during the committee hearing, the DSWD replied that they will publish the names of the beneficiaries in the name of transparency. But I am thankful that they reviewed that policy because, if you publish disbursement reports of the CCT, that is transparency. If you publish the names of voters, that is transparency. But publishing the names of the beneficiaries is not transparency. Publishing the names of the poorest of the poor is not transparency. It is insensitivity. I am thankful that the DSWD reviewed that policy. REP. NAVA. The Gentlemans observation is noted, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. My other concern with the CCT is that it involves the constant invasion of privacy of our intended beneficiaries. The CCT places the poor under constant state surveillance or monitoring. Mula po sa targeting hanggang sa enrollment, hanggang sa pagtanggap ng pera, hanggang sa pag-comply sa mga conditions, ang buhay po ng ating mga mahihirap ay pwedeng busisain at bulatlatin. So, may I know the Gentlemans opinion or what he thinks are the steps we should adopt in order to protect the privacy of the poor? REP. NAVA. I think it will not be everyday that the whole household will be monitored, Mr. Speaker, but rather, it is the attendance of the children in school that will be monitored as well as their compliance with health protocol, which may be done by medical personnel. And I think it will not be on a day-to-day basis, Mr. Speaker, but, in the same way that the monthly assembly is done, which is on a monthly basis, as the name implies. So, what is daily there, I suppose, is the attendance of the child in school, Mr. Speaker. REP. PALATINO. But please take note, Mr. Speaker, that another reason cited for the decreasing enrollment in the CCT programs in other countries is that the eligible poor are opting not to join in the CCT because they refuse to be constantly monitored by government officers. So, please take note of that study in other countries. Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall wind up my interpellation. I believe that the CCT is not innovative. It is unimaginative. I believe that it does not empower the poor. It gives them false hope, that the petty cash will solve their problems. You know, marami po tayong sinasabi kung ano ang mga pag-aaral sa Latin America tungkol sa impact ng CCT. The one person we better ask is our own colleague here. And I would like to quote our distinguished colleague, Representative Walden Bello, who delivered a privilege speech here on September 28 on the matter. He said that CCT, to quote, is not a magic bullet that can solve poverty. It is a dole out being presented as a development program to end poverty. And according to him, we have increased the budget of the DSWD to promote this program with no evidence that it has brought people out of poverty either here or abroad.

77 And on that note, Mr. Speaker, I end my interpellation. I thank our distinguished Sponsor for his answers to my questions. REP. NAVA. The observation of the distinguished Gentleman is noted, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move for the recognition of the honorable Deputy Speaker, the Hon. Pablo P. Garcia, for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The honorable Deputy Speaker Pablo Garcia is recognized. REP. GARCIA (P.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Dep. Majority Leader. I am not going to interpellate. I would just like to make a brief manifestation. Mr. Speaker, I would not go into the merits or demerits of the program nor the prospects or prognosis for success although I have my own reservations. However, I would like to focus on some reservations I have on the funding and implementation of the program. Number one, on the funding, I understand, that this program will be funded, partly or substantially, by loans from the ADB and the World Bank. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker? REP. NAVA. There is a $400million loan from ADB and a $405-million loan from the World Bank, Mr. Speaker. REP. GARCIA (P.). Is it stated in the loan agreement that the funds would be used for the CCT program of the government? REP. NAVA. This would cover the budget needed for the first identified one million household beneficiaries, Mr. Speaker. REP. GARCIA (P.). And that is the purpose of the loan according to the loan agreement? REP. NAVA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. GARCIA (P.). This is a foreign loan, and under the Constitution, Article XII, Section 21, Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the regulations of the monetary authority. The question is, is this loan being incurred in accordance with the Foreign Borrowings Act? REP. NAVA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. GARCIA (P.). The Foreign Borrowings Act is Republic Act No. 4860, as amended, by Presidential Decree No. 81. Under this Act, the President is authorized to obtain foreign loans and credits as may be necessary to finance certain projects. And according to Republic Act No. 4860, the Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines may, through the President, obtain foreign loans: to finance, either directly or through any government office, agency or instrumentality or any government-owned or controlled corporation,

78 industrial, agricultural or other economic development purposes or projects provided that at least 75 percent shall be spent for purposes or projects which are revenue-producing and selfliquidating, such as electrification, irrigation, river control and drainage, telecommunication, housing, construction. It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that this loan being obtained from the ADB is not for purposes specified under the Foreign Borrowings Act. And under the Constitution, the loan or the foreign loan may only be incurred in accordance with law. In the case of the ADB, the Asian Development Bank, under the agreement that established the ADB and which, for all legal and practical purposes, is the charter of the ADB, the investments or the resources of the ADB may be used for financing the development of the developing member-countries in the region. I am pointing this outI can be wrongin order that the program may not be questioned later on. While the program can be defended in Plaza Miranda, it may not be defensible in a court of law. That is my reservation, Mr. Speaker, because the purpose of the loan is not in accordance with the Foreign Borrowings Act, which is Republic Act No. 4860, as amended. Another concern is in the implementation of the program. This General Appropriations Act cannot amend a law. In the first place, it has only one subject. As required in the Constitution, a bill must only have one subject which must be expressed in the title. This is an appropriations act for any given yearfor 2010, 2011and the effectivity of an appropriations Act is only for one year. And, in an earlier response by the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, he admitted that an Appropriations Act, on any given year, cannot amend the law. Mr. Speaker, social welfare and development services have already been devolved to the local government units. Under the Local Government Code of 1991, certain basic services and facilities have been devolved to local governments. In other words, these basic services and facilities have to be delivered by the local government units like the barangays, the municipalities, cities or provinces. Under Section 17 of the Local Government Code, basic services and facilities have been devolved to local government, and in the case of the barangays, health and social welfare services include maintenance of barangay health centers and day-care centers. In the case of municipalities, social welfare services include programs and projects on child and youth welfare, family and community welfare, womens welfare, welfare of the elderly and the disabled, community rehabilitation programs, pro-poor projects and others which are devolved already to municipalities. For provinces, social welfare services which include programs and projects on rebel returnees, evacuees and relief operations and population development services. In 1991, with the enforcement of the Local Government Code, the regional offices of the Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Department of Social Welfare and Development have been abolished. Under the law, these departments are not allowed to establish regional offices, therefore, in the provinces, municipalities and cities, they have no more regional offices. There are monitoring offices, but no regional offices. Section 17, paragraph (b) item (4), subparagraphs (g) and (h) of the Local Government Code, and I quote:

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 Regional offices of national agencies or offices whose functions are devolved to local government units as provided herein shall be phased out within one year from approval of this Code. The basic services and facilities hereinabove enumerated shall be funded from the share of the local government units in the proceeds of the national taxes and other local revenues and funding support from the National Government, its instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations. Therefore, assuming that the funding will be okay, the implementation may not be done by the Department of Social Welfare and Development. The municipalities, provinces can insist that this program shall be implemented by them. Mr. Speaker, another provision of the law, Section 27 of the Local Government Code with regard to Prior Consultations Required states that no project or program shall be implemented by government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof are complied with, and prior approval of the Sanggunian concerned is obtained. This program is a program of the national government, and therefore, consultations should have been done with the local government units and approval by the local Sanggunian. I am bringing this out, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, because a program or project of the national government or of this administration may be questioned again in Congress. I understand that in order to implement this program, close to 2,000 employees or personnel will be hired. But out there in the municipalities, barangays and provinces, the Department of Social Welfare and Development, their employees have already been absorbed by the provincial, municipal and city governments. These local government units might insist that they should be the ones to implement this project because it is in the law. May I know the position or response of the distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. REP. NAVA. Mr. Speaker, the DSWD is coordinating this program with various agencies that include the DOH, the DepEd, the local government units and the DILG. REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, coordination is not enough because in the local government, these services have already been devolved, and the process of devolution is a declared policy of the Constitution. REP. NAVA. A memorandum of agreement is executed with all the local governments, Mr. Speaker. REP. GARCIA (P.). In other words, the Department of Social Welfare and Development will no longer employ 1,800 employees. They will utilize the services of the officers and employees of the provincial and municipal governments, Mr. Speaker? REP. NAVA. It needs to employ still, Mr. Speaker, considering it needs coordinators in every local government where the program is being implemented.At the same time, the operation of the local government involves the municipal health offices and other officials of the municipality.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 REP. GARCIA (P.). But the mayors and the barangay captains in my district are complaining. They were not consulted in the designation or choice of beneficiaries. As a matter of fact, the barangay captains were receiving complaints that some are poorer than the beneficiaries identified by the DSWD. In one municipality, two Sangguniang Bayan members have been designated as beneficiaries. In another municipality, the husband of a school teacher has been designated as a beneficiary. It only shows that the program was conceptualized without consultation with the local government units, which under the Local Government Code, is a must. I hope, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, these reservations or these questions can be addressed in order that there will be no legal complications. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. REP. NAVA. The observation of the Gentleman from Cebu is noted, Mr. Speaker. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, may we recognize the Hon. Luz Ilagan for her interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Hon. Luz Ilagan from the Gabriela Party-List, is recognized. REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the distinguished Sponsor yield to a few clarificatory questions? REP. NAVA. Willingly, Mr. Speaker. REP. ILAGAN. May I preface my brief interpellation with the reminder that during the committee hearing, Mr. Speaker, I requested for a copy of last years COA report on the previous administrations implementation of its Poverty Alleviation Program, specifically, on the 4Ps and the CCT. Considering that we are now confronted with this astronomical amount of the conditional cash transfer, it is but proper that we also know how the programs on poverty alleviation fared in the past, to rationalize our actions today to avoid errors in the future. May I know if that report would still be forthcoming, Mr. Speaker? REP. NAVA. So far, there is no latest audit report submitted by the Commission on Audit, Mr. Speaker. But as far as the program is concerned, there is a grievance redress system installed in the program. For that matter, there were more than 16,000 recipients deleted from the list because of some erroneous or questionable status among these household beneficiaries, Mr. Speaker. REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, it would be very helpful if we are guided in our actions today, if we have some kind of an assessment, as to how these programs were evaluated in terms of success. REP. NAVA. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, there were already two tests conducted. One, that spot-check in

79 Northern Samar and the qualitative evaluation of the program conducted in three provinces. So far, both have indicated positive outcomes, as far as the project implementation is concerned, Mr. Speaker. REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, I would still appreciate it if that report, even if we just call it an evaluationqualitative or quantitativewould still be submitted to this Representations office. REP. NAVA. Willingly, Mr. Speaker. REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For my second question, the convergence framework of the DSWD discusses the step-by-step process in the selection of household beneficiaries of the conditional cash transfer. May I know the timetable for each step? What would be the timeframe in terms of weeks or months in order to undertake this particular process, Mr. Speaker? REP. NAVA. Currently, Mr. Speaker, there are already over five million on the database of the national household targeting system for poverty reduction. Household assessment will be picked up from the list. The first batch, 300,000 more or less, Mr. Speaker, will be identified in the first quarter, then succeedingly, every quarter, there will be more or less the same number that will be identified from the national household targeting system for poverty reduction. REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here in Manila and in the neighboring vicinities, we see a growing number of families living in pushcarts. They also eke out a living using these same carts as their homes. People even ask how they manage to produce children despite these dire circumstances. But that is not the question, Mr. Speaker. We see a lot of women, children, going up buses or begging from drivers of vehicles that stop because of the red light. They are seen not only here in Metro Manila, but also in key urban centers. I am referring to a group that many people call the Badjaos. These are women, children and minors, who go around begging. Are these nomadic groups, Mr. Speaker, considered the poorest of the poor in the DSWDs definition? If so, how will the agency go about the process of distributing cash, as designated in the program? How will these people be identified? Or, if they do not belong to the group identified as the poorest of the poor, what is the agency doing about the phenomenon of the increasing number of mendicants in our urban centers, Mr. Speaker? REP. NAVA. The CCT, Mr. Speaker, is limited geologically or geographically. There is an area being targeted in this program. So, street families are not included in this program. There is another program that would address the problem on street families, Mr. Speaker. Usually, the DSWD finds ways on how to resettle them and at the same time, if possible, to reintegrate them back to where they came from. REP. ILAGAN. For my next question, Mr. Speaker, the COA report of 2008 cited lapses in the agencys utilization of its funds. In 2008, the inter-agency fund transfers amounting to P818,391,894.67 remained unliquidated. May I know, at this

80 time, the total accumulated unliquidated inter-agency fund transfers? REP. NAVA. The total amount on unliquidated interagency fund transfer is P818,391,894.00, Mr. Speaker, per the COA report. REP. ILAGAN. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, the amount I quoted was as of 2008. So, does it mean then that that same amount still holds true for this year? SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. NAVA. I move for a one-minute suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is suspended. It was 10:42 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 10:44 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is resumed. REP. NAVA. So far, Mr. Speaker, P347,967,306.00 is liquidated. REP. ILAGAN. The agency, therefore, is not exempted from the COA evaluation. REP. NAVA. No, Mr. Speaker. REP. ILAGAN. That was in 2008 and now we are in 2010, so we had a lapse of one year. REP. NAVA. There is still unliquidated funds as of now. The agency is still processing documents from the various agencies where the money was transferred, Mr. Speaker, for purposes of liquidation. REP. ILAGAN. All right. I raised that question because in the same report, it was pointed out that the agency had certain weaknesses: first, there was the non-recording of collections in field offices, especially in Field Office 4, amounting to almost over a million, from the microfinancing and enterprise development program. The field office accountant failed to comply strictly with the guidelines specifically on the maintenance of complete and accurate records of transaction relative to the program. There was also the observation that there was inadequate monitoring of fund transfers to NGOs, POs, NGAs, GOCCs, LGUs and liquidation reports. I am raising this, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, because we are confronted with the astronomical amount of the CCT and how is it going to be monitored when in the past, we already had lapses or problems in the processes undertaken by the agency. So, my question, which does not have to be answered now is that what has the agency done to rectify these flaws and what steps are going

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 to be undertaken so that the same mistakes will not be committed in the handling of this big amount? REP. NAVA. Field Office 4-A has already recorded the collections as per the COA recommendation, Mr. Speaker. REP. ILAGAN. So, for my final question, it is a very sensitive issue. On October 16, 2001, the Bureau of Treasury auctioned off 10-year zero coupon treasury notes eligible as secondary reserves pursuant to Monetary Board Resolution No. 1545 which bestowed such eligibility on this particular treasury note series also known as the poverty eradication and alleviation certificate bonds or the PEACe bonds to underscore the governments top priority anti-poverty program. Code-NGO participated in that auction through Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, a government securities eligible dealer, and was awarded 10-year zero coupon bonds at a YTM of 12.75 percent, the yield cut-off rate issued by the BTR in this particular instance. As a backgrounder, by virtue of the aforementioned characteristics of the zeros, Code- NGO, through its underwriter, RCBC, was able to sell the PEACe bonds in the secondary market at a higher price than what it paid for. The net proceeds of P1.48 billion from the secondary sale of the PEACe bonds went to Code-NGO. Admittedly, Code-NGO has used its earnings from the 10 percent to support the sustainability of projects of member networks and the advocacy activities of peoples organizations. That has to be admitted. To manage the endowment fund, the Peace and Equity Foundations or PEF was established. Now, this foundation is allegedly headed by the present Secretary of the DSWD. Now, I am bringing up this issue because it keeps on cropping up like a bad penny. Many sectors raise this issue from time to time and it casts a cloud, a shadow looming in the horizon which raises apprehensions that in assisting NGOs and NGAs, the Secretary, because of her past association with this NGO, might become partial to certain NGOs or NGAs. How? The question is: what has the Secretary done or will do to erase the perceptions, apprehensions or maybe misapprehensions that there might be partiality in the distribution of aid or assistance to certain groups? REP. NAVA. The Secretary had never been the head of Code-NGO, Mr. Speaker. She had never been the head of the Peace and Equity Foundation, and was detached from CodeNGO since January 2001, Mr. Speaker. REP. ILAGAN. So, any shadow of doubt can be set aside with that statement, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. NAVA. The Secretary assures us of fairness in her duties as Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, Mr. Speaker. REP. ILAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and distinguished Sponsor. With this humongous amount that we are going to deal with on the Conditional Cash Transfer, there are questions on how the monitoring process will be done. There are still questions on how individuals will be identified and

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 how the agency will succeed in attaining the goal of helping the poorest of the poor. Since this is the issue of the day, I suppose, it is time that we have assurances despite continued fears that this amount should really be seriously taken into consideration and should be slashed or deducted in order that other agencies would be able to get it, like the SUCs, the Department of Health and other services which would have a clearer identification of how the projects would be undertaken. That would be all, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank the agency representatives for being patient enough to listen to the questions. REP. NAVA. The observation of the Lady from Gabriela is noted, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Sr. Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend the consideration of the proposed budgets of the Department of the Social Welfare and Development, including its attached agencies. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The deliberations on the budgets of the DSWD and its attached agencies are suspended. REP. GARIN (J.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move that we reconsider the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process. For this purpose, I further move that the Hon. Thelma Z. Almario be recognized to sponsor the budget of said agency. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Hon. Thelma Almario is recognized to sponsor the budget. REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I move that the Hon. Tupay T. Loong be recognized for his manifestation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Hon. Tupay Loong is recognized for his manifestation. REP. LOONG. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to manifest my concern, in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Muslim Affairs. Just this evening, at 8:30 p.m., I received a file copy of the complaint of the honorable Congresswoman Fatima Aliah Q. Dimaporo, addressed to the honorable Minority Leader, Edcel C. Lagman. I have here the letter of the honorable Congresswoman Dimaporo. Before I manifest my concern, I would like to read this for the consumption of every Member of the House of Representatives, to wit:

81 HON. FATIMA ALIAH Q. DIMAPORO Representative 2nd District, Lanao del Norte 15 October 2010 HON. EDCEL C. LAGMAN Minority Leader North Wing Basement House of Representatives Dear Congressman Lagman, I wish to bring to your attention an incident last 13th October, Wednesday. I had interpellated on the budget of the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP). Past 10 minutes after I had begun my interpellation, the session suspended and there was a discussion between me and some Representatives on the podium which led to the passage of the Office of the President budget, except for OPAPP. I had reserved my right to interpellate further on the floor at a later time, and had welcomed the suggestion by some Representatives to speak to the OPAPP Secretary. We had a discussion in the South Lounge. The overall tone of Secretary Deles was defensive, bordering on hostile. At one point, she raised her voice. Because I immediately felt embarrassed given that we were sitting right in front of the door of the South Lounge during lunch break from plenary hearings, I responded by telling her that she did not have to be angry and that I was simply asking questions. There are other things that she said to me that I felt were out of line: Firstly, when I informed her that I was speaking on behalf of Muslim legislators who questioned her programs and policies and the lack of importance given to cultural sensitivity, she responded by saying that the problem with Muslim Legislators is that we are mostly new and we do not understand how it works. Secretary Deles claimed that she has been working on these issues for a very long time. I disagreed with her, saying that many of the Congressmen have been involved in the peace process, that all of us are local Representatives, that we live in Mindanao and are from these areas of conflict. Secondly, she started to get personal by questioning why I had asked about the root causes of the insurgency in Mindanao in the plenary and not when I had met her in person in two different events outside of Congress. She insinuated that I was delaying the budget hearing of the Office of the President. I explained to her that I was tying this question to my first question about the Social Integration Program, which I wanted on record. Regardless, when I met her in the past the budget hearings have not started and I only learned about this program as it relates to the budget recently. Thirdly, when I told her that I was asking questions also on behalf of the Muslim legislators, she also said that nobody was there and that nobody was listening, so who was I asking the question for? She also told me that even the majority and

82 minority Representatives did not understand why I was taking so long to interpellate and that the Sponsor was even advised to keep his answers short so that I will end quickly. Fourthly, as I was questioning her programs, she cut me off saying that she wished that I had read on her background before I had spoken to her. She had told me to read her books. Lastly, she said I should understand where she is coming from because she had met me before and she knows the members of my family who have received her well in Lanao del Norte. She expressed that she has good relations with my family, even though we are in the Opposition. Then she repeated that she did not understand why I had to ask the complicated question on the roots of the Mindanao problems on the floor. She ended this part of the conversation with, I thought you were genuine. Throughout her discourse, I had been insulted. The things that she said, whether or not she was aware of that, was demeaning not only to me but also to my fellow Muslim colleagues in Congress. However, it is within my character to be respectful to all people, especially elders, and so I allowed her to speak to me in such a manner. Displaying utmost propriety, I communicated my interest in the peace process during our conversation and also in a text message. I also signified to her staff that I would like to have the books that she had mentioned. The purpose of these actions following our discussion is to display that I am interested in the peace process and that I work in a professional manner. This is very important to the development of Mindanao, and essentially the whole Philippines. This is a very important national issue. This is my first experience to be approached by a Secretary during budget deliberations, and I had expected at least some level of diplomacy from a member of the Cabinet, and much more so from a leading officer in the peace process of our country. I had confided to a few people, only because I was not sure whether my reaction was appropriate but the news has spread through the halls of Congress, rendering it necessary for me to put this in writing to make things clear on my part. I do not wish to misrepresent the Minority and the Muslim leaders. For this reason, I submit my grievance to your Honor, as my Minority Leader, and I have ccd Congressman Tupay Loong, the Chairman of Muslim Affairs. Sincerely, Wasalaam, Hon. Fatima Aliah Q. Dimaporo Representative 2nd District, Lanao Del Norte In this connection, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to manifest my sympathy and support for my co-Muslim legislators. I was informed, Mr. Speaker, that the Presidential

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 Adviser on the Peace Process approached Cong. Fatima Aliah Q. Dimaporo regarding the letter and interpellation on the budget of the OPAPP. She arrogantly insulted the good Congresswoman by asking her to read her books. Is it not a basic function of the Members of this august Body to ensure the purpose of this proposed expenditure of our government? Why will the government officials, particularly the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process, bar us from doing our constitutional duty? I lament this event, Mr. Speaker, that legislators are insulted of what, in the first place, is their basic mandate from the electorate. Further, I am saddened and hurt that Muslim legislators are treated low. With this, may I reiterate my manifestation of sympathy and support for Cong. Fatima Aliah Q. Dimaporo. Assalamu alaikum warahmatullaahi wabara katuh InshaAllah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The manifestation of the honorable Congressman is noted. Yes, the Sr. Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I now ask that we recognize the Hon. Marc Douglas C. Cagas IV for his manifestation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The honorable Cong. Marc Douglas C. Cagas IV is recognized. REP. CAGAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I make this manifestation out of total disappointment, disgust and outrage over the behavior of somebody who thinks that she is the only person who can solve the peace problem in Mindanao. She uttered words such as, Muslim Legislators are mostly new, that Muslim Legislators do not understand how it works. She even questioned the prerogative of the distinguished Lady, saying or accusing the distinguished Lady that she was delaying the hearing on the budget of the Office of the President. Furthermore, she also asked why the distinguished Lady was purportedly asking questions on behalf of Muslim Legislators when, according to her, there was nobody or no Muslim Legislator was present. Finally, she had the arrogance to say in this Congress, in the House of Representatives which is supposed to be our House, to a lady Legislator to check her background and to read her books. My dear colleagues, let us not allow such arrogance to happen in our House. Not in our House. You come here to Congress and ask for a budget for the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process in the amount of P235,800,000 and yet, you cannot stand to be questioned. Mr. Speaker, this Representation moves that the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process be given a P1 allocation for 2011 budget. (Applause) SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. GARIN (J.). May I request a one-minute suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is suspended. It was 11:08 p.m.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 11:08 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is resumed. The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, at the proper time, being a motion by way of amendment, it will be taken up during the period of amendments because we are still in the period of sponsorship and debate. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? Yes. What is the pleasure of the Congressman from Sorsogon? REP. ESCUDERO. Mr. Speaker, may I know who invited the Secretary to the South Lounge? A big notice states there: For Representatives only. Who invited the Secretary? Does anyone know? Anybody who understands English would know what For Representatives only means. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). I understand, Mr. Speaker, that a member of the Rules Committee invited the Secretary considering that she was here early afternoon and she has not taken any snack or dinner, so out of courtesy, perhaps, out of humanitarian consideration, a member of the Rules Committee invited her to the South Lounge considering that it is only in the South Lounge that there is food. Unfortunately, the PLLO has no budget to feed the Secretariat, the department Secretaries or its staff, so a member of the Committee on Rules invited her so that she can partake of the dinner. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is the Gentleman from Sorsogon satisfied with the answer? REP. ESCUDERO. In other words, Mr. Speaker, after having been invited, she insults a colleague of ours. That is the best formula to attain peace not only in Mindanao but for the whole country. My condolences. (Applause) THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Sr. Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GARIN(J.). Mr. Speaker, I ask that we recognize the Minority Leader, the Hon. Edcel C. Lagman, for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Hon. Edcel C. Lagman, the Minority Leader, is recognized. REP. LAGMAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I proceed with my interpellation, I would like to make a short manifestation. This incident related to this Representation by the Hon. Fatima Aliah Q. Dimaporo shows that Secretary Deles committed a serious affront against a

83 new Lady Member of this House, who is an active member of a large Muslim group of legislators. Secretary Deles did not only insult and demean the Hon. Aliah Q. Dimaporo, she likewise insulted and demeaned the entire contingent of the Muslim Representatives in this House, and also, even the entire membership of this House. The letter to this Representation of Honorable Dimaporo underscores a number of serious affronts wherein the demeanor of Secretary Deles bordered on hostility despite the fact that she should have approached problems with patience and with a pacific demeanor, considering her position as presidential peace adviser. She said that Muslim Legislators are mostly new and do not know how the peace process works. She completely underestimated the character as well as earnest efforts of Muslim Legislators to help in the peace process. She arrogantly told our colleague that she should first verify her background and read her books before she starts making questions or interpellation. Again, this is completely insulting a Lady legislator, a colleague of the entire membership of this House. Finally, she said, I thought you were genuine. This was practically telling the Hon. Fatima Aliah Q. Dimaporo that she was fake, plastic. We cannot possibly accept these insults. I suppose, at the proper time, there should be a motion supportive of the statement of the distinguished Rep. Marc Cagas. Now, let me go to some of my questions, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. What is the agenda of the present administration on the comprehensive peace process? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the plan of the government is to complete a settlement of the political agenda and likewise, comply with the outstanding requirements of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and eventually, pursue national development throughout the country. REP. LAGMAN. I suppose that answer of the distinguished Sponsor was made after consultation with Secretary Deles. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Is that all what Secretary Deles can say about the present administrations peace agenda? REP. ABAYA. That, briefly, is the direction of the government, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Could we have more details on that comprehensive peace agenda? REP. ABAYA. Well, Mr. Speaker, currently, there are two panels being formed. One is aimed at addressing the left or the insurgency in the CPP-NPA; and the other is to address the MILF. Inclusive in this peace plan or peace agenda is a security sector reform. Likewise, it includes the concept of not leaving any of the insurgent or secessionist groups behind and likewise to always incorporate culture, tradition and heritage in actually understanding the root problems of insurgency and secessionism, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Let me underscore, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, the Gentlemans statement of

84 understanding the causes of insurgency. That was precisely the core, the central idea in the interpellation of the distinguished Lady, the Honorable Dimaporo. And then, Secretary Deles would question her on why she should ask questions about the root causes of unrest and rebellion. So, definitely, the response of Secretary Deles was completely uncalled for and out of bounds. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed REP. LAGMAN. Yes. REP. ABAYA. I sat down with Secretary Deles around mid-afternoon and tried to get all the facts. She offered her way of expressing her apologies if ever she was misunderstood or said anything offensive. She has been waiting for the opportunity to extend such apologies and continues to do so as of the moment, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. That apology, if it would be forthcoming, is welcome because that is an indication of guilt. But, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, an apology is always after the fact when the damage has been done. Would this strategy or agenda on the comprehensive peace process include insulting at the negotiating table leaders of rebels who would like to make peace with the government? REP. ABAYA. Definitely not, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Would it include a hostile attitude toward leaders of rebel groups who would like to go back to the fold of the law? REP. ABAYA. No, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Would the present administrations comprehensive peace agenda include the three principles in the peace process? REP. ABAYA. Which are these three principles? REP. LAGMAN. I suppose the distinguished Sponsor could ask Secretary Deles what are the three basic principles in the comprehensive peace process. REP. ABAYA. Allow me to read the three principles, for the information of everybody, because this is indeed a learning experience for all of us: 1. A comprehensive peace process should be communitybased, reflecting the sentiments, values and principles important to all Filipinos. Thus, it shall be defined not by the government alone, nor by the different contending groups only, but by all Filipinos as one community. 2. A comprehensive peace process aims to forge a new social compact for a just, equitable, humane and pluralistic society. It seeks to establish a genuinely pluralistic society, where all individuals and groups are free to engage in peaceful competition for the predominance of their political programs without fear, through the exercise of the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, and where they may compete for political power through an electoral system that is free, fair and honest.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2010 3. A comprehensive peace process seeks a principled and peaceful resolution to the internal armed conflicts, with neither blame nor surrender, but with dignity for all concerned. REP. LAGMAN. Yes. REP. ABAYA. And the answer is that the three principles are being adopted by the government, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. I would like to make it of record, Mr. Speaker, that the answer did not come from Secretary Deles. It came from a reading of Executive Order No. 3, entitled: Defining Policy and Administrative Structure for Governments Comprehensive Peace Efforts, which was issued on 28 February 2001. It could have been much better had Secretary Deles mentioned these three principles to the distinguished Chairman by heart. She should know this at her fingertips, but that did not happen. The distinguished Chairman had to be assisted by a staff member of the Committee on Appropriations, who handed to him a copy of Executive Order No. 3. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, the good Secretary started rattling it off, but the Chairman took the initiative to read the more comprehensive description for the information of everybody. REP. LAGMAN. As I have observed, the Secretary did not give the answers to the distinguished Chairman, but somebody from the staff gave the Chairman a copy of Executive Order No. 3. Be that as it may, may we know, Mr. Speaker, why the proposed budget of this office, OPAPP, has increased or decreased from the current years level. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, it has increased. However, the increase is mostly attributable to the National Unification Fund, which is a former special purpose fund now incorporated within the Office of the OPAPP. REP. LAGMAN. But it has increased for this particular office? REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. May we know, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, what is the legal basis in giving the head of this office the designation Secretary? REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, under Executive Order No. 3, entitled: Defining Policy and Administrative Structure for Governments Comprehensive Peace Efforts, there is a provision which specifies that the head should be of Cabinet rank. REP. LAGMAN. May we know what particular provision is that under Executive No. 3, distinguished Sponsor. REP. ABAYA. Mr. Speaker, Section No. 5, Administrative Structure, subparagraph B, Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process. The Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process shall be charged with the management and supervision of comprehensive peace process. The PAPP shall be appointed

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 by the President and shall have the rank and remuneration of a Cabinet member, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. That is correct, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. It is regrettable that as a Cabinet member, the incumbent Secretary of the office has an uncanny arrogance, and has conducted herself with much misbehavior in this House of Representatives. Let me repeat that at the proper time, a proper motion will be introduced, with respect to the proposed budget of this particular office on the peace process. I have no further interpellations, and no one else in the Minority intends to interpellate, but I will not move for the termination of the debate, with respect to this particular office. The Majority can do that, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Sr. Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong for his interpellation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Hon. Sim Datumanong is recognized. REP. DATUMANONG. Mr. Speaker, I just came in but I heard the interpellation of the honorable Minority Leader about the situation that happened here sometime, probably, Wednesday. Judging from what he has said, something really had happened. I remember that this afternoon, while I was going to my office, the honorable Sr. Dep. Majority Leader talked to me about the same situation. I simply recommended that the honorable Secretary Deles talk to the honorable Rep. Aliah Dimaporo, who felt offended by her remarks or statements, and perhaps, she could apologize for that incident. But I made a brief verification as I already got into the plenary and I was told that the honorable Secretary Deles did not make any such move. For what reason, I do not know. But I would like to state that the way I heard the privilege speech of the honorable Minority Leader, the allusion to the statement of the honorable Secretary Deles, is not only to the honorable Rep. Aliah Dimaporo but to all Muslim Members of this Congress. Even without that, Mr. Speaker, just the fact that there was an offensive statement made against a Member of this Congress, which has not been denied and refuted, is an offense not only against that Member of the Congress but against the honor and integrity of the House of Representatives, especially when such was uttered within its premises and arising from an interpellation during a duly recognized and constitutional process of budget enactment. So, Mr. Speaker, I am still wondering why, if there is still honor to be reckoned with within the halls of this Congress and if there is still respect for the integrity of the institution, the proper approach has not been made? I thought that among honorable and well-in-place people, the best way to rectify any misunderstanding is a dialogue. Mr. Speaker, I think that the deliberation on the budget of the OPAPP, as having been recalled and is now a subject again of deliberations, should be suspended for the meantime and interpellation can continue. I, myself, will participate in an interpellation if nothing will happen that can be called a happy solution to the unfortunate and certainly distasteful

85 incident that happened in the House of Representatives, the House of the Representatives of the people of the Philippines, which is oftentimes referred to by the Chair as the House of the People. It should be given a meaning. It should be given due respect. It should be given the proper honor that is deserving of the Filipino people of this country. So, Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the deliberations on the budget of the OPAPP until there is a dialogue between the honorable Secretary Deles and the honorable Rep. Aliah Dimaporo where there is a proper recognition of respect from one good official to another respectful official. Aliah Dimaporo is a young Member of this House but she is very intelligent and well-educated. She has been trained in Western manners as well as Filipino culture. She has been working in the agency of the United Nations (UN) before she became a Member of this House of Representatives and I do not see any reason she should not be given that respect due her and this House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate the motion to suspend the deliberations on the budget of the Office of the President for Peace Process or the OPAP. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is suspended. It was 11:41 p.m., October 15, Friday. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 12:42 a.m., October 16, Saturday, the session was resumed with Deputy Speaker Arnulfo P. Fuentebella presiding. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker. REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Will the Majority Leader please... REP. GONZALES (N.). Can I state the parliamentary status, Mr. Speaker? REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Will the Majority Leader please state the parliamentary status? REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, the budget of the OPAPP is currently being debated on and there being a motion made by the distinguished Gentleman from Maguindanao to suspend the consideration of the same... REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker. REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker. REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker, I stand...

86 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Let the Majority Leader please complete his statement. REP. GONZALES (N.). So, may we inquire from the distinguished Gentleman from Maguindanao if he is pursuing... THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Just a minute. The Chair would like to inquire from the Majority Leader because the Chair heard an earlier motion made by the Minority Leader to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate and then subsequently, a motion to suspend was made by the Gentleman from Maguindanao. Was the first motion by the Minority Leader disposed of? REP. GONZALES (N.). No, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). In that case, we cannot entertain the motion of the Gentleman from Maguindanao, with due respect. We have to dispose first the motion of the Minority Leader for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate. REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Minority Leader is recognized. REP. LAGMAN. Am I recognized, Mr. Speaker? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Yes. REP. LAGMAN. I never made a motion to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate with respect to this particular office, the OPAPP. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Before we proceed, the Chair would like to review the records. REP. LAGMAN. Yes. We can do that. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). So, we suspend the session for the moment. It was 12:44 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 12:44 a.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, may we clarify that when the distinguished Minority Leader made his interpellation a while ago on the budget of the OPAPP, he premised his interpellation by stating that nobody from the Minority will move for the termination of the deliberations on the budget of the OPAPP. So, there is no pending motion made by the Minority Leader to terminate the

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). So, with that clarification, the motion of the Gentleman from Maguindanao is in order. REP. CAGAS. Mr. Speaker REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker. REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker. REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker. REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What is the pleasure of the Gentleman from Valenzuela City? After this we will recognize the Gentleman from Iloilo. REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker, just a brief manifestation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Gentleman from Valenzuela City is recognized. REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 15strong members of the Nationalist Peoples Coalition in this Chamber, first of all we would like to reiterate that we fully support the national budget submitted by the Office of the President. But let it be also known that we stand by our colleague from the province of Lanao del Norte. We believe that a Member who feels aggrieved deserves the support of all our Members until further light is shed on the matter. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I second the motion of the Gentleman from Maguindanao that we give the OPAPP a budget of P1 for the year 2011. (Applause) THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). In deference to the Gentleman from Valenzuela City, we cannot entertain that motion. REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker, I second the motion of the Gentleman from Davao del Sur, Congressman Cagas, for a P1 budget for the office of the OPAPP. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Just a minute. Let the Chair clarify. The present motion that has to be acted upon by the Body is the motion of the Gentleman from Maguindanao. REP. GATCHALIAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I second the motion of the Gentleman from Davao del Sur for a P1 budget for the OPAPP. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Rep. Fuentebella). The session is suspended. It was 12:47 a.m.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 12:48 a.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. The Gentleman from Malabon may proceed. REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker, Gentleman from Valenzuela City. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Rep. Fuentebella). Valenzuela City. REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker, after consulting with our colleagues, I withdraw the motion. At the appropriate time, we will submit the motion again. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Rep. Fuentebella). The reservation is noted. REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Rep. Fuentebella). Now, we go back to the motion of the Gentleman from Maguindanao. REP. GONZALES (N.). That is correct, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What is the pleasure of the Gentleman from Iloilo? REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal and collective privilege which has a very high precedence. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). In deference to the Gentleman from Iloilo, please read Section 100 of the Rules. REP. SYJUCO. Okay. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Rep. Fuentebella). The Chair would like to read: Questions of privilege are those affecting the duties, conduct, rights, privileges, dignity, integrity or reputation of the House or of its Members individually or collectively. Subject to the ten-minute rule, every Member has the right to raise a question of personal and collective privilege. However, prior to availing of this right, a Member shall seek the permission of the Chair which shall, in turn, allow the Member to proceed upon a determination that the request is in order. In short, a question of privilege is subject to the discretion of the Chair. Now, inasmuch as we have two Gentlemen on the floor that are deliberating, without the permission of the Gentlemen on the floor discussing the budget, the Chair cannot entertain a motion of collective privilege at the moment unless there is permission made by the Gentlemen on the floor. REP. SYJUCO. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

87 REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker, I have not even been given a chance to explain why I wish to rise on a matter of personal and collective privilege, yet the Chair makes a decision without even finding out why. Maybe there is fire in the toilet. Maybe there is a crack in the building. The Chair himself said that the judgment is his after he finds out whether I should have risen on a question of privilege or not; and yet, he makes a decision not knowing why I rise. I appeal the decision of the Chair. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is the Gentleman appealing the ruling of the Chair?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). There is an appeal made on the ruling of the Chair that, at this point, the Chair cannot entertain questions of collective privilege. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). As many as are in favor of the motion REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Yes. What is the ... REP. GONZALES (N.). Before the appeal on the ruling of the Chair is submitted, may we just inform the Members of the House that an aye vote is in favor of the appeal of the distinguished Gentleman from Iloilo, and a nay vote defeats the same. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is that clear to all the Members? SEVERAL MEMBERS. Yes. VIVA VOCE VOTING THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Okay. We now go to the voting on the appeal made by the Gentleman from Iloilo. As many as are in favor of the appeal made by the Gentleman from Iloilo on the ruling of the Chair, please say aye. FEW MEMBERS. Aye. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). As many as are against, please say nay. SEVERAL MEMBERS. Nay. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The nays have it. The appeal is lost. REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a nominal voting.

88 REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, there is a pending motion by the distinguished Gentleman from Maguindanao. REP. SYJUCO. It is my right to ask for a nominal voting, Mr. Speaker, and so I exercise that right. I ask for a nominal voting. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Okay. We proceed with the nominal voting. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, may I inform the Members of the House that there is a proper way in arriving at a motion for a nominal voting; and since that has not been made by the distinguished Gentleman from Iloilo, the Gentleman is out of order. REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Majority Leader was listening well enough to me. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is suspended. It was 12:52 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 12:53 a.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. The Gentleman from Iloilo is recognized, but before the Gentleman from Iloilo will proceed, let me remind him that before we go into nominal voting, there are stages which we have to undergo before we are able to determine whether a nominal voting can proceed or not. We have to determine if one-fifth of the Members are present to establish the right of the movant for a nominal voting. Now, will the Secretary General please state the headcount, if there is any, on the Members present on the floor. To avoid further delay in the proceedings, we have to establish one-fifth of the Members present, and we have first to establish the exact number of Members present. So, the Chair asks for a roll call of Members. ROLL CALL REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we call the roll. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Secretary General will please call the roll. The Secretary General called the roll, and the result is as follows, per Journal No. 30: PRESENT Abad Abaya Acharon Acop Aglipay Albano Alcala Alcover Almario Alvarez (A.) Alvarez (M.) Amatong Andaya Angping Apacible Aquino Arnaiz Arquiza Arroyo (D.) Arroyo (I.) Asilo Aumentado Avance-Fuentes Bag-ao Bagatsing Baguilat Banal Bataoil Bautista Belmonte (F.) Belmonte (V.) Benaldo Benitez Bernos Bichara Binay Bondoc Bonoan-David Bravo Bulut-Begtang Cabilao Yambao Cagas Cajayon Calimbas-Villarosa Calixto-Rubiano Cari Casio Castelo Castro Catamco Celeste Cerilles Climaco Cojuangco (E.) Cojuangco (K.) Collantes Colmenares Cortuna Cosalan Crisologo Cruz-Gonzales Cua Dalog Datumanong

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 De Jesus Defensor Del Mar Del Rosario (Antonio) Dimaporo (F.) Dimaporo (I.) Durano Ecleo Ejercito Emano Enverga Eriguel Escudero Espina Evardone Farias Fernandez Ferrer (A.) Ferrer (J.) Ferriol Flores Fortuno Fuentebella Garay Garbin Garcia (P.) Garcia (P.J.) Garcia-Albano Garin (J.) Garin (S.) Gatchalian Go (A.) Golez (R.) Gomez Gonzales (A.) Gonzales (N.) Gonzalez Gullas Haresco Hataman-Salliman Herrera-Dy Ilagan Jalosjos (C.) Jalosjos (R.) Jalosjos (S.) Joson Kho (A.) Kho (D.) Labadlabad Lacson-Noel Lagdameo (M.) Lagman Lanete Leonen-Pizarro Limkaichong Loong Lopez (C.) Lopez (C.J.) Loyola Macapagal-Arroyo (G.) Magsaysay (E.) Magsaysay (M.)

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 Malapitan Maliksi Maraon Marcoleta Marcos Mariano Mellana Mendoza (J.) Mendoza (R.) Mercado Mercado-Revilla Miraflores Montejo Nava Noel Nograles Obillo Ocampo Olivarez Ong Ortega (F.) Ortega (V.) Paez Palatino Palmones Pancho Panotes Paras Payuyo Piamonte Ping-ay Plaza Primicias-Agabas Puno Quimbo Quisumbing Radaza Ramos Relampagos Remulla Rivera Robes Rodriguez (I.) Rodriguez (M.) Rodriguez (R.) Roman Romarate Romualdez Romualdo Romulo Sacdalan Sahidulla Sakaluran Salimbangon Salvacion Sambar San Luis Sarmiento (C.) Sarmiento (M.) Sema Singson (E.) Socrates Suarez Syjuco Tan Taada Teodoro Tiangco Tieng Ting Tinga Tinio Tomawis Treas Tugna Ty Umali (C.) Umali (R.) Unabia Ungab Unico Valencia Velarde Velasco Vergara Villar Villarica Violago Yap (A.) Yap (S.) Zamora-Apsay Zubiri

89 any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered into the Journal of the House. So for this, to determine one-fifth of the 216 Members, there is a needed vote of 44 to establish whether we can proceed with the nominal voting or not. The Gentleman from Iloilo may now proceed. REP. SYJUCO. Mr. Speaker, looking at the clock, it says 1:15 a.m. I know that all of us are ready to stay here THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). It is 1:15 a.m., October REP. SYJUCO. October 16. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Fifteen. REP. SYJUCO. Sixteen ba o fifteen? Sixteen. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Sixteen. REP. SYJUCO. Sixteen na po. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Okay. REP. SYJUCO. October 16, and Let me just explain, Mr. Speaker, that I rose on a question of personal and collective privilege relative to the budget of the OPAPP. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, judging from the response to the Roll Call, while I have no doubt that I will get 20 percent or 44 votes to proceed with the nominal voting, I also believe that I will not win in the nominal voting. That being the case, and in order to expedite matters, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my motion. (Applause) THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Very good. The motion has been withdrawn. What does the Majority Leader say? REP. GONZALES (N.). Can we proceed with the motion of the distinguished Gentleman from Maguindanao? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Will the Gentleman please restate the motion? REP. GONZALES (N.). There is a pending motion on the part of the distinguished Gentleman from Maguindanao to suspend the consideration of the budget of the OPAPP. REP. DATUMANONG. Mr. Speaker, there were several reactions to the complaint made by a Member of the House, the honorable Rep. Fatima Aliah Q. Dimaporo. When I came in, I heard that the speech, especially the one by the Minority Leader, clearly spoke of the ill-feelings of not just the offended party, Rep. Fatima Aliah Q. Dimaporo, but of many others, especially the people or the Muslim Members of the House. Since the alleged offense against Rep. Fatima Aliah Q. Dimaporo was done during the process that this House is

The Speaker is present. Mr. Speaker, the roll call shows that 216 Members responded to the call. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). With 216 Members present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum. Before we proceed, the Chair would like to inform the Body that before we take up for consideration the motion of the Gentleman from Iloilo for nominal voting, the onefifth requirement of the vote for us to go into nominal voting may not be found in the Rules but rather it is part of the constitutional limitations which are found in Article VI, Section 10(4), which states that, the yeas and nays on

90 constitutionally mandated to go through, that is during the hearing on the budget of the government for the year 2011, I thought that if there were already statements made which expressed the sentiments of some Members, many others would follow. So I took the floor and having been recognized by the Speaker, I made the suggestion. In fact, I made it in the form of a motionto suspend the consideration of the budget of the OPAPP until the issue is settled. Indeed, there was a suspension for about one hour and a half to two hours, and since the motion has not been withdrawn, I am not going to withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I leave it to the judgment of this honorable Chamber. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Inasmuch as the distinguished Gentleman from Maguindanao has maintained his motion to suspend, then I object to the said motion. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Before we vote on the motion, the Chair declares a recess. It was 1:20 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 1:25 a.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection and join the distinguished Gentleman from Maguindanao in moving that we, in the meantime, suspend the consideration of the budget of the OPAPP. I so move. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, I now move that we take up the budget of the DSWD. I so move, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budgets of the Department of Social Welfare and Development and all its attached agencies. REP. CASIO. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. REP. ALBANO. Mr. Speaker.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Gentleman from Isabela is recognized. REP. ALBANO. I am holding House Concurrent Resolution No. 3. Today is already Tuesday. I mean, today is Saturday. My question is that are we considered adjourned? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Not yet. We are still in session, if you are talking about the three-day suspension. When has the Senate adjourned? The Majority Leader may please inform REP. ALBANO. We have approved this resolution, and it says that the adjournment of session is on October 16. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, for the kind information of the distinguished Gentleman from Isabela, who was my mentor in the House of Representatives in the Committee on Rules, a while ago, several Members have asked me, do we stop the clock? I said no. Why do we have to stop the clock? This is not a sine die adjournment. So, for all intents and purposes, Mr. Speaker, we have been in session for one day, beginning from the time that we resumed our session the other Monday. We have been in continuous suspension of session from day 1 to day 10, so this is still part of the continuous session. Therefore, there is no reason for us to stop the clock. It does not matter if it is 1:27 in the early morning of Saturday. It does not matter if it will be 12:30 of Sunday, for as long as we are in a continuous suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Chair takes note of the comments of the Majority Leader. REP. CASIO. Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (N.). May we ask for a ruling REP. CASIO. Parliamentary Inquiry. REP. GONZALES (N.). on the motion of the distinguished Gentleman from Laoag, considering that there is no objection. REP. CASIO. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The distinguished Minority Leader is recognized. REP. LAGMAN. We are objecting to the motion of the distinguished Gentleman. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Would the Gentleman want to expound on his objection? REP. LAGMAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Gentleman has five minutes. Please proceed. REP. LAGMAN. The motion is to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the department under consideration, the DSWD. I think that is the motion. Mr. Speaker, this is virtually gagging the Opposition, but not only the Opposition but also Members of the Majority. This is a democratic institution, and we should never allow Members to be prohibited from taking the floor. This is a deliberative assembly. There is no basis under our Rules to terminate the consideration on Second Reading or the period of sponsorship and debate with respect to the proposed budget. There are still about 20 Members, both coming from the Minority and the Majority, who are listed to interpellate the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. There is no basis for cloture at the moment. Section 89, Rule XII of the Rules of the House on decorum and debate provides: Time Limit. A Member shall not be allowed to speak for more than one (1) hour in debate on any question nor more than once on any question without leave of the House. Positively formulated, a Member shall have the right to speak for at least one hour in debate and we are in the period of sponsorship and debate. So, 20 other Members are entitled to, at least, one hour to interpellate and debate on the proposed budget of the DSWD. There is no way we can pre-terminate this period of sponsorship and debate. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there is Section 54 on Cloture, which could not be invoked here. There are other Members who are lined up to speak and interpellate. Let me go to Section 54, and I quote: When a matter under consideration has been sufficiently discussed by a Member who has the floor and there are several Members who have signified their intention to speak on the same matter, the Speaker may motu proprio or upon motion of a Member order the Member having the floor to desist from speaking further so that other Members may be given the opportunity to speak. Reasoning a contrario, Mr. Speaker, if there are still Members who are listed to speak during the period of sponsorship and debate, then they should be allowed to speak. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the motion of the distinguished Gentleman from Ilocos Norte is untenable and without basis in our rules. Consequently, we object to said motion. REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Just a minute. Is there any rejoinder from either the Majority Leader or the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte? REP. FARIAS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to explain my motion. The rule applicable here is Section 53, which is entitled, Motion to Close Debate. It says here, Mr. Speaker: A motion to close the debate on a measure shall be in order after three (3) speeches in favor and two (2) against, or after only one (1) speech in favor and none against: Provided, That within the last fifteen (15) days before adjournment, a motion to close debate on a measure shall be in order after two (2) speeches in favor and one (1) against, or after only one (1) speech in favor and none against.

91

Mr. Speaker, we have been debating on this matter of the DSWD budget not only on three speeches but as much as 20 speeches in favor and as much as 30, I think, or maybe a little bit exaggerated, maybe 10 in favor. Those in favor had been outnumbered with 15 against it. So, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 53this is not a motion for cloturethis is a motion to close the debate. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, and for the kind information of our Members, this provision has been an established precedent. It has been used in past Congresses. It has been used to terminate the period of debate, not only on the particular budget of a particular agency, but it has been used to terminate the entire debate on the appropriations bill. It happened during the time that the distinguished Gentleman from Albay, either was the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the Senior Vice Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, and I see no reason why this precedent cannot be used by this Fifteenth Congress. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte is too kind because he could have opted to terminate the debate on the entire budget and for which reason, REP. FARIAS. I will accept an amendment. REP. GONZALES (N.). may I ask if the distinguished Gentleman from Ilocos Norte is willing to amend his motion by including the termination of the period of debate on the entire House Bill No. 3101? REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker, taking the cue from my Majority Leader, I amend my motion and move that we terminate the period REP. CASIO. Point of order . REP. FARIAS. of debate REP. CASIO. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. REP. FARIAS. and interpellation on House Bill No. 3101. REP. CASIO. Point of order. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object. REP. CASIO. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What is the point of order of the Honorable Casio?

92 REP. CASIO. Mr. Speaker, when we started with the budget deliberations, it was clear in the schedule that after the termination of the period of interpellation, there will be a time for debate. This is what we call the contra en turno THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Turno en contra. REP. CASIO. And this is an important aspect of the deliberations because it is in this contra en turno that we listen to the summations of both, those who are against the budget and those who are for the budget. If what is being closed now is the entire debate on the entire budget and we are being asked to vote on Second Reading, then I think that is out of order because there should still be a period where both sides will be allowed to summarize their arguments for or against the debate. So, I raise that point of order, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Chair would like to respond to that point of order issue raised by the Gentleman. We have not yet reached the period of turno en contra. The motion proposed by the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte which was objected to earlier by the Minority Leader and was later proposed to be amended by the Majority Leader is to the effect that we terminate the period of debate on the budget of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. So as soon as we are able to complete the process of debating on the individual budgets of each department, then we proceed with the turno en contra where we recognize speeches for the closure of the debate on the entire budget. So at this point, the point of order cannot be considered as acted upon. REP. CASIO. That was not what I heard, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. Point of order.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 the debate on the entire House Bill No. 3101 and the distinguished Minority Leader has timely objected to the same. If the distinguished Minority Leader would like to expound on his objection, then he should be given five minutes, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). No. But the Chair would still want to proceed with the point of order issue raised. REP. DATUMANONG. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Therefore, a point of order has precedence over all other motions and the Chair REP. CASIO. Yes, therefore, Mr. Speaker, THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Just a minute, will you please allow the Chair to complete his statement. REP. DATUMANONG. Mr. Speaker, since THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Chair has already issued an earlier ruling before the Majority Leader stating the parliamentary situation which was earlier stated by the Chair. So that the point of order raised by the Honorable Casio is indeed out of order. REP. DATUMANONG. Mr. Speaker, point of order. REP. CASIO. But, Mr. Speaker,... THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is the Gentleman appealing the ruling of the Chair? REP. CASIO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and may I be given time to explain. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Pardon?

REP. GONZALES (N.). Can I state the parliamentary status, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). No. The Chair ruled about the point of order raised by the Honorable Casio. REP. DATUMANONG. Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary status is that the distinguished Gentleman from Ilocos Norte stood a while ago to close the period of debate on the budget of the DSWD, which was properly objected to by the distinguished Minority Leader and in accordance with our Rules, he was given five minutes to expound on his objection. Thereafter, this Representation, after his short manifestation, amended the motion of the distinguished Gentleman from Ilocos Norte and he has accepted my amendment. Therefore, the motion is to terminate

REP. CASIO. I am appealing the ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to have five minutes to explain. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The ruling of the Chair has been appealed. Would the Gentleman expound on his appeal? REP. CASIO. Yes, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Gentleman has five minutes. He may please proceed. REP. CASIO. Mr. Speaker, I think it was really clear from the statements made by the Majority Leader that what is now at stakewhat is the motion? The amended motion of the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte is that we are going to vote to close the entire period of sponsorship and debate on the GAB. In doing so, he has invoked that the period of sponsorship and debate has been finished. In fact, there were

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 speakers who were for and against it. In that sense, it seems that we are now going to bypass the scheduled turno en contra because what we are now going to close is the entire period of sponsorship and debate. That is my understanding of the motion and if indeed that is the intent of the Gentleman from Ilocos, I think that is against the procedure. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Chair would like to reiterate and as he stated earlier, based on his ruling made as subject of the point of order raised by the Gentleman, that we have not yet reached the point of turno en contra. I think that is clear. REP. CASIO. If that is clear, Mr. Speaker, then I...

93 If the motion of the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte would only embrace the office of the DSWD, then it does not violate or traverse the subject matter of the previous motion. In which case, it would not be the subject of this point of order. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Chair has a clear understanding that the motion of the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte is with respect to the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the DSWD budget. So the Gentlemans motion is still on. REP. DATUMANONG. Not only that. It includes the others which are yet to be debated on, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Which one?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). So, the Chair has already ruled and the Gentleman cannot argue with the Chair. REP. CASIO. Yes, I would not...

REP. DATUMANONG. That is why the point of order has been raised. REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). But the Gentleman has already expounded on his appeal. His five minutes have been already... REP. CASIO. I will withdraw my appeal, Mr. Speaker, if indeed there will still be turno en contra. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). So the Gentleman is withdrawing his appeal. REP. CASIO. Yes, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). All right. REP. CASIO. Will there be a period of amendments after that? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Of course. REP. CASIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. REP. DATUMANONG. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What is the pleasure of the Gentleman from Maguindanao? REP. DATUMANONG. The basis of the point of order is a violation of the Rules on the matter of a pending motion not yet acted upon fully and another one that is being acted upon that would embrace the subject matter of that previous motion. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Which part?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). That is why the Chair would like to clarify to the Gentleman from Maguindanao that he has to put things in the proper perspective. The present motion now is the main motion of the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte, that is to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the DSWD, which was proposed to be amended by the Majority Leader and subsequently objected to by the Minority Leader. So, the Chair will deal with the Gentleman at the proper time. REP. DATUMANONG. (Rep. Fuentebella). With due respect THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). If the Gentleman would kindly withdraw his point of order so that we would not go into the process of ruling on a possible appeal REP. DATUMANONG. With due respect, the original motion of the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte is to terminate the sponsorship and debate on the budget of the DSWD. But it was amended upon the insinuation of the Majority Leader that we include not only the debate on the budget of the DSWD, but the period of debate on House Bill 3101. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Chair cannot argue, neither can the Gentleman argue with the Chair. REP. DATUMANONG. That is the amended motion as prodded by the Majority Leader. SUSPENSION OF SESSION

REP. DATUMANONG. The previous motion is the suspension of the consideration on the budget of the OPAPP which has been existing. The OPAPP consideration is still suspended as of this time. It has not yet been fully resolved and here is a motion presented by the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on all the remaining items in the budget for debate and that would, therefore, include the office of the OPAPP. Mr. Speaker, this violates the subject matter of a previous motion that is why there is the point of order.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Chair declares a recess. It was 1:46 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 2:02 a.m., the session was resumed.

94 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. Since there were interventions made on the floor when we suspended the session, will the Majority Leader please restate the parliamentary situation? REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, again, the distinguished Gentleman from Ilocos Norte, using as basis Sec. 53 of our Rules, moved to terminate the period of debate on the budget of DSWD. The distinguished Gentleman, the Minority Leader, the Honorable Lagman, objected to it. He was given time to explain his vote. In the meantime, this Representation, after his short manifestation, thereafter, amended the motion of the distinguished Gentleman from Ilocos Norte to include not only the termination of the debate on the budget of DSWD, but the period of debate on House Bill No. 3101. During the lull, Mr. Speaker, this Representation was informed that a member of our Muslim brothers, particularly, the distinguished Gentleman, the Hon. Tupay Loong, would like to express some manifestation when we take up again the budget of OPAPP, which was previously suspended. If only to allow our distinguished Member, the Hon. Tupay Loong, to express the sense of distaste on the part of our Muslim brothers on a particular subject matter, then, I withdraw my amendment, so that we will only vote on the motion of the distinguished Gentleman from Ilocos Norte to terminate the period of debate on the budget of DSWD. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Minority Leader is recognized. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, could I have time to make a rejoinder with respect to the citation of the distinguished Gentleman from Ilocos Norte on Section 53? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). By all means, please proceed. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, Section 53 should be taken in context. And Section 53 presupposes that there are no more speakers who would wish to speak for or against a pending measure or incident. But in this particular case, there is still a long list of Members of the House coming both from the Minority and the Majority who have registered their intention to interpellate. We are in the period of interpellation and debate, and I think there is reason for categorizing this period, not only as a period of debate, but a period of interpellation. There are Members who still would like to interpellate, not only debate, but to interpellate, because the distinction is not a useless formality, and there is substance in making this period the period of interpellation and debate. Mr. Speaker, we still have a Member, for example, who would like to interpellate on the budget of DSWD primarily to point out that earlier, no less than the Secretary of the department has conceded that she is willing to forgo P8 billion worth of appropriations in the budget of the department, and these are the CCTno, no, nothe supplemental funding of P2,854,431,000; food for work for internally displaced persons at P881,219,000; and rice subsidy program of P4,234,350,000. This was offered by the Secretary of DSWD to the distinguished Lady, the Honorable Villarosa. And no

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 less than the Majority Leader called me up for the same reason, and that is the P8 billion being offered for reduction in the budget of the department. If the distinguished Lady, the Honorable Villarosa, was given the opportunity to interpellate, she would get a confirmation of this offer. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Section 53 on Motion to Close Debate, is qualified by Section 54 on Cloture and Section 89 on Time Limit. It is a settled principle of construction that a subsequent rule, section or provision qualifies a former or preceding provision, rule or section. Definitely, Section 54 on Cloture and Section 89 on Time Limit, considering that there are listed Members who would like to interpellate, would qualify and, in a way, supersede Section 53. For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I register my objection to the motion. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Let us go back to the previous question. The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, may we just shortly respond to the manifestation of the distinguished Gentleman from Albay, the honorable Minority Leader, insofar as the socalled offer to reduce the lump-sum appropriations is concerned. If ever there was such, and the same was intimated, that was for the purpose of ensuring the smooth deliberation of the budget of the DSWD. But, as events will now show, that offer, if any, has already been withdrawn, Mr. Speaker. And, therefore, we now move that we vote on the pending motion, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Before we act on the previous motion, the Chair would just like to clarify and reiterate that the basic motion of the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte is to REP. GONZALES (N.). Terminate the period of interpellation and debate THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). terminate the period of interpellation and debate REP. GONZALES (N.). on the budget of DSWD. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). on the budget of the DSWD. REP. GONZALES (N.). That is correct, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). After it has been amended earlier, REP. GONZALES (N.). And withdrawn. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). and the amendment has been withdrawn, REP. GONZALES (N.). That is correct, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). objected to and a rejoinder has been made, and substantial debate has been done on this matter, let us now go into a vote.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 VIVA VOCE VOTING THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). As many as are in favor of the motion of the Gentleman from Ilocos Norte, to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate as far as the budget of the DSWD is concerned, please say aye. SEVERAL MEMBERS. Aye. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). As many as are against, please say nay. FEW MEMBERS. Nay. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The ayes have it; the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of DSWD is deemed concluded. (Applause) The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, I now move that we take up the budget of the OPAPP. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is there any objection? (Silence) Hearing none, the same is approved. Who is the Sponsor of the budget of the OPAPP? REP. GONZALES (N.). The honorable Chairman, Mr. Speaker, of the Committee on Appropriations. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations will take the floor, please. REP. ABAYA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am ready to entertain any interpellation or manifestation. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, I now move that we recognize the Hon. Tupay T. Loong. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Honorable Loong is recognized. REP. LOONG. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, in view of the sentiment expressed by majority of the Members of this House, I move that we adopt a resolution calling for the resignation of Secretary Ging Deles. (Applause) We vehemently object to such treatment of a colleague who had no other intention but to contribute to the betterment of the peace process, Mr. Speaker. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is suspended. It was 2:13 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 2:14 a.m., the session was resumed.

95 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). May the distinguished Gentleman restate his proposed motion, resolution, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Will the Honorable Loong please restate his earlier motion. REP. LOONG. Mr. Speaker, in view of the sentiment expressed by majority of the Members of this House, I move that we adopt a resolution calling for the resignation of Secretary Ging Deles. We vehemently object to such treatment of a colleague who had no other intention but to contribute to the betterment of the peace process, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What does the Majority Leader say? REP. GULLAS. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The distinguished Gentleman from Cebu is recognized. REP. GULLAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to second the motion of our distinguished colleague. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The motion of the Honorable Loong has been made and seconded by the Gentleman from Cebu. Is there any objection to the motion? REP. GULLAS. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Would the Gentleman want to expound on his REP. GULLAS. May I be allowed to very briefly explain the reason why I am seconding the motion. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Please proceed. REP. GULLAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I rise on a question on this Chambers institutional integrity. I think the issue transcends whether a Member that was subjected to an insult is a Christian or a Muslim, or from Luzon, Visayas or Mindanao. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the institutional integrity of the Chamber has been impinged. It is a constitutional right of any Member of this Chamber to be able to interpellate, especially during budget deliberations, the head of an agency, department or bureau. I need not speak of personalities, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot help but put on record that I have had the privilege of serving this Chamber with the grandfather of our distinguished colleague, the Hon. Fatima Aliah Q. Dimaporo, and I refer to the distinguished Gentleman from Lanao before Lanao was divided into Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur, the Hon. Ali Dimaporo. I also had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of serving with the father of the distinguished Lady, the Hon.

96 Bobby Dimaporo. We served here for nine years and we served together in the Fourteenth Congress in the Commission on Appointments. Now, I have the privilege to serve with the granddaughter, whom I hold in very high esteem and respect. I refuse to believe, Mr. Speaker, that we will let this issue pass. It is a challenge not only to the leadership of the House; it is a challenge to each and every Member of this Chamber. Are we going to let it pass or not? I say, we should not. And for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would like to second the motion of our distinguished colleague. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. It is a very, very short parliamentary inquiry. Very short lang. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The distinguished Gentleman from Davao is recognized. What is the parliamentary inquiry? REP. CAGAS. Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I made a motion as to amending the budget of the OPAPP to one peso. May I just inquire as to the status of my motion because this Representation will maintain the motion to allocate or appropriate, Mr. Speaker, a one-peso budget for the OPAPP. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What does the Majority Leader say? REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, for the kind information of the distinguished Deputy Minority Leader, after we terminate the period of debate on the budget of OPAPP, then we shall consider it the time of the Turno En Contra, after which, we shall proceed to the period of amendments. So, it is during that period of amendments when an amendment shall be entertained, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Chair will just take note of that as part of the proceedings because it has already been moved; therefore, we cannot entertain another motion. We kindly request the Gentleman from Isabela to first withdraw his motion, and we shall take it up later on. REP. ALBANO. Yes. I withdraw my motion, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). So, we now go back to the motion of the distinguished Majority Leader to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the OPAPP. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Gentleman from Iloilo may now proceed. REP. ALBANO. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Rather, the Gentleman from Isabela. Sorry. I think I am already sleepy. REP. ALBANO. I now move that a copy of the resolution, urging the resignation of the head of the OPAPP, be furnished His Excellency, Pres. Benigno Simeon Aquino. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Secretary General is hereby directed to provide His Excellency, President Aquino about this proposed motion. Is there any objection to the motion of the Gentleman from Isabela? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is suspended. It was 2:22 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Majority Leader is on the right track. Okay, the motion has been seconded. Is there any objection to the motion of the Honorable Loong, as seconded by the Honorable Gullas? Is there any objection to the motion of the Honorable Loong, seconded by the Honorable Gullas? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. (Applause) The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, considering that the distinguished Minority Leader has left the fate of the deliberations on the budget of the OPAPP to the Majority contingent, I therefore move that we terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the OPAPP. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What is the pleasure of the Gentleman from Isabela? REP. ALBANO. Mr. Speaker, after approving the motion to cause the resignation of the Secretary of the OPAPP, I move that we furnish a copy to His Excellency, Pres. Noynoy Aquino.
* See ANNEXES (printed separately)

At 2:25 a.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, I now move that we proceed to the period of turno en contra. For this purpose, may I ask that we recognize the distinguished Minority Leader. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Minority Leader may take the floor. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, in order not to delay further the Majority coalition express, (Laughter) it might be a useless formality for this Representation to deliver a turno en contra speech. May I just request, Mr. Speaker, that I be allowed to submit for the record the turno en contra speech.* This would not derail anymore the Majority express. (Applause) THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Very well.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 Congratulations to the distinguished Minority Leader. The Majority Floor Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, may we now recognize the distinguished Gentleman from Bayan Muna, the Honorable Casio. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Honorable Casio has the floor. REP. CASIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I come from the Majority, Mr. Speaker, but taking the cue from the Minority Leader in keeping it short because we are all sleepy, we likewise manifest our objection to the measure, on the grounds that we have heard in the last few weeks, the presence of lump sums, inequitable distribution, the CCTs, the PPPs and the huge debt servicing allocation. We shall be putting this into writing, Mr. Speaker, to abbreviate the proceedings and we shall be submitting this for the record.* Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (Applause) THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Very well. The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, there being no other Member who has expressed his desire to speak against the measure, I move that we now terminate the period of turno en contra. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, we may now proceed to the period of amendments, but consistent with parliamentary precedents THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Minority Leader is recognized. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, since we are now in the period of amendments, may I propose an amendment in the budget of the DSWD by reducing the appropriation for conditional cash transfer by P6 billion. The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is that what the DSWD could really absorb for purposes of implementation would only be a reduced projected number of 1.5 million household beneficiaries, and that would translate to about P15 billion. So, there will be an excess of P6.1 billion. Whatever it is, we propose that it be reduced to P15 billion. Mr. Speaker, this should be an amendment to a particular section, as provided for in the General Appropriations Bill, which, I think, the distinguished Chair may want to read for the record. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). So that the Minority Leader may be able to propose a specific amendment to a particular item, page and line number, the Chair declares a suspension of the session. It was 2:30 a.m.
* See ANNEXES (printed separately)

97 RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 2:32 a.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. For the information of the Chamber, we are now in the period of individual amendments. The reason the Chair requested the Minority Leader to restate the specific page number in the House bill which he is trying to amend is that there may be some amendments to the proposed amendment. Will the distinguished Minority Leader please proceed. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, when the Minority Leader was recognized to propose his individual amendments, I would assume that the Committee on Appropriations does not have any amendments because the Committee amendments should precede the individual amendments. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What does the Majority Leader say? REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, in fact, consistent with our parliamentary precedent, I was about to move for the creation of a small committee to receive and resolve the individual amendments to House Bill No. 3101 or the Fiscal Year 2011 General Appropriations Bill, and to elect the members thereof. That is consistent with our parliamentary practice because, as the distinguished Gentleman from Albay said a while ago, during the Eighth Congress, if I heard him right, they tried to have an individual amendment, but it will really take an eternity for us to finish our individual amendments. So, to be consistent with our parliamentary practice, we create a Committee on Amendments. We find nothing wrong if that is the submission of the distinguished Gentleman from Albay, as a manifestation that later on the small Committee shall consider the amendment. But if the purpose is to have a direct vote on the matter, Mr. Speaker, that will be a different story, and we will react to the same at the proper time. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Before the Chair recognizes the Minority Leader, the Majority Leader has a point. If we go into individual amendments, it will really be a tedious process because before I would even allow the Minority Leader to proceed with his individual amendment which is found on page 772, the Chair will be compelled or constrained to ask if there is any anterior amendment. For these reasons, may we now recognize the Minority Leader. What does the Minority Leader say? REP. LAGMAN. I said previously, Mr. Speaker, that such was the parliamentary practice for practical reasons. I really endorse that practice. But I also said that there is no idolatrous adherence to precedents and we could depart on a case-tocase basis, particularly on issues which are overriding like, for example, the conditional cash transfer. With respect to the projected amendment, a Committee amendment of the Majority Leader is not an amendment, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing in the General Appropriations Bill which would be amended. But that is a practice. After we have disposed of individual amendments, which are only on overriding issues,

98 then the distinguished Majority Leader can propose the creation of a small Committee which we would welcome. So, may I proceed to my individual amendment, Mr. Speaker? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Minority Leader will please proceed. REP. LAGMAN. On page 772, lines 50 to 51, in lieu of the figure P21,194,000,117, place a new figure in the amount of FIFTEEN BILLION (15,000,000,000) and the subsequent provisions or figures should be accordingly amended consistent with this amendment. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Before the Chair would recognize the Sponsor to accept or not, the Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, as I earlier manifested, based on parliamentary precedents that have been observed by the past Congresses, including the Congresses where I have been a Member of, and I am sure that the distinguished Minority Leader has been a Member of also, we never considered individual amendments on the floor for purposes of budgetary legislation. Therefore, the Fifteenth Congress is not about to turn its back on that precedent. So, if the distinguished Gentleman from Albay, the distinguished Minority Leader, will be insisting on proposing an individual amendment on the floor, then with due respect to the distinguished Minority Leader, this Representation would have to object, Mr. Speaker. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is suspended. It was 2:38 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 2:39 a.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, there is a proposed individual amendment by the distinguished Minority Leader which has been objected to. Can we have a vote on it? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Will the Majority Leader please restate the parliamentary status. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Minority Leader was about to propound some individual amendments and this Representation has objected to it. As I have said, consistent with parliamentary precedents, we have never considered individual amendments during deliberation of the budget and we are not about to turn our backs to that precedent established by previous Congresses. For which reason, with deep regret and with utmost respect, Mr. Speaker, I have to object to the proposed individual amendment or to the proposed opening of the period of individual amendments.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 I so move, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). To clarify the issue, the motion of the distinguished Minority Leader is to start with the period of individual amendment which is being objected to by the Majority Leader. Is that correct? REP. GONZALES (N.). That is correct, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Are we ready to vote on this? What is the pleasure of the distinguished Gentleman from Camarines Sur? REP. VILLAFUERTE. Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification. Is it understood that the objection, of the Majority Floor Leader against the Minority Floor Leaders presenting an individual amendment is without prejudice to the Minority Leader presenting to the small Committee his individual amendments later on. Is that the proper interpretation of the objection? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What does the Majority Leader say? REP. GONZALES (N.). That is correct, Mr. Speaker. In fact, if I am allowed to complete my THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Why does the Gentleman not complete it so that we can REP. GONZALES (N.). motion later, then we can announce the time frame within which every Member has to submit their individual amendments to the small Committee to be created, Mr. Speaker. REP. VILLAFUERTE. Mr. Speaker, is it further understood that the small Committee will introduce not only Committee amendments but also individual amendments? REP. GONZALES (N.). It will consider individual amendments, Mr. Speaker. REP.VILLAFUERTE. Not anymore Committee amendments. REP. GONZALES (N.). The Committee amendments are Committee amendments, Mr. Speaker, and they are proposed by the Committee. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). So, the Gentleman is practically saying that the query of the Gentleman from Camarines Sur is that we accept both individual and Committee amendments. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, the small Committee to be created shall be authorized to pass upon the Committee as well as the individual amendments. REP. VILLAFUERTE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Okay, very well.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 What does the Minority Leader say? REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am proposing this particular amendment on the Conditional Cash Transfer funding because I would like the small Committee to be constituted later to have a categorical mandate from the floor, from the membership of this House. In the event that that should happen, then it should be a guide to the small Committee. That is the intention of this particular amendment, Mr. Speaker, so that the small Committee can effect the particular amendment with the mandate coming from the plenary. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Okay, last rejoinder on the part of the Majority Leader. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, the creation of the small Committee will be the mandate of the Committee to pass upon the individual amendment. So, can I ask for the previous question, Mr. Speaker? REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me just clarify that the mandate with respect to the creation of the special Committee or small Committee is a general mandate, but my specific amendment would be a particular mandate. There is no inconsistency between the two propositions. REP. GARCIA (P.). Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). We now go to the previous question before we vote. REP. GARCIA (P.). Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Gentleman from Cebu stood earlier. The Gentleman from Cebu will please state his parliamentary inquiry. REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that the individual amendments submitted by the distinguished Minority Leader will be voted now in plenary so that if it is defeated there is no more mandate to the special Committee. That individual amendment will no longer be considered by the special Committee considering that the plenary has rejected that individual amendment. Is that our understanding before we vote, Mr. Speaker? Because any individual amendment is to be submitted REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Majority Leader will please reply. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, the only issue submitted for voting is whether or not we shall entertain individual amendments in the plenary for purposes of the budget. To my mind, it has been sufficiently discussed, so may I now move for the previous question to vote on the said motion.

99 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). No, let us first clarify the query of the Gentleman from Cebu so as not to dilute. REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, I am now in a quandary. Are we voting on the formation of that special Committee or shall we vote on the individual amendment of the distinguished Minority Leader? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). It is the understanding of the Chair ... REP. GARCIA (P.). The distinguished Minority Leader stated that he is submitting his individual amendment so that it may constitute a mandate to the special Committee. That is why my inquiry is, if that individual amendment is rejected by the plenary, there is no more mandate to the special Committee. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). It is the understanding of the Chair that we are not trying to vote on the particular individual amendment of the Gentleman from Albay; but rather we are voting as to whether we will proceed with the period of individual amendments, and in lieu thereof we can create a special committee for the purpose of entertaining individual amendments as may be submitted by each individual Member. REP. GARCIA (P.). In other words, Mr. Speaker, the individual amendment proposed by the distinguished Minority Leader will not anymore be taken up by the Body because, to my understanding from the statement of the Chair, what we are voting on is the formation of that special Committee. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). I think this has been clarified and ... REP. GARCIA (P.). So, which takes precedence? Is it the formation of the Committee on individual amendments or the previous motion submitted by the distinguished Minority Leader? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Minority Leader is recognized. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker. I was previously recognized to submit my individual amendment and that is the motion pending before this august Body. No other motion is pending except my amendment reducing the proposed budget of the DSWD to P15 billion with respect to the Conditional Cash Transfer. Now, in answer to the query of the distinguished Gentleman from Cebu, Mr. Speaker, if my amendment is lost, there could be other amendments submitted to the small committee similar but not the same as my amendment. The individual amendment could reduce the budget by P17 billion or the individual amendment could reduce the budget to P1, because that is not covered by my amendment, just in case it is lost. My amendment is to reduce the budget on the Conditional Cash Transfer by P6 billion, so much so that it would now be P15 billion. Any other figure can be subject to an individual amendment which could be submitted to the small Committee. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Majority Leader will please clarify this thing once and for all.

100 REP. GONZALES (N.). As I have clearly stated, Mr. Speaker, it is the opening of the period of individual amendments that I am objecting to, and for which reason, it has already been extensively discussed. I move that we vote on my objection, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry to clarify further the parliamentary situation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Last parliamentary inquiry, the Honorable Padilla is recognized. REP. PADILLA. We cannot vote on the objection, Mr. Speaker. We can only vote on the motion. The pending motion is the motion that was presented by the distinguished Minority Leader, and the motion is very specific. It is not whether or not we proceed to the individual amendments but he already submitted an individual amendment. In fact, he made mention of reducing the CCT from the present P21.1 billion to P16.1 billion. Also, if only to buttress my point, even the Chair inquired from the proponent of the motion which page and which line. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Majority Leader will please proceed. REP. PADILLA. Therefore, the Chair has properly considered that the motion of the Gentleman was in order. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Let us entertain the last response so that we can .... REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, I hope this will be the last response. In fact, if we are to be strict about the matter, any opening of the period of individual amendment will be out of order because if we go strictly by our Rules, we should first consider Committee amendments before we consider individual amendments. After all, the proposed individual amendments might be included in the Committee amendments. That is the reason we do not take up individual amendments on the floor for budgetary legislation. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Let us now proceed with the previous question. Will the Majority Leader please restate the motion and then his objection? REP. GONZALES (N.). I am objecting to the opening of the individual amendments. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What is the motion first? REP. GONZALES (N.). The distinguished Minority Leader is beginning to open the period of amendments and that is what I am objecting to, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The motion has been proposed by the Minority Leader and objected to by the Majority Leader. Let us now vote on the motion. As many as in favor of ... REP. GONZALES (N.). May we clarify, Mr. Speaker.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Let us clarify first before we proceed with the voting. REP. GONZALES (N.). To make a positive motion, Mr. Speaker, can I just make this motion. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Just a minute. The session is suspended. It was 2:52 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 2:53 a.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, for the kind information of our Members, since it is the motion that I am objecting to, an aye vote sustains the position of the Minority Leader. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Which is? REP. GONZALES (N.). We will take up individual amendments in plenary. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). And that the Minority Leader is objecting. REP. GONZALES (N.). The Majority Leader is objecting to the opening of the period of individual amendments, Mr. Speaker. Effectively, they are opening the period of individual amendments and that is what I am objecting to. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Minority Leader is recognized. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, this Representation has been recognized by the Chair to present individual amendment. I presented my individual amendment, and pursuant to the suggestion of the Presiding Officer, I referred to a particular line and page an expenditure item in the General Appropriations Bill. That is the amendment I have proposed, Mr. Speaker, and I moved that my amendment be adopted by this House. The objection of the distinguished Majority Leader is off -tangent, I beg to say, because he is objecting to the opening of the period of individual amendments which has already been opened by the recognition given to me by the Presiding Officer. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). All right, this matter has been substantially discussed and the motion REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). made by the Minority Leader . REP. CAGAS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). and objected to, so as not to interrupt the voting. REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. REP. CAGAS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. VIVA VOCE THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). We cannot interrupt the voting. We are now in the period of voting. The Minority Leader made a motion, which was objected to by the Majority Leader. As many as are in favor of the motion of the Minority Leader, please say aye. FEW MEMBERS. Aye. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). As many as are against, please say nay. SEVERAL MEMBERS. Nay. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The motion of the Minority Leader is lost. The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. CAGAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, consistent with parliamentary precedents REP. CAGAS. Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (N.). we propose the creation of a small committee to receive and resolve REP. CAGAS. Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (N.). the individual amendments to House Bill No. 3101, REP. CAGAS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. RESUMPTION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Let the Majority Leader finish. REP. GONZALES (N.). the General Appropriations Bill. I will read the names of those who will compose the small Committee. For the Majority, we have the honorable Chairman, the Honorable Abaya; the Honorable Limkaichong; the Honorable Andaya; and for the Committee on Rules, the Honorable Gonzales. For the Minority, we have the Honorable Lagman. The deadline for the submission of individual amendments is on Tuesday, October 19, 2010. I so move, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. CAGAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. At 2:59 p.m., the session was resumed.

101 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What is the parliamentary inquiry of the Gentleman from Davao del Sur? REP. CAGAS. If this seems to be the proper time, Mr. Speaker, to raise amendmentsearlier, this Representation reiterated my motion as regards the guidance of the small Committee as far as my concern of amending page 11 of the General Appropriations Bill, on reducing the budget of the OPAPP from P235 million to P880,000 and later to P1. So, my query is: what would be the status of my motion in the light of the objection, which was carried out by the plenary, Mr. Speaker? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Majority Leader will please reply. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, it can be part of the individual amendment to be submitted by the distinguished Deputy Minority Leader to the small Committee not later than October 19, 2010. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). That is correct. REP. GATCHALIAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Gentleman from Valenzuela is recognized REP. GATCHALIAN. Are we burying the democratic process of debates on these amendments? What if an individual Member wants to vote in favor or against an individual amendment. Do we not have the right to listen to all these amendments line per line rather than delegate the power to a small committee? SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is suspended. It was 2:57 a.m.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. REP. GATCHALIAN. Mr. Speaker, after conferring with my colleagues, this Representation withdraws the inquiry. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Okay. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya is recognized. REP. PADILLA. Another parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

102 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Please, proceed. REP. PADILLA. My parliamentary inquiry has something to do with the proposed amendment submitted by the distinguished Minority Leader. While it was turned down by the House, I am not questioning that because, as a matter of procedure, after the voting, we abide by the decision of the majority. However, I noted that the objection of the distinguished Majority Leader, which was the basis of the voting of the majority, is to bar the acceptance of individual amendments on the floor. Whatever individual amendments to be submitted should be coursed through the smaller Committee. So, my inquiry is that in spite of the vote on the motion of the Gentleman from Albay, will there be a reason for the smaller Committee to take note or to take cognizance of the proposal of the Gentleman from Albay to slash the budget of the CCT from P21 to P15 billion, removing P6 billion, with the Committee that will be created taking into consideration at the appropriate time such a proposal, Mr. Speaker? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Majority Leader may please respond. REP. GONZALES (N.). That can be part of the individual amendment to be proposed to the small Committee by the distinguished Minority Leader. Mr. Speaker, subject to the Committee and individual amendments to be submitted by the small Committee. I move that we vote on Second Reading on House Bill No. 3101. I so move, Mr. Speaker. REP. CASIO. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker, what would be the reply to my parliamentary inquiry? REP. CASIO. Just a short parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Honorable Casio may please proceed with his parliamentary inquiry. REP. CASIO. Yes, may we just know when the amendments will be revealed to the Body? How will we know? When will we know whether the amendments that we will be proposing during the break will be accepted or not? Will the Committee come up with the list of approved amendments so that we will be guided when we vote on Third Reading? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Surely, Mr. Speaker, because we will vote on the said bill on Third Reading when we return. In fact, for the information of all the Members of the House, while most of us or all of us will be on vacation, the real work on the appropriations bill will start by Wednesday when the small Committee convenes, Mr. Speaker.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 REP. CASIO. We just want an assurance, Mr. Speaker, because in the past, we have never been informed of the amendments that were approved. Would it be possible for the Committee to provide a short list of these approved amendments so that at least we will know whether our amendments were accepted or not? I think this is not a difficult or unreasonable request to make, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (N.). Anyway, that is part of the duty and obligation of the Committee concerned, Mr. Speaker. REP. CASIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we vote on Second Reading on House Bill No. 3101. VIVA VOCE VOTING THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). As many as are in favor of the approval on Second Reading of House Bill No. 3101, please say aye. SEVERAL MEMBERS. Aye. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). As many as are against, please say nay. FEW MEMBERS. Nay. APPROVAL OF H.B. NO. 3101 ON SECOND READING THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The ayes have it; House Bill No. 3101 is approved on Second Reading. (Applause) SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, may I ask for a few minutes suspension of the session. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is suspended. It was 3:03 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 3:04 a.m., the session was resumed with the Speaker presiding. THE SPEAKER. The session is resumed. The Majority Leader is recognized. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE SPEAKER. The session is suspended. It was 3:04 a.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 3:05 a.m., the session was resumed.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 THE SPEAKER. The session is resumed. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to the Additional Reference of Business. THE SPEAKER. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Secretary General will please read the Additional Reference of Business. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS The Secretary General read the following House Bills on First Reading and the Speaker made the corresponding references: BILLS ON FIRST READING House Bill No. 3526, entitled: AN ACT EXEMPTING USERS OF ELECTRONIC VEHICLES FROM THE PAYMENT OF THE ROAD USERS TAX By Representative Haresco TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS House Bill No. 3527, entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE PROMOTION OF BREASTFEEDING PRACTICES AND INSTITUTING MEASURES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES By Representatives Lacson-Noel and Rodriguez (R.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH House Bill No. 3528, entitled: AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE PEOPLES SURVIVAL FUND TO PROVIDE LONG-TERM FINANCE STREAMS TO ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF CLIMATE CHANGE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9729, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CLIMATE CHANGE ACT OF 2009, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES By Representative Taada TO THE COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY House Bill No. 3529, entitled: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER IN EVERY BARANGAY WITHIN DISTRICT 2 OF QUEZON CITY AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR By Representative Castelo TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH House Bill No. 3530, entitled: AN ACT TO INSTITUTIONALIZE A HOUSING PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

103 House Bill No. 3531, entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH REFORM OF THE PHILIPPINES TO INCREASE AND MAKE EQUITABLE ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES, CREATING A NATIONAL HEALTH POLICY COUNCIL, A NATIONAL HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION AND A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE FINANCING POLICY CLUSTER, AMENDING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE (REPUBLIC ACT 8293) AND OTHER RELEVANT LAWS, SUPPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT (REPUBLIC ACT 7875), THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (REPUBLIC 7160) AND OTHER RELEVANT LAWS FOR THAT PURPOSE By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH House Bill No. 3532, entitled: AN ACT REFORMING AND STRENGTHENING THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES By Representative Cabaluna TO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION AND CULTURE House Bill No. 3533, entitled: AN ACT INSTITUTING THE NATIONAL LAND USE POLICY OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PROVIDING THE IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES By Representative Taada TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LAND USE House Bill No. 3534, entitled: AN ACT PRESCRIBING AN ANTITRUST LAW TO STRENGTHEN THE PROHIBITION AGAINST MONOPOLIES, CARTELS, COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND OTHER ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES AND CONDUCT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES By Representative Taada TO THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND INDUSTRY AND THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS House Bill No. 3535, entitled: AN ACT SEPARATING THE LAMSUGOD NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL - LAMIAN NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL ANNEX IN BARANGAY LAMSUGOD, MUNICIPALITY OF SURALLAH, PROVINCE OF SOUTH COTABATO FROM THE LAMIAN NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, CONVERTING IT INTO AN INDEPENDENT NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL TO BE KNOWN AS LAMSUGOD NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR By Representative Avance-Fuentes TO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION AND CULTURE

104 THE SPEAKER. The Chair would like to make a short statement. As you know, I would like to tell you, I served as Senior Vice Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for six years and there are two things I remember from the six years of experience as No. 2 man of that Committee. The first one is, of course, the fact that while we are all going on a short recess at this point, the people of the Committee on Appropriations, in fact, will work very hard during the next 21 days in order to go over our amendments, to go over all the discussions here and, finally, to craft a bill ready for Third Reading when we get together. That is the first point that I would like to mention. This is not the end of the process but this is part of the process. A big portion of what will happen next will be or virtually everything will be in the Committee on Appropriations. The second one is something that I would like to share with all of you. During all the nine years that I have worked as a Member of this Congress from 1992 to the year 2001, this is the very first time, really, that a great majority or a big quorum was present when the Second Reading took place. This is the first time, and I would like to say thank you to all of you. (Applause) Some of the media observed that it is to the credit of this Body that virtually in every session day, at least 200 people are present. That is really unprecedented. It is amazing that we have debates here among people who are friends. The debates could get acrimonious, but still, we have acted decisively, in my view, and for which, I thank all of you. At the same time, I would like to say that, as has been our character, we continue to be good friends here and I cannot say that any person or any group monopolized the activity or the good arguments tonight because all of us on all sides, on both sides of the aisle, contributed to what happened. It is my fervent hope that the progress of our country will be given a big nudge by what we all did today. For these reasons, I would like to say thank you to all of you and congratulations for having taken these firm actions. Thank you very much, mga comrades. Mabuhay. (Applause) The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, before we all rush home and before I make that final and favorite motion to adjourn, I will be remiss in my duties if I will not extend my words of gratitude to the following, Mr. Speaker: First, to the entire House Secretariat, most especially the staff of the Committee on Appropriations. (Applause) You have all worked hard. You endured long nights at your respective desks or on your feet in your respective duty posts. I speak for the entire House when I say that I know how tired you all are. Yet, with unflagging spirits and energies, you rose to the occasion and proved once again that we owe the

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2010 quality of our work as legislators to the quality of your work as staff and Secretariat. Second, to the Committee on Appropriations, headed by the Hon. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, together with all the Vice Chairpersons. (Applause) The astuteness with which they guided the entire budget deliberations from Committee level hearings to the plenary was a key factor in the smooth and orderly fashion with which this process is now about to end. Third, of course, to my Senior, my Deputies and Assistant Majority Leaders, who performed exemplarily well in the steering of the plenary. (Applause) They guided the deliberations with such aplomb that for the first time in my life as Majority Leader, Mr. Speaker, mas kakaunti akong nasabi ngayon. Ang galing na inyong ipinamalas ay nagbigay sa akin ng tuwa sapagkat pinatunayan ninyo ang inyong kakayahang manguna. Fourth, the Members of the Minority. (Applause) The incisive character of your interpellation manifested a strongly principled and disciplined opposition. Your challenges inspired meaningful redirections and contributed strongly to the crafting of this budget. Indeed, the democracy we nurture has been strengthened by you. Fifth, the Members of the Majority who were consistently present and attentive, some of whom, if I may say, many of whom allowed themselves to be restrained if only to ensure the smooth passage of House Bill No. 3101. (Applause) Sixth, the Deputy Speakers who have presided at nagbutas ng bangko doon ho sa taas for your unflinching and untiring work each day. Your careful sifting through the nuances of parliamentary law, the exercise of utmost discretion and judgment, made sure that each days output truly reflected the collective wisdom of the House. Finally, but certainly not the very least, our own Speaker, the Hon. Feliciano Sonny Belmonte Jr. (Applause) The probity of your leadership brought out the best in the House of Representatives, individually and collectively. We most certainly would not have been able to achieve so much without the firm and committed guidance you extended to all. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, it has been a long ten days. I wish to tax us no further. ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION REP. GONZALES (N.). Now, for our favorite motion, Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn the session until four oclock in the afternoon of November 8, 2010. THE SPEAKER. The session is adjourned until November 8, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. It was 3:13 a.m., October 16, Saturday.

Published by the Publication and Editorial Service, Plenary Affairs Bureau The Congressional Record can be accessed through the Downloads Center of the official website of the House of Representatives at www.congress.gov.ph
ddc/AZB 11242010/1939