text:
Full Texts - RCC
[ VOL. I, June 25, 1986 ]
R.C.C. NO. 17
OPENING OF SESSION
At 5:14 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, opened the session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be led by Reverend Cirilo A. Rigos.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
REV. RIGOS: Most loving and gracious God by Whose goodness we are gathered here today, we pause to invoke Thy blessings upon us.
Grant us the courage to change what can be changed, the humility to accept what cannot be changed and the wisdom to distinguish one from the other.
In Jesus' name, we pray. Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar Present Concepcion Present
Alonto Present Davide Present
Aquino Present Foz Present
Azcuna Present Garcia Present
Bacani Present Gascon Present*
Bengzon Present* Guingona Present
Bennagen Present Jamir Present
Bernas Present Laurel Present
Rosario Braid Present Lerum Present
Brocka Present Maambong Present
Calderon Present Monsod Present
Castro de Present Natividad Present
Colayco Present Nieva Present
Nolledo Present Sarmiento Present
Ople Present* Suarez Present
Padilla Present Sumulong Present
Quesada Present Tadeo Present
Rama Present Tan Present
Regalado Present Tingson Present
Reyes de los Present Treñas Present
Rigos Present Uka Present
Rodrigo Present Villacorta Present
Romulo Present Villegas Present
Rosales Present
The President is present.
The roll call shows 43 Members responded to the call.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of the previous session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference of Business.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolutions on First Reading and Communications, the President making the corresponding references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 256, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION INSTITUTIONALIZING THE PRINCIPLE OF PEOPLE POWER IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS THROUGH THE METHOD OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM.
Introduced by Hon. Garcia and Gascon.
To the Committee on the Legislative.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION FOR A PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT SPECIFYING THEREIN THE TERM, QUALIFICATIONS AND MANNER OF ELECTION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.
Introduced by Hon. Tingson.
To the Committee on the Executive.
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION SECTION TWENTY, ARTICLE FOUR, OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION WITH MODIFICATION TO MAKE THE PROTECTION EFFECTIVE.
Introduced by Hon. Treñas.
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION A PROVISION REQUIRING APPROVAL BY THE SUPREME COURT OF RULES CONCERNING PLEADING, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES BEFORE THESE RULES CAN BECOME EFFECTIVE.
To the Committee on the Judiciary.
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION A PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS HOLDING TWO OR MORE PUBLIC OFFICES AT THE SAME TIME.
To the Committee on General Provisions.
RESOLUTION STRENGTHENING THE LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL PROVISION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Introduced by Hon. Natividad, de los Reyes, Jr., Maambong and Ople.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUOUS VALIDITY OF ALL EXISTING LAWS, PROCLAMATIONS, DECREES, ORDERS OR INSTRUCTIONS AND PROVIDING FOR THE EXERCISE AND TERMINATION OF THE LAW-MAKING POWERS OF THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT.
Introduced by Hon. Maambong, de los Reyes, Jr., Natividad and Ople.
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE THE STUDY OF THE LIFE AND WORKS OF OUR NATIONAL HERO, JOSE RIZAL, IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION.
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE THE STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THE NEW CHARTER.
RESOLUTION PROPOSING A PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION CREATING THE COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS TO BE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY.
RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE RETENTION OF THE U.S. MILITARY BASES ON PHILIPPINE TERRITORY AS PART OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE.
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCLUDE IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON MORAL COMMITMENT.
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE INCLUSION OF OPTIONAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION.
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION CALLING FOR THE DISMANTLING OF PRIVATE ARMIES AND THE CIVILIAN HOME DEFENSE FORCES (CHDF).
Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento and Nolledo.
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A SEPARATE ARTICLE ON THE PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE FAMILY.
Introduced by Hon. Nieva, Bacani, Muñoz Palma, Rigos, Gascon and Guingona.
Communication from the Honorable Neptali A. Gonzales, Minister of Justice, referring a letter of Mr. O. L. dela Cuesta of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, requesting a dual citizenship provision in the Constitution.
(Communication No. 45 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
Letter from the Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines signed by Mr. Ricardo G. Librea, submitting a paper proposing that the Central Bank be made a constitutional body.
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Communication from Mr. Pablo B. David of Betis, Guagua, Pampanga, suggesting a form of government, the separation of church and state and social services provisions, among others.
To the Steering Committee.
Communication from Mr. Jose V. Macavinta of 2321-A Kusang Loob, Sta. Cruz, Manila, submitting proposals on the preamble, the national identity, the national flag and the national seal.
Communication from Mr. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., Deputy Executive Secretary, transmitting proposals of Mr. Virgilio S. Omamalin of Dipolog City, nominee to the Constitutional Commission.
Communication from Mr. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., Deputy Executive Secretary, transmitting a letter of Mr. Hipolito Montebon of Tuburan, Cebu, suggesting a presidential form of government, among others.
Letter from Mr. Mariano Melendres, Jr., of 370 S. Antonio Avenue, Pasig, Metro Manila, submitting suggestions on the national territory and the declaration of principles, among others.
Letter from Mr. Delfin R. Manlapaz of 1707 E. Rodriguez, Sr. Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City, suggesting a provision creating an entity to serve as the main credit source for the people.
To the Committee on Social Justice and Social Services.
COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Report No. 4 on Proposed Resolution No. 7, as reported out by the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON CITIZENSHIP,
recommending its approval with amendments.
Sponsored by Hon. Laurel, Jr. and Davide, Jr.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 5:27 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:28 p. m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Regalado E. Maambong presiding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The session is resumed.
The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, in addition to Commissioners Rama, Rodrigo and Jamir, may I request that the following Members of the Commission be made coauthors of Proposed Resolution No. 255 which was read on First Reading yesterday: (1) Ahmad Domocao Alonto; (2) Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr.; (3) Jose N. Nolledo; (4) Florenz D. Regalado; (5) Cirilo A. Rigos; (6) Ricardo J. Romulo; (7) Decoroso R. Rosales; (8) Gregorio J. Tingson; (9) Efrain B. Treñas; and (10) Lugum L. Uka.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I request that the Chair recognize Commissioner Nieva concerning her pending motion yesterday to change the name of her Committee.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Nieva is recognized.
MS. NIEVA: Yesterday, there was an objection raised to the changing of the name of the Committee on Social Justice and Social Services to COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE. The motion was made at the request of all the members of the Committee who felt that the phrase "social justice" necessarily encompasses "social services" and that, therefore, specifying social services would, in a way, restrict the scope of social justice.
The rationale behind the decision of the Committee on Social Justice and Social Services to change its name primarily lies in the perception and analysis of social justice as a general and broad concept which encompasses virtually every facet of life of the individual and of society. So, the Committee took as a working definition of "social justice" the definition of the Chairman of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights which says that:
Social Justice, for us Filipinos, means a coherent intelligible system of law, made known to us, enacted by a legitimate government freely chosen by us, and enforced fairly and equitably by a courageous, honest, impartial and competent police force, legal profession and judiciary that: (1) respects our rights and our freedoms, both as individuals and as a people; (2) seeks to repair the injustices that society has inflicted on the poor by eliminating — poverty as far as our resources and our ingenuity permit; (3) develops a self-directed and self-sustaining economy that distributes its benefits to meet, at first, the basic material needs for all, then to provide an improving standard of living for all, but particularly for the lower income groups, with time enough and space enough to allow them to take part in and to enjoy our cultures; (4) changes our institutions and structures, our way of doing things and relating to each other, so that whatever inequalities remain are not caused by these institutions or structures, unless inequality is needed temporarily to favor the least favored; (5) adopts means and processes that are capable of attaining these objectives.
And so, the Committee has agreed to work for a separate article on social justice which would necessarily encompass social services. With this broad and expanded notion of social justice, our Committee believes that as a bare minimum, social services are necessarily included. Therefore, our Committee has decided to concentrate on several areas of concern such as: agrarian reform, urban land reform, rural and urban community development, housing and shelter, labor, health, education and roles and rights of peoples' organizations.
We think that if we add the area of social services to social justice, we would then have to include also other areas that we are concerned with, like agrarian and urban land reform, or perhaps peoples' organizations. The Committee believes that the nomenclature "Committee on Social Justice" would be more expressive of its tasks and concerns.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I was the one who objected to the motion yesterday. After listening to the explanation given and in the light of the fact that it was the unanimous consensus of the members of the Committee to formulate a separate Article on Social Justice, including therein social services, I am withdrawing my objection.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The Chair would like to thank Commissioner Davide.
Now, we would like to clarify the parliamentary situation. Since there is a withdrawal of the objection, may we request the movant to restate her motion so that we can act on it.
MS. NIEVA: I move that the name of our Committee be changed to the COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): There is a motion to rename the "Committee on Social Justice and Social Services" to COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: In connection with our freewheeling discussions on citizenship, I request the Chair to recognize Commissioner Guingona.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
With the permission of the Presiding Officer and the Members of this Commission, before I go into the explanation of my position, may I be allowed to make reference to an article which appeared in the June 21, 1986 issue of Midday Malaya.
For the information of the honorable Members of this Commission, a media representative approached me last Friday and requested a summary of the proposed budget for the Commission. Since I did not want to be misquoted, I wrote down the summary of the proposed budget with the corresponding tentative amounts. Afterwards, I showed the summary to our President who went over it and later gave me the approval to give the summary to the media representative.
Commissioner Foz was present and he also went over the summary. I would like to say that the media representative accurately gave the substance of what we gave her except for some typographical errors which I or the public relations office of this Commission would try to explain or correct.
An example is the reference to the per diems of the Commissioners in the amount of P2,250,000 for 90 days at the rate of P500 a day per Commissioner for actual attendance in sessions, committee meetings and public hearings. I took pains to put these figures down in writing, and I also gave an illustration. I said that if a Commissioner attended four or three committee meetings plus a session in one single day, that Commissioner would be entitled to P500 only and no more.
As a matter of fact, this amount P2,250,000 is now reduced because during the first weekend, we had no sessions, committee meetings and public hearings. Thus, no Commissioner received any per diem. So this is effectively reduced by P48,000.
But this news article, perhaps, due to a typographical error, states that the Commissioners' per diems would amount to P2,250,000 for 90 days work, not counting the P500, when, in fact, this P2,250,000 is precisely the total of what the commissioners will receive at the rate of P500 a day for actual attendance.
The other error is the statement that the Filipino people may end up paying at least P1,356,145 a day. If we multiply this amount with 90 days, that means we would need a total appropriation of more than P100 million for three months, when, in fact, we only have P20 million. I also told the media representative that we still expected to save P3 to P4 million from the P20 million. In my computation, our total expense for 90 days would be P14,143,110 based on the proposed budget which, if we divide by 90, would come out to about P157,000 a day and not P1,356,145 as reported. the third typographical error is the phrase "losing operations" which connotes that we are profit-making organization, when it should have been "Lounge Operations."
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
With the Chair's permission, I would like to give my remarks on the matter of citizenship.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Before Commissioner Guingona makes his remark, the Chair takes note of his explanation and suggests that the Committee on Public Information should draft the proper communication to the paper referred to by Commissioner Guingona so that the date will be properly corrected.
DISCUSSION ON CITIZENSHIP
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. With the permission of the Chair, may I suggest that we secure the cooperation of our two liaison officers with media; namely, Commissioners Rama and Foz.
By way of clarification, I would like to assure our distinguished Vice-President that when I proposed the change of the phrase "Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines" to THOSE BORN OF FILIPINO FATHERS, there was no intention whatsoever to propose the application of the principle of jus soli in this jurisdiction.
As a matter of fact, the use of the words "of Filipino fathers" after the word "born" expressed my intention that the principle of jus sanguinis should apply. Of course, if the child is born abroad, say, in the United States, he may become a citizen thereof through the application of the principle of jus soli but such application would be effected by virtue of American law and not ours.
The provision contained in the proposed resolution of Commissioner Davide which says: "Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines" would make the citizenship of the child dependent upon the citizenship of the father at any time the question of citizenship is raised and not at the moment of his birth as we pointed out in the illustration we gave the last time we spoke. If the father should change his citizenship during the minority of the child, such child would cease to be a citizen of the Philippines. This situation, therefore, could result in confusion as to the question of his citizenship.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to express my full conformity with the provision contained in the proposed resolution introduced by Commissioner Davide, which reads, and I quote:
. . . those who are naturalized in accordance with law; provided, however, that the naturalization of aliens under the decree of the previous regime shall be subject to judicial confirmation.
May I say that I find the use of the words "judicial confirmation" instead of "judicial review" to be fortunate. I recall that the expression "judicial review" was used during the interpellations, because "judicial review," in its strict sense, is the power of the court to pass upon the constitutionality of the acts of other departments of government and to declare null and void such of them as are in contravention of the constitution. Since the 1973 Constitution provides for naturalization in accordance with law and since Mr. Marcos exercised lawmaking powers, there might have been some difficulty in challenging the naturalization of aliens then by the Executive as being unconstitutional.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I am not speaking against the process of naturalization. I am aware that this process is widely accepted and presumably in force in most, if not all, the countries of the world. This process is not a novel concept — the Roman Law also provides for naturalization. But I would like to share the opinion of those who would caution us against liberalizing our naturalization process because such liberalization could have an adverse impact, not only on the welfare of our people, but also on the security of our country. The venerable former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, in a previous session, called the attention to what he says were the many irregularities attendant to the grant of Filipino citizenship by the Executive during the Marcos rule. If I recall correctly, there was no dissent or objection from the floor with regard to the assertion made by Commissioner Concepcion. Justice Concepcion also expressed the fear that if we open the door too widely to the entry of aliens into our body politic through naturalization, then there might come a day when there would be more naturalized than natural-born Filipinos.
I believe that the statement of Dean Regalado in the course of his interpolation that if there were many cases of grants of naturalization by the Executive during the time of Marcos, that such would result in the clogging of the courts' dockets is valid. I believe that one possible remedy to this problem is to create some sort of a de facto court, not unlike the People's Court created after liberation, the sole jurisdiction of which would be to adjudicate cases of naturalization of aliens under a decree of the previous regime.
May I respectfully invite the attention of the Members of this honorable body to the fact that citizenship is membership in a political community with full, I repeat, full, civil and political privileges; Except in very rare instances, such as the election to the presidency or vice-presidency of the Philippines, a naturalized citizen would enjoy the same rights and privileges as a natural-born one. It may be asserted that they would have the right to acquire land of the public domain, to exploit natural resources and to operate public utilities.
May I underscore the fact that a foreigner who becomes a citizen through the process of naturalization becomes one of the sovereign people of this country. As Justice Marshall said in the case of Osburn vs. U.S., a naturalized citizen becomes a member of the society possessing all the rights of a natural-born citizen and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the same footing as a native. This is why, Mr. Presiding Officer, I am not in favor of liberalizing the naturalization of foreigners and this is also why I am in favor of Commissioner Davide's proviso which I had previously cited. This is why I favor another proviso, also contained in Commissioner Davide's proposed resolution, that admission to Filipino citizenship is a privilege which can be revoked any time in the manner and for cause provided by law.
Mr. Presiding Officer, there are two questions I would like to ask. The first is directed to Commissioner Davide: If the naturalization of aliens under the decree of the previous regime shall be established to be irregular because of fraud, bribery, or other illegal acts, would the nonconfirmation of such irregular naturalization have a retroactive effect? If so, what would be the effect on the citizenship of the minor child born after the irregular naturalization of the alien?
The second question is directed to both the Honorable Davide and the honorable Chairman of the Committee on Citizenship: Would the nonprohibition of Congress or the National Assembly to delegate or authorize the President to fix or lay down rules concerning the qualifications of aliens wishing to acquire Filipino citizenship and rules concerning proceedings for the acquisition thereof mean that the Congress or the National Assembly would have the power to delegate or authorize?
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, before the answers are given by those from whom Commissioner Guingona sought clarifications, I would like to correct his observation on the questions I raised when Commissioner Bernas was on the floor.
I did not say that if there would be judicial confirmation of those citizens naturalized under the decrees issued under the previous regime, there would be a clogging of dockets in the court. What I expressed on the floor was the concern of some Members that if the proposed judicial confirmation should be required, there would be (1) the possible clogging of the dockets of the courts, and (2) without the benefit of such judicial confirmation, there might be a problem of security.
I was referring to the statements of other Commissioners who made these observations. On that basis, I asked Commissioner Bernas whether or not his committee had ascertained the number of aliens granted Philippine citizenship under the liberalized procedure of the previous regime, for the obvious reason that the greater the number of those who were so naturalized, the graver is our concern. But if there were only a few, then it would be of less concern for us. Let us say that there very only about fifty or sixty who were granted citizenship through legislative naturalization, then it would not pose a serious concern regarding the crowding of the court dockets or the threat to national security as when the total number were about 100,000.
Personally, I have made a statement elsewhere that I am in favor of the proposed judicial confirmation through a summary proceeding as may be authorized under conditions laid down by the legislature, instead of the process of denaturalization, so that in such proceeding, we can weed out those who were really not qualified but were granted Philippine citizenship through that liberalized legislative procedure. I recall that Commissioner Bernas said that from the records, I think, of the Office of either the Solicitor General or the Ministry of Justice, the number could be ascertained.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: We now start discussion on the National Territory provision, and the first speaker whom I would like to call upon and whom I would like the Chair to recognize is Commissioner Nolledo.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, parliamentary inquiry.
MR. DAVIDE: Commissioner Guingona posed two questions: one, to this Representation and the second, to both Commissioners Bernas and this Representation. Would it be proper to answer now or could the answer be deferred until we shall have discussed the report on citizenship?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Mr. Assistant Floor Leader, the Chair heard distinctly Commissioner Guingona mention the name of Commissioner Davide. So, the Chair feels that it would be proper for Commissioner Davide to make the answer. But to keep everything in order, would it be possible for the Assistant Floor Leader to defer action on his motion to go to another topic?
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we suspend the session for three minutes while this is being ironed out.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The session is suspended.
At 6:11 p.m., the session was resumed.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I withdraw my previous manifestation that we proceed to the discussions on the National Territory.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The manifestation is withdrawn.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like Commissioner Davide to be given the floor.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I wonder if it would be appropriate at this time to answer the queries presented by Commissioner Guingona.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Davide may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, the answer to the first question is that if the court, after a judicial confirmation or nonconfirmation, shall decide on the latter — that is, nonconformation of the citizenship granted pursuant to a decree — then necessarily the nonconfirmation would have a retroactive effect. It relates back to the moment of the grant of the citizenship by decree. Necessarily, children of said naturalized Filipino citizen who may have obtained Filipino citizenship by virtue of the decreed naturalization will, in effect, lose that citizenship. Properties acquired by the so-called naturalized citizen will have to be escheated in favor of the state. That is a settled doctrine in denaturalization. As a matter of fact, in one case, in the Go Bon Lee case, the Solicitor General had already began reacquiring the properties acquired by Mr. Go Bon Lee although his citizenship had not yet been withdrawn by denaturalization.
As to the second question, the answer is yes, because naturalization must be in accordance with law and, therefore, prescribed by law.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Thank you, Commissioner Davide.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that the Chair recognize Commissioner Bengzon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer and honorable Chairman of the Steering Committee:
It has been my observation that we have had more than enough freewheeling discussions on the Article on Citizenship and, therefore, I would like to move for a special order from this body that we take up Committee Report No. 4, the report of the Committee on Citizenship, and move to its Second Reading, have it sponsored on the floor, subject to interpellations only without proceeding to the consideration of amendments. The amendments will come after July 7 as agreed upon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is that the motion, Commissioner Bengzon?
MR. BENGZON: That is my motion, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DAVIDE: Before we act on the motion, I would like to ask some clarifications. Are we through with the Unfinished Business for today?
MR. BENGZON: The Unfinished Business is the freewheeling discussion on citizenship.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. But I did not hear any motion to terminate the Unfinished Business. I do not think we can proceed to resolving the motion on a special order because under the Rules, paragraph (a) of Section 18, it is stated:
Unfinished Business — Business being considered by the Commission at the time of adjournment of its preceding session. Its consideration shall be resumed until such Unfinished Business is disposed of. Thereafter, the President shall call for the Business for the Day.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): With the indulgence of the two Gentlemen on the floor, the Chair declares a suspension of session.
Before the Chair suspended the session, there were two Gentlemen on the floor — Commissioner Bengzon Chairman of the Steering Committee and Commissioner Davide.
What is the pleasure of Commissioner Bengzon?
MR. BENGZON: In order to avoid any problems on technicality, may I, therefore, move that we first terminate the freewheeling discussion on Committee Report No. 4 on citizenship.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The is a motion to terminate the Unfinished Business, which is the freewheeling discussion on citizenship.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hear none; the motion is approved.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 7
(Article on Citizenship)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we consider Committee Report No. 4 on Proposed Resolution No. 7, as reported out by the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): I there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none the motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 7 is now in order. With the permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read only the title of the resolution without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Resolution No. entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON CITIZENSHIP.
(The following is the whole text of the resolution with amendments per C.R. No. 4.)
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 4
The Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Right and Obligations and Human Rights, to which was referred Proposed Resolution No. 7, entitled:
has considered the same and has the honor to report it back to the Constitutional Commission of 1986 with the recommendation that the resolution be approved with the following amendments: On page 2 of the Proposed Resolution,
Line 7, put a period after the word "law."
Delete the rest of paragraph 4 starting from the semicolon (;) on line 7 up to and including line 15.
Lines 16 to 20, delete Section 2 and in lieu thereof insert the following section: SEC. 2. CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES WHO MARRY ALIENS SHALL RETAIN THEIR CITIZENSHIP, UNLESS BY THEIR ACT OR OMISSION THEY ARE DEEMED, UNDER THE LAW, TO HAVE RENOUNCED THEIR CITIZENSHIP.
Line 23, delete "A" and capitalize the first letter of the word "natural."
On the same line, add the letter S to the word "citizen" and change the words "is one" to ARE THOSE.
Line 24, change the words "is a" to ARE and add the letter S to the word "citizen."
Line 26, change the word "his" to THEIR.
On the same line, change the period (.) after the word citizenship to a semicolon (;) and insert the following: PROVIDED, THAT THOSE WHO ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH 3 ABOVE SHALL ALSO BE DEEMED NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS,
with Honorable Davide, Jr. as author thereof.
(Sgd.) Jose B. Laurel, Jr.
Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights,
Political Rights and Obligations
and Human Rights
(Sgd.) Joaquin C. Bernas
(Sgd.) Christine A. Tan
(Sgd.) Yusup R. Abubakar
(Sgd.) Jose C. Colayco
(Sgd.) Rene V. Sarmiento
(Sgd.) Jaime S.L. Tadeo
(Sgd.) Edmundo G. Garcia
(Sgd.) Bernardo M. Villegas
(Sgd.) Francisco A. Rodrigo
(Sgd.) Ponciano L. Bennagen
(Sgd.) Eulogio R. Lerum
(Sgd.) Teodoro C. Bacani
(Sgd.) Ambrosio B. Padilla
(Sgd.) Teodulo C. Natividad
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 7
(As amended by the Committee)
WHEREAS, an article on Citizenship is mandatory in a Constitution;
WHEREAS, the new Constitution must have an article on Citizenship,
WHEREAS, under the unlamented Marcos regime, Filipino citizenship could be acquired administratively pursuant to a decree; many unqualified aliens became Filipino citizens under said decree; there is a need to purge the ranks of such unqualified aliens who now claim themselves as Filipinos;
WHEREAS, there is likewise a need to clarify the citizenship of a Filipino woman who marries an alien. The provision of the 1973 Constitution in this respect needs revision. Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, as it is hereby resolved by the Constitutional Commission in session assembled, To incorporate in the new Constitution the following article on Citizenship:
ARTICLE ___
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the ratification of this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five;
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
SECTION 2. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced their citizenship.
SECTION 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
SECTION 4. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship; Provided, That those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with Section 1, Paragraph 3 above shall also be deemed natural-born citizens.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: May I now request that Commissioner Bernas be recognized to sponsor the committee report, which will thereafter be subject to interpellations.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Bernas is recognized to sponsor Committee Report No. 4.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER BERNAS
FR. BERNAS: The honorable Members of the Commission:
Let me say that the greater part of my sponsorship has already been done. So, I would like to refer to my previous remarks as part of my sponsorship. What I would like to do today is just to touch on matters which I had not touched on yet in my past appearances. I did not touch on Section 2 and I did not touch on Section 3. Section 2 is simply a slight modification of the 1973 provision and the modification simply consists in desexing the provision.
The 1973 provision states that a female citizen of the Philippines who marries an alien shall retain her Philippine citizenship unless by act or omission, as defined and determined by law, she is deemed to have renounced her Philippine citizenship.
In our report, we have omitted any mention of sex, and we just say:
Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship unless by their act or omission, they are deemed under the law to have renounced their citizenship.
With respect to Section 3f there is no change made from the 1935 and 1973 provisions.
With respect to Section 4, the difference is in the number of the nouns and, therefore, also of the corresponding verbs. In the 1973 provision, a natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.
In our proposal, natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. We have also added a proviso which I already explained in my previous appearance. With these remarks, I am ready to answer whatever questions may be raised.
MR. AZCUNA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Will the sponsor yield to a few clarificatory questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): He may yield, if he so desires.
FR. BERNAS: Willingly, yes.
MR. AZCUNA: With respect to the proviso in Section 4, would this refer only to those who elect Philippine citizenship after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution or ,would it also cover those who elected it under the 1935 Constitution?
FR. BERNAS: It would apply to anybody who elected Philippine citizenship by virtue of the provision of the 1935 Constitution, whether the election was done before or after January 17, 1973.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you.
MR. REGALADO: Will the sponsor yield to a question with respect to the change in Section 2?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The distinguished sponsor may yield, if he so desires.
FR. BERNAS. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: The provisions of the 1973 Constitution under consideration were specifically with respect to a Philippine female citizen who married an alien, and as a consequence, lost her Philippine citizenship, subject to the conditions therein.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: Whereas, under the proposed amendment to Section 2, however, there is no distinction between male or female citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens. What would be the situation or contingency envisioned here then since said Section 2 under the 1973 Constitution was with respect to a female citizen marrying an alien?
FR. BERNAS: Yes. This provision was placed here to cover any possibility that there might be a country by whose laws anybody who marries its citizen acquires that country's citizenship. I am not aware of any country which has that law, but, just in case . . . this is also to protect the males.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I was reading the Gentleman's proposal on citizenship. May I call his attention to paragraph 1. I noticed he employed the term "ratification" rather than the term "adoption" as used in both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions. Is there any substantial difference between "ratification" and "adoption"?
FR. BERNAS: Yes. The same question was asked the first time I stood up on this topic and my answer was that the Constitution, at any rate, is adopted upon ratification, so there is no change in meaning. But I would not be willing to die for the word "ratification" if the Gentleman insists on changing it.
MR. SUAREZ: So, would the Gentleman not feel more comfortable if none of us would die for one point just for the sake of changing? Going back to the word employed under the 1973 Constitution . . .
FR. BERNAS: For me it could be either way.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: Either way, but since the Committee left it this way, I would not tamper with it now, but we can change it later, if necessary.
I will go back to my question regarding the implications of paragraph 3, Section I on those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the 1935 Constitution. This would specifically refer to those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines, and upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. Is my understanding correct?
MR. SUAREZ: Would the Gentleman limit the applicability of this paragraph 3 to those born before the adoption of the 1973 Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: Would not the Gentleman extend the operation of this provision to those born after 1973?
FR. BERNAS: No, I would not because as I said, those born after the ratification of the 1973 Constitution could come under paragraph 2.
MR. SUAREZ: I notice that in the case of paragraph 4 of Section I, Article IV on Citizenship under the 1935 Constitution, there is no such circumscribing period.
FR. BERNAS: I am not sure I get the question.
MR. SUAREZ: The provision is very simple and it says:
Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
There is no specific period stating that this ought to be applicable only to those born before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution in the same manner that paragraph 3 Section 1 of Article III on Citizenship under the 1973 Constitution does not contain that period limitation.
FR. BERNAS: The period is necessarily implied. If I understand the Gentleman's question right, the situation, as I see it, is something like this: Under the 1935 Constitution, if the mother is a Filipino and the father is an alien. the child is not born a Filipino. But upon reaching the age of majority, the child may elect Philippine citizenship.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right.
FR. BERNAS: Those born under the 1973 Constitution, whose mother is a Filipino, even if the father is an alien, the child is a Filipino at birth and, therefore, does not have to elect Philippine citizenship. It is for that reason that I say paragraph 3 has applicability only to those who were born prior to January 17, 1973 because they are the only ones who would need to elect.
MR. SUAREZ: Under the theory that those born after 1973 would fall under the category specified in paragraph 2.
MR. SUAREZ: That is to say, those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
MR. SUAREZ: If that is the intention of the Committee, should it not be clearly stated in the proposed paragraph 2 that this should apply only to those born before 1973?
FR. BERNAS: I do not follow.
MR. SUAREZ: Excuse me. The Gentleman is saying that under paragraph 3, those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the 1935 Constitution ought to be limited only to those born prior to 1973.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. It was only prior to 1973 that the 1935 Constitution was in effect.
MR. SUAREZ: So, what I am suggesting is: Should we not spell that out in black and white to reflect the thinking of the Committee members so there will be no further doubt as to the restrictive application of paragraph 3, Section 1?
FR. BERNAS: I do not have any doubt but if the body insists on the need for further clarification, I certainly would entertain that.
MR. SUAREZ: The next question has something to do with Section 2 because this was a derivation or partial derivation from Section 2 of the 1973 Constitution which specified categorically that it is applicable only to female citizens.
MR. SUAREZ: Is the Gentleman aware of any instance where a male citizen of any foreign country who marries a Filipino loses his citizenship?
FR. BERNAS: I am not aware of any now. We put it in as a cautionary clause to protect the males, as I said .
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: I will yield to them.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Guingona?
MR. GUINGONA: I will yield.
MR. RODRIGO: I will yield.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Nolledo is recognized because the other Commissioners who made reservations to interpellate have yielded the floor.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): What is the pleasure of Commissioner Nolledo?
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
Will Commissioner Bernas yield to interpellations?
FR. BERNAS: Certainly.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The sponsor may yield, if he so desires.
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Bernas, under Section 2 it is stated:
A female citizen of the Philippines who marries an alien shall retain her Philippine citizenship, unless by her act or omission as defined and determined by law, she is deemed to have renounced her Philippine citizenship.
I think the Gentleman will agree with me that this is a new provision which supersedes the previous rule as far as the 1973 Constitution is concerned — that a Filipino woman who marries an alien followed the citizenship of the latter, if by the law of her husband she acquired by marriage his citizenship. That was the old rule in marriage citizenship.
FR. BERNAS: That was the old rule until January 17, 1973.
MR. NOLLEDO: Then the present rule which the Gentleman has adopted is that a Filipina who marries an alien remains a Filipina irrespective of what the law of the husband's country provides.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, that was adopted by the 1973 Constitution.
MR. NOLLEDO: And this is consistent?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. This is also consistent with the provision of paragraph 2, Section 1 that children born of Filipino mothers are citizens of the Philippines, an adherence to the jus sanguinis rule and one of the egalitarian principles now enshrined in the Freedom Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. It is an adherence to jus sanguinis.
MR. NOLLEDO: The law and the Committee's recommendation state that — and I read only a portion of Section 2 — unless by her act or omission she is deemed, under the law, to have renounced her citizenship, with special emphasis on the words "under the law. "
MR. NOLLEDO: In other words, is it correct to say that the expression, "unless by her act or omission she is deemed . . ." is not self-executing; meaning, there must be an implementing statute? Am I correct?
FR. BERNAS: If her citizenship is questioned in any proceeding, then the implicit or explicit renunciation can be cited. In other words, this does not automatically take place but it is a question of fact whether in truth she did make a renunciation.
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Bernas, since the 1973 Constitution was adopted, I am not aware of any implementing statute or any law that implements Section 2.
FR. BERNAS: I am not aware of anything explicit, but I think it has been understood that if a person performs a pledge of allegiance to another country, that is implicit renunciation of her citizenship here.
MR. NOLLEDO: Therefore, there is no need of any law before we may apply Section 2.
FR. BERNAS: There is no need.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Under Section 2, if a Filipino citizen marries an alien, he or she retains Philippine citizenship. If, according to the law of the husband, the wife automatically becomes a citizen of the country of the husband, we will have a case of dual citizenship.
MR. RODRIGO: And we will allow this as long as the Filipino or the Filipina does not commit any act or Omission which would make her lose his or her citizenship.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, or unless our naturalization law prescribes that at a certain point the Filipino who has dual citizenship must make an election.
MR. RODRIGO: Then I come back to that question of mine. The age of majority in making an election is, as the Gentleman said, 21 years.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. This was taken from the 1935 Constitution; and under that Constitution the age of majority for this purpose was 21 years.
MR. RODRIGO: The Gentleman said that according to jurisprudence this must be exercised within three years . . .
FR. BERNAS: Within a reasonable time upon reaching the age of majority.
MR. RODRIGO: The Gentleman mentioned three years.
FR. BERNAS: I am aware of one occasion where a person under this situation was allowed to make an election three years after he reached the age of majority. And the condition was this: He was a person who all the time believed that he was a citizen of the Philippines and because of that even served in the Armed Forces. In recognition of this, the Supreme Court ruled that three years was not unreasonable.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us say that somebody was born before 1973, so he is covered by the provision that he must elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of 21.
FR. BERNAS: Born under the 1935 Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes under the 1935 Constitution. Let us say that this man has not elected Philippine citizenship but all of a sudden he wants to be a candidate for Congress. The law says he must be at least 25 years of age. So, six months before reaching the age of 25 he decides to elect Philippine citizenship; that is, three-and-a-half years after he reached the age of majority. Would he still be allowed to elect Philippine citizenship?
FR. BERNAS: It would depend on the circumstances; it would depend on the reasons why he did not make the election earlier. If all along he knew that he had to make an election and he did not, then three years would be considered unreasonable. As I said, in the case which I cited, the Supreme Court considered three years reasonable because the person thought he did not have to elect and, second, the person thought he was a Filipino all along and under that belief he served in the Armed Forces.
As with everything in law, the word "reasonable" is something that is rather flexible. We have to examine the factual circumstances of every case to determine whether indeed in this particular case three years would be reasonable or unreasonable. In some instances, one year may be reasonable or already unreasonable, depending on the circumstances.
MR. RODRIGO: But this provision becomes very, very important because his election of Philippine citizenship makes him not only a Filipino citizen but a natural-born Filipino citizen, entitling him to run for Congress, to be a Justice of the Supreme Court . . .
FR. BERNAS: Correct. We are quite aware of that, and for that reason we will leave to the body whether to approve that proviso on Section 4.
MR. RODRIGO: I think there is a good basis for the proviso, because it strikes me as unfair that the Filipino who was born a day before January 17, 1973 cannot be a Filipino citizen or a natural-born Filipino citizen, while another one born the day after is a natural-born citizen.
FR. BERNAS: It could only be an hour later.
MR. RODRIGO: An hour later, yes. For example, One born at 11:30 p.m. of the previous day, and another at 12:10 a.m. of the succeeding day.
MR. RODRIGO: But the thing is, since they are given the rights of natural-born citizens, does the Gentleman not think we should be more specific on when, within what time, they should elect Philippine citizenship?
FR. BERNAS: I am sure the Committee will entertain concrete proposals along that line.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The Vice-President, Commissioner Padilla, is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I notice that we are referring to Proposed Resolution No. 7, as modified by Committee Report No. 4.
MR. PADILLA: It is quite difficult to be going from one page to another. For example, the resolution says: "Delete Section 2," and the report says, "Insert this section. "
For immediate reference, why can we not place these different sections under "Citizenship" on a more or less final form, as recommended by the Committee? The insertion recommended by the Committee should be incorporated in capital letters and the old provision that is intended to be deleted may be enclosed in parentheses. That was a practice in the Senate and in the Congress. That would make it easier, I think, for all the Members of this Commission.
FR. BERNAS: I recognize that it could have been done better that way, but I think the provision is sufficiently short so that it is possible to make references.
MR. PADILLA: In Commonwealth Act No. 63 — How Citizenship May be Lost — Section I provides for seven causes, and the last one, before subsequent amendments, reads:
In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the law in force in her husband's country, she acquires his nationality.
So, a Filipino citizen who marries a foreigner whose country's law provides that she acquire her husband's nationality, loses her Filipino citizenship and acquires the citizenship of her husband.
FR. BERNAS: That was the law prior to January 17, 1973.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, Commonwealth Act No. 63 is an old law. The same CA No. 63 provides for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship — it may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. I suppose that said law has reference to Commonwealth Act No. 63.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, but that Commonwealth Act was repealed on January 17, 1973 by Section 2.
MR. PADILLA: I will go to that later on. The proposed replacement of Section 2 reads: "CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES WHO MARRY ALIENS SHALL RETAIN THEIR CITIZENSHIP, UNLESS BY THEIR ACT OR OMISSION THEY ARE DEEMED, UNDER THE LAW, TO HAVE RENOUNCED THEIR CITIZENSHIP. "
It again makes reference to the law. According to Commonwealth Act No. 63, one of the grounds for losing a citizenship is by express renunciation of citizenship.
MR. PADILLA: Of course, it also provides for other acts, like subscribing to the oath of allegiance to support a foreign government, rendering service or accepting commission from a foreign country, etc. There are seven causes, including a cancellation of certificate of naturalization or having been declared a deserter in the Philippine Armed Forces.
There is no other law that I know that mentions renunciation except this provision "by express renunciation of citizenship'? in paragraph 2, Section I of Commonwealth Act No. 63. So that when the law mentions "express renunciation" and at the same time "renounced" is mentioned "by their act of omission," they are not very clear, if not confusing. Does not the Gentleman feel that we should clarify this? We do not know exactly what law it is referring to except Commonwealth Act No. 63.
FR. BERNAS: My understanding of this provision as it has existed since 1973 is that the use of the word "renounced" in Section 2 is not qualified by the adjective "express." In other words, what this means is that the word "renounced" under Section 2 could either be "express" or "implied."
Paragraph 1 of the section cited by the Vice-President from Commonwealth Act No. 63 speaks of "express renunciation." But I think the other sections can be interpreted as "implied renunciation." And that is covered by the word "renounced" in Section 2, which is not qualified by the adjective "express."
MR. PADILLA: Why do we not make it clearer by just saying "express" or "implied" renunciation under the law?
FR. BERNAS: I would be willing to entertain such amendment at the proper time.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Commissioner Bernas.
The last portion of the committee report says:
. . . That those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with Section 1, Paragraph 3 above shall also be deemed natural-born citizens.
I agree to consider as natural-born citizens children whose fathers and mothers are citizens. But when the word "elect" in paragraph 3, Section I, is repeated in the proviso of the last section, that election is provided in Commonwealth Act No. 625. Now, as I mentioned in my remark before, it would be a little strange if we place in paragraph 3 of Section 1, the word "elect" and again repeat it in the last paragraph or last proviso of Section 4. The 1973 Constitution does not provide for election because the 1971 Constitutional Convention merged Sections 2 and 3 of the 1935 Constitution into one provision: "Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines."
I expressed the view before that I was subscribing to the view of Commissioner Concepcion, that probably it would be better to retain the two classifications in the 1935 Constitution. Would the Gentleman have serious or underlying objections?
FR. BERNAS: Precisely, the Committee subscribes to the change made by the 1973 Constitution that in order for a child to be a Filipino, it is not necessary that both the father and the mother be Filipino. It is enough that the. mother be a Filipino. And this report reflects our subscription to the change made in 1973.
MR. PADILLA: With due respect, we feel that there is a real distinction between a child born of a Filipino father married to an alien and a child born of a Filipino mother with a foreigner husband.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee will entertain an amendment which seeks to revert to the 1935 rule.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you very much.
I was going to suggest, if I may, just for the sake of further consideration, to add the phrase AND ARE BORN IN THE PHILIPPINES immediately after the phrase "citizens of the Philippines" in paragraph 4, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: That matter can also be taken up in the period of amendments.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you very much.
MR. CALDERON: I move that the Chair recognize Commissioner Guingona, and after Commissioner Guingona, Commissioner Ople; and with your kind indulgence, I would like to move for adjournment after Commissioner Concepcion is recognized. So, it will be Commissioners Guingona, Ople, Concepcion, after which it is my intention to make a motion for adjournment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Thank you, Mr. Assistant Floor Leader.
Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
I just have one question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The intention is also noted.
MR. GUINGONA: As pointed out by Commissioner Rodrigo, a citizen of the Philippines who marries an alien and who, therefore, retains his or her citizenship, may acquire the citizenship of the alien's spouse, if, according to the laws of the country of that spouse he or she acquires such citizenship. I am not aware of the consensus in the Gentleman's Committee about the matter of dual citizenship.
FR. BERNAS: The feeling of the Committee, if I may attempt to reflect it, is that the question of dual citizenship can be dealt with in ordinary legislation.
MR. GUINGONA: I see. I felt that perhaps even in the Constitution itself, there could be some attempts to discourage dual citizenship. My question is: Has the Committee considered the possibility of requiring this Filipino citizen who has now a dual citizenship on account of marriage to renounce the citizenship of the spouse within a specified period?
FR. BERNAS: We did not because we feel that is better left to ordinary legislation.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I request that Commissioner Ople be given the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
I find myself in a position of having to echo my distinguished predecessor on the floor concerning a matter that preoccupied this Commission during the freewheeling debate on citizenship. A significant number of Commissioners expressed their concern about dual citizenship in the sense that it implies a double allegiance under a double sovereignty which some of us who spoke then in a freewheeling debate thought would be repugnant to the sovereignty which pervades the Constitution and to citizenship itself which implies a uniqueness and which elsewhere in the Constitution is defined in terms of rights and obligations exclusive to that citizenship including, of course, the obligation to rise to the defense of the State when it is threatened, and back of this, Commissioner Bernas, is, of course, the concern for national security. In the course of those debates, I think some noted the fact that as a result of the wave of naturalizations since the decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China was made in 1975, a good number of these naturalized Filipinos still routinely go to Taipei every October 10; and it is asserted that some of them do renew their oath of allegiance to a foreign government maybe just to enter into the spirit of the occasion when the anniversary of the Sun Yat-Sen Republic is commemorated. And so, I have detected a genuine and deep concern about double citizenship, with its attendant risk of double allegiance which is repugnant to our sovereignty and national security. I appreciate what the Committee said that this could be left to the determination of a future legislature. But considering the scale of the problem, the real impact on the security of this country, arising from, let us say, potentially great numbers of double citizens professing double allegiance, will the Committee entertain a proposed amendment at the proper time that will prohibit, in effect, or regulate double citizenship?
FR. BERNAS: While the Committee prefers to leave this matter to ordinary legislation, should the body prefer to settle the question on dual citizenship in the Constitution itself, I am, sure the Committee will not be unduly dismayed by that.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. CALDERON: I move that Commissioner Concepcion be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: Commissioner Bernas, has the Committee, in adopting its report, considered the question of whether or not the Constitutional Commission is likely to adopt the nationalistic spirit of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions in connection with the conservation and utilization of our natural resources and the operation of public utilities? On the surface, there might seem to be no connection between citizenship and the conservation of natural resources and the operation of public utilities. However, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1935 felt that aliens have consistently expanded their influence over our finances. Many of these aliens were old residents of the Philippines but they did not feel inclined to apply for naturalization.
It is significant that among those who favor reversion to the policy of the 1935 Constitution are two Commissioners in this Assembly, Commissioner Padilla, as former Solicitor General and myself, who as former members of the Bureau of Justice, have handled hundreds of naturalization cases. Beyond doubt, the only motive of the applicants for naturalization is the opportunity to participate in the utilization of our natural resources and the operation of public utilities.
I repeat, my question boils down to whether the sponsoring Committee has considered the probability that the Constitutional Commission might maintain that policy of protection of our natural resources and the operation of public utilities.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee did not explicitly discuss this. It may be true that, in fact, there were aliens who acquired citizenship simply for purposes of exploitation of the natural resources, but as pointed out the other day, perhaps at this stage, as far as they are concerned, it would be trying to close the barn after the horses have left. At any rate, the Constitution does have a provision which says that "Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law." And the Constitution also authorizes the legislature to pass naturalization laws. A lot of these problems, I think, can be dealt with in ordinary legislation.
MR. CONCEPCION: But would the Gentleman consider that the liberalization of naturalization proceedings would affect considerably the efficacy of the constitutional policy on conservation and utilization of natural resources and the operation of public utilities?
FR. BERNAS: Definitely, liberalization of the naturalization law would have that effect but there is nothing in this proposal which liberalizes the naturalization law. It leaves the matter of naturalization law to the legislature.
MR. CONCEPCION: I spoke of liberalization because the point of reference of the Committee seems to be the 1973 Constitution. But the 1973 Constitution liberalized naturalization in contrast to the provisions of the 1935 Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: I would disagree that the 1973 Constitution liberalized the naturalization law. The 1973 Constitution did not touch the naturalization law except on that point of the woman who loses her citizenship upon marriage to an alien. There is nothing here which liberalizes the naturalization law.
MR. CONCEPCION: But that is not the point. Many Chinese retailers, for instance, have married Filipinas apparently to avoid the limitations to the operation of retail stores. And there is a most glaring example; the thousands of naturalization cases when the Philippines was going to withdraw its recognition of the government of Taiwan and extend recognition to the People's Republic of China.
FR. BERNAS: I quite agree, but again, if there was liberalization there, it was not effected by the Constitution.
MR. CONCEPCION: But just the same, liberalization effects the conservation of natural resources.
FR. BERNAS: I have no disagreement with that. The only thing I am disagreeing with is that the liberalization was affected by the Constitution. It was not. It was affected by the liberal policies of Marcos in the naturalization law but not by the Constitution.
MR. CONCEPCION: I beg the Gentleman's attention to the fact that the 1973 Constitution was made by Marcos. Even in 1971, it had been said that there was a strong lobby for the liberalization of the provisions of the Constitution relative to citizenship. I would suggest consideration of the fact that there is a great likelihood that the Commission may wish to adopt the policy, the restrictive policy, in the exploitation and utilization of natural resources as well as in the operation of public utilities.
The effect of the different constitutions, particularly the 1973 Constitution, is to allow more people to become or to claim Philippine citizenship without filing applications for naturalization. Even the procedure for the acquisition of citizenship by naturalization had been amplified, I mean, liberalized. I would suggest the importance of our constitution stating something to indicate our policy on the matter of citizenship and that we now adopt a more restrictive policy. It is bad enough that our old policy thereon had adverse effects. It would be worse to continue adhering to that policy.
On paper we may have appeared to be nationalistic. In actual practice, however, we really are not. The assembly may have had the excuse that the Constitution had imposed no explicit restrictions, so we should leave no doubts that hereafter we are opposed to any form of liberalization. Of course the members of the assembly know the reason better than I do, but on that basis, I would suggest consideration of the effect of the proposal of the Committee upon the provisions on the enjoyment of our natural resources and the operation of public utilities. We should maintain the present safeguards regarding said resources and public utilities. Moreover, we must control the immigration of foreigners, considering our big population, which admittedly demands control.
Those who advocate the proposed constitutional amendment argue that the same has no adverse effects upon us. The fact is that those who were naturalized by election, upon reaching the age of majority, shall be considered as natural-born citizens. This is one form of liberalization of the pertinent provision. If we adopt the amendments proposed by the Committee, a child born an alien can eventually become President of the Philippines or Speaker of the House of Representatives, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I think that each Member of the Commission should consult his conscience on this point.
From the viewpoint of law, logic and experience, when a Filipina marries a foreigner, she expresses her willingness to be of one flesh with the foreigner for life. Why should we then assume that she married the foreigner without the intention of following his citizenship? I am more inclined to assume that she is willing to follow the citizenship of her husband. Instead of requiring her to declare that she does not wish to remain a Filipino, she should, perhaps, be required to state, at the time of the wedding, that she prefers to retain her Filipino citizenship.
Although the honorable Commissioner has already expressed his views on the matter of the citizenship of a child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father, my thinking, from the viewpoint of logic and experience, is that the child generally looks up to the father, particularly during infancy. In short, the assumption should be that, if the child could express his choice, he would prefer to follow the citizenship of the father, although upon reaching the age of majority, he may elect to follow the citizenship of the Filipino mother.
Thank you, Father Bernas, for your patience.
SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION
OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 7
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we continue the sponsorship and debate on Proposed Resolution No. 7 tomorrow afternoon.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. CALDERON: I move that we adjourn the session until tomorrow at five o'clock in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The session is adjourned until tomorrow at five o'clock in the afternoon.
It was 7:22 p. m.
* Appeared after the Roll Call.


Durango was founded by the Denver & Rio Grande Railway in 1879. The railroad arrived in Durango on August 5, 1881 and construction on the line to Silverton began in the fall of the same year. By July of 1882, (only 11 months after construction began), the tracks to Silverton were completed and the train began hauling both passengers and freight. From the very beginning, the line was promoted as a scenic route for passenger service although the line was constructed primarily to haul mine ores, both gold and silver, from the San Juan Mountains.


text:
A Nation Must Think Before it Acts I'm Not a Security Official…I Just Play One on TV
I'm Not a Security Official…I Just Play One on TV
Lawrence Husick
Center for the Study of Terrorism
Home / Articles / I'm Not a Security Official…I Just Play One on TV
In August 2003, an electric grid failure led to a widespread blackout in the Northeastern US. Within minutes of the event, Federal officials from both the White House and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were issuing statements assuring the public that the power failure was not related to a terrorist action. More than six months later, however, investigators were still not completely sure of the causes, and only later issued a report tracing the blackout to a sagging power line in Ohio (and a cascading series of failures stemming from that line.)
At the time, we posed the rhetorical question about our government officials, "How did they know?"[1] How, within minutes of the incident, could anyone have ruled out terrorist action as a cause, especially in light of the then-common knowledge that foreign computers were constantly probing our power grid infrastructure, which was vulnerable to cyber-attack, and that conventional and very low-tech attacks on power grids had been widely published in both the mainstream media and in specialty outlets such as Paladin Press?
Fast forward to Christmas Day, 2009. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt at bombing Northwest Flight 253 failed. Whether, as many have speculated, it was due to lack of training, or as my colleagues Stephen Gale and Greg Montanaro have suggested, it was intentional misinformation, DHS sprang into action, as Secretary Janet Napolitano announced on December 27, 2009, "Now once this incident occurred, everything went according to clockwork." Again, it seems, we have been jolted from our slumber by a "wake up call."[2] Once again, we predict, the US will roll over, hit the snooze button, and return to business as usual.
Secretary Napolitano clearly had a very difficult job to do. Faced with the need to reassure a nervous traveling public during one of the busiest holiday periods of the year, with hundreds of political opponents in the Congress, media and blogosphere drooling at the chance to attack, and with an unwillingness to divulge intelligence information, sources or methods to al Qaeda, she had her work cut out for her. But what work is that, exactly? What should be the role of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and of the government in general? Is our confusion and the resulting dissatisfaction in the aftermath of Abdulmutallab's attack on Flight 253 merely a result of our continuing failure to clearly address the nature of terrorism and to clearly define our responses to it?
According to the DHS web site, the, "Department of Homeland Security's overriding and urgent mission is to lead the unified national effort to secure the country and preserve our freedoms."[3] Even so, that same site intones that the "Department … will continue striving to protect our homeland while ensuring the strength of our economy." Just how much of DHS' activity is directed to security, and how much to the economy is unclear. What is clear is that this dual mission leads to erosion of effectiveness in both aspects, leaving the US both less safe and less well-off.
Having recently traveled from Philadelphia to Tampa by air, I was subjected to a 45 minute security line video barrage, presented on large flat-screen televisions by earnest actors dressed in TSA blues, that assured me that removing my shoes, carrying 3 oz. bottles in a clear one-quart bag, and not commenting in any way on the process was necessary to my safety. Never mind that more travelers will be killed and injured on their way to and from the airport, or that many more will suffer from food-borne and air-borne pathogens during travel – those far-greater risks are not the concern of DHS. As many have pointed out, our ability to properly gauge risk is flawed, and as a result, we behave in quite irrational ways.
In 2010, the US will spend $55,115,227,000 on DHS alone. The Budget-in-Brief document is 162 pages long.[4] The Transportation Security Administration employs 52,000, screens over 625 million air passengers per year, and has reduced the average airport screening wait time to less than 20 minutes. Because of security concerns, passengers are now advised to arrive at least two hours early for domestic flights. (Computed at the Federal minimum wage, the cost to the economy of these security-induced delays now exceeds $7 billion per year.) Recall the words of Osama bin Laden in November 2002, "This economic hemorrhaging continues until today, but requires more blows. And the youth should try to find the joints of the American economy and hit the enemy in these joints, with God's permission." Regardless of the outcome, Mr. Abdulmutallab's "failed" attack certainly fulfills al Qaeda's goal of continuing the attack on the joints of the economy.
What, then, are the policy implications of requiring DHS (and the President) not only to provide security, but also to reassure us after every incident? Why do we continue to demand that our officials engage in "security kabuki" and the TSA in "security theater" simply to get the public to fly on commercial airliners? Why did the White House and the press pillory Vice-President Biden when he expressed his personal view that he would advise his own family not to fly during the height of the Mexican H1N1 flu pandemic?[5]
It is time that the US step back from its irrationally overblown fear of terrorism. While it is certainly true that al Qaeda and other groups, both Islamist and not, bear us ill will and wish to attack us and our allies, we have allowed both our politics and our policies to be distorted, and have, unwittingly or not, helped our enemies. We must insist that a rational evaluation of risk and response be a part of our policy process. In the past, we have suggested a "Security Impact Assessment" as one method of such analysis.[6] This is not to suggest that we scrap everything done in the name of homeland security since September 11, 2001. Rather, we recommend that the twin criteria of effectiveness and efficiency be assessed in light of the actual risks, and that only those processes that can be justified on that basis be retained or enhanced. While some may argue that this assessment presently determines DHS priorities, much of the public sees it differently, and the present assessment process is certainly far from transparent.
As one example, we continue to remove shoes (at some, but not all airports) based on the singular example of Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber." Perhaps for this reason, Mr. Abdulmutallab used his undershorts to hide his explosives. If the editorial cartoons have it right, we will now have to place our undergarments in a ubiquitous gray plastic bin. The same may be true of most liquids. In the alternative, we may spend another trillion-or-so dollars on scanners that undress us, just like those $10 X-Ray Specs that used to be advertized in the back of "Popular Mechanics". While technology may hold some of the answers to our security concerns, the increasing use of "behavior detection officers" by DHS seems to be potentially more effective and efficient, based on the experience of Israel's El Al Airline over more than thirty years.
As much as it may be useful to reassure the public that government is "on the job," it may ultimately be better to just do the job properly, and leave the attempt at glossy public relations efforts to others. After all, the track record shows that our officials are not particularly effective when they attempt to respond to every threat in the role of Reassurer-in-Chief.
[1] /articles/2003/08/blackout-and-question-homeland-security
[2] As of January 12, 2010, the search "flight 253" "wake up call" yields over 22,000 articles on Google!
[3] https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/strategicplan/ retrieved 12-JAN-10.
[4] https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget_bib_fy2010.pdf retrieved 12-JAN-10.
[5] "I would tell members of my family – and I have – I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. It's not that it's going to Mexico – it's that you're in a confined aircraft. When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft." – Vice President Joe Biden, NBC Today Show, April 30, 2009.
[6] /articles/2003/02/mad-mutual-assured-destruction-mud-multilateral-unconstrained-disruption-dealing retrieved 12-Jan-10.
Lawrence Husick is Co-Chairman of the Foreign Policy Research Institute's Center for the Study of Terrorism. He is also co-director of the FPRI Wachman Center's Program on Teaching Innovation and a faculty member at the Whiting Graduate School of Engineering and the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences Graduate Biotechnology Program of the Johns Hopkins University.
@LawHusick

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Pescod Square Shopping Centre
Iced Coffee Sales Heat Up!
With temperatures in parts of the UK topping 38°C last week, the nation's favourite coffee shop, Costa Coffee, saw a record number of orders of its handcrafted iced coffee range.
Sales of its popular iced latte peaked at 3,750 an hour on Thursday, as the UK basked in temperatures hotter than the Bahamas. That's more than one iced latte ordered every second! The news comes as Costa Coffee revealed that sales of its handcrafted iced lattes have risen by over 30% year on year since 2017.
In 2018, Costa Coffee saw the biggest number of iced coffee orders placed on Friday 26 July 2018, when the weather was a scorching 29°C and were prepared for last week's heatwave to break that record.
Iced coffee continues to be a growing trend across the UK. According to Allegra, sales of iced coffee in the UK continue to hot up, with the sector expected to value £660m by 2022,* in large part due to its growing popularity with Millennials and Generation Z.
Eric Tavoukdjian, Commercial Marketing Director at Costa Coffee said: "Iced coffee has been hugely successful in the US and parts of Europe for several years now, so it's exciting to see this trend gaining traction here in the UK."
He adds: "There's an assumption that iced coffee is simply hot coffee poured over ice, but in fact a lot more goes into creating the perfect, handcrafted iced coffee. From the size and shape of our ice cubes and how to combine the elements of the drink, to the 20-hour brew time of our special Cold Brew drink. Our iced coffee range is the ultimate refreshment on a hot summer's day."
Helping to keep its customers cool and hydrated, Costa Coffee's iced coffee range includes popular fan favourites such as the Iced Flat White, Salted Caramel Iced Latte and the Strawberry Cold Brew Coffee.
The Limited-Edition Strawberry Cold Brew Coffee combines expertly handcrafted coffee with a sprinkle of strawberry sweetness to finish. Brewed in store for 20 hours, this Cold Brew is beautifully refreshing and smooth, but with the delicate sweetness of strawberry to finish.
With a range of delectable, limited edition Frostinos and refreshing Fruit Coolers also available for summer, Costa Coffee is the perfect place to be as the warmer temperatures continue.
Costa Coffee's limited edition iced coffee range is available in-store at Pescod Square now and can be viewed online at costa.co.uk
* Allegra World Coffee Portal, Project Iced UK 2018
Return to Blogs
Explore Blogs
Sugar Awareness Week
22 Jan 2020 • lifestyle
Costa Coffee's Limited-edition Menu
8 Jan 2020 • lifestyle
Pescod Square, The Management Suite, 15 Pescod Square, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 6QX T: 01205 353 370 E: info@pescodshopping.com
© Pescod Square Shopping Centre | All rights reserved | Designed & Managed by Cordis Creative | Terms & Conditions | Privacy & Cookies Policy
Be sure to keep up-to-date with news from Pescod Square!


Los Angeles, CA (September 19, 2018) – The Southwestern College in Chula Vista, CA has opened a new Allied Health Sciences building at its satellite campus Higher Education Center (HEC) in National City, CA. Located at the corner of Plaza Boulevard and National City Boulevard, the 22,500 SF building designed by Culver City-based architecture and urban design firm Johnson Favaro includes classrooms and labs in support of the college's health sciences program.
The Allied Health Sciences building features new classrooms and science instruction labs in the areas of biology, chemistry, microbiology and anatomy, as well as a laboratory training classroom serving the Medical Laboratory Technician program. Administration and faculty offices are also housed in the new facility, along with a regional Business Development Center focusing on small and emerging businesses in the area. Students in the healthcare program will also now benefit from a storefront community clinic located in the new building as a means to fulfill their required hours as healthcare assistants-in-training. The clinic provides free basic health and wellness services to the neighborhood and facilitates training for students, thereby connecting the college program directly to the community.
As a satellite campus of Chula Vista's Southwestern College, the Higher Education Center in National City expands the reach of college education to a larger area and provides much greater access to career opportunities for disadvantaged students in San Diego's East Bay region. The new Allied Health Sciences building accommodates 250% more students than the previous facility — approximately 500 more students per semester. With the facility's increased capacity and innovative features, students now have access to more prerequisite courses within the health science programs.
"In the old facility we were able to offer only one of the five major prerequisite courses for the pre-Allied Health majors. Now we house all five in-house," said Heather Anderson, Instructional Lab Technician at HEC. "We anticipate seeing program enrollment increase both districtwide and in the greater San Diego County region." The prerequisite courses support not only the health science curriculums at HEC, but also enable students to transfer to additional professional degree programs at other universities and colleges.
The new building, located in the center of National City's downtown just blocks from the civic center, is outward facing, oriented toward the street, with a glass-fronted community meeting room at its entrance. The 90-seat assembly space functions as a classroom and community college boardroom as well as a meeting place for neighborhood nonprofits. The multipurpose room opens to a courtyard and lawn located between the new building and the existing Higher Education Center to the north.
"The main design goal of this project was to create a microcosm of a college campus," said Steve Johnson, principal at Johnson Favaro. The new L-shaped science building surrounds a new courtyard and lawn, creating a compact version of a traditional college quadrangle. The space provides tranquility and refuge for students, faculty members, staff, and the community, serving as a place to enhance college life outside the classroom. Classrooms and labs are connected by a covered outdoor passage that faces out onto the quadrangle.
The architects drew inspiration from the fortified bases of urban buildings in the prewar American Beaux Arts tradition. The building façade is a wall of marble-print porcelain tile arranged in a large, over-scaled bond pattern, creating the appearance of enormous stone blocks separated by large gaps; though they may read like joints without mortar, the gaps are actually windows of the science labs and classrooms. Likewise, the façade is not made of thick stone as the illusion implies, but rather two-inch-thick screens extending out from the building's core, functioning as a sun-shading device for the glass curtain walls beneath the tiled blocks.
Read more about the project on ArchDaily here.


Funkified Entertainment specialises in providing live music for wedding, corporate and event entertainment.
The music you want, the way you want it.
Funkified Entertainment specialises in providing live music for wedding, corporate and event entertainment. Combining the talents of experienced professional musicians with event management experts, we guarantee to bring your next event to life with unforgettable live entertainment. From string quartets and jazz trios, to funk-infused covers bands, Funkified Entertainment match you with the perfect band, no matter what the occasion!
- Band set-up and sound-check three hours prior to guest arrival.
The information for Funkified Entertainment - Sydney is provided to assist you in contacting them.
We therefore strongly advise you contact Funkified Entertainment - Sydney by phone: (02) 90435440 to verify their physical location before arranging to visit them.


As an English Undergraduate at a UK university, I often feel an obscene sense of guilt and embarrassment when asked what, specifically, I enjoy reading. When I respond with "science fiction and fantasy", I'm greeted with blank stares, or, worse, with outright derision. "What do you read those for?" is the implied question, "they have no literary merit!" Au contraire my dear fellow student, they truly, truly do.
I have come to a conclusion that I should have come to long ago, that I should feel neither embarrassed nor guilty about my preferred genres, but instead sell them to the oh-so-intellectual philistine who dismisses them out of hand. For this, I fix upon the ideas of 'layers of reality'. Every secondary-world novel, be it displacement through time, physical laws or land, has these layers of reality to them. There is the everyday that we would recognise – the elements of the novel that link to the experience of the reader. These can be as basic as the feel of the wood of a table, to which we can relate, or as complex as the feeling of hatred towards one who has taken your lover. From a fantasy perspective, this is key. Without a base line, the oddities of fantasy, where reality is blurred, will become too much.
Indeed, some speculative fiction novels that are described as 'difficult to follow' or 'overly complex' fail purely on this part. Their layers of reality are too distinct – the base level of reality is too far flung from the new ideas being propagated, or requires too specialised base experiences. This is particularly prevalent in hard science fiction. China Mieville's Embassytown struggles at times with the difference between the basic reality of language as the reader knows, and the new ideas that he is propagating. Hannu Rajaniemi's The Quantum Thief similarly throws us off with complex AI and philosophical explorations of machine-constructed identities. Fantasy too can struggle. Magic systems improperly or incompletely explained can seem alien to us, and throw us, as readers, off our stride. However, in all these cases, this alien feeling can be used positively, as a deliberate rendering of the reader's brain to a confused state, only to right it again with an excellently attuned plot twist.
So, it has sharp swords and not sharp tongues. So it has space ships and not shipwrecks. The layers of reality are just that slight amount further apart. We have seen ships, we haven't seen starcruisers. We have seen people verbally savaged, but not savaged by iron. It really shouldn't be a surprise to these so-called literary types that it is a form of 'mild' fantasy that, contemporaneously, is drawing the most literary plaudits: magic realism. With fantastic elements blending seamlessly into the realistic depictions of our modern world, writers such as Salman Rushdie, Haruki Murakami, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Mario Varags Llosa are enormously studied living authors. The similarities in their work are that they make the layers of reality almost touch, converting the fantastic into the known, and the known into the fantastic. And, after all, isn't that what all fantasy ought to aspire to, within its particular setting?
A spoonful of reality helps the fantasy go down. Likewise, I believe reading speculative fiction helps reality become more bearable, both because of the revitalizing aspects of participating the hero's journey and because the whimsy touches upon our elemental desire for play. Lastly by allowing ourselves to imagine the impossible we open ourselves to creativity, new ways of thinking, and innovation.
I can't think of a better English language writer than Guy Gavriel Kay.
All I can say is don't feed the troll. If they are too closed-minded to accept that something other than 'literary' fiction can have literary and artisitic merit, then it isn't worth discussing it with them. You know the truth, and they'll figure it out if ever they try the genre.
Agreed. I've struggled with a fair few novels because of that distant base level of reality. Sometimes being dropped in at the deep end with no touchstones can be a major issue and doesn't exactly encourage you to read on. That said, while writers like Mieville seem to relish in 'the deep end', a few of them do it so masterfully I've been swept along regardless.
I had a friend who studied English at Oxford (lucky guy!). I got the impression there was a lot of pressure there to veer towards studying/reading literary works as opposed to genre fiction. Which is a shame because, as you suggest, they aren't that different and both can have merit.
Good article. I think most of us here know, at least instinctively, that the attitude you describe, but it's always useful to have more concrete arguments to support that knowledge.
I tend to look at it in a similar but reversed way – that, whatever proponents claim, even the most dour social realism is actually set in a world of the author's invention, rather than in the "real world" (whatever precisely that is). Speculative fiction is just more honest about it.
I don't care what people think. I choose what I want to go into my head, not them.


Kady and her husband moved to Boise from Cincinnati where she had been working in an AVEDA salon for over 5 years. Kady attended the AVEDA Institute in Cincinnati directly out of high school and has been passionate about the industry and about AVEDA ever since! Upon moving to Boise, she became licensed as a cosmetology instructor which furthered her love of learning and helping people feel beautiful and confident!
Kady is a senior stylist at Panache and specializes in color, color correction, ombre's and women's haircuts. She is truly talented and very knowledgeable. Kady loves that she has been able to establish strong, long lasting relationships with her clients.


Union Oyster and Eating House, trade card, late 19th century.
Little is known of Middleborough's Union Oyster and Eating House. Undoubtedly named for the popular Boston restaurant which had operated since 1826, Middleborough's version looked to capitalize upon the 19th century infatuation with oysters. Demand for the shellfish prompted the establishment of oyster houses, oyster saloons and oyster bars throughout the region, including the one advertised here.


Massachusetts auto insurance is carried by every legal and licensed driver in the state. Therefore, because there are so many drivers shopping consistently, there are various providers willing to offer free quotes for the asking. It is possible to compare these easily by using both the Internet and regular mail, depending on how you receive each estimate. Massachusetts vehicle insurance also covers plenty of variety when it comes to watercraft, regular cars and trucks and professional vehicles.
One thing to keep in mind is that when you pursue a Massachusetts auto policy quote, you need to start with all the pertinent data in hand. In order to do this, you can print out a checklist from the web that will help guide your Massachusetts auto questions. It will also list all the data and paperwork that your Massachusetts broker will ask you for, saving you time at the original auto appointment.
You will also want to ask about discounts that apply to you, including that of multiple cars. A Massachusetts automobile insurance agent will be able to help you talk about what parts of your auto coverage can benefit your more than others, and which can save you money. Talk to them in detail about your travel habits, how many miles you drive, and what kind of auto concerns you have in order to take care of all of them in the coverage rate you are given.
Since MA borders the Atlantic Ocean, you can be sure that there are plenty of watercraft policies being asked for as well. There is also a lot of historical tourist visiting because of the myriads of sites to be seen. The place where Paul Revere made his famous ride, Plymouth Rock, and let us not forget the Mayflower--these are all big draws to big crowds and will create tourist auto revenue all the time. What does this mean for rental car agencies? Much more revenue than any normal place, and the Massachusetts auto insurance to back it up; they also have the knowledge and expertise to serve people well.
Some of the major industries in this state include textiles, electronics, publishing and education. With only fourteen counties, these business are large enough to make quite a dent in the local business economy. What this means for Massachusetts auto insurance is that their vehicles no doubt make up a large portion of the auto insurance provisions that are in the state. Their trucks and cars are driven by employees, which must meet certain requirements in terms of driving records and citation histories. These can all be evaluated when the business owner turns their names in to be covered under the umbrella coverage they already pay for.
Fishing is big business in a state that borders the ocean, and this means that boats and ships need Massachusetts insurance, even if not directly auto. By following the laws of the sea and watching their navigation policies, they will be able to handle any accidents that arise or occur unexpectedly. Being safe on the MA water is just as important as safety on the highways and side roads.
When you consider comparing Maryland auto insurance rates, consider using the Internet to make it an easy task. By making your efforts efficient, you'll have a better chance of finding something that works for your pocketbook. Let them come to you and watch the deals continue to get better.
If you do want to pursue other types of insurance, they are available as easily as Massachusetts auto insurance. Things like life, health, disability and even mechanical breakdown types are offered, and can be discussed with your Massachusetts car insurance broker. The benefit of combining these is turning several payments into one convenient monthly Massachusetts payment, giving you less to think and worry about. This works even better if you have it taken out of your MA bank account automatically during each billing cycle.
Massachusetts auto insurance is there to protect you and the other drivers on the road, in case of an unexpected and possibly disastrous event. No one wants to worry about having to pay for the compensation of their car and medical expenses, especially if someone has been seriously injured in the process. This is going to be a time when you want to relax in regards to knowing that everything will be financially handled without any extra effort on your part.
If you are looking for a recommendation on Massachusetts auto insurance, then consider talking to family and friends for a referral. They may give you the name of someone who has given great service at the time it was needed the most. If you don't have access to any personal referrals, look online and check the customer service reviews on consumer sites.


text:
package jscheme;

/**
  A SchemeSymbol is an object that can be defined or not.
  SchemeSymbols are created using the REPL.internSchemeSymbol(string)
  and are initially undefined.
  Its value can be queried and set.
  Getting the value of an undefined SchemeSymbol throws an error.

  method. Getting
 **/
public interface SchemeSymbol extends java.io.Serializable {

/**
  SchemeSymbols are initially undefined.
 **/
public boolean isDefined();

/**
  Getting the value of an undefined SchemeSymbol throws a SchemeException
 **/
public Object getGlobalValue();

/**
  The value can be set to anything
 **/
public Object setGlobalValue(Object newval);
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub