REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 1 First Regular Session )

S E N A T E

COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 2 2

Submitted by the Committee on Rules on 0 3 MAY 2005 Re: Motion of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile that his privilege speech delivered

on Monday, 14 February 2005 concerning the loan agreement on the North Rail Project be referred to a Committee of the Whole; and the recommendations and policies of the Committee on Rules as to when the Senate, as a Whole, could inquire into a particular matter.

Recommending the adoption of the conclusions and recommendations contained herein.

Sponsor: Senator Francis N. Pangilinan

Mr. President:

The Committee on Rules has conducted an inquiry concerning the motion

of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile that his speech on the North Rail Project,

detivered on Monday, 14 February 2005, be referred to a Committee of the

Whole. As a consequence, the same motion was referred by the Chair to the

Committee on Rules for the latter to deliberate and recommend policies on

when the Senate, as a Whole, could look into a particular matter.

The Committee, after conducting an extensive inquiry, has the honor to

submit i t s Report to the Senate:

2

I.

INTRODUCTION

On 14 February 2005, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile delivered a privilege

speech on the North Rail Project - a multi billion peso project that would

rehabilitate the railway system plying the Caloocan to Malolos, Bulacan route.

On 8 November 2004, Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. delivered a privilege

speech on a similar subject matter entitled “THE NORTH RAIL PROJECT:

Development vs. People’s Rights.” This was referred to the Committee on

Urban Planning, Housing and Resettlement as the primary committee, and to

the Committees on Finance and on Local Government as secondary

committees.

In his speech, Senator Enrile stressed that the project was a

government-to-government foreign loan and raised the following issues: (1) the

role of a certain private individual in the loan contract and (2) the stipulation

in the contract that in the event of a delay in the removal of the squatters or

informal settlers along the street to be rehabilitated, the government would

pay a monthly commitment fee of P20 Million.

During the course of the interpellations, several issues were raised by

some senators, notably the one pointed out by Senator Miriam Defensor

Santiago that the project violates at least two (2) constitutional provisions

purposely intended to give the Legislative branch a role in the contracting of

foreign loans.

The Chair referred Senator Enrile’s motion to refer his privilege speech

to a Committee of the Whole, to the Committee on Rules, so that the latter

could come up with recommendations and policies as to when the Senate, as a

Committee of the Whole, could inquire into a particular matter. Consequently,

the Chair directed the Committee on Rules to recommend guidelines and

standards that the Body could adopt with regard to the referral of certain

matters to the Committee of the Whole.

3

11.

CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS ON THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Inquiries made by the Committee on Rules show the following facts:

A. Until the Twelfth Congress, the Senate has constituted itself as a

Committee of the Whole for a total of nine (9) times. As a Committee of the

Whole, the Senate conducted formal inquiries on a variety of issues, name[y:

1. Foreign Debt'

What was originally a motion by Senator Aquilino Q.

Pimentel, Jr. to create a special committee for the purpose of tackling the debt aspect of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

(BNPP) evolved into a Committee of the Whole to hear and discuss

the matter of foreign debt. Referral to the Committee of the

Whole was brought about by four (4) privilege speeches on the

same issue delivered by Senators Maceda, Guingona, Pimentel and

Romulo on different dates.

IOn 28 July 1987, Senator Maceda delivered a privilege

speech on foreign creditors. During an interpellation by Senator

Pimentel, Senator Maceda conceded that he was amenable if the

Senate would hear the matter. Nevertheless, the matter was

referred to eight (8) committees, namely: Banks, Financial

Institutions and Currency, Ways and Means, Economic Affairs, Blue

Ribbon, Justice and Human Rishts, Constitutional Amendments,

Revision of Codes and Laws, and Foreign Relations.

Admitting that the matter on the BNPP is a multi-

disciplinary or multi-committee subject matter, Senator John H.

IUsmek moved for the creation of an ad hoc committee on the

BNPP chaired by Senator Saguisag and composed of the respective

chairmen of the Committees on Finance, Blue Ribbon, Economic

Affairs, Natural Resources, and Science and Technology to look

into all the aspects related to such project.

' RECORD OF THE SENATE, Vol. 1, Nos. 2-6, 28-31 July 1987 and 3 Aug. 1987.

4

IOn 3 August 1987, Senator Romulo delivered anew a

privilege speech on foreign debt that was referred to the

Committee on Economic Affairs upon motion by Senator Pimentel.

The same was likewise referred to the Committee on Ways and

Means on the issue of taxes upon motion by Senator Maceda.

Senator Lina also moved for the additional referral to the

Committee on Youth.

A t this point, Senator Romulo raised the propriety of

multiple referrals that he found redundant. He proposed that

instead of referring the matter to different committees, the

Senate be constituted as a Committee of the Whole to discuss,

investigate and study the foreign debt problem. Without any

objections, the motion to constitute the Committee of the Whole

was approved and carried.

2. Power Crisis Act2

During the session on Wednesday, 24 March 1993, S. No.

1186 entitled ‘‘An Act Authorizing the President to Exercise

Powers Necessary and Proper to Effectively and Decisively Address

the Energy Crisis,” was first referred to the Committees on

Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws and

Energy. Senator Ernest0 Maceda likewise moved that: (i) for

purposes of expediting the study of the matter, the provisions on

the imposition of the surcharge and on capital contribution be

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means; (ii) the specific

matter of the waiver or exemption of projects from the provisions

of the Local Government Code be referred to the Committee on

Local Government; (iii) the most controversial matter of possible

waiver of requirements in connection with the issuance of

Environmental Compliance Certificates be referred to the

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources; and (iv) the

matter of exemption from the Attrition Law and the

reorganization of the National Power Corporation be referred to

the Committee on Civil Service and Government Reorganization.

RECORD OF THE SENATE, Vol. IV, No. 74, 24 March 1993, pp. 216, 221-223.

5

With the foregoing motions of referrals, Majority Leader

Romulo invoked Rule X, Section 11 [now Rule X, Section 151 which

states that, “Although a measure covers subject matters falling

within the jurisdiction of more than one (1) committee, it shall be

referred to not more than two (2) committees which have primary

jurisdiction over the principal subject matter. However,

measures involving the appropriation of funds or embodying tax or

revenue proposals shall respectively be referred also to the

Committee on Finance as to the appropriation aspect or to the

Committee on Ways and Means as to the tax or revenue aspect.

The committee which acquires original jurisdiction on any

measure shall be mainly responsible for submitting a report to the

Senate incorporating therein the appropriation recommendations

of the secondary committee and the Committee on Finance or the

Committee on Ways and Means, as the case may be.”

During the session of Thursday, 25 March 1993, Majority

Leader Romulo stated that “pursuant to our Caucus, with the

permission of the respective Chairmen of the Committee on

Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws, the

Committee on Public Services and the Committee on Energy, and

pursuant to Rule X, Section 11 of the Rules, I move that the

Senate be constituted as a Committee of the Whole in order to

conduct hearings and, subsequently, submit a report on Senate

Bi l l No. 1186 authored by Senators Aquino and Guingona, as well

as the other resolutions on the energy issue authored by Senators

Ople, Alvarez and Guingona, so that they can conduct

immediately a hearing of the Committee of the Whole and,

thereafter, submit a report. I move that the Senate be

constituted as a Committee of the Whole.’I3

3 . General Apeement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)4

On the matter of the GAlT, Senator Romulo stated that:

“In mid April this year, two of our distinguished colleagues,

Senator Blas Ople and Senator Francisco Tatad, attended the

’JOURNAL OF THE SENATE, 24-25 March 1993, pp. 1612 Sr 1620. JOURNAL OF THE SENATE, VOl. I, NO. 6, 3-4 AUg. 1994, p. 170.

6

signing of the Marrakesh Accord on G A T in Morocco. The

Philippines i s one of the signatories to this Accord.

In view of the many issues and concerns various sectors

have raised on G A T and i t s successor WTO which wil l take effect

in 1995, five months hence, we do not have the luxury of time on

our side.”

Thus, to consider with the least delay the terms, conditions

and timetable of the country’s accession to this new economic

order, pursuant to Sec. 11 (now Sec. 14) Rule X of the Rules of the

Senate, upon motion of Senator Romulo, there being no

objection, the Body approved the constitution of the Committee

of the Whole with all senators as members thereof.

4. Magna Carta for Migrant Worker?

Pursuant to the Constitution, President Fidel V. Ramos

called Congress to a special session on 22-27 May 1995, to

consider and enact labor-related measures certified as urgent,

particularly, the Magna Carta for Overseas Contract Workers.

Upon motion by Senator Romulo as the Majority Leader, the

Senate constituted itself as a Committee of the Whole without

objections. He manifested that all labor-related bills on Filipino

overseas workers being considered by the Senate at the time but

which have been referred to other committees should be referred

to the Committee of the Whole.

5. Computerized Election System6

During the consideration of S. No. 2008, “Use of

Appropriate Technological and Electronic Devices in Elections”,

the Chairman of the Committee on Electoral Reforms and People’s

Participation, Senator Arturo Tolentino, along with other

members of the Body suggested that the COMELEC conduct a

demonstration of the operation of computer and electronic

equipment for voting, counting and canvassing of votes to have a

Senate Transcript of Session Proceedings, gfh Cong., 3‘d Reg., 22 May 1995. Senate Transcript of Session Proceedings, gfh Cong., 3rd Reg., 26 Jan. 1995, pp. 100-101.

7

better understanding and grasp of the system sought to be

introduced and to evaluate the merits thereof.

In order to give way to such a demonstration, Majority

Leader Senator Romulo sought the consent of the Chamber to

constitute the Body as a Committee of the Whole, which motion

was approved without any objection.

6. Southern Philippines Council for Peace and Development

On the matter of the SPCPD, Majority Leader Romulo stated

“Mr. President, in view of the fact that there are at least

two bills, seven resolutions and now four speeches on the subject

of the Southern Philippines Council for Peace and Development,

and to consider all the constitutional and legal issues and

concerns expressed relative to the proposal to constitute an

SPCPD and related matters, I move that this Body constitute the

Senate as a Committee of the Whole.

(SPCPD) ’

,’ that:

The President. Is the Majority Leader referring to Senate

BilL Nos. 1606 and 1616, Resolution Nos. 336, 496, 498, 499, 510,

512, 516 and the speeches entitled: Mindanao Gate; The Joint

Formation of Foreign Policy by Congress and the President,

delivered by Senator Santiago; Is Malacaiiang Risking War for an

Unreal Peace?, delivered by Senator Tatad; the Question of Personal Privilege on the Tripoli Agreement, delivered by Senator

Enrile on July 25, 1996; and the speech delivered tonight by the

Senate President Pro Tempore, and all interpellations on them?

Senator Romulo. I am referring to all those, Mr. President.

Therefore, pursuant to Section 14, Rule X of the Rules of the

Senate, I move that the Senate be constituted as a Committee of

the Whole for the purposes of hearing these bills, resolutions and

speeches, and inviting officials and sectors of our society in order

to clarify the concerns and issues related thereto.

’ RECORD OF THE SENATE, VOl. I , NO. 4, 29 July 1996, pp. 144-145.

8

7 . Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) Amendments’

On 17 February 2003, Senator Pimentel delivered a

privilege speech on the alleged interference in the legislative

process by a foreign body known by i t s acronym AGILE regarding

amendments to the AMLA.

It was the sense of the Senate that it had been fed with

secondhand information by officials of the Bangko Sentral ng

Pilipinas and the Department of Finance regarding the anticipated

rejection of the amendments to the AMLA even before action by

the President.

In view thereof, Senator Pimentel proposed that the Senate

convene itself as a Committee of the Whole to hear and discuss

the divergent views relative to the acceptability or not of the

proposed amendments and the attendance of Mr. Sergio Ortiz,

president of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce, Inc., regarding

his doomsday scenario.

Pursuant thereto, Senator Pimentel proposed Resolution

No. 548 for expeditious action of the Senate with the view of

devising a mechanism to strike the right balance between a

potentially abusive government that might make use of the

unlimited powers bestowed upon the AMLA board and the exercise

of Philippine sovereignty.

The motion to adopt P.S. Res. No. 58 was adopted with no

objection.

8 . Deliberation on the Budget of the Department of National Defense (DND)’

On the matter of the DND budget in 5 March 2003, Senator

Pimentel stated that:

“Senator Pimentel. Mr. President, in view of the

multifarious aspects that are necessarily to be inputted in our

discussion of the budget of the Department of National Defense

and of the armed forces, may I ask that the Senate be converted

into a Committee of the Whole to facilitate the introduction of

‘Senate Transcript of Session Proceedings, l Z t h Cong., Znd Reg., Vol. 11, No. 63, 17 February

Senate Transcript of Session Proceedings, 12‘h Cong., Znd Reg., Vol. 11, No. 64, 5 March 2003, pp. 30-34.

2003, pp. 120-121.

9

these concepts during the deliberation of the budget of the armed

forces."

9 . Oakwood Mutiny"

On 29 July 2003, the Senate adopted Resolution No. 68

constituting the Senate as a Committee of the Whole to

investigate and look into, in aid of legislation, the grievances of a

number of young military officers and soldiers on alleged

corruption, inequality and abuse of privilege in the military

establishment.

Of similar import, the Senate sought the appearance of,

among other personalities, the Secretary of the Interior and Local

Government, Jose Lina, to explain why he has threatened to have

a member of the Chamber arrested. It was the sense of the Body

that the issue i s of urgent nature because it affects not only a

member but the entire Body as well.

l o Senate Transcript of Session Proceedings, 12'h Cong., 3'd Reg., 29 July 2003 and 1 Aug. 2003, pp. 1-2.

10

111.

FINDINGS AND ASSESSMENT

A Committee of the Whole i s but the assembly sitting in another form,

the membership remaining identical.” It i s the whole house sitting as a

committee rather than as a house, with a committee chairman appointed for

the occasion by the presiding officer” or elected by the members of that

house.

A. Constitutional And Legal Bases

1. Each House may determine the rules of i t s proceedings x x x. (CONST.,

art. VI, sec. 16 [3]).

2. Whenever necessary, special committees shall be organized, the

membership and jurisdiction of which shall be determined by the Senate

President. (RULES OFTHE SENATE, Rule X, sec. 14)

An analysis of the precedents reveals that a Committee of the Whole has

been traditionally based on the power of the Senate to form special

committees. Since this provision suffices as a legal basis for the constitution of

a Committee of the Whole, resort to Rule XLIII, Section 121 of the Rules of the

Senate, which provides that “[tlhe Rules shall be suspended only when a

motion presented by the Committee on Rules to that effect i s approved by a

majority of the Senators present” i s unnecessary. With respect to the legality of the Committee of the Whole, during the

first constitution of the Committee of the Whole on the Foreign Debt under the

1987 Constitution, the members equated it to a special committee. During the

creation of the GATT Committee of the Whole, Majority Leader Senator Romulo

invoked Section 11, Rule X of the Senate Rules as the basis for i t s creation.

While in the SPCPD Committee of the Whole, Senator Romulo moved for i t s

constitution relying on Rule X, Section 14 of the Rules of the Senate. The

records show that both provisions refer to the same rule that states,

“Whenever necessary, special committees shall be organized, the membership

and jurisdiction of which shall be determined by the President.” It indicates

” See Section 86, Reed’s Parliamentary Rules, by Thomas B. Reed, Speaker of the House of

l 2 Robert, H. (rev.), ROBERT’S RULES OFORDER (1915). Representatives, 1889-1891 and 1895-1899, as cited in §4705, Hind’s Precedents.

11

that the validity of the Committee of the Whole rests on solid ground, aside

from the fact that the move to constitute the said committee was always

supported unanimously.

B. Factors Underlying The Creation Of A Committee Of The Whole

1 . Subject Matter

The primordial factor in all of the precedents i s the involvement of a

subject matter of transcendental importance. While it may be argued that

every issue imbued with public interest i s of transcendental importance, the

Senate experience suggests that such matters must threaten the very existence

of the country and/or i t s instrumentalities, as illustrated by the issues on

Foreign Debt, GATT, AMLA Amendments, and the Oakwood Mutiny.

Where the subject matter involves domestic issues affecting the most

basic and fundamental rights of the people, as in the cases of the SPCPD,

Magna Carta for Migrant Workers, and Computerized Election, the same was

found to be a proper matter for the consideration of a Committee of the

Whole. Issues involving the use of public fu.nds and malfeasance in government

had also been considered ripe for inquiry by a Committee of the Whole.

However, the gravity of the subject matter i s not always a clear

indicator considering that other issues of equal importance did not undergo the

Committee of the Whole. For instance, the RP-US Bases Treaty on Friendship

and Cooperation in 1991 and the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement in 1999 were

referred to the standing committees such as the Committee on Foreign

Relations and Committee on National Defense and Security notwithstanding

the fact that they involved matters of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

2. Multiple jurisdictions

I t wi l l also be dbserved that subjects encompassing a variety of issues

falling within the jurisdiction of two or more committees are often referred to

a Committee of the Whole because the issues are too complex for a select

number of committees to handle to the exclusion of others. To maximize

participation and expedite action, the Senate had deemed it prudent to avoid

multiple committee referrals, as was the case in the Foreign Debt, Migrant

Workers, and SPCPD.

12

3. Interests of Expediting Deliberation

The Senate had also constituted a Committee of the Whole to expedite

deliberation of a subject matter, as it did when it was considering on second

reading the bil l on Computerized Election (5 . No. 2008). The Senate found it

more advantageous to s i t as a committee in this instance for a better

understanding of the mechanics and operation of the proposed system,

Clearly, the factors considered in constituting a Committee of the Whole

for the purpose of discussing a subject matter differ from case to case and the

only common thread that seems to run through all the Senate precedents i s the

desire of every member of the Chamber to participate actively in the

discussion. It is this desire which leads the members to yield their respective

committees’ jurisdiction in deference to the Committee of the Whole. The

earnestness of this desire i s further manifested by the consistent unanimous

consent displayed by the members in all nine (9) instances that a motion for

resolution to constitute the Committee of the Whole was laid before the Body.

While in other legislative matters, it i s a normal occurrence to see the Senate

divided according to party lines or affiliation, in the matter of creation of the

Committee of the Whole, the Senate had voted as one and transcended

partisan considerations. Their approval shows that the members acceded

without regard to political interests.

ALL told, the appreciation of the need to constitute a Committee of the

Whole to discuss a particular subject matter depends solely on the collective

wisdom of the Senate, taking into consideration the circumstances present and

the prevailing sentiment of the members of the Body.

C. Procedure

Procedurally, the creation of a Committee of the Whole was usually

done by either a motion unanimously approved by the Chamber or through a

Resolution unanimously approved by the Members of the Senate present

constituting a quorum.

13

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Rules of the Senate do not state what matters are covered or should

fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee of the Whole. Based on

precedents, the basis for creating or convening such a Committee i s Rule X,

Section 14 which states: “Whenever necessary, special committees shall be

organized, the membership and jurisdiction of which shall be determined by

the Senate President.”

The Rules, however, do not specifically define the jurisdiction of, nor

outline the procedure for, the creation of the Committee of the Whole, and

perhaps it is best that the Rules remain so. The precedents show that the

Senate considers different factors whenever confronted with the question of

whether an issue merits the constitution of a Committee of the Whole. While

“matters of transcendental importance” appear to merit the constitution of a

Committee of the Whole, determination of what falls under this category

depends on the sentiments prevailing at the time. The very nature of such

matters defies definition as any definition may be either unduly restricting or

overbroad. Whether an issue i s of such great significance that it ought to be

referred to a Committee of the Whole i s therefore best left to the collective

wisdom of the Senate. Establishing the Committee’s jurisdiction, purpose and

subject matter would only curtail the awesome power of the Senate to exercise

i t s legislative power and encroach upon the exercise of i t s wisdom and

discretion.

Suffice it to say, however, that the creation of the Committee of the

Whole in the past was consistently resorted to in order to avoid proliferation of

committee referrals, to obviate conflicts on committee jurisdiction, to

expedite inquiries and resolutions of vital national issues, and to address

comprehensive and interlocking subjects. In such situations, the Senate

decided that a Committee of the Whole could better serve legislative

objectives than a single standing committee composed of a subset of the

members of the Senate.

In view of the foregoing, the Committee on Rules does not deem i t wise

to outline specific requirements or standards for the constitution of a

Committee of the Whole as to bind the hands of the Senate. Rather, the

Committee leaves to the better discretion of the entire body, taking into

14

account al l pertinent facts and circumstances, the decision as to when a

particular issue should be referred to a Committee of the Whole.

It i s worth underscoring, however, that the constitution of a Committee

of the Whole should never undermine the present committee system. As

illustrated by the fact that the Senate had constituted itself as a Committee of

the Whole for a total of nine (9 ) instances only since the First Congress, this

special committee is resorted to quite sparingly and rightly so. The Senate

functions by way of a committee system with specific jurisdictions carefully

delineated to allow the standing committees to concentrate and acquire

expertise on such fields. Moreover, the Rules of the Senate allow referral to a

secondary committee should the matter under consideration cover other issues

within the purview of another committee’s jurisdiction. Thus, where the

present committee system can serve the legislative purposes, resort to an

extraordinary mechanism such as the Committee of the Whole i s unnecessary.

While the Rules do allow the constitution of a Committee of the Whole, such

should in no way undermine the fundamental structure and organization of the

Senate crystallized by long tradition codified in the Rules. Likewise, it should

not put in disarray the defined functions of the standing committees to hear

proposed measures and recommend policies and proposal concerning subject

matters falling under their respective jurisdictions.

Thus, the Committee on Rules deems it best to direct the Senate to the

precedents in deciding when a particular matter is to be referred to a

Committee of the Whole. It i s not within the province of the Committee on

Rules to limit the legislative powers and discretion of the entire body, or

undermine the collective wisdom of the Senate. At best, the Committee on

Rules can only synthesize the criteria used in the past Congresses to serve as a

guide for the Senate as it exercises i t s judgment with respect to whether or not

to convene a Committee of the Whole, to wit:

1. The subject matter to be inquired into is in aid of legislation and

of special or great concern vital to national interest; and that the

Committee of the Whole i s resorted to in order to expedite

deliberation and resolution of urgent issues and hasten decision-

making by the Senate regarding urgent matters.

The subject matter consists of wide-ranging and interlocking

issues encompassing the co-equal jurisdictions of at Least four (4)

committees.

2.

15

3. The constitution of a Committee of the Whole i s done in

consultation with the Chairmen of the different Standing

Committees that have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

A Committee of the Whole is created by unanimous approval of

the Members of the Senate present constituting a quorum.

A Committee of the Whole i s resorted to with extreme caution

and only on rare occasions.

4.

5.

The decision to convene a Committee of the Whole i n all previous

instances since 1987 was left to the discretion and wisdom of the Senate sitting

in plenary. The Committee on Rules sees no compelling reason to deviate from

this time-honored practice.

Accordingly, determination of whether the privilege speech of Senator

Juan Ponce Enrile delivered on 14 February 2005 involves an issue that should

be inquired into by a Committee of the Whole is best left to the collective

wisdom and the better judzment of the entire Senate.

MEMBERS:

SEN.

SEN.

J / i l L i r l L , - /

SEN. SERGIO OSMEfiA 111

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS: /,

SEN. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

Senate President