House Plenary

Congressional Record
PLENARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE 14th CONGRESS, SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Vol. 2
Tuesday, September 23, 2008

CALL TO ORDER
At 4:00 p.m., the Deputy Speaker, Rep. Eric D. Singson,

called the session to order.
No. 21
any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is

approved.
The Secretary General will please call the roll.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). The

session is called to order.
Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary General called

the roll pursuant to the House Rules, and the result is as
follows, per Journal No. 21:
NATIONAL ANTHEM
PRESENT
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). Everybody

will please rise to sing the Philippine National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the Philippine National Anthem.
PRAYER
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). Everybody
will please remain standing for a silent prayer.
Everybody remained standing for the silent prayer.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). The Dep.
Majority Leader is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
REP. VELARDE. Mr. Speaker, I move for a few minutes
suspension of the session.
session is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 4:02 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:42 p.m., the session was resumed.
session is resumed.
The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.
ROLL CALL
REP. VELARDE. Mr. Speaker, I move that we call the
roll.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). Is there
Abante
Ablan
Agbayani
Aggabao
Agyao
Alcala
Alfelor
Almario
Alvarez (A.)
Alvarez (G.)
Amante
Amatong
Angara
Antonino
Antonino-Custodio
Apostol
Aquino
Arbison
Arnaiz
Arroyo (D.)
Bagatsing
Barzaga
Bautista
Biazon
Bichara
Binay
Bondoc
Bulut
Cabilao
Cagas
Cajayon
Cajes
Cari
Casio
Castro
Cayetano
Cerilles
Chatto
Chavez
Chiongbian
Chipeco
Chong
Chungalao
Clarete
Climaco
Codilla
Cojuangco
Coquilla
Coscolluela
Crisologo
Cruz-Gonzales
Cua (G.)
Cua (J.)
Cuenco
Dangwa
Datumanong
Dayanghirang
Daza
De Guzman
Defensor (A.)
Defensor (M.)
Del Mar
Del Rosario
Diasnes
Diaz
Dilangalen
Dimaporo
Emano
Enverga
Escudero
Estrella (C.)
Estrella (R.)
Fabian
Fernandez
Ferrer
Fua
Fuentebella
Garay
16
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
Garcia (A.)
Garcia (P.F.)
Garcia (P.P.)
Garcia (V.)
Garin
Gatchalian
Go
Golez
Gonzales (N.)
Gonzalez
Guingona
Gullas
Hataman
Hofer
Hontiveros-Baraquel
Ilagan
Jaafar
Jala
Jalosjos
Jalosjos-Carreon
Javier
Jikiri
Joson
Kho
Labadlabad
Lacson
Lagdameo
Lagman
Lapus
Lim
Lopez (C.)
Lopez (J.)
Madrona
Magsaysay
Malapitan
Mandanas
Mangudadatu
Maraon
Marcos
Mariano
Maza
Mendoza
Miraflores
Mitra
Nava
Nicolas
Noel
Nograles
Ocampo
Olao
Ong
Ortega
Pablo
Padilla
Pancrudo
Piamonte
Pichay
Pingoy
Prieto-Teodoro
Puentevella
Puno
Ramiro
Remulla
Reyes (C.)
Reyes (V.)
Robes
Rodriguez
Rodriguez-Zaldarriaga
Roman
Romarate
Romualdo
Romulo
Salimbangon
Salvacion
Sandoval
Santiago (J.)
Seachon-Lanete
Singson (E.)
Solis
Suarez
Susano
Sy-Alvarado
Taada
Teodoro
Teves
Tieng
Tupas
Umali (A.)
Umali (C.)
Ungab
Uy (R.S.)
Uy (R.A.)
Valdez
Valencia
Velarde
Villafuerte
Villanueva
Violago
Yap
Yu
Zamora (M.)
Zamora (R.)
Zialcita
Zubiri
APPEARED BEFORE/AFTER THE CALL

Arago
Arroyo (I.)
Asilo
Biron
Bravo
Castelo-Daza
Celeste
De Venecia
Domogan
Duavit
Dumpit
Durano
Dy
Ermita-Buhain
Gunigundo
Ledesma
Locsin
Macapagal Arroyo
Mamba
Mercado
Pancho
Piol
Plaza
Roxas
San Luis
Tan
Uy (E.)
Villar
ON OFFICIAL MISSION WITHIN THE COUNTRY

Abaya
Belmonte
Briones
Dueas
Ecleo
Gatlabayan
Lazatin
Limkaichong
Ponce-Enrile
Santiago (N.)
Seares-Luna
Singson (R.)
Syjuco
ON OFFICIAL MISSION ABROAD

Albano
Angping
Arenas
Balindong
Dumarpa
Gonzales (A.)
Matugas
Romualdez
Silverio
Soon-Ruiz
Talio-Mendoza
Villarosa
Vinzons-Chato
OFFICIAL ADVICE OF ABSENCE

Bonoan-David
Vargas
THE SECRETARY GENERAL. The roll call shows that
182 Members responded to the call.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). With 182
Members present, the Chair declares the presence of a
quorum.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the
other matters for today, may we greet the guests of the
Members of the Housestudents from St. Pauls Quezon
City; and guests from the Pro-life, Payatas.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). Please
rise to be recognized. (Applause)
REP. ROMULO. Guests from Our Lady of Parish,
Caloocan; Sister Florecilla Inzon, OP, Dominican Sisters of
St. Catherine of Siena. (Applause)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). Please
rise. Welcome to the House of Representatives!
REP. ROMULO. Guests from St. Agnes Parish; students
from Siena College, Quezon City, headed by Sister Meriza
Ocampo. (Applause)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). Welcome
to the House of Representatives!

REP. ROMULO. Guests from St. John the Baptist Parish,
Diocese of Antipolo and Taytay, Rizal, headed by Msgr. Peter
Caonero. (Applause)
REP. ROMULO. Guests from the Catholic Womens
League military diocese. (Applause)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). We
welcome, as well the members of the Catholic Womens League.
17
REP. ROMULO. Linangan ng Kababaihan, Inc.
(Applause)
welcome the womens sector in the House of Representatives
as well.
REP. ROMULO. Mr. Salvador Muyuela; Ms. Rosalinda

Muyuela; Wilma Taneo, barangay kagawad of Tongonan,
Ormoc City; Alma Potoy, barangay treasurer of Tongonan,
Ormoc City; Ma. Teresita Baylon, barangay kagawad, Ormoc
City; Herminia German, barangay secretary of Tambulilid,
Ormoc City; Emmanuel Quilantang of Barangay Linaw, Ormoc
City; Alberta Campos, barangay treasurer of Tambulilid, Ormoc
City; Emilyn Ycoy, accounting clerk, Ormoc City; Ma. Grace
Dagatan, District 26, Ormoc City; Melinda Genobiagon,
barangay treasurer of Ipil, Ormoc City; Ma. Divina Rivera,
barangay secretary, Ipil, Ormoc City; Conrado Delgado, punong
barangay, Ipil, Ormoc City; Narciso Gatoc, Grace Mendoza;
Helconida Omega; Ciriaco Tolibao III; Marina Placido; Marivic
Panggoy; all guests of the Honorable Codilla. (Applause)
REP. ROMULO. May we also acknowledge guests from

the Akbayan Citizens Action Party; Pinagsamang Lakas ng
Kababaihan at Kabataan (PILAKK); Creative Collective
Center, Inc. (CCCI); Health and Development Initiatives
Institute (HDII); Philippine Legislators Committee on
Population and Development Foundation; Woman Health
Philippines; the Forum for Family Planning (The FORUM);
Apelo Womens Health Association MOTHERS; Samahan
ng Malayang Kababaihan ng Towerville; Zone One Tondo
Organization (ZOTO); PINAY KILOS; Family Planning
Organization of the Philippines (FPOP); Philippine Federation
for Natural Family Planning (PFNFP); Reproductive Health,
Rights and Ethics Center for Studies and Training; Womens
Legal Education, Advocacy and Defense Foundation, Inc.;
Leadership Development Program for Mobilizing
Reproductive Health; Philippine NGO Council on Population,
Health and Welfare, Inc.; Aksyon Kababaihan; Women in the
Informal SectorSan Mateo, Rizal; Rosas ng Maynila;
Samahan ng Maralitang Kababaihan ng Caloocan; Aktibong
Kababaihang Manggagawa ng Dumpsite; Ladies Brigade in
Action, Bagong Silangan; Health Action Information
Network; Employers Confederation of the Philippines; Sentro
ng Alternatibong Lingap Panlegal; BASECO Women; Lead
Net. (Applause)
Mr. Speaker, we also want to welcome guests from the
Province of Rizal: the Women Workers in the Informal Sector
(WISE); Samahan ng Malayang Kabataan ng Bayang Rizal
(SMK); Broadway Neighborhood Association Incorporated;
Kapit Bisig Kababaihan; Samahan ng Malayang Kababaihan;
San Mateo Womens Council. (Applause).
Our guests from Payatas: Aktibong Kababaihang
Manggagawa ng Asper; Aktibong Kababaihang Manggagawa
ng Dumpsite; Ladies Brigade Association of Bagong Silangan.
From Caloocan, our guests from Kalinga; SMKC;
Katulad Ka; Masigla Womens Group; Samahang Malaria;
Samahan ng Kababaihan sa Pederasyon; Sama-sama ng
Kababaihan Tungo sa Kaunlaran; Reporma ng Robis;
Samahan ng Palmera; Samahan ng Patris; Samahan ng Bicol
Area; Womens Lower Area C; Kaunlaran ng Kababaihan sa
Phase 2; Pamilyang Ugnayan ng Responsableng Ina; Womens
Community Development Association; Phase 7
Neighborhood Association.

guests of the Honorable Codilla are welcome to the House of
Representatives.

welcome all the various organizations who are in the House
of Representatives.
REP. ROMULO. May we also greet the guests of the

Sponsors of HB 5043. They are the advocates from the
Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) and the
Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP).
(Applause)
REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, we also want to welcome

Archbishop Gaby Reyes, Diocese of Antipolo. (Applause)
REP. ROMULO. Guests from the Mary Mother of Good

Counsel Parish, Wilhela de Jesus, (Applause) guests of the
Honorable Mary Ann Susano; and our guests from the Metro
Manila Development Authority (MMDA).
welcome all the guests of Congresswoman Susano to the
House of Representatives.
REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, may we also welcome
the delegates from Ship for Southeast Asian Youth Program
headed by their commissionersHany Gamid from
Mindanao; Mr. Benjie Oliva from Visayas; and Councilor
Becky Labit from Puerto Princesa City, guests of the
Honorable Baham Mitra, Second District, Palawan; Carol
Jayne Lopez, Party-List YACAP and Jesus Crispin Boying
Remulla. (Applause)
May we also recognize the visitors of Congressman
Codilla Sr., Fourth District, Leytethe LGU officials of
Ormoc City, Leyte. (Applause)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). The LGU
officials of Ormoc, Leyte, as well as the other guests, are
welcome to the House of Representatives.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). We also

welcome the Archbishop.
18
REP. ROMULO. Guests from the Servants of Christ the

King Seminary, headed by Father Curcuera. (Applause)

approved.
The Secretary General will please read the Reference of
Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
REP. ROMULO. Our guests from the Catholic Womens

League. (Applause)
welcome the Catholic Womens League to the House of
Representatives.
REP. ROMULO. Guests from the Center for Peace and
Pro-Life; Dominican Sisters; Siena College, Quezon City;
St. Paul University, Quezon City; Subtle Attack Against
Family (SAFE); Couples for Christ Foundation of Family and
Life; and Diocese of Caloocan. (Applause)
REP. ROMULO. Apostles of Mary Catholic Youth
League of the Phils., Apostleship of Prayer, Diocese of
Novaliches; Mary Mother of Church, Diocese of
Novaliches; Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish, Diocese of
Novaliches; St. Agnes Parish, Diocese of Novaliches;
Pro-life Phils.; St. John the Baptist Parish, Diocese of
Antipolo, (headed by Msgr. Peter Caonero, Vicar
General); St. Dominic Sabio Parish, Mandaluyong,
headed by Father Dante Valero; Family Life Ministry,
Diocese of Cubao.
welcome to the House of Representatives the various Catholic
organizations.
REP. ROMULO. They are guests of Congressmen Ed
Zialcita, Rene Velarde, Irwin Tieng, Congresswomen Carissa
Coscolluela of Buhay Party-List, Annie Rosa Susano and
Congressman Roy Golez. (Applause)
Mr. Speaker, may we also welcome the Apostleship of
Prayer, Archdiocese of Manila, led by Mrs. Baby Atienza
Lim, guests of the Honorable Mandanas. (Applause)
guests of the Honorable Mandanas are welcome to the House
of Representatives.
APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL
REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, I move for the approval
of Journal No. 20, Monday, dated September 22, 2008.
any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the Journal is
approved.
REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed
to the Reference of Business.
The Secretary General read the following House Bills

and Resolutions on First Reading, and Committee Reports,
and the Deputy Speaker made the corresponding references:
BILLS ON FIRST READING
House Bill No. 5156, entitled:
AN ACT MANDATING THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF A NATIONAL MULTISECTORAL
PROGRAM ON GOOD CITIZENSHIP,
CREATING A NATIONAL COUNCIL ON GOOD
CITIZENSHIP, AND PROVIDING FUNDS
THEREFOR
By Representative Piamonte
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HIGHER AND
TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THE COMMITTEE
ON BASIC EDUCATION AND CULTURE, THE
COMMITTEE
ON
GOVERNMENT
REORGANIZATION AND THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS
AN ACT PROHIBITING AND PENALIZING THE
USE OF CELLULAR PHONES AND OTHER
ELECTRONICS
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT WHILE DRIVING MOTOR
VEHICLE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
By Representative Abante
TO THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE CONVERSION OF
CANUMAY TO BIGNAY ROAD, IN THE CITY
OF VALENZUELA, METRO MANILA, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
By Representative Gatchalian
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND
HIGHWAYS AND THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE CONVERSION OF
LINGUNAN TO LAWANG BATO ROAD IN
VALENZUELA CITY, METRO MANILA, INTO
A NATIONAL ROAD AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR
By Representative Gatchalian
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND
HIGHWAYS AND THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS
AN ACT ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL HIGH
SCHOOL
IN
BARANGAY
MALIM,
MUNICIPALITY OF TABINA, PROVINCE OF

ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, TO BE KNOWN AS
MALIM NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREOF
By Representative Cerilles
TO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION
AND CULTURE AND THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS
AN ACT REGULATING THE CELEBRATION OF
FIESTAS, FESTIVALS AND SIMILAR
FESTIVITIES IN THE PROVINCES,
MUNICIPALITIES, CITIES, AND BARANGAYS
AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATION THEREOF
By Representative Diaz
TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AN ACT TO UPGRADE HOSPITAL FACILITIES OF
THE ITBAYAT DISTRICT HOSPITAL IN THE
PROVINCE OF BATANES WITHOUT CHANGE
IN STATUS AND TRANSFER OF ITS DIRECT
CONTROL,
SUPERVISION
AND
MANAGEMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFORE
By Representative Diasnes
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A DISTRICT HOSPITAL IN THE
MUNICIPALITY OF SABTANG, PROVINCE OF
BATANES, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFORE
By Representative Diasnes
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
RESOLUTIONS
House Resolution No. 798, entitled:
RESOLUTION
URGING
THE
THREE
DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT TO
CREATE INDEPENDENT BODIES TO
CONDUCT LIFESTYLE CHECKS WITHIN
THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTION AND
URGING THE PRESIDENT TO CREATE A
PEOPLES
COMMISSION
AGAINST
CORRUPTION
By Representative Abante
TO THE COMMITTEE ON GOOD GOVERNMENT
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON
BASIC EDUCATION AND CULTURE TO
CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF
LEGISLATION, INTO THE IRREGULAR
CLOSURE
OF
THE
BELARMINO
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN PROJECT 4
19
QUEZON CITY AND ITS PLANNED
CONVERSION INTO A SPORTS COMPLEX
By Representative Hontiveros-Baraquel
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES TO CONDUCT AN
INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE
FAILURE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
TO CONSERVE THE UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY
OF PALAWAN AND PREVENT THE
EXTINCTION OF IMPORTANT ENDEMIC
ANIMAL SPECIES ON THE ISLAND
By Representatives Ocampo and Casio
ADDITIONAL COAUTHORS
Rep. Antonio C. Alvarez for House Bills No. 1716 and
9155;
Rep. Philip A. Pichay for House Bill No. 4911;
Rep. Eufrocino M. Codilla Sr. for House Bills No. 4837,
4844, 4845, 4847, 4849, 4859, 4860, 4862 and 5151;
Reps. Alvin S. Sandoval and Munir M. Arbison for House
Bill No. 5043.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report by the Committee on Basic Education and Culture
and the Committee on Appropriations (Committee Report
No. 1293), re H.B. No. 5169, entitled:
AN ACT SEPARATING THE LAMBUNAO
NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL JAYUBO ANNEX
IN BARANGAY JAYUBO, MUNICIPALITY OF
LAMBUNAO, PROVINCE OF ILOILO FROM
THE LAMBUNAO NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL,
CONVERTING IT INTO AN INDEPENDENT
NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL TO BE KNOWN AS
JAYUBO NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, AND
recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill
No. 791.
Sponsors: Representatives De Guzman, Lagman and
Defensor (A.)
AN ACT SEPARATING THE MALAMIG
NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL MALIGAYA
ANNEX IN BARANGAY MALIGAYA,
MUNICIPALITY OF GLORIA, PROVINCE OF
ORIENTAL MINDORO FROM THE MALAMIG
NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, CONVERTING IT
INTO AN INDEPENDENT NATIONAL HIGH
SCHOOL TO BE KNOWN AS PRESIDENT
DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL MEMORIAL
NATIONAL
HIGH
SCHOOL,
AND
20

No. 1569.
Umali (A.)

AN ACT ESTABLISHING AN ANNEX OF THE
HIMPIPILA NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL TO BE
LOCATED IN BARANGAY LIBERTAD,
MUNICIPALITY OF ABUYOG, PROVINCE OF
LEYTE TO BE KNOWN AS HIMPIPILA
NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL ANNEX AND
No. 1973.
Sponsors: Representatives De Guzman, Lagman and Cari
AN ACT ESTABLISHING AN ANNEX OF THE
MAKINHAS NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL TO BE
LOCATED IN BARANGAY CIABU, CITY OF
BAYBAY, PROVINCE OF LEYTE TO BE
KNOWN AS MAKINHAS NATIONAL HIGH
SCHOOL ANNEX AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR
No. 1974.
AN ACT ESTABLISHING AN ANNEX OF THE SAN
ISIDRO NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL TO BE
LOCATED IN BARANGAY POLAHONGON,
MUNICIPALITY OF MAHAPLAG, PROVINCE
OF LEYTE TO BE KNOWN AS SAN ISIDRO
NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL ANNEX AND
No. 1975
AN ACT SEPARATING THE PIS-ANAN NATIONAL
HIGH SCHOOL SIBALOM ANNEX IN THE
MUNICIPALITY OF SIBALOM, PROVINCE OF
ANTIQUE FROM THE PIS-ANAN NATIONAL
HIGH SCHOOL, CONVERTING IT INTO AN
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL TO
* See MEASURES CONSIDERED (printed separately)
BE KNOWN AS SIBALOM NATIONAL HIGH

SCHOOL, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR
No. 2847.
Javier
Report by the Committee on Good Government and Public
Accountability (Committee Report No. 1299), re H.R.
No. 320, entitled:
AN ACT DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT AS LEAD COMMITTEE,
TOGETHER WITH THE COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND THE COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS, TO CONDUCT AN
INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE
ALLEGED RAMPANT SMUGGLING OF USED
AND BRAND NEW VEHICLES IN REGION VII
AS SHOWN BY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF
LAND
TRANSPORTATION
OFFICES
REGISTRATIONS
Sponsors: Representatives Romualdo, Locsin, Cabilao,
Vinzons-Chato, Lapus, Coscolluela and the
Honorable Members of the Committee on Good
Government and Public Accountability
REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). The Sr.
Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. GONZALES (N.). With the consent of the House,
I move that we take up local bills.
approved.
REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker, in accordance with
our Rules, I present an omnibus motion for the consideration
on Second Reading of House Bills No. 239, 830, 889,1374,
1421, 1450, 2157, 2852, 2879, 4372, 4913, 4916,4921, 4922,
4925, 4945, 4980, 4981, 234, 464, 1079, 1454, 2210, 2373,
2480, 2481, 3027, 3219, 4968, 5012, 5013, 5014, 5015, 5016,
5017, 5018, 5019, 5020, 5021, 5022, 5025, 5026, 5027 and
5035; that all the Explanatory Notes of the same be considered
as the sponsorship speeches on the measures; to close the period
of sponsorship and debate, there being no Member who wishes
to interpellate the Sponsor nor to speak against the measure; to
approve committee amendments if any; to close the period of
amendments, there being no individual amendments; and to
approve the same on Second Reading.*
I so move, Mr. Speaker.
approved.

REP. GONZALES, (N.). I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, can I
make the following correction?
21
At 5:09 p.m., session was resumed.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). Yes, the

Sr. Dep. Majority Leader may proceed.
REP. GONZALES, (N.). I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. In lieu
of the House measures that I mentioned awhile ago, we refer
to the following local bills:
House Bill No. 5110 under Committee Report No. 1240;
and
House Bill No. 5148 under Committee Report No. 1286.
And with this correction, I reiterate for the omnibus
motion stated by this Representation awhile ago and approve
the same on Second Reading.
APPROVAL OF THE BILLS
ON SECOND READING
approved.
Those bills mentioned are approved on Second
Reading.
The Sr. Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. GONZALES, (N.). Mr. Speaker, I move for a oneminute suspension of the session.
session is suspended for one minute.
It was 5:08 p.m.

session is resumed.
The Sr. Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. GONZALES, (N.). May I ask for the recognition
of the distinguished Gentleman from Paraaque City, the
Honorable Golez.
REP. GOLEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal and
collective privilege.
Gentleman has 10 minutes.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. GOLEZ
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of
personal and collective privilege, with regard to the emerging
financial crisis affecting the United States (US) and potentially
the entire world including the Philippines.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of my constituents and
acquaintances in the business world are asking me, what the
House is doing about this emerging global financial crisis.
Mr. Speaker, about three weeks ago, September 3, we
started our deliberation on the General Appropriations Bill
(GAB) and this started with a briefing from the Development
Budget Coordinating Committee (DBCC), the economic team
of the President that briefed us on the macroeconomic
assumptions for this year and next year. While the
macroeconomic assumptions did not, as presented, look as
good as it was last year, it looked good enough. For example,
they projected that the gross domestic product (GDP) would
increase by maybe six or seven percent, at the least, fiveand-a-half percent, rising from P7.7 trillion to maybe about
P8.8 trillion for 2009. The inflation would be from double
digit right now, between nine to 11 to perhaps only about six
percent, maximum is eight percent. With respect to the foreign
exchange, they even projected a very low P42 to $1,
improving at the present P46 to $1. Then with respect to
London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), it would be at about
three or four percent; and crude oil would be at about $15,
maybe $125 maximum; and exports would be increasing to
about $55 billion by next year.
Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to be an expert on the
economy. In fact, I am a layman like many of us as far as the
economy is concerned. But, from September 3 to a few days
ago, about last week, something happened which radically
affected the state of the Philippine economy, a situation which,
in my opinion, would compel us to do something about it in
tandem with the economic team of the President and probably
in unison with the rest of the world, especially the US where
all of this is happening.
What is the problem that is happening, Mr. Speaker?
What has happened is that there is now a financial crisis
affecting Wall Street in the US and this threatens to go from
Wall Street to Main Street. And then from Main Street, USA,
it might eventually affect other countries, including the
22
Philippines, especially considering that our economy is very
tiny compared to the economy of the US.
Even weeks ago, we have been reading and hearing about
such terms as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with respect
to the real estate market in the US; we have been reading
about subprime. And a little reading of subprime, just
for the understanding of all of us here, especially the noneconomists like this Representation, I found out that
subprime is a situation that happened in the US where a lot
of money, not just hundreds of billions of dollars of money,
but probably $1 trillion, even as much as $2 trillion or $3
trillion, were injected into the US economy in order to benefit
the so-called subprime lenders.
Who are these subprime lenders? These are lenders that
do not really meet the so-called Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
guidelinesthe prime lending guidelines. These are generally
bank loans taken on property that cannot be sold on a primary
market including loans on certain types of investment
properties and to certain types of self-employed persons.
Subprime lending encompasses a variety of credit instruments
including mortgages, car loans and credit cards but primarily
housing loans, Mr. Speaker.
These targeted borrowers who could not understand
this is the finding of the experts in the financial market in the
USwhat they were signing, or lending to people who could
never meet the terms of their loans. Many of those loans
included exorbitant fees and hidden terms and conditions,
and they frequently led to default seizure of collateral and
foreclosure. In fact, this was precisely what happened. Sixtyone percent of all borrowers receiving subprime loans had
credit scores high enough to qualify for prime loans, but many
of them defaulted, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, last week, we read about Lehman Brothers,
an organization that was founded in 1850, more than 150
years ago. A symbol of financial solidness, financial stability
going under because of debt amounting to $613 billion, and
assets worth only $639 billion. And therefore, that was a case
of bankruptcy.
This was followed by news about the possible failure of
the American International Group, Inc. (AIG). As we all know,
AIG is affiliated with a big insurance entity here in the
Philippines. For awhile, for about 24 hours, 48 hours or for
about 72 hours, the entire world was held in suspense
wondering, is AIG going to go under? What would be the
repercussions not only in the US market but in the world
market, because of the millions of policy holders of AIG?
But of course, we are greeted by the news that finally, the
government announced its readiness to infuse about $85
billion of money to bail out AIG.
Of course, there is the news about Merrill Lynch being
taken over by Goldman Sachs. But what attracted the attention
of this Representation last Friday, not only in the light of all
these that threatened the entire global financial community,
Mr. Speaker, was that while I was watching the CNN News,
there was this very impressive coverage of a dramatic turn of
events. No less than the US Speaker of the House, Nancy
Pelosi, met with the Secretary of Treasury, Paulson, the SEC
Chairman, Cox, and especially in the case of the Secretary of
Treasury identified with the administration of Republican
President Bush meeting with a Democrat, Speaker of the
House Pelosi, getting together in cooperation, in harmony, in
unison to address the emerging financial crisis in the US.

Once again, a lot of people were wondering, can this
team generate a salvage plan that can save the financial
situation in Wall Street?
Of course, very positively, this was followed by the
announcement of President Bush of a bail-out package
amounting to $700 billion, which would be used to buy up
bad mortgage paper that if not done is going to result in a
great financial hemorrhage that will affect the US economy,
and eventually, the Philippine economy.
Again, there is tension. This is a package. It was met
with very positive attitude on the part of Wall Street and on
the part of the stock exchanges all over the world.
Prior to that announcement, Mr. Speaker, if we look at
the report of Bloomberg, CNN and even BBC of what was
happening in the stock markets all over the world, in Tokyo,
London, New York, Singapore, Hong Kong, it was all red. In
other words, it was all red because the stock market was going
down.
In the case of the Philippines, it was reported that the
capitalization of the Philippine stock market went down by
about 12.5 percent, which is quite a hefty decline in the values
of Philippine stocks registered in the Philippine Stock Market.
But after the announcement of the $700 billion package was
done by President Bush, then, things started to become rosy
again. From red reports, it turned green. Most of the stocks
went up by sizable percentages2 percent, 3 percent or even
more including here in the Philippines, and we were seeing
some recovery. That is the good news, Mr. Speaker. But of
course, there is still a word of caution because that is simply
the announcement of President Bush. It would still have to
be debated by US Congress. After that euphoria that met the
announcement of President Bush, now gradually, we are
listening to Members of Congress, Senators and Congressmen
favoring it, but some questioning it. Some are asking why
such very important and precious taxpayers money would
be once again used to bail out corporate greed insofar as Wall
Street was concerned.
We still do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether the US
Congress is going to finally approve this; and probably we
will have to wait for a few more days, maybe up to the end of
this week. But, meantime, things are uncertain and people
are asking, what are we doing in Congress?
The President was reported to have gone to New York
and one of the things that the President reportedly would be
doing in New York is to meet with the leaders of the American
financial market to have a good assessment of the situation.
About seven commercial banks in the Philippines
reported exposures as much as $386 million in Lehman. The
amount of $386 million, Mr. Speaker, is quite a hefty amount,
although of course, they are saying that this is only about 0.4
percent of the total assets of the commercial banking system
of the Philippines. In other words, there is not much to worry
about.
The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP),
according to the Secretary of Finance, just this morning, has
an exposure of about $90 million. While $90 million may be
small for the DBP and small for Wall Streetis worth about
P4 billion for DBPit could have gone a long way to help
resuscitate and sustain the momentum of economic
development in the country.
The Secretary of Finance could not answer my question
when I asked him during the presentation of the budget of the

Department of Finance, What other government financial
institutions (GFIs) have exposures in Lehman Brothers and
other distressed investment bank in the United States?. They
are still trying to find out; and according to him maybe, it
will take about three more weeks before they can have a good
assessment of whether this financial crisis that is happening
in the US would eventually spill over the Philippines.
I am very happy to note, Mr. Speaker, that this afternoon,
Speaker Nograles, the leader of the House, convened a very
important crisis meeting calling on the Central Bank governor,
represented by Deputy Governor Gunigundo, the Department
of Trade and Industry (DTI) Secretary Peter Favila, and of
course, the premiere Cabinet member insofar as this is
concerned, DOF Secretary Gary Teves, including the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Barin.
They gave us a briefing. They talked of a legislative package.
They talked of measures that will help resuscitate the
economy, but in the opinion of this Representation, the more
important consideration is to find out. Is this crisis going to
be solved in the US? If not, would it spill over the Philippines?
And if it would spill over the Philippines, what would be the
effect on the Philippine economy? I was reading some reports,
and they are saying that the RP growth may be under threat
from the Wall Street crisis. Instead of a five-and-a-half to 6.4
percent GDP increase, we might be seeing only a 4.7 to 5.5
percent GDP increase. We might be seeing a weakening of
the stock market.
Mr. Speaker, right now, the financial structure in the US
is undergoing a very radical change. Two major investment
banks, Goldman Sachs and Stanley Morgan, announced that
they would now want to change their personality, from an
investment bank to what they call a bank holding company.
When I was teaching financial management in UP-MBA, we
did not encounter the term bank holding company, but
whatever it is, it means a major restructuring of the world
financial community, including possibly, the Philippine
financial community. This is something that we must address,
Mr. Speaker, and I rise today, to make sure that we in congress
are fully aware of this, and the public in general, because this
is going to affect our economy.
During the briefing this afternoon, Deputy Governor
Gunigundo said that the reality is that when the US sneezes,
the Philippines could catch pneumonia. I hope not, because
they ended up on a positive note, but this will still await the
final resolution of the $700 billion package announced by
President Bush.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to end my laymans
presentation of the world financial crisis by saying that we
must address this. I am very happy to note that Speaker
Nograles already announced that he has formed his own
economic team consisting of the Committee on Rules, the
Majority Leader, the Committees on Ways and Means,
Appropriations, Banks and Financial Intermediaries,
Economic Affairs, Trade and Industry, and the Oversight
Committee, to have a constant link-up and interaction with
the economic team of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. I
am happy to note also, that Speaker Nograles has deemed it
fit also, to include the Minority Leader, as well as the deputies
of the Minority Leader to form a team of unity to address this
problem.
I appeal therefore, Mr. Speaker, that we must address
this. We are lucky that we are now deliberating on the budget.
23
We are going through briefings of the various departments.
So in that matter, we will be able to address it without having
to summon them in special meetings, but that is not enough.
I think we must focus our attention on this crisis because this
is going to have a major potentially catastrophic effect on the
world economy. If it is going to hurt the US economy with its
multi-trillion dollar strength, it could cripple a smaller
economy, like the economies orbiting around the US. I hope
our economic fundamentals are strong enough to weather the
potential storm, but all of this will depend on how we, in the
House of Representatives, will react to this economic crisis.
There are measures that we must study, and I would like to
urge that we attend very urgently to these measures presented
by the economic team of the President.
That is all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chair
for giving me this opportunity to speak on what, to me, is a
very important problem, and I would like to thank my dear
colleagues in the House of Representatives for listening to
me.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, distinguished Ladies
and Gentlemen.
REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). What is
the pleasure of the Honorable Rodriguez, the Gentleman from
Cagayan de Oro?
REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I wish to interpellate
my distinguished colleague from Paraaque.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). He may
proceed.
REP. RODRIGUEZ. First, let me congratulate the very
lucid and comprehensive presentation of the crisis facing not
only America today but the entire world, and the exposition
of my distinguished colleague has given us a very good
background on what is happening in the US and what
economists all over the world are doing to be able to prepare
if something really bad would happen to the economy of the
US.
I also congratulate the Speaker of the House, Speaker
Nograles, for convening a high level conference among the
economic managers of our country and it seems that this
afternoon we were able to have briefings to some Members
of the House.
One fundamental question I would like to ask, Mr.
Speaker, is the bailout of the American government. How
does this go into the concept of free enterprise?
As our distinguished colleague has been a professor in
the University of the Philippines (UP), I would like to know
whether actions like these, where $700 billion in taxpayers
money in the US may be used to infuse into a private enterprise
and so, therefore, the question is, would this be in consonance
to the free-enterprise system in the US?
REP. GOLEZ. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, there is a debate going on right now. No less than
Senator McCain who is supposed to be an ally of President
Bush is objecting to this, saying that valuable taxpayers
money should not be used to cover up the indiscretions of
24
Wall Street because a lot of these is what they call greed

on the part of Wall Street by lending out the so-called
subprime loans. So this will be the crux of the debate.
If something like this is going to be crafted, for example,
in the Philippines, I would expect that a similar debate would
ensue. If, let us say, there will be a proposal to also constitute
a package, definitely not $700 billion but probably in a size
more commensurate with the size of the Philippine economy,
again, there will be a similar debate. The debate would be,
one would propose to let it just go under because that would
be the natural forces of the market. But some people would
say, there would be repercussions. If one vital financial
institution would go under, it might pull down other financial
institutions and other economic entities. That is the debate
right now, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know how this will
proceed because that will be debated in the House and in the
Senate of the US.
REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, my distinguished
colleague has been a professor of economics. I would like
to ask from him his views on whether the free-enterprise
concept, when it clashes with the public interest concept,
which will prevail? In the example, in the United States,
where $700 billion will be infused, of course, The rationale
of President Bushs policy for this is that the public interest
so requires. Therefore, he would put in inspite of the fact
that this will be an infusion into the private sector. May we
know from the distinguished colleague what he thinks about
the free-enterprise concept and the public interest concept
in law?
REP. GOLEZ. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me correct
our colleague from Cagayan de Oro. I am not a professor of
economics. In fact, I am just a layman as far as economics is
concerned. I was a professor of finance in UP-MBA.
REP. RODRIGUEZ. All right, finance.
REP. GOLEZ. So this is a different field. But be that as
it may, there must be a very serious assessment. In fact, that
is what we have asked the economic team of the President
because that will now be the basis for determining whether
government should intervene. Because in the case of the US,
we are talking of a $700 billion package to solve a $2 trillion
problem. Probably, we will be getting in the same course if it
will come to that. But right now, if the Gentleman would ask
me, there is merit in a bailout. But as to how much, that will
be decided by the economists because $700 billion is quite a
hefty amount. One repercussion is that they have to increase
the interest rate in the US to strengthen the dollar. If the interest
rate is increased, Mr. Speaker, that will immediately affect us
here because that will send a tremor all over the world. It will
affect the interest rate of the yen. Of course, it will, have a
direct effect on the interest rate of the dollar and all the dollardenominated loans are going to be affected. In other words,
the debt service will increase. The dollar will go up in value.
It will mean a higher value insofar as overseas Filipino
workers (OFW) remittances are concerned, but it will mean
higher importations or import bill as far as oil imports are
concerned. Mr. Speaker. So, there is going to be a very serious
series of repercussions and we do not know when it will end.
We do not know how this will affect everybody. That is why
I said, we must address this because this will have a very

decisive effect on our economy, on our pockets, Mr. Speaker.
REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask
whether the economic managers were able to present a
scenario where the US Congress disapproves the $700 billion
package of bailout to the economy for the investment houses
and so forth. If that is disapproved, what happens to the
Philippine economy? Was there any briefing on that, Mr.
Speaker?
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, there was no clear indication.
They have not defined the scenario yet. They are asking for
more time to draw the possible scenario if that happens. But,
in gist, I thought, I heard them say, God, help us, if that
happens, and when they say us, of course, they are referring
not only to the Philippines, but to the other economies that
are haplessly linked to the economy of the US.
REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, going to the Philippine
situation, as stated by the distinguished colleague, about 10
banks already have exposures with Lehman Brothers. Did
the Bangko Sentral Governor assure us that despite the
exposure of banks like Metrobank, Banco De Oro, RCBC,
among others, we still have a very sound economy and good
financial situation of our banking system?
REP. GOLEZ. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I do believe them.
If we look at the size of all these commercial banks, I think,
they are correct in saying that this is only 0.4 percent of the
total assets of the commercial banks and therefore, they could
weather this mild tremor. But very careful analysis will still
have to be made because that might not be the end of it.
Because it is possible, that some banks and some entities in
the US are tied to these Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entities,
to AIG, to Merrill Lynch and of course, to Lehman Brothers,
which is in the worst situation. If they go under, some entities
here might have links with those other entities that are still
not being mentioned. I hope, it does not come to that. But
that is one possible scenario that could happen because this
very high tech economy now is so intertwined with each other.
We pull up one but we might pull down, maybe, three, four
others and more. That is how complex the world economy
has become, Mr. Speaker.
REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, so the banking system
would still be sound in spite of the bankruptcy of the Lehman
Brothers. How about our insurance companies, the Philamlife
and Sun Life Canada? What is the present situation as far as
their status is concerned and as far as development in the US
is concerned, Mr. Speaker?
REP. GOLEZ. I understand from Mr. Joey Cuisia, who
happens to be the President of Philamlife, that Philamlife,
while an affiliate of AIG, is not really linked to AIG in the
sense that it is holding AIG papers. So any tremors affecting
the AIG will not affect the Philamlife here, because most of
the paper of Philamlife are Philippine paper, Philippine
securities, treasury bills, probably derivatives here and blue
chip stocks of the Philippines, and that is good. I understand
that the same is true with Sun Life. While it is a Canadianbased Insurance company, the Sun Life here in the Philippines

is also not affected. I hope they are correct. I am very sure
that Mr. Cuisia, who is a much respected member of the
business community, will not misrepresent the condition of
Philamlife.
REP. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the point of my interpellation,
which is going to focus on our pre-need sector. The US
experience shows that the government can bail out or infuse
billions of dollars. In the Philippine situation, Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the distinguished colleague, whether a
bailout or infusion of money would be for the public interest,
especially to our children and their families. Can the
government infuse capital, in the College Assurance Plan
(CAP), Pacific Plans, Platinum Plans, because these families
which have saved to be able to afford, through pre-need plans,
the education of their children that will be paid by these
companies, are now left empty handed, with an empty bag.
And so, if the experience in the US is that for public interest,
government money may be used to be able to help the people
in this case, is it possible that the Philippine government now
thinks of the thousands and thousands of policyholders the
CAP, Pacific Plans, Platinum Plans, such that a bailout may
be done by it through the Congress of the Republic of the
Philippines so that we are able to make sure that the children
of policyholders will be financed in their educational needs
in the future, Mr. Speaker?
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that our
distinguished colleague from Cagayan de Oro asked about
that. Kasi importante iyan e. Ito, nangyari na. This happened
three, four years ago. Hundreds of thousands of holders of
these plans are left high and dry. They had high hopes. Ang
ganda ng pangarap nila para sa kanilang mga anak, pero
ngayon biglang naglaho ang mga pangarap na iyan na
makapag-aral ang mga anak nila sa kolehiyo sapagkat biglang
nawala ang mga kumpanya na iyan. Mayroong mga pribadong
sektor na gustong mag-bailout, ewan ko kung ano ang
nangyari. Probably, our distinguished colleague has a very
good point, this is something that we must study, although it
is not similar to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac situation
where the repercussions are probably more all encompassing
because of the millions of homeowners that borrowed money,
because of the trillions of dollars that were disbursed for this
purpose. But that is still a very good point, because education
is very important to our economy as well, not to mention the
fact that it is not good if several thousand parents or families
are distressed, and are depressed also by the fact that their
children could not go to college because of that problem.
REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, would the
distinguished Gentleman from Paraaque City therefore be
minded to study the matter, and be able to submit to Congress
a bailout plan for the holders of the CAP, Pacific Plans and
Platinum Plans, considering that I always listen to the
distinguished colleague and he would consider education not
as a social concern, but an economic concern, an economic
activity. When we educate our children, it is not for the social
concerns of the country but to make them nation builders, to
make them wage earners and be able to increase economic
activity in this country. Would the honorable Gentleman
therefore support a plan to put up some billions from the
25
government funds to be able to assure that the children of the
policyholders will now be able to go to college and become
economic warriors thus, able to help the economy of our country?
REP. GOLEZ. I think that is something that we can
consider. Although, of course, we have to bear in mind that
we are still looking at a P40-billion projected deficit for 2009
which could become bigger, because if the dollar would
strengthen, that means higher debt service. If there would be
some other repercussions like higher interest rate, then there
would be some problems also.
In the case of the AIG, when US$85-billion were infused
into the AIG, I understand the condition was to replace the CEO
and to pledge the voting rights of the AIG to the conservator. In
this particular case, I do not know if the conservator is under the
aegis of the SEC of the US, but it will have to come to something
like that. If the government would bail out these education plan
entities, that may entail replacing the CEOs, replacing their
financial comptroller, and the government getting into the picture,
as far as management and control are concerned.
REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I think the
distinguished colleague has signified really the possibility that
a study will be made, because thousands of children will now
be unable to go to college because they could not anymore
pay for the tuition of the students. But if there is a bailout to
the CAP, Pacific Plans and Platinum Plans, then there is a big
possibility that thousands of students will be able to finish
college, be able to earn a living and become professionals
and contribute to nation building. As to the Fannie MaeFreddie Mac case, I think it may not happen in the Philippines
because there, the House of Representatives and the Senate
have already approved the Housing Loan Condonation Act
of 2008. It already became a law. In that law we have already
condoned the penalties for the borrowers of government
institutions like the Pag-ibig, SSS, GSIS and all the other
governmental lending institutions. We have already approved
the Housing Loan Condonation Act of 2008, wherein the
penalties will be condoned, the interest rate will be reduced
and there will be longer years to pay for the principal.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to therefore congratulate again the
distinguished Gentleman from Paraaque City for bringing
out an international phenomenon which will be known by
our colleagues and the Filipino people and to also tell our
people that we in Congress is sensitive, and will not only
react but we will be a proactive agent to be able to make sure
that sectors of our society, like the children, are protected.
We in Congress act under the principle of parens patrie, as
the father of the sectors and the educational sector which has
now been deprived the chance to study in college because of
these three particular plans that have gone under. I think it is
about time that we bail out the CAP, Pacific Plans and
Platinum Plans so that the future of our children will be
assured and we will have nation building through our
graduates in college.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Congratulations, distinguished colleague from Paraaque
City!
REP. GOLEZ. Thank you very much, distinguished
colleague from Cagayan de Oro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
26

REP. ALFELOR. Mr. Speaker.

the pleasure of the Honorable Alfelor?
REP. ALFELOR. May I be recognized to interpellate
the distinguished Gentleman from Paraaque City.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). What
does the Gentleman say?
REP. GOLEZ. Very willingly, Mr. Speaker, to the
distinguished colleague from Camarines Sur.
REP. ALFELOR. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Gentleman may proceed.
REP. ALFELOR. Mr. Speaker, initially, I would agree with
the distinguished Gentleman from Paraaque City that what is
happening now in the US is indeed one of the worst financial
crises that has happened since 1920 during the depression.
Therefore, this is a matter that we cannot take for granted. We
have to act on this as the Gentleman has indicated to us.
Would the Gentleman agree with me that this is a matter
of a crisis in confidence? I mean the lack of confidence on
the banking system is one of the causes for this development
or financial crisis in the US.
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, in the United States, it is not
really a crisis of confidence in the banking system. It is more
a crisis of confidence in, first, Wall Street investment banks
and then the very aggressive positioning of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac when they aggressively doled out these
mortgages in favor of subprime borrowers who, in ordinary
circumstances, would not be entitled to these loans. In the
case of the Philippines, I think what is very positive, Mr.
Speaker, is that the commercial banks were very forthright
enough. They did not hide anything. They were very
transparent and immediately, although they could invoke bank
secrecy, disclosed their exposure to Lehman Brothers instead
of being rocked by ugly rumors that is probably even more
damaging than the actual situation.
REP. ALFELOR. Would it suffice if we pass a resolution,
as part of an action of Congress, to assure the banking public
that the Philippine government is willing to bail out a
distressed bank that may fall because of the crisis that has
happened in a foreign country like the US? Because I
understand this is a worldwide occurrence. This has affected
even the banks in Europe although they say that it has not
and will not affect much of Asian countries because we have
instituted corrective measures since the 1977 financial
meltdown that also happened to Asia.
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, this will depend on the
gravity of the situation. The economic team of the President,
in this afternoons meeting with the Speaker, asked for a little
more time. They are asking for two to three weeks, although
this Representation commented that two to three weeks appear
to be too long because we could get run over by the
developments happening in the US. So I asked for less time

and they promised that they can probably work on this maybe
in a weeks time. So that will depend now on their assessment.
But having said that, I understand also that in a minor bank
failure, the Bangko Sentral can come in. They have the money,
they have a window to repurchase some of their bad
obligations to ease the financial pressure on these banks. That
will be the first line of defense, the Bangko Sentral, and I feel
that right now this is adequate already. But if in the final
analysis, the economic team would say that the potential
problem is bigger than what the Bangko Sentral can handle
and the Bangko Sentral was able to handle an P85 billion
loss last yearthen probably that would necessitate Congress
working together with the economic team. That is why
Speaker Nograles stated that it would be very important for
the Houses economic team to coordinate very closely with
the Presidents economic team.
REP. ALFELOR. If a meltdown happens here in the
Philippines, would we allow the national government through
the Bangko Sentral to bail out distressed bank?
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, in the first place I do not
think a meltdown is going to happen. I think we are very far
from that.
REP. ALFELOR. Mr. Speaker, how about the other crisis
that will affect some banks?
REP. GOLEZ. But there will be some crisis, the crisis
will be in the form of higher lending rates which will aggravate
our debt service. It may result in another double digit inflation.
Ang ibig sabihin niyan kapag 10 percent ang inflation, sabihin
taun-taon nababawasan ng 10 porsyento ang kinikita natin.
Baka tumaas na naman ang presyo ng langis. Right now $92,
$100. It might go up again to much more than that. Kaya
malaking epekto sa bulsa natin iyan, sa ating financial
condition, which will affect not only banks, not only Members
of Congress, not only the government but everybody in this
room, everybody around Batasan Hills, everybody including
my constituents in Paraaque City.
REP. ALFELOR. What would be wrong if we publicly
announce that Congress is willing to help the national
government in bailing out, in case there are these distressed
banks? Just to assure the public because bank run happens
when the depositors do not have confidence in the bank. So
what we do is to assure them that the banks are all right, and
that if anything happens to the bank, the national government
is willing to bail out to help the distressed bank. Would we
allow Congress to do that or make a resolution, for example,
to that effect?
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, that assurance was already
made by the economic team this afternoon, of course, subject
to further developments coming from the US and subject to
the final resolution of this by the US Congress.
But I think what the public would like to witness is for
us here in the House to address this problem. This is a major
problem. We do not have to wait for this to actually happen.
We must be anticipatory. And using the words of Secretary
Teves this afternoon, he admitted on the prodding of the

Members of the House, including our colleague from
Sorsogon, Congressman Joey Solis, that the Department of
Finance should be more proactive in anticipating this problem.
For example, when he said that he read in the papers that the
DBP had an exposure of $90,000,000, I commented that
probably he did not have to wait for this to be reported in the
papers. A proactive Secretary of Finance would have to
immediately sit down with all the GFIs, which are under his
supervision, to check on how everyone is doing. Because
when something like this happens, considering the enormity
of Lehman Brothers, whose tentacles, I understandare, in
about 130 countries, including here in the Philippines, the
first question would be: O, kumusta kayo riyan? Apektado
ba kayo ng pagbagsak ng Lehman Brothers? Magkano ba
ang nilagay ninyo? Parang katulad natin halimbawa, pag
mayroong isang bangko na bumagsak o kaya ang tingin natin,
medyo delikado, hindi ba ordinary sa atin na tatawagan ang
mga kamag-anak natin. Ang anak natin, tatanungin natin, o,
anak kumusta ba? Kumpare, kumusta ba? May inilagay ka
ba sa bangko na iyan na bumagsak? May maitutulong ba ako
sa iyo? That would have been the attitude of a proactive
Secretary of Finance, instead of simply reading about it in
the papers.
REP. ALFELOR. Mr. Speaker, there are about 10
banks that have exposures in the so-called subprime
mortgages, which amounted to, as the Gentleman said,
P380 billion?
REP. GOLEZ. It is $386 million, Mr. Speaker.
REP. ALFELOR. I think that was a good move to promote
transparency. Because if they did not inform the public, they
can always dream of something bigger amount and that would
be worse.
REP. GOLEZ. That is correct, Mr. Speaker, dahil kung
hindi nila idinisclose kaagad iyan, baka ang nangyari text
brigade ang nagdi-disclose niyan.
REP. ALFELOR. Oo. Masisira talaga.
REP. GOLEZ. Iyong $386 million baka maging $500
million or more.
REP. ALFELOR. But actually, for the information of our
peers here, in 2005, the Bangko Sentral engaged in a bailout.
As a matter of fact, it released P105 billion and distributed
this to at least 10 banks to save them from going down. One
of these was the PNB, if we will remember. The Bangko
Sentral gave P21 billion to the PNB to save it, to salvage it,
together with the UCPB and nine other banks. So this matter
already happened to us and, I think, because of that
experience, we are in a position really to buttress our financial
environment and perhaps, we will be able to escape this. I do
not fear any recurrence of this thing, as it is in the US, because
we have already experienced it in 1977. And now, in 2005
again. But I think it is important that we should assure the
public that the national government is ready and willing to
bail out so that we can raise the confidence of the banking
public. I think that is first and foremost. So long as the people
have confidence in the banking system, or in any other
27
financial institution, they will not be tempted to withdraw the
deposits they have in the bank.
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, in this afternoons
meeting, that assurance was given by Deputy Governor
Gunigundo with Deputy Governor Suratos of the Bangko
Sentral. When they were directly asked whether there is
some sign of unusual withdrawals, the Bangko Sentral
said that there was no such development. All is well right
now. But everybody is watching what is going to come out
in this debate on the $700 billion package proposed by
President Bush.
REP. ALFELOR. Thank you. That will be all, Mr.
Speaker.
colleague from Camarines Sur.
REP. ZIALCITA. Mr. Speaker.
the pleasure of the Honorable Zialcita?
REP. ZIALCITA. May I ask my distinguished colleague
a few questions.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). What
does the Gentleman say?
REP. GOLEZ. Very willingly, Mr. Speaker, to my
kababayan from Paraaque City.
Gentleman may proceed.
REP. ZIALCITA. First of all, let me express my
congratulations to my distinguished colleague from our
beloved City of Paraaque City. I congratulate him for raising
the red alert, so to speak, that we, the Philippines, even though
we are thousands and thousands of oceans away from the
US, since the US is still a major trading partner of the
Philippines, as well as one of our largest investors, whether
we like it or not, we are affected by events that happened in
the greatest economy of the world. I also agree with my
distinguished colleague that the US is facing the worst
economic meltdown in over a hundred years. Never in the
history of the US has there been a massive bailout of some of
the largest financial institutions that were founded as early as
150 years ago, principally by Lehman Brothers, which has
collapsed in its entirety. And thanks to the governments
bailout of AIG, which is one of the largest companies in the
world. They have saved the AIG and have delayed the very
predictable worsening economic conditions in the US. The
AIG is an $80 billion company which is larger than the entire
budget of the Philippines, if we convert it into pesos. So I
share the distinguished Congressmans belief that, at best,
this is temporary, and that the consequences, indeed, will be
very serious and very grave. The only thing that is keeping us
from not completely kneeling down is because there seems
to be some hope, the hope that the government of the US will
28
infuse some US$700 billion to forestall and delay what could
perhaps be the beginning of a massive recession in world
economy. But just like the Congressman of our beloved city,
I wish I were as optimistic as he is because we were hoping
on something that has not happened yet. I think as good
managers, as good leaders, we must anticipate the worst and
the problem is even more difficult because in the US now,
there is a presidential elections going on and the situation is
very ironic. They have at one hand the Republicans who have
always been pro-business and very little government, are now
saying that it is time for the government to intervene. On the
other hand, they have the Democrats, saying that the
government should intervene but then they want to make sure
that the US$700 billion infusion will trickle down to their
base which is basically labor and small traders, small
businessmen.
For a few minutes, let us just imagine what could be
the possible worst-case scenario assuming that the US
government is not able to infuse the $700 billion. As much
as I want it to happen, it does not look as quick as it should
happen because they are now in the middle of a political
circus there. Let us just assume for the moment that it does
not happen. What are the immediate negative consequences
that are going to happen in the US first?
At this juncture, the Deputy Speaker, Eric D. Singson
relinquished the Chair to Rep. Del R. de Guzman.
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague from
Paraaque City, just to give us an assessment on the magnitude
of this problem, let us look at Lehman Brothers Lehman went
under because its liabilities, its debts are a little bit bigger
than their assets. Their assets per the last report amounted to
about $639 billion and in pesos that is about P28 trillion. The
amount of P28 trillion is more than 10 times, in fact 20 times
the budget of the Philippine government and maybe about
four times the GDP of the Philippines. That is how big the
Lehman is. And $700 billion is going to be infused to buy the
bad mortgage accounts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and
probably other financial institutions that got into the pictures
to ease the economic pressure, and if that will not happen, I
would like to repeat what the DOF said, God help us.
Meaning, the entire world, if that will not come to pass. But
I hope it happens. That is why, it is very important for us to
focus already our attention on this. I am happy that Speaker
Nograles already directed the creation of the House economic
team to be in tandem, always in cooperation with the
Presidents economic team and that is rightly so. We are
witnessing the Senate debating other topics instead of
addressing this very important problem. We have redirected
our attention to the initiative of the Speaker, and now focusing
our attention on this and we are the correct institution to do
this because we are mandated by the Constitution that all
appropriation, revenue or tariff bills should emanate in the
House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker.
REP. ZIALCITA. I share the sentiments of Congressman
Golez that we must congratulate Speaker Nograles for calling
that very important economic briefing this afternoon.
On the other hand, I was a little bit uneasy when we spoke
to our economic managers. They need some two to three
weeks time to come up with a complete and final report. We

were hoping that they would be more specific. We were hoping
that they would come up with more immediate, concrete
measures that can perhaps be taken up on the floor or
something that can easily be discussed. But, suffice it to say,
two to three weeks is perhaps enough time for them to come
up with a more comprehensive report.
Do we see any relation between the prices of oil,
Congressman Golez, with the present situation in the US, the
possible negative consequences, assuming there is no bailout?
I noticed that as soon as the financial crisis came about, and
the stock market stabilized, the prices of oil went down.
Because of the uncertainty of the stock market in particular,
where a lot of investors would speculate and would want to
make a quick profit as soon as they can, they are now shifting
into buying speculative issues such as oilwhich has brought
up the price of oil. Does the Gentleman see any relationship
between that, Mr. Speaker?
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, these are interrelated. But,
of course, some factors also affected the price of oil and
that is the hurricane in the US Gulf, affecting the oil
facilities in Texas. I think that has been stabilized already.
People started investing in gold for a while. Gold prices
went up because they saw this as a better financial refuge
better than derivatives, better than the stock market. But,
gradually, the stock market has strengthened. But as I said,
let us not be complacent. I would like to reiterate my
appreciation for the quick response of the Speaker. When
I was congratulating the Speaker, I did not know that he
was around. I did not want to congratulate him in his
presence because it might embarrass him especially coming
from the minority. But I would like to reiterate this, the
House this afternoon took a leadership position in
addressing this very grave global problem. In other words,
we are now in sync with the rest of the world talking about
the global crisis, addressing it, talking of possible
measures, building up scenarios instead of talking about
other things, Mr. Speaker.
REP. ZIALCITA. I also share the sentiments of the
distinguished Gentleman from the City of Paraaque that,
whether we like it or not, we are going to be affected in one
way or the other, and that we should brace ourselves for its
impact, especially if the US government decides not to infuse
the $700 billion to save the financial institutions that are in
difficult situations.
Do I have more time, Mr. Speaker, because I have one
more question to our distinguished colleague?
Does the Gentleman think this is a good example for us
to follow in the event that we also get into similar situations
the idea of the government coming into bailout? Is this a good
model to follow or this is something that we should be very
wary and skeptical about?
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, if we have the deep pockets
that the US government has, probably we can do it. The
amount of $700 billion is something that is way within the
capability of the US. In fact, I was just reading on that very
recently, California approved their budget. California is only
one of the 50 States in the US but their budget amounted to
more than $100 billion. And $100 billion, Mr. Speaker, is
about P4.6 trillion which is about four times the budget of

the entire Philippine government. That is only the State of
California.
I remember during the time of Mayor Giuliani, the
budget of the City of New York was about more than $20
billion. That is only one city. At that time it was 20 billion
times 50 is one trillion already. That was in the 1980s or in
the early 1990s, Mr. Speaker. That is how big the U.S.
economy is. And that is how all encompassing it will be if
something bad happens to the U.S. economy.
REP. ZIALCITA. Once again, I congratulate the
distinguished Gentleman from the Second District of
Paraaque City for raising the red alert.
We must be cautious. We must be optimistic, but at the
same time, we must get ready for what could be the worst. I
would like to share the sentiments of the House
congratulating Speaker Nograles for the very quick response
to an economic briefing that perhaps, some time in the future
we could share with all the Members of the House.
colleague.
REP. ABANTE. Mr. Speaker.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). The
Gentleman from the Sixth District of Manila, the Honorable
Abante, is recognized.
29
session is resumed.
The Gentleman from the Sixth District of Manila is
recognized.
REP. ABANTE. Mr. Speaker, even if I am very tired
because I have been here since 9:30 this morning, I am willing
to withdraw my point of order on the question of quorum.
REP. VELARDE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the privilege
speech of the Honorable Golez and the interpellations thereto
be referred to the appropriate committee.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). Is there
approved.
REP. VELARDE. Mr. Speaker, I move hat we take up
the Unfinished Business.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). Is there
approved.
CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 5043
Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
REP. ABANTE. Much as I want to be a part of this

deliberation, Mr. Speaker, I would know that each
Congressman here has been very busy and very tired that is
why we do not have anymore warm bodies tonight. So I
question the quorum.
REP. VELARDE. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume

the consideration of House Bill No. 5043 embodied in
Committee Report No. 1156, as reported out by the
Committees on Health, Population and Family Relations and
Appropriations.
session is suspended.
It was 6:16 p.m.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5043,

entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL
POLICY ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, RESPONSIBLE
PARENTHOOD AND POPULATION DEVELOPMENT,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

session is resumed.
REP. VELARDE. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary status

is that, it is now in the period of sponsorship and debate.
I move that we recognize the distinguished Sponsor, the
Honorable Edcel C. Lagman.
Honorable Lagman is hereby recognized.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are ready for the
interpellation.
It was 6:19 p.m.


REP. VELARDE. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize
30
our distinguished Deputy Speaker from the First District of
Cebu City, the Honorable Raul V. Del Mar, for his
interpellation.
Honorable Gentleman from the First District of Cebu City,
the Honorable Del Mar, is recognized for his interpellation.
REP. DEL MAR. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
May I know if my good friend, the principal author of
the measure, the Honorable Edcel Lagman, is willing to yield
to some statements and questions on the measure.
REP. LAGMAN. Willingly, Mr. Speaker, to the Deputy
Speaker.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). Please
proceed.
REP. DEL MAR. Thank you.
First, the preliminary statements. Let me categorically
state that I am prolife, quality-life especially, as qualified by
the Sponsor, profamily and prochoice. Being informed is
already included in the word choice as qualified again by
the Sponsor. And yes, I am against the subject measure, House
Bill No. 5043. I got to hand it to the principal authors and
Sponsors for having neatly packaged this measure with a title
that will gain the support of, practically, everybody. For how
can anybody argue against a measure strategically entitled:
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON
REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH,
RESPONSIBLE
PARENTHOOD AND POPULATION DEVELOPMENT,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES? The strategy worked,
soliciting the signatures of more than 90 of our colleagues to
coauthor the measure. But if the focus of the proposed
legislation as its title suggests is on reproductive health,
responsible parenthood and population development, then,
the bill is totally unnecessary and deceptive, as these programs
are already in place, pursued under existing programs both
by private and public initiatives. Responsible parenthood is
certainly not something new. This is essentially all about
parents and children, about having a family and children, it is
our way of life. All of us grew up in a family. We learned this
at home, in school, in community gatherings, even in
government seminars and in non-government organizations
(NGO) activities. There is no need to legislate how to be a
responsible parent. On population development, the programs
have been there since the 1970s funded by our government
and by international agencies and several donor countries
which are very much in place. Reproductive health programs
are ongoing. We have family planning methods, health
education, maternal and child health, and nutrition, family
planning services, breastfeeding programs, prevention of
breast cancer, treatment of infertility. It is a question of just
giving them more focus.
The principal author, Edcel Lagman, stated in his
sponsorship speech last Wednesday, and I quote: Verily, the
heart and soul of the bill is freedom of enforced informed
choice, neither the State nor the church has the authority to
impose its preference or will on the citizens of the faithful.
But informed choice has long been the practice, as we all
know. Access to contraceptives is free and unrestricted.

Despite the World Health Organization (WHO) cancer
research finding that oral contraceptives cause breast, liver
and cervical cancer, none of these items have been banned
by law. None of these are even required to be labeled as
cancer-causing or hazardous to womens health. Even
abortifacients, drugs that induce abortion, are openly sold as
just plain contraceptives, without any warning, whatsoever,
about their abortion-causing qualities. Just as no one is
prohibited by law from using contraceptives, no one is barred
from getting sterilized if they want it. In fact, health workers
are the ones campaigning that men undergo vasectomy, and
women tubal ligation. Neither is anyone restrained from
making a spectacle of themselves, and telling the church to
change its position on the subject because they will not stop
defying it.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the church continues to teach that
contraception and sterilization are intrinsically evil. But the
church will not strong arm anyone into following its teachings
on reproductive health. Thus, so many women will freely take
contraceptives while imagining themselves to be still good
Catholics. This helps in the national contraception prevalence
rate of 50 percent.
If church law has not prevented Catholic women from
using contraceptive and no civil statute prevents them from
doing the same thing, what is the necessity of the proposed
law, assuming that the law could be moral and constitutional?
That would be clearly pushing an open door. That is why the
proposed law is deceptive. So there is really no problem, Mr.
Speaker, to speak of. Couples are absolutely free to choose
which method of family planning they wish, natural or
artificial. If they want the natural method, nobody would stop
them and force them to instead, use the artificial method, nor
can anybody also, force those who wish to use the artificial
method to stop them, and instead, use the natural method to
their own beliefs and decision. So why are they not leaving
things as they are, if they truly mean what they say that
freedom is the bedrock of republicanism and democracy? I
will tell the Gentleman why, Mr. Speaker, because far from
their assurances, that there is no hidden agenda, and there are
no caveats, the fact is that, this bill is not for providing a
national policy on reproductive health, responsible
parenthood, and population development, after all. Because
after a cursory reading of the provisions thereof, the cat is
out of the bag, so to speak. The bill is now exposed for what
it truly is, AN ACT PROVIDING A NATIONAL POLICY,
PROMOTING ARTIFICIAL METHODS OF BIRTH
CONTROL or AN ACT PROVIDING A NATIONAL
POLICY PROMOTING CONTRACEPTIVES AND
STERILIZATION. (Applause)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). May
we request the audience from the gallery to please refrain
from clapping their hands.
REP. DEL MAR. I join the Speaker in restraining any
form of approval or disapproval from the gallery, and to
maintain proper decorum. And yet, they have the gall to assure
us that there is no bias for or against natural or artificial
planning methods because both will be promoted with equal
vigor to truly assure freedom of choice.
Why, in heavens name, Mr. Speaker, are the principal
authors and Sponsors insist on legislating the promotion of

artificial methods of birth control against the vehement
objections of the majority of our people?
For us Catholics, who comprise no less than 80 percent
of our population, artificial method of contraception is a direct
assault and violation of our religious beliefs and in
contravention with the provisions of the Constitution. As if
this is not bad enough, adding insult to injury by providing
billions of pesos in government funding for an intensified
public media campaign and the massive free distribution of
contraceptives and sterilization devices, and procedures.
The bill, therefore, in sum and substance, is an advocacy
of an extremely divisive policy. The bill go against the
fundamental Catholic doctrines, the strong beliefs of the
majority of Filipinos born and raised in a Catholic
environment. This is reality that must be reckoned with
whether we like or not, and this is where the problem lies. It
will not simply be a case of ordinary disagreement on honest
dissent.
We cannot quibble or trifle with matters of faith. We may
be looking at a possible conflagration, not merely bush fires.
There is no cause for worry because as far as the church and
its followers are concerned, violence or destabilization is not
part of our teaching or advocacy. But there are many others
who may take advantage of the situation, that the gathering
of signatures, the street rallies in different places, the
spontaneous and planned mobilization in schools and colleges,
the endless vigils and prayer rallies of millions of Catholics
may be taken as a sign of massive unrest which may result in
a divisiveness that may undermine the national peace and
unity we are seeking to achieve. But what for? Why take the
risk, Mr. Speaker?
First, the bill is a costly exercise in futility. The President
has stated in no uncertain terms, in her State-of-the-Nation
Address (SONA) last July 28, before all of us here in this
august Chamber that she is in favor of natural family
planning. This is saying that she will not agree to a piece of
legislation that advocates a massive promotion of
contraceptives and other means of artificial birth control.
Therefore, consistent therewith, she is expected to prevent
the enactment of this bill into law by vetoing it in the remote
possibility that it passes approval in this House and in the
Senate.
Second,
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). What
is the pleasure of the Honorable Lagman?
REP. LAGMAN. With due indulgence to the
distinguished Deputy Speaker, may I know when did we
changed our Rules, where we have placed a priori the turno
en contra before the interpellation in the legislation of
measures? Because it appears that this is now turno en contra.
Have we amended our Rules, Mr. Speaker?
REP. DEL MAR. Mr. Speaker, may I respond.
Gentleman from Cebu may please respond.
REP. DEL MAR. On several occasions, interpellators have
31
been given leeway in making preliminary statements. This has
been done by several Members in the House and even by the
distinguished Sponsor himself on some occasions. So, why
begrudge and deprive another Member of the same privilege
that has been given to other Members as a matter of practice
and procedure in the past?
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am willing to be
interpellated so I hope that questions would be asked, not a
prolonged preliminary statement which actually is a summary
statement.
REP. DEL MAR. Mr. Speaker, whether the preliminary
statement is brief or long is dependent on the relative
appreciation of each individual. What is long to the
distinguished Sponsor, may be brief to this Representation.
So, if the distinguished Sponsor will have a little more
patience, I will be getting through in no time at all if he will
just allow me to proceed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). Just
allow the honorable Gentleman from Cebu to continue.
REP. DEL MAR. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Sponsor
may sit if he is tired of standing and listening to my peroration.
I will not mind his sitting and standing at the time that the
questions are already propounded.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman).
Anyway, the Gentleman from Cebu may proceed.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I stood to be interpellated.
I will not sit to hear a long preliminary.
REP. DEL MAR. This Representation was just being
considerate, may I continue, Mr. Speaker?
Second, implementation would be very difficult, if not,
impossible. How do we expect the Catholics, faithful to the
teachings of their Church, to follow a program that goes
against their religious beliefs? We should not because we
cannot underestimate the conviction, the confidence and the
courage of millions of Catholics to thwart and resist in any
manner and at all costs what appears to be a shameless policy
of prevention of pregnancy.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just go over in quick random
some of the provisions of the Constitution violated by this
bill.
One, Article II, Section 1, which states that the PhilippineS
is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in
the people and all government authority emanates from them.
Two, Article II, Section 12, which states that the State
recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social
institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and
the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and
primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth
for civic efficiency and the development of moral character
shall receive the support of Government.
Three, Article II, Section 13, which states that the State
recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and
shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual,
intellectual and social well-being.
32
Fourth, Article II, Section 15, which states that the State
shall protect and promote the right to health of the people
and instill health consciousness among them.
Fifth, Article III, Section 1, which states that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law xxx.
Sixth, Article III, Section 4, which states that no law shall
be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression
xxx.
Seventh, Article III, Section 5, which states that no law
shall be made respecting the establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination of preference shall forever be allowed.
Eighth, Article XV, Section 1, which states that the State
recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively
promote its total development.
Ninth, Article XV, Section 2, which states that marriage,
as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the State.
Tenth, Article XV, Section 3, which states that the State
shall defend: 1) The right of spouses to found a family in
accordance with their religious convictions and the demands
of responsible parenthood.
Eleventh, Article XV, Section 3(2), which provides for
the right of children to assistance, including proper care and
nutrition, and special protection from all forms of abuse,
cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their
development.
And, Article XVI, Section 9, the twelfth provision violated,
which states that the State shall protect consumers from trade
malpractices and from substandard or hazardous products.
There are other provisions but the distinguished Sponsor
is getting impatient, so let me go to my questions, then.
House Bill No. 5043, is a consolidation of several bills.
Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
REP. LAGMAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
REP. DEL MAR. For the record, how many bills were
consolidated?
REP. LAGMAN. More or less, five measures, Mr.
Speaker.
REP. DEL MAR. For the record again, who are the
original authors of this bill?
REP. LAGMAN. The records will show who are the
original authors of this bill, but principally, this
Representation, the Honorable Janette Garin, the Honorable
Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, the Honorable Santiago, and one
coauthor has withdrawn his authorship of the bill, the
Honorable Mark Mendoza. But if we get a percentage of the
coauthors those who have been steadfast and committed to
the measure then we will see that they are overwhelmingly in
favor of it , Mr. Speaker.
REP. DEL MAR. All the various bills consolidated are
almost alike, even those that have been filed in the Senate.
So, who prepared the consolidated bill, Mr. Speaker?
REP. LAGMAN. There was a technical working staff

who consolidated the measures, and the final product is
the bill we are now sponsoring, and that is House Bill No.
5043.
REP. DEL MAR. Could the distinguished Sponsor give
us any proof that there was in fact a motion made during
the committee hearing that these bills be referred to a
technical working group for consolidation? Because from
the records of the minutes of the proceedings in the
committee hearings, that does not seem to be reflected
therein, Mr. Speaker.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, that may not be reflected,
but I recall there was a motion to have these consolidated
and there is a practice in our committee system that invariably,
measures where there are a number of bills that fall under the
same would be subjected to the consolidation by a technical
working group.
REP. DEL MAR. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the procedure
but before it is consolidated and a technical working group is
designated to consolidate the measure into one substitute
measure, it naturally is almost always reflected in the minutes
of the committee hearing. That is why I am surprised, and I
asked that question, because there is no indication of any
such order coming from the chairmen or any motion to that
effect, and I was wondering who did it. How was it done
when no one was designated to consolidate it into one
substitute measure?
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, if we read the minutes of
the joint meeting of the Committee on Health and the
Committee on Population and Family Relations held on April
29, 2008, at 1:30 p.m., then we would have noticed that before
the adjournment, more than a technical working group was
created. Because ordinarily in a technical working group nonMembers of the House are included. But in this particular
case, the authors themselves were instructed to meet to
harmonize and consolidate the various measures.
It states there that Chairman Pingoy instructed that the
next joint meeting of the two committees be scheduled on
May 21 and the authors to meet prior to the May 21 joint
meeting in order to come up with the substitute bill, which is
the consolidated bill.
I am quoting from the minutes of the meeting.
REP. DEL MAR. Mr. Speaker, in the records available
to this Representation, while the three bills were first heard
by the committee on April 29, the joint committee announced
on that particular hearing that there would be a second hearing
of these three bills on May 21. But there was no instruction
to consolidate the three measures yet. And in that second
hearing on May 21 scheduled for these three measures, we
invited some resource persons who would be attending the
hearing to give their comments and positions on the measure.
But instead of proceeding on that score, the Chair announced
that the three bills that have been heard on April 29 plus a
fourth bill that had never been heard before, had been
consolidated into a substitute bill which would then be
reported out on Second Reading without any further hearing.
So the resource persons who came to be able to give

their positions were not given the opportunity because a
substitute bill appeared without the three bills having been
consolidated. Proof of that is that there was a fourth bill that
was included in that consolidation which was not heard on
April 29, but first scheduled for hearing on May 21. This
would certainly not confirm the procedure cited by the
distinguished Sponsor. But, anyway, maybe a record to this
effect can be presented if there is such.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, no less than the
distinguished Deputy Speaker said that all of these bills are
similar, they are of common orientation. Some are even almost
common in phraseology because this bill has been with the
House of Representatives for so many Congresses, starting
from the Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth and the current
Congress. As a matter of fact, precursor bills were even filed
as way back as the Eighth Congress, so this bill is of the
longest gestation, so much so that the leadership of the House
has already accorded the membership of this Body the
opportunity to deliberate on this measure.
All of these procedural matters being questioned by the
distinguished Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, had been ventilated
in the Committee on Rules. And said Committee approved
with an overwhelming majority the consideration of this bill
in the plenary, so that has been foreclosed, Mr. Speaker.
REP. DEL MAR. Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker, because
while it is true that this bill has been filed in the previous two
Congresses, the fact that it was not approved will bring the
bill in this Congress to step one. It has to go through the same
hearing in the committee now in this Congress, even if it had
undergone hearings in the past two Congresses. Is that not
the procedure, Mr. Speaker?
REP. LAGMAN. That is the procedure, Mr. Speaker.
But with respect to bills which have already reached the
plenary stage, then they are given expeditious committee
consideration. Let me put on record, Mr. Speaker, that this
particular bill has been passed by no less than four committees
of the Housethe Committee on Health, the Committee on
Population and Family Relations, the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Rules. It is not anymore
to question the procedure because there has been no motion
for reconsideration which was seasonably filed to challenge
any defect in the process of the committee action on this
particular measure. We are now in the plenary to consider the
substantial aspects of the bill, then let us hear the questions
on its substance. We are willing to answer these substantial
questions, Mr. Speaker.
REP. DEL MAR. Mr. Speaker, we will come to the
substance in due time and there is nothing in our Rules that
prohibit any Member from questioning the procedures in the
committee level. While it is true that this has been approved
by the committee, we are not arguing against that. We are
just saying that this was bereft of a comprehensive hearing
that should have been conducted there. The fact that it has
been, as the Gentleman said, considered in plenary in the
past Congress, so it should have the privilege of fast tracking
the measure. Is that what the Gentleman is trying to say?
REP. LAGMAN. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. Because
33
during the Thirteenth Congress, this has already been
sponsored in plenary and scheduled for plenary debates. But,
unfortunately, we lacked the time to consider the same. But
can we hear the Gentlemans substantial questions, Mr.
Speaker? Otherwise, I would now be answering the
preliminaries he has adverted to.
For example, the Gentleman says that this is a useless
bill because the President had already made a statement
against the measure and that most probably he did not
verbalize that there is already a policy with respect to the
natural family planning method. Of course, the Gentleman
should be corrected in his statement because the President
never said anything against this bill. She only made a
preference for the natural family planning method. And let
me just quote the Presidents SONA. The President said that
informed choice should mean letting more couples who are
mostly Catholics know about natural family planning. But
she never said that people should not be made aware of other
family planning methods. If there is any statement of the
President which would approximate a policy, it is contained
in the statement of support in 2005 to the International
Conference on Population and Development signed by no
less than the President where she underscored the pillars of
the Philippine Population Program namely: 1) promotion of
responsible parenthood; 2) promotion of respect for life or
anti-abortion policy; 3) promotion of birth spacing which is
family planning; and 4) respect for informed choice. The
President categorically said that couples and individuals may
choose the methods that they will use to exercise responsible
parenthood in accordance with the religious and ethical values
and cultural background subject to conformity with
universally recognized international human rights. And if there
is an actual existing policy on reproductive health and family
planning, it is the one contained in the Medium-Term
Philippine Development Plan, which projects to reduce the
population growth rate to 1.9 percent by 2010 as a poverty
target. This is an official recognition of the nexus between
population and the economy. And also the Medium-Term
Philippine Development Plan addresses the improvement of
maternal health by increasing prevalence of men, women,
couples practicing responsible parenthood, using natural,
modern or artificial methods to 60 percent in 2010 and 100
percent in 2015.
So, Mr. Speaker, this Bill is not useless just because the
President made her preference for natural family planning.
The plenary debates are far from useless. The
Presidents spokesman, Secretary Jesus Dureza, was quoted
as saying that the President will not interfere with moves in
Congress to pass the Reproductive Health Bill. He confirmed
this during the briefing of the budget of the Office of the
Press Secretary. He said, and I quote from the minutes of
the meeting: I think it is a basic policy for the executive
department to allow Congress to determine policy, and on a
very important issue like reproductive health, we feel that
an interplay of legislative work will have to be allowed to
take its full bloom and for Congress itself to make the
decision. The President, very clearly, has her own policy
but as far as the matter is concerned, right now we would
rather that we leave this entirely to the competent action of
the legislature.
And this is the precise statement of the alter-ego of the
President, the Press Secretary Jesus Dureza, that the executive
34
is referring to the legislature on the enactment of a policy on
reproductive health, responsible parenthood and population
development.
Mr. Speaker, it is also wrong to say that the majority
of the Catholics are against the use of contraceptives and
family planning methods. The church hierarchy or, at
least, a segment of the church hierarchy may be against
this bill. But the majority of the Catholic faithful, most
definitely, support the bill. The surveys would show this,
Mr. Speaker.
The Pulse Asia and the SWS surveys for almost two
decades have documented that 92 to 98 percent of Filipinos
want to moderate their fertility and plan their families. It is
important to underscore that in the latest Pulse Asia survey
last 2007, shortly before the national elections, it was found
out that 90 percent of Roman Catholics surveyed said that
they support government funding for modern contraceptives,
expressly prohibited by the Catholic church. Way back in
1991, the SWS revealed that 96 percent of Catholics want to
control their fertility
we remind the people in the gallery to please refrain from
any manifestations.
REP. LAGMAN. and most approved of contraceptive
use. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, millions lack information
and access to family planning methods, both the natural and
the modern. This bill, if enacted into law, will provide that
dearth of information on family planning methods and dearth
of access to reproductive health products and supplies.
Mr. Speaker, it is not true to say that there is already
prevalent freedom of informed choice. We have a very limited
freedom of informed choice today. As long as there are myths
on family planning methods, then there is no informed choice,
Mr. Speaker.
For example, many women still believe that if they take
the pills, there will be holes in their stomach. Many people
believe that there are microscopic holes in condoms so much
so that it would not prevent acquired-immune deficiency
syndrome (AIDS) and other sexually transmitted diseases or
even pregnancy. These are all myths because there is no
accurate and seasonable information on family planning
methods, Mr. Speaker.
It is true that contraceptives are available in the market.
But the availability of contraceptives is not equivalent to
access, much more free access to the marginalized couples,
to the poorest of the poor women who need family planning
information and access to reproductive health products.
Twenty-two percent of the poorest of the poor women want
to avoid more pregnancies but they do not use any method of
family planning, so much so, that there are unremitting
pregnancies in the marginalized sectors of our society.
Mr. Speaker, if it is true that there is already informed
choice, if it is true that there is access to contraceptive methods
and products, then what is wrong in legislating to
institutionalize that practice?
Mr. Speaker, reproductive health and family planning
are basic human rights. This has been declared by the UN 40
years ago, that is why this year, we are celebrating the 40th
anniversary of the declaration that reproductive health and
human rights are basic human rights.

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong if we enhance rights by
legislation?
For example, Mr. Speaker, in the Bill of Rights, we have
the freedom of expression, the freedom of the press. But these
are not self-effecting rights. That is why a law is necessary,
Mr. Speaker, to enhance and protect these rights. So this bill,
if it becomes a law, will not be irrelevant. It will not be
unnecessary. It will not be useless. Moreover, we are not
promoting contraceptives which are abortifacient. What we
are saying here is that contraceptives should be legal and
medically safe. While we say that there are contraceptives in
the markets, that is an indication that they are medically safe
and legal because they are approved by the Bureau of Food
and Drugs (BFAD).
Mr. Speaker, all of these constitutional provisions cited
by the distinguished Deputy Speaker are all not self-effecting.
They need legislation, in the same manner that the family is
not only a natural nucleus. The family is a social institution.
According to the Constitution, the protection and the
development of the family is impressed with public interest.
The only way to do that is to have legislation. This is one
legislation which would promote and protect the family not
only as a natural nucleus but as a social institution. That is
why we have laws in the family. We have the Civil Code of
the Philippines. We have the Family Code, we have the Child
and Welfare Code. These are all legislations enhancing the
development and protection of the family because the family
is not immune to legislation, Mr. Speaker.
REP. DEL MAR. Mr. Speaker, is the distinguished
Sponsor finished?
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I can say more but since
the Gentleman is not asking the right questions, I decided to
answer his preliminaries, but if he asks the right question
then I would answer the same.
REP. SUSANO. Mr. Speaker.
REP. DEL MAR. Mr. Speaker, whether this
Representation is asking the correct questions or not is the
privilege of this Representation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Del Mar). The
session is suspended for a minute.
It was 7:05 p.m.
session is resumed.
REP. SUSANO. Mr. Speaker.
we know what is the pleasure of the Lady from the Second
District of Quezon City?

REP. SUSANO. Mr. Speaker, considering that this is the
most important bill in the House, but for decades, this has
not been discussed even in the Committee on Rules before.
session is suspended for a few minutes.
35
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, earlier, we were talking about
decorum, and this Representation would like to state that
proper decorum demands that every Member of the House
should be allowed to speak. And only after a Member of the
House had spoken should the Presiding Officer decide on
how to dispose of the manifestation of that Member of the
House.
But in this particular case, the Member of the House was
not allowed to speak and was interrupted.
It was 7:10 p.m.


Presiding Officer motu proprio can rule the order, the
observance of proper decorum.

session is resumed.
The Sr. Dep. Minority Leader is recognized.
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Presiding Officer cannot

arbitrarily interrupt a Member of the House from speaking
because that will be depriving the Member of the House from
exercising his or her rights and prerogative as a Member of
the House.
REP. GOLEZ. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

is the point of order of the Gentleman from Paraaque City?
REP. GOLEZ. The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is, why
did the Presiding Officer interrupt a Member of the House
who is trying to speak out? Is it because the Presiding Officer
is aware that the one speaking is against the RH Bill?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). That
is not ...
The Presiding Officer is getting signal from the Majority
Leader as it has been the practice.
REP. GOLEZ. But is the Presiding Officer...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). I think

the Presiding Officer is trying to pacify the proper decorum
while there is an ongoing debate between the Gentleman from
Cebu City and the Sponsor of the said measure.
REP. GOLEZ. But, Mr. Speaker, the Presiding Officer
already recognized our colleague from Quezon City and she
was about to make her manifestation, but she was interrupted
by the Presiding Officer, which in the opinion of this
Representation, is a violation of the Rulesdepriving a
Member of the House from exercising her rights and
prerogative, Mr. Speaker.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). I think
the point of the Gentleman
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). There

is a signal from the Majority Leader.
REP. GOLEZ. May I request the Presiding Officer to

rule on my point of order.
REP. GOLEZ. It is the prerogative of any Member

of the House, whether for or against the bill, to stand and
the proper procedure, Mr. Speaker, is that the Chair
should first allow the Member of the House to speak.
And then it will be up to the Presiding Officer to act
accordingly.

Presiding Officer already ruled that the Lady from Quezon
City will be given a chance to continue her manifestation.

Gentleman from Paraaque City is correct.
REP. GOLEZ. So the Presiding Officer is sustaining the
point of order of this Representation?
REP. GOLEZ. No, that is not the point of order of this

Representation. The point of order of this Representation is
that the Presiding Officer violated the Rules by interrupting a
Member of the House from speaking.
This Representation would like to ask the Presiding
Officer to rule on my point of order.
REP. DATUMANONG. Mr. Speaker.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). We

have already made our ruling that the Presiding Officer is
getting a signal from the Majority Leader.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). Based

on the Rules, the Presiding Officer has a power to motu
proprio suspend the procedure of said
REP. GOLEZ. The signal is to interrupt a Member of the

House, Mr. Speaker?
REP. GOLEZ. In that case, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.


Presiding Officer is about to resume the recognition and letting
the Lady from Quezon City to continue her

Gentleman has five minutes.
36

REP. DATUMANONG. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the

Chair.
of the manifestation of our colleague.

So, in this particular case, since I am appealing the ruling
of the Chair, we should now vote on my appeal.
VIVA VOCE VOTING

REP. GOLEZ. We have to vote on the ruling of the Chair.
is the point of order of the Gentleman from Maguindanao?
REP. DATUMANONG. The point of order, Mr.
Speaker...
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, we have not yet disposed of
my point of order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). As

many as are in favor of the appeal, please say aye.
FEW MEMBERS. Aye.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). As
many as are against, please say nay.
SEVERAL MEMBERS. Nay.
nays have it; the appeal is lost.
REP. GOLEZ. I move for a division of the House, Mr. Speaker.
REP. DATUMANONG. Mr. Speaker, the point of order

is

just divided the House.

is another point of order.
REP. DATUMANONG. The ruling of the Chair cannot
be a subject of point of order, but any Member of the House
can appeal from the ruling of the Chair, but not on a point of
order.
REP. GOLEZ. That is not correct. A division of the House

would mean that we have to count the heads
have just voted to divide the House.
REP. GOLEZ. That is not the proper way of voting.
REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, the point of order can be

addressed to the Presiding Officer and I just appealed the
ruling of the Chair.
REP DATUMANONG. That is the better procedure, Mr.
Speaker. Appeal from the ruling of the Chair but not a point
of order to be raised on the ruling of the Chair.
REP. GOLEZ. I am appealing the ruling of the Chair.
Gentleman from Maguindanao will be given
REP. GOLEZ. The Chair must be the one to rule. It is
not any other Member of this House.
Gentleman from Paraaque City will please allow the
Presiding Officer to finish. And the Gentleman will be given
five minutes to explain his appeal.
REP. GOLEZ. I am already appealing, Mr. Speaker.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). He has
five minutes to explain his appeal. If he does not want to
REP. GOLEZ. In the opinion of this Representation, this
is a violation of the Rules. Our distinguished colleague from
Quezon City has all the rights and prerogative to speak, and
only after speaking should the Presiding Officer act to dispose
It was 7:20 p.m.
session is resumed.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
REP. REMULLA. Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn the
session until tomorrow at four oclock in the afternoon.
is a motion to adjourn the session until four oclock tomorrow
afternoon.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the motion is approved.
The session is adjourned until tomorrow at four oclock
in the afternoon.
It was 7:22 p.m.

House Plenary

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

House Plenary

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Congressional Record

PLENARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE 14th CONGRESS, SECOND REGULAR SESSION

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

At 4:00 p.m., the Deputy Speaker, Rep. Eric D. Singson,

any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). The

Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary General called

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). Everybody

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

APPEARED BEFORE/AFTER THE CALL

ON OFFICIAL MISSION WITHIN THE COUNTRY

ON OFFICIAL MISSION ABROAD

OFFICIAL ADVICE OF ABSENCE

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

REP. ROMULO. Mr. Salvador Muyuela; Ms. Rosalinda

REP. ROMULO. May we also acknowledge guests from

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). The

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). We

REP. ROMULO. May we also greet the guests of the

REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, we also want to welcome

REP. ROMULO. Guests from the Mary Mother of Good

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). We also

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

REP. ROMULO. Guests from the Servants of Christ the

any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is

REP. ROMULO. Our guests from the Catholic Womens

The Secretary General read the following House Bills

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

Report by the Committee on Basic Education and Culture

BE KNOWN AS SIBALOM NATIONAL HIGH

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). Yes, the

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). The

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

Wall Street because a lot of these is what they call greed

I said, we must address this because this will have a very

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Singson, E.). What is

developments happening in the US. So I asked for less time

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

REP. ABANTE. Much as I want to be a part of this

REP. VELARDE. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5043,

At 6:19 p.m., the session was resumed.

REP. VELARDE. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary status

It was 6:19 p.m.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). The

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

REP. LAGMAN. There was a technical working staff

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

It was 7:10 p.m.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. De Guzman). The

At 7:14 p.m., the session was resumed.

REP. GOLEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Presiding Officer cannot