Speech of Senate President Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III

State of the Party Address (PDP Laban)

Manila Peninsula Hotel, Makati City

February 27, 2018

Speaker of the House of Representatives and PDP Laban Secretary General Pantaleon Alvarez, Energy
Secretary and PDP Laban Vice Chairman Alfonso Cusi, Members of the Cabinet, to all members of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, to all governors, mayors, our other local government officials,
to our special guests, Vice Minister Guo Yezhou (Quo Ye-Tso) and the members of the delegation from the
Communist Party of China, and to all members of PDP Laban, good evening and a happy 36th
Anniversary to all of us!

According to our Founder, my father, former Senate President Nene Pimentel: “Our Party was built to
serve as a bridge over the troubled waters of martial law so that the youth of our generation could one day
cross over in safety to the land where freedom, peace, justice would one day reign supreme.”

We have come a long way indeed. Our first Basic Membership Seminars were held under banana trees.
I recall one trainer drowning in Macajalar Bay on his way back from Camiguin Island.

We are now the ruling party in the Philippines where we are building a society which provides a
comfortable, fair, and safe life for all Filipinos.

Our Party began with a handful of members which grew to 600 in its very first assembly in 1982. PDP
Laban began as a “non-traditional party” with some “unusual” fundamental principles like belief in God and
belief in the dignity of the human being.

Fast forward to today. Although Party membership has ballooned to 300,000 members with 2 Senators,
122 Members of the House of Representatives, 38 Governors, 23 Vice Governors, 540 Mayors, and 316
Vice Mayors, we still believe that we are a “non-traditional party” for our Basic Principles and Objectives
have remained the same for the past 36 years, to wit:

 THEISM – faith in GOD, a Supreme Being;

 HUMANISM – human dignity and respect;
 ENLIGHTENED NATIONALISM – the Philippine national interest above all;
 DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM – equitable distribution of wealth and equal opportunity for all and
stewardship of talents and national resources;
 CONSULTATIVE AND PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY – collective planning and decision-making;
 FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT – where the problems and concerns of the ordinary Filipino
can be heard and acted upon promptly by their elected leaders.

For the rapid expansion of our Party Membership, we have to be thankful to a lot of our dedicated
members, like our lecturers, our recruiters, our local leaders, our Membership Committee members, our
Education Committee members, and our cadres. p style="text-align: justify; width: 780px;"
class="style2">But allow me to specially thank our Party Chairman, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, for the
strong and visionary leadership he is providing for our country. He is the best recruiter to our Party. Mr.
President, your Party will stand behind you all the way as we implement our Program for Change in the
whole country.

Thank you too to our Party Secretary General, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, for turning PDP Laban into
the powerhouse party that it is now in the House of Representatives, with more than 120 members. He is
also instrumental in recruiting in the grassroots, tirelessly making the rounds around the country to attend
oath-taking ceremonies for our new members.

Let me give credit too to our Party Vice Chairman, energetic Secretary Al Cusi, for being the
“organization man” in our Party. Secretary Cusi has been designated to head our Committee on Party
Discipline. Through discipline, we will get quality members!

Let us take stock of our performance as the party in power.

Let us audit our delivery of the promises made by our Party’s Presidential candidate, now President
Duterte, in the 2016 election campaign:

One, all-out war against crime, drugs, and corruption. This is already on-going and will continue to the
very last day of the Duterte Administration. Check!

Two, income tax relief. Already done. The first P250,000 annual personal income of every Filipino is
now exempt from income tax and the rates for income tax have been adjusted to reasonable and realistic
levels under RA No. 10963. Check!

Three, increased pay for our military and our law enforcers. Already done under Joint Resolution No.
1, Series of 2018. Check!

Four, free irrigation. Already done under RA No. 10969. Check!

Five, free tuition. Already done under RA No. 10931. Check!

Six, independent foreign policy. We have veered away from a foreign policy dominated by a single
power, and instead pursued a more multilateral approach where we pursue our own interests while
remaining as a “friend to all nations”. We have remained friends with the US and Europe while our relations
with China, Russia, Japan, and the ASEAN nations are at their all-time best.

PDP Laban contributed to our all-time best relations with China and Russia through our party-to-party
relations and cooperation agreements with the Communist Party of China and the United Russia. In fact,
we are celebrating the 1st Anniversary of our Cooperation Agreement with the CPC along with our
anniversary.

So, independent foreign policy, Check!

Seven, pursuit of Peace. For the Mindanao situation, this is already ongoing. The Bangsamoro Basic
Law (BBL) is now under consideration by both Houses of Congress. Unfortunately, the Peace talks with the
Communist movement has been suspended.

Eight, Endo. There will soon be a proposal about Endo from the Executive Branch. In the Senate, our
Committee on Labor is ready with its own proposal on how to end Endo. The House is also ready with its
own version.
 Nine, Federalism. We are moving forward. There are now proposals in both Houses on how best to
implement our Basic Objective of Federalizing the Philippines.

Nine promises, six already fulfilled, all done within one year and a half (1½) of a six-year term! What
a way to start a term! We did it because of team work. This is what we can deliver because our Team is
united, not by personalities, but by ideology. We are all moving in the same direction, guided by common
principles.

Of the 3 yet to be fulfilled campaign promises, one is our Party’s Basic Objective – FEDERALISM.

In PDP Laban, we are not after cosmetic changes. We want real change; structural change like
Federalism! We believe that adopting the Federal System of Government will (1) accelerate the economic
development and progress of the Regions, (2) equalize living standards across the country, and (3)
“stabilize” the nation, thus allowing us to attain the comfortable, fair, and safe life that we want for all
Filipinos!

So tonight, as we celebrate our 36th Anniversary and the 1st Anniversary of our Cooperation Agreement
with the Communist Party of China, let me leave you with this message: Federalism is an idea whose time
has come! The fight to adopt the Federal System of Government in our beloved country is still on-going.
We cannot relax, there is still much work to be done ahead.

At this moment, this is our struggle. And we will succeed in this fight for so long as we remain united
and bound by our principles.

With the help of our friends, with the help of our Party, I see a very bright future for the Philippines!

Congratulations to all of us!

Mabuhay ang Pilipinas! Mabuhay ang PDP Laban! Maraming salamat po!

Speech of Senate President

Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III:
Necrological Services for Former
Senator Dominador R. Aytona
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES·MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2017·READING TIME: 2 MINUTES

The Aytona family, my colleagues who are present here- Senator Villar, Senator, former
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, former Senator Eddie Illarde, to former Senator and
Mayor Fred Lim, to the Senate family, to my fellow Filipinos, good morning at
magandang umaga po sa inyong lahat.
We always say that education is the key to success. The man we honor today is proof of
this statement. But more than a simple success story, the life of former Senator
Dominador R. Aytona is also about making use of this success to help others, especially
those most in need.

Rising from humble beginnings, he finished his studies with high honors and joined
public service. He served as a financial adviser to the Senate, Commissioner of the
Budget under President Magsaysay, and Secretary of Finance under President Garcia.

But it was in his service as a Senator from 1965-1971 where he made his lasting mark.
Remembering his life’s journey as a working student and public servant, he sought to
improve the quality of life of students, of civil servants, and of all Filipinos. It was former
Senator Aytona who authored the law that established the Bicol University, the law that
created the Students Loan Fund Authority, the law that standardized salaries of the
employees of the General Auditing Office, and the law that increased salaries of the
employees of the Bureau of Post.

He likewise authored the law that created the Price Control Council that limited the
maximum selling price of essential goods, the law that regulated rentals of dwelling units,
and the law that accelerated the implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.

Clearly, Senator Aytona, despite reaching the heights of success in his chosen field, did
not forget the welfare of the ordinary Filipino. Every law he crafted was aimed at
improving the quality of life of the people, easing their burdens and giving them more
opportunities to succeed as he had.

With his death, we lost a model Filipino and a true public servant.

During his life, I have not personally met the late Senator Aytona but from reading about
his life story, I could see the value of hard work which marked his life - hard work in
school, hard work as appointive government official, hard work as elective government
official and hard work even after his life as a public official.
We in the Senate lost someone who enriched our history and tradition of excellence in
serving the Filipino people. Let us honor his memory by never forgetting his cause of
giving every Filipino a chance at a better life.

Maraming salamat po.#

Press Release
July 25, 2018

Privilege Speech of Senator Loren Legarda

"The Economic Cost of Undernutrition in the Philippines"
25 July 2018 | Senate Session Hall

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues,

The Philippines has been showing an impressive performance in terms of economic growth. Our growth
rate of more than 6% annually, which is one of the highest in Southeast Asia, the growing trust of investors
as proven by the increasing inflow of investments in the country, and the upgrade in our credit rating by
Fitch Ratings, to name a few, are accomplishments to be proud of.

But all of these should also have meaning to our people. All of these should translate to services that will
improve the lives of Filipinos.

One of the urgent things we must attend to affects the children of today and the future of our society--
undernutrition.

Our nutrition indicators not only lag behind most of our neighboring countries in the ASEAN region but
even when compared to developing countries in Africa.

Undernutrition is the direct or indirect cause of almost half of child deaths. Over 29,000 Filipino children
below five die each year due to undernutrition. This is about 38% of all deaths among Filipino children
under five.

While one million Filipino children suffer from severe or moderate acute malnutrition each year, 14 of the
nutrition indicators show that over 28 million children suffer from undernutrition.

This is alarming for both our children and our society as a whole.

Undernutrition is not only associated with child survival and physical health, it is also a threat to
psychological, cognitive development. The damage is largely irreversible. It not only affects children's
physical growth, it also diminishes their learning capacity and school performance[1]. Later in life as adults
and professionals, they have lower productivity and reduced earnings by half.

Moreover, the negative impacts of undernutrition erode the most basic foundation of economic growth:
people's strength and energy, creative and analytical capacity, initiative, and entrepreneurial drive.
It is unfortunate that we did not reach many of the targets in the last two Philippine Plans of Action for
Nutrition (PPAN) covering 2005-2010 and 2011-2016. Further, we did not achieve the food and nutrition
security goals of the Millennium Development Goals.

The Joint Assessment of the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement also reported that key challenges in
implementing the Plans of Action for Nutrition, and achieving our target outcomes, include weak political
commitment at both the national and local levels; and limits in using a proper nutrition lens in developing
and implementing regular and specialized programs by key player agencies.

All of these should compel us to work even harder, together, across all sectors, to mitigate this issue.

Value of economic losses due to undernutrition The Department of Health, with UNICEF and the National
Nutrition Council, published two reports[2] on the economic implications of the status of national nutrition,
as well as a business case for nutrition investment in the Philippines.

According to the first report, the Philippines is losing and will continue to lose around $4.5 billion per year
if current rates of undernutrition are not mitigated. In 2015, this loss was equivalent to around 1.5% of
the country's GDP, which has made a significant dent in the national economy.[3]

The report presents a case for investing in nutrition in the Philippines and outlines evidence-based and
nutrition-specific intervention packages to address nutrition concerns in the country.

Apart from posing grave survival and health risks, undernutrition impacts serious human capital
development deficits that result in lower work productivity and earnings.

The said report estimates that the total economic burden emerging from the various cases of undernutrition
is estimated at around PhP220 billion annually--equivalent to a 1.5% loss in our GDP in 2015.

Adult productivity deficits caused by childhood stunting and micronutrients deficiencies entails the greatest
loss from undernutrition, which reaches more than PhP150 billion every year.

Stunting alone contributes to more than 50% of the economic costs of undernutrition at PhP115 billion or
$2.3 billion.

Beyond our moral obligation and humanitarian imperatives, the high economic cost of not doing anything
to lift the burdens of undernutrition in the Philippines should compel and drive urgent action.

By investing in the available effective, affordable and equity-focused nutrition with 90% coverage of all
interventions, we can reduce the burden of national undernutrition by more than Php78 billion per year.

In short, addressing the huge economic burden of undernutrition is highly cost-effective for the country in
the long-term. If implemented over the next 10 years and costing only around PhP5.7 billion per year, this
suggested strategy can yield very high returns and an attractive cost-benefits ratio of one is to 12 (1:12).

This means that every Php50 investment in these interventions can save around Php624 in forgone earnings
or in health expenditures because of undernutrition.

Mr. President, as legislators and representatives of our people, we owe this to every Filipino child, to every
Filipino citizen.
As Congress has the power of the purse, it is incumbent upon us to ensure our citizens are able to benefit
from the economic success we are enjoying. Only then, can we help this administration fulfill the promises
made to the Filipino people.

Incidentally, my office already received last night the President's Budget Message for 2019, and the budget
theme for next year is "Building a Bright Future for the Philippines and its People". As the Committee on
Finance shall soon commence the task of reviewing the 2018 budget and scrutinizing the proposals for next
year, we will make sure that human capital development, starting with the need to address the problem of
undernutrition, will be the main component of the government's strategy in securing a bright future for our
people.

I want to emphasize that strong government commitment and strategic budget allocation at both national
and local levels is highly critical.

The DOH, the NNC, and many other line agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, the Department
of Social Welfare and Development, the Department of Education, will all need to invest in evidence-based
nutrition-sensitive interventions to target nutritionally at-risk populations or areas in their program
activities.

Particular attention should also be given to underserved sectors, such as indigenous populations, poor
families, and families with children with disabilities. It is only this way that we will be able to provide
equitable services to all Filipinos.

To respond to the alarming situation of undernutrition, the Philippines has adopted and approved the
Philippine Plan of Action for Nutrition for 2017-2022. This is very much in line with President Rodrigo
Duterte's 10-point Economic Agenda and promise of long-term, strategic development plan.

The All for Health towards Health for All Agenda of the DOH is an integral part of the Philippine Development
Plan 2017-2022. This Plan of Action concretizes our commitment to pursue the Sustainable Development
Goals, particularly SDG No. 2, which seeks to end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition.

It also recognizes the importance of the 'First 1,000 Days' of the life of the child as the most critical window
of opportunity to avert malnutrition, and allow for optimal growth and development.

We have to sustain the momentum we have gained in the economic progress we have achieved. We need
stronger political will and accountability to ensure effective, strategic and equitable implementation of our
Plans of Action to address the pressing issue of undernutrition among our children.

The proposed package of the Plan of Action also relies on strong and motivated community workforce,
such as our Barangay Nutrition Scholars and Barangay Health Workers. They need to be adequately
supported by our LGUs and provided with the needed tools, skills, attitudes and knowledge to be able to
do their job well. We need to empower them and one way to do this is to re-think our publicly-funded
plantilla posts. Let us please remember that they, too, have families to feed and children to send to school.

Finally, being identified as a priority legislative agenda item in the Philippine Development Plan, the
proposed provisions of Senate Bill 383 -- or the Strengthening of the Barangay Nutrition Programme -- that
I filed right at the start of this Congress, will ultimately address the many critical policy and capacity gaps
in the Philippines. I enjoin my colleagues in this Chamber for support and approval of this bill.

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, it is high time for our government to start investing in its biggest,
most important resource -- the Filipino people, particularly our children.
Let us invest in long-term solutions that will allow us to harness our economic progress more strategically
and effectively, with our people at the heart of our work.

It is high time for us to invest in every Filipino - starting in the early years, in the first 1,000 days of a
child's life - so we can leave a definite brighter future for this country.

Thank you, Mr. President.

________________________________________

[1] Stunting may reduce a child's IQ by 5 to 11 points.

[2] Economic Consequences of Undernutrition in the Philippines: A Damage Assessment Report; & Business
Case for Nutrition Investment in the Philippines.

[3] Foreword by Ms. Lotta Sylwander, Country Representative of UNICEF

Xxxxxxxxxx
Speechthe
before
Association
of Secretary
Harvard University
Carlos P. Alumni
Romulo
June 22, 1950

Speech
of
Honorable Carlos P. Romulo
Secretary of Foreign Affairs
Before the Harvard University Alumni Association

[Delivered in New York, June 22, 1950]

Mr. President, Members of the Faculties, Members of the Alumni and the Graduating Classes,
Ladies and Gentlemen:

The honor which your Alma Mater has conferred upon me today is a rare one indeed, and it is a
deeply moving experience to have been chosen as the object of this solemn investiture.

The occasion might perhaps warrant an indulgence in symbolism: that I, who am a Filipino, and
hence a foster-child of America, and an Asian, and therefore a son of the ancient East, should be
invested with this mark of distinction by an outstanding cultural institution of the West, this great
and venerable university of the New World.

One might draw from this the familiar symbol of “hands across the seas,” but the words have
reference to an ocean other than the Pacific. If, therefore, we are seeking after symbols, may we
not take it that this event symbolizes the new era of man in which we live, in which it has become
necessary that beneficent thoughts should extend across the barriers of time and space and link
together all the peoples in all the continents of the world.
A citizen of the Philippines has cause for special gratification on an occasion such as this. I come
from an Oriental country whose windows have remained open for centuries to the East and to the
West and has lent itself to the free commerce of ideas and ways of life. Anchored to the East by
immemorial tradition, it has been exposed to the winds of Latin civilization through Spain and of
Anglo-Saxon civilization through America. Our political, economic, social and cultural
institutions are thus a blend of the two main streams of Western civilization resting upon the
original base of Oriental custom and tradition. We are a bridge between two worlds, the product,
however imperfect, of that cultural synthesis in which lies our hope for the eventual comity of
mankind.

In this part of America, which more naturally tends to look eastward to the West rather than
westward to the East, there is a certain merit and necessity in encouraging the recent tendency to
consider the problems of Asia with a new sense of their urgency and importance. The rediscovery
of the importance of Asia has come somewhat belatedly to America, and then only as a result of
the gravest setback that the free world has suffered since the beginning of the cold war.

Measured in strictly material terms—in terms, that is to say, which would most impress the
pragmatic Western mind—Asia is vastly important. It has more than half the population of the
world, it possesses a substantial portion of the world’s natural resources including certain vital raw
materials of which it has a monopoly, and its south and eastern regions have a strategic value which
is highly covered in the struggle for power.

Yet, it is precisely this habit of applying a purely material yardstick to Asia which has led to
grievous misunderstanding between the Western nations and the peoples of the East. For centuries
it poisoned the relations between the former as colonizers who worshipped material power and
used it to secure dominion over the lands of the East, and the latter as subject peoples who became
victims of their own disregard or contempt for material things. In the succeeding centuries, it
deepened the cleavage between them because material power bred an appetite for more power, and
this in turn required that the subject peoples be kept in poverty and ignorance the better to render
them the willing and uncomplaining objects of exploitation.

Happily, the evil which these relations engendered has for the most part disappeared. Yet, even
the recent attempt to revise the basis of these relations is somewhat marred by the same
fundamental misconception in a more subtle form. The Western attitude toward Asia is still colored
by the same predominant material considerations which originally dictated and dominated the
Western approach towards Asia. Asia is still primarily a vital prop to the industry and commerce
of the West, a critical theatre of the cold war, a potentially valuable ally in a shooting war, a major
factor in global military strategy, a rich and populous region that must be kept in the camp of the
democracies and on the side of the free world.

Though this judgment may seem valid and sufficient for the purposes of the West, it may not be
so in the eyes of the Oriental peoples themselves. The recognition and acceptance of this difference
is a basic condition for the revaluation of the relations between the Western nations and the peoples
of Asia before these relations deteriorate beyond repair.
For a time there was an attempt to crystallize the aspirations of the peoples of Asia under the slogan
of “Asia for the Asiatics.” In the heyday of imperialism this slogan was like a trumpet-call that
rallied the scattered and isolated forces of nationalism and freedom in the colonies. It brought
about the long series of anti-foreign and anti-Western upheavals throughout the region. In the end,
it inspired the misguided Japanese challenge to the Western powers in 1941, the greatest military
effort ever put forth by an Asian country in modern times. But because the motivation was one of
invidiousness and hate, and thus incompatible with the true spirit of the Asian peoples, the effort
was doomed to failure.

Last month the Baguio Conference of 1950, attended by seven independent governments of South
and Southeast Asia representing more than six hundred million people, proclaimed their
determination “to ensure that in the consideration of the special problems of South and Southeast
Asia the point of view of the peoples of this area is prominently kept in mind by any conference
dealing with such problems, so that better understanding and cordial relations may subsist between
the countries in the region and other countries of the world.”

The countries of Asia have gone a long way to achieve the political maturity, serenity and dignity
which these quiet but meaningful words imply. It is a simple statement of principle that is beyond
argument, so obvious that it would be a commonplace if read in the context of any region other
than Asia. But because this solemn declaration has come from the peoples of Asia, it acquires a
certain historic quality. It is a warning that henceforth any decisions about the future of Asia and
its peoples, by whomever they may be made, must take due account of the genuine interests of the
Asian peoples themselves.

They claim this for themselves as an inalienable right; for the peoples of the West it is a timely
word of caution which, if respected, will most surely bring about the achievement of their own
legitimate objectives.

The objective, equally just and necessary for both, is cooperation on a basis of equality and mutual
respect as well as of understanding of each other’s problems.

There are a number of assumptions or “myths” about Asia which must be set aside in the interest
of better understanding. One of these is the assumption that democracy of the Western type is or
should be preferred and accepted by the Asian peoples. But democracy is not native to Asia. Asian
society, for long ages, has rested upon a solid authoritarian base, heavily overgrown with custom,
tradition and ritual. To describe the situation is not to defend it, and—need I say—it does not
include my own country. But it is important in the dealings of the West with Asia during these
critical moments that assumptions of this kind be avoided lest they lead to dangerous
miscalculation.

The appeal of democracy, as we of the free world understand the term, is not general in Asia by
any means. Therefore, the missionary zeal with which the advantages of democracy are being
brought to the attention of the Asian peoples must rest on faith plus something else. That something
is none other than good works.
To peoples who have known little or no freedom for centuries, who have lived for uncounted ages
in a state of poverty and hunger, the high shine and polish which our propaganda has given to
democracy can hold no special attractions. They will judge political and economic systems only
in terms that have a concrete bearing on their daily lives: first, on what they have to do with the
freedom movements among the still subject peoples of Asia; and secondly, on what they are
disposed to do to help raise the living standards of the Asian peoples.

To see Asia through Asian eyes—this is the prime requisite for Western policy towards Asia. You
cannot prepare a policy mould for Europe and, this having proved to be satisfactory there, assume
that it will do for Asia as well. Nor, on the other hand, can you do one thing in Asia and then cancel
that promptly by doing something else in Europe. There must be a judicious adaptation of of
methods and parallel planning that will avoid confusion and waste.

The tendency to brand any nationalist movements whatever in Asia as communistic rests on
another of those assumptions which need to be re-examined with care. There are unquestionably
nationalist movements in Asia which are communist-led or which are abetted by the communists.
But the fact does not necessarily invalidate the intrinsic quality of the genuine nationalist
movements in the region. What has often happened is that these movements, though originally
sprung from a people’s natural aspirations to freedom, are subsequently taken away by the
politically sly and ruthless communists from the hands of the timid and confused liberals lacking
prompt and effective support from their friends in the West. We lose battles this way by default,
and will continue losing them until we stop condemning all these movements indiscriminately and
dissociating ourselves from them in every way.

The Western world should take a hint from the new frame of mind which is developing in many
countries of Asia. I refer to the growing insistence on the part of many leaders in the region that
they do not wish to have any part in the “cold war”, or to be drawn into any military alliances of
any kind, or to aggravate by any action of theirs the present dangerous tension in international
affairs.

I refer not to my own country whose ties with America are the ties of a common democratic faith
which were tested in the last war and which, I am sure, will not be found wanting if they should
be tested again by a new challenge to the ideals and way of life which the American and Filipino
peoples cherish with equal devotion. I make reference, rather, to a far more substantial portion of
Asia whose leaders and peoples have plainly indicated a desire to stand aloof from the present
struggle for power, not so much, I believe, from distrust of the two embattled sides, as from the
hope that their own peaceful inclinations and their total dissociation from the explosive issues of
the cold war may help to alleviate the situation and pave the way towards mutual accommodation
and co-existence.

Who knows, indeed, whether or not this way to peace is ultimately the only way, and whether out
of Asia, which can become at an instant’s notice the theatre of a war of annihilation, will come the
wisdom that will illumine the road to enduring peace. The war which we all dread can start in Asia,
but the peace which we all desire can also begin there.
In the few years that have followed the independence of the Philippines and that have seen in rapid
succession the emergence into freedom of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and the United States
of Indonesia, there has arisen a strong desire to revive and strengthen the ties that have bound these
countries together from ancient times before the coming of the West. It is quite natural that this
desire should often be expressed in aggrieved and even defiant terms, for these ties were
deliberately cut by some of the Western powers according to the well-known formula of divide
and rule.

Yet, again, the West should take heart from the fact that these embittered sentiments are being
allayed gradually. Provided always that there be no further deliberate attempts to turn back the
clock in Asia, we can look forward to a new era in our relations with each other—an era most
happily foreshadowed in the statement of the Australian, and the only non-Asian, representative
to the Baguio Conference, when he said: “Historically, most countries in this area have developed
traditional ties with countries outside the area, and it is only in recent years that many of us have
come to know each other by close and direct contact. Fortunately, the making of new friends need
not in any respect whatsoever lessen the ties which bind us to our old friends, and it is in that spirit
that we meet here today.”

Time will assuage the bitterness which colonialism has bred among the Asian peoples. It has
already done that in the Philippines, and it is at work in India, Pakistan and Ceylon. However,
since danger draws near and time is of the essence, the process of assuagement and developing
confidence and sympathy must be pushed at an accelerated pace. For, while it is true that we of
Asia would rather keep our “old friends” than risk new ties with strangers, there must be a showing
that the old friends are our friends indeed. That showing must be made against the background of
the irreversible march of nationalism and freedom in Asia and in the insistent clamor of its peoples
for more decent standards of living.

I have referred to my country as a “bridge” between the East and the West, and in the course of
my remarks I have tried, in a measure, to perform this essential function. You have a great stake
in Asia, and the Philippines can contribute much to its winning. We have an equally great stake in
the free world of which America now stands as the leader, and you can help assure our participation
in the common victory.

But before the profit and the victory must come understanding, and the time for mutual
comprehension of each other’s needs, desires, and aspirations is getting perilously short. It is my
hope that by this act and by the words that have been spoken here we have contributed something
of value to the growth of that understanding.

I am particularly happy that I have been vouchsafed the opportunity to speak thus in this great
university. For it is the special responsibility of universities everywhere to tend the light of reason
and understanding that it may burn steadily amid the storms of the present like vestal fire. Harvard,
through the centuries, has performed this vital function for America and for a considerable portion
of mankind, and I am certain that its hand will continue to shield that flame against the winds from
the outer darkness—the gusts of hysteria and passion, panic and fear—until the sun of peace shines
upon the good earth again.
 Source: Presidential Museum and Library

Romulo, C. P. (1950). Speech of the Honorable Carlos P. Romulo, Secretary of Foreign Affairs before the
Harvard University Alumni Association, New York, June 22, 1950. Official Gazette of the
Republic of the Philippines, 46(6), 2488-2493.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

A Matter of Legal Philosophy

Address delivered by retired Chief Justice ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN during a Forum sponsored
by the Institute of Government and Law Reform of the University of the Philippines College of Law
on August 5, 2011 at the UP Malcolm Hall, Diliman, Quezon City.

I thank Professor Florin T. Hilbay, director of the Institute of Government and Law Reform of the
University of the Philippines for sponsoring this Forum to dissect academically the June 28, 2011
decision of the Supreme Court in “Wilson Gamboa vs. Margarito Teves,” G. R. No. 176579 and for
inviting me to deliver this main or keynote address.

Inasmuch as this case involves PLDT, let me – at the outset – formally disclose what I already wrote
in my column last July 17 and is contained in my personal website that I have been sitting as an
independent member of the board of advisers of PLDT since mid-2009. That was well after I had
retired from the Supreme Court in 2006. In that independent capacity, I do not represent PLDT’s
management or any stockholder. I cannot propose or second motions in the board of directors.
Neither can I vote. My advice may or may not be heeded by the company but anyway I render it
objectively and in good faith to the best of my modest knowledge of law and business.

Ratio of the Decision

I assume that you, my dear audience of academics, lawyers and students of law and government,
have read the decision that is the subject of our forum. Thus, I will go direct to its meat. It disposed
as follows:

“WHEREFORE, we PARTLY GRANT the petition and rule that the term ‘capital’ in Section 11,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution refers only to shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of
directions, and thus in the present case only to common shares, and not to the total outstanding
capital stock (common and non-voting preferred shares). Respondent Chairperson of the Securities
and Exchange Commission is DIRECTED to apply this definition of the term ‘capital’ in determining
the extent of allowable foreign ownership in respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company, and if there is a violation of Section II, Article XII of the Constitution, to impose the
appropriate sanctions under the law.”

In arriving at the foregoing disposition, the decision – written by Justice Antonio T. Carpio and
concurred in by nine other magistrates (Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado
M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama Jr., Jose Portugal Perez,
Jose C. Mendoza and Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno) – brushed aside the jurisdictional, procedural and
due process issues raised by the three dissenters, led by Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. and joined
by two others (Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and Justice Roberto A. Abad, who wrote a separate
dissent; two seats were vacant).

In ignoring these preliminary issues, the majority invoked the familiar mantra that when “a petition
raises matters of transcendental importance,” procedural issues pale into insignificance and should
be set aside.
Jurisdiction and Due Process
To the objection that the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction to tackle petitions for
declaratory relief, annulment of sales, and injunctions, the majority simply treated the petition as
one for mandamus, even if the petitioner himself did not have a prayer that could remotely be
considered one for mandamus, and even if there is no allegation, much less proof, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission has refused to perform a mandatory duty, which is an essential element
of mandamus.

It justified its eagerness to take on the petition by saying that “the Court shall confine the resolution
of the instant controversy solely on the threshold and purely legal issue of whether the term ‘capital’
in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers to the total common shares only or to the total
outstanding capital stock (combined total of common and non-voting preferred shares) of PLDT, a
public utility.” (bold types in original)

However, in resolving this “threshold” and allegedly “purely legal” issue, the majority – in the body
of its decision – nonetheless delved into facts it sourced from the Internet and from records of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, in the process committing some egregious factual errors, as I
will demonstrate later. I would have ignored these lapses, but I believe I cannot set aside the basic
due process issues.

As could be gleaned from its disposition, the Court directed “the respondent Chairperson of the
Securities and Exchange Commission” to investigate PLDT and to sanction it in case it violated the
Constitution. But neither the SEC nor PLDT was a respondent in the case. True, Chair Fe Barin of
the Securities Exchange Commission and President Napoleon Nazareno of the
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company were respondents. But the SEC itself
and PLDT, as a corporate entity distinct and separate from its President, were not impleaded and
given their day in court.

Prior to this decision, the government – notably the Department of Justice and the Securities and
Exchange Commission – have, since 1935 when the Constitution was first approved, uniformly held
that the entire capital stock of a corporation, including voting and non-voting shares, shall be used in
determining the 40 percent allocation to non-Filipinos. On this basis, the government has since then
enticed foreigners to invest here, most notably during so-called “road shows” sponsored by the
government and actively promoted by its economic managers abroad. Relying on this representation,
many foreigners invested in Philippine companies, including public utilities.

The decision, moreover, does not show that the foreigners, who relied on this representation and
invested here, have been summoned and asked their side. While one foreigner, Chairman Anthoni
Salim of First Pacific Co. Ltd. is mentioned in the title of the case, he has not been served with
the petition or granted the opportunity to air his defense. Manuel V. Pangilinan, a Filipino, was sued
“in his capacity as managing director of First Pacific Co. Ltd.” but First Pacific itself has not been
included.

The very first section of our Bill of Rights solemnly proclaims, “No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law.” Clearly and unquestionably, the word “person”
includes foreigners and corporations that would be forced to unload their investments at bargain
prices.

The most basic concept of due process is traced to Themistocles who cried, “Strike, but hear me
first!” and the most oft-quoted definition of due process is credited to Daniel Webster, who defined
to it as “a law that hears before it condemns, proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after
trial.”
One may even agree with the Supreme Court’s restriction on foreign stockholdings, but – with due
respect – no one, not even the highest court of the land, may impose it without first hearing the
persons who would be most adversely affected, the foreign investors.

Substantive Content of the Decision

Let me preface my discussion of the substance of the decision, by quoting the relevant portions of the
key provision of the Constitution on the subject, namely, Section 11 of Article XII. It states that (1)
only Filipino citizens or “corporations” at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens’ may operate a public utility such as a telephone company; (2) “the participation of foreign
investors in the (board of directors) of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their
proportionate share in its capital,” and (3) “all the executive and managing officers of such
corporations must be citizens of the Philippines.”

As we all know, the capital stock of a corporation may be divided into (a) “voting” or “common” and
(b) “non-voting” or “preferred” shares. Only voting or common shares can be used to elect members
of the board of directors. Non-voting or preferred shares cannot; but they may legally be used in
voting on very important issues, like in disposing of all or substantially all of the corporate assets; in
incurring or increasing bonded indebtedness; or in merging the corporation with another; or in
dissolving the corporation; etc.

To repeat, the majority’s decision ruled that the word “capital” in the cited charter provision should
refer only to voting shares, “not to the total outstanding capital stock.” Hence, foreign investments in
public utilities, like PLDT, should be limited to only 40 per cent of the voting shares. The majority
said that this interpretation will ensure that Filipinos will “effectively control” public utilities because
“it is the board of directors that controls or manages a corporation.”

To assure such control, it directed – if I may repeat – the chairperson of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) “to apply this definition of the term ‘capital’ in determining the extent of
allowable foreign ownership in respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, and if
there is a violation of, the Constitution, to impose the appropriate sanctions under the law.” Again,
while the dispositive portion of the decision alluded to “respondent” PLDT, the petition did not
implead the telephone company.

The dissenters argued that “capital” should include not only the voting but also the preferred shares
because this was the interpretation given by the framers of the current and previous Constitutions
since 1935. Even the majority’s decision concedes that over the last 75 years, the Charter has been
uniformly construed to refer to all shares, not to voting shares only.

The Velasco dissent further said that under item 2 above, the Constitution already assures Filipino
control of public utilities because, in electing directors, foreigners can use only 40 percent of the
common shares they hold, even if they own more than that percentage. Hence, “they will never be in
a position to elect majority of the members of the Board of Directors (Filipinos will always control
the board) although they (may) actually own less than 50 % of the common shares.” Also under item
3, only Filipinos may be “executive and managing officers” of public utilities, thus doubly ensuring
Filipino control. In point of fact, of the 13 directors of PLDT, only two are foreigners (Japanese)
while the rest of the 11 are Filipinos.

Liberty and Prosperity

I believe that in construing the economic provisions of the Constitution, courts should – absent grave
abuse of discretion – defer to the government, especially the Executive Department. Here, judicial
restraint – nay, self-restraint – is the better course. Au contraire, in litigations involving civil
liberties, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government and in favor of the people,
particularly the poor and marginalized. I have always espoused this philosophy of “liberty and
prosperity.”
With due respect, I submit that the judiciary does not have the mandate, not to say the expertise, to
decide on matters relating to the economy and prosperity, and must – as much as possible – defer to
the officials elected by the people to look after these issues. After all, if these elective officials fail to
deliver on their mandate, they can be held accountable during periodic elections. This is how
democracy thrives.

During the last several decades, our elected leaders – despite their partisan differences – have always
relied on foreign investments to propel our economy and alleviate poverty. Let us remember that
foreigners have a wide choice. Almost all of the 200 or so nations in the world, including China and
other heretofore hermit states, offer them various kinds of incentives to lure them.

Most objectionable is the threat of sanction that the Court ordered the SEC chair to impose
retroactively. How can we punish investors who relied in good faith on government’s blandishments
over the last 75 years? That is most cruel and unfair.

However, if the decision cannot be reversed, I respectfully submit that, instead of being sanctioned,
investors should be given a reasonable period of time, a few years, to comply with the new ruling.
Finally, I believe Congress should consider passing a new law, which will govern an orderly and fair
divestment process that will not unduly derail the country’s economic progress.

Errors in Business and Finance

Earlier, I said that the majority committed egregious errors of fact as well as, if I may add now, errors
in business, economics and finance. The decision observed that the par value of PLDT’s voting or
common shares is only P5.00, yet they each earned P70 in cash dividends in 2009. (Parenthetically,
this is erroneous because cash dividends declared in 2009 were double that amount. But for
purposes of our discussion, let us assume the Court’s findings of fact are correct.) In contrast, the
non-voting or preferred shares have a par value of P10.00, but their cash dividends was “a measly
P1.00 per share” In other words, preferred shares have twice the par value of common shares but
they cannot elect directors and have only 1/70 of the dividends of common shares.

Then, it concluded, “This undeniably shows that beneficial interest in PLDT is not with the non-
voting preferred shares (mostly owned by Filipinos) but with the common shares (mostly owned by
aliens), blatantly violating the constitutional requirement of 60 percent Filipino beneficial
ownership in a public utility In short, Filipinos hold less than 60 percent of the voting stock, and
earn less than 60 percent of the dividends of PLDT.” (bold types in original)

The uninitiated in business may find the foregoing discussion logical. But I respectfully submit that it
is neither legal nor logical. It is not legal because the Constitution does not speak of dividends.
Nowhere does it talk of how much each kind of shares should earn. The Charter speaks only of the
ownership or
effective control” of the “capital” of a corporation engaged in public utilities, not of “beneficial
ownership.”

It is not logical because it ignored the market value of the shares and their rate of returns. The
decision itself noted that “the PLDT common shares with a par value of P5.00 have a current stock
market value of P2,328.00 per share, while PLDT preferred shares with a par value of P10.00 per
share have a current stock market value ranging from P10.92 to P11.06 per share.”

However, it failed to use this critical information in computing the actual and real financial benefits.
Look, on the basis of the facts given by the majority, an investor needs about P11.00 to buy
a PLDT preferred share, which would earn P1.00. Here, the rate of return on the investment is nine
percent. On the other hand, to acquire a common share, an investor must pay P2,328 yet earn only
P70 or only about three percent.
On this basis, preferred shares earn three times more than the common shares. So, it is neither
logical nor correct to say that “beneficial ownership” in PLDT rests with foreigners just because they
hold more common shares than Filipinos.

Not Determinative of Real Value

Clearly, the par values of shares are not determinative of their real worth or earning potential.
Investors buy shares from the company or from the stock market, depending on their appetite for
risks, not on the shares’ par values. Conservatives want preferred shares because they are less risky
and their earnings, like bank deposits, are fixed. The adventurous choose common shares because
they could potentially be worth much more. Or much less, if the company flops.

While common shares may yield smaller dividends, they can – in time – increase their market value.
Sometimes, a company strikes oil, or perfects its high tech products. When this happens, the market
value of common shares exponentially grows while the yields of preferred shares remain fixed.

A classic example of exponential growth is Microsoft, which made Bill Gates the richest American
almost overnight. Another example. In 2001, PLDT’s net income was about P3.4 billion; its common
shares had a market price of P417. Then, led by Manuel V. Pangilinan and his gung ho Filipino
management team, it expanded into the high-risk but high-reward wireless digital cell phone
technology. In just four years, in 2005, its net income exponentially soared ten times to P34 billion.
And kept growing since then. In 2010, its net income was P40 billion and its common shares’ market
price rose to P2,554.

Of course, in bad times, common shares could collapse and reduce billionaires to paupers, as has
happened here in 1997, and in the US in 2008. To recall, in 1997, the Asian financial crisis hit
Thailand first and then spread everywhere. Because of this, the real estate business in the Philippines
collapsed. The foray of Metro Pacific Holdings into Fort Bonifacio – led also by Manuel V. Pangilinan
– failed and almost bankrupted the company. We are also familiar with the financial crisis in 2008
that started in the United States and resulted in the bankruptcy of several heretofore financial
untouchables like Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, American International Group (AIG) and
Washington Mutual, the largest savings and loan association in the United States.

But then, that’s what business is all about. It is about taking and managing risks, not about
legislating profits or promulgating decisions awarding economic benefits. It is not for the faint-
hearted or for jurists to intrude into unnecessarily and imprudently.

In sum, the majority’s theoretical requirement that 60 percent of all financial benefits in a public
utility must go to Filipinos regardless of how much they invested is totally unfair and blatantly
ignores the most fundamental tenets of investments. Under this absurd thesis, no foreigner will
invest in our country. For the most basic rule in a free market economy is that investors share in the
profits and other benefits of an enterprise based on the amount they invested and the risk they
assumed.

Maraming salamat po. I am now ready for your questions.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Visionary Leadership By Example

Keynote address delivered by retired Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban on the opening day of
the 9th National Ayala Young Leaders Congress (AYLC 2007) on February 7-9, 2007, at the San
Miguel Corporation Management Training Center, Alfonso, Cavite.
May I thank Mr. Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala, chairman and CEO of the Ayala Corporation, who was
aptly described by Starweek [1] as the “philanthropreneur,” and acclaimed by the Management
Association of the Philippines as the “Management Man of the Year 2006,” for inviting me to keynote the
9th National Ayala Young Leaders Congress (AYLC 2007). May I also commend the Ayala Corporation
itself for launching this program in 1998 and for doggedly pursuing it during the past nine years as its
strategic investment on the youth, and ultimately, in the future of this country.
It is heartwarming to see private business devote its treasure, talent and time to help attain national
goals and aspirations, even if the activities undertaken may not be directly and immediately related
to the accumulation of profit and private wealth.

Indeed, I accepted this invitation to dialogue with this year’s crop of well-selected campus
personalities because I, too, believe that building the confidence and honing the leadership skills of
our youth leaders is a worthy investment in national development.

Memories of My Own Student Days

My presence here today brings back nostalgic memories of my own student days some 50 years ago,
and of my own search for identity, pursuit of excellence, chase for exuberance, and quest for
enduring values. Now, in my sunset years, I truly cherish these memories, as I recall them to be some
of the happiest and most enjoyable years of my life when I could unabashedly say I was truly free.
You see, I was very poor and orphaned early in life. I had nothing. No worldly treasures to keep, no
reputation to protect, no close relatives to defer to.

There was no Ayala Corporation to guide me, no AYLC to teach me, and no JAZA to fund my
activities. But just the same, I organized (along with several others) and headed the National Union
of Students of the Philippines . TheNUSP was born as a rebellion against a decadent student milieu
that was prostituted and muzzled by the government then. The NUSP was formed out of the
conviction that the young must be freed from the political apron strings of the old.
The NUSP espoused the idea and ideal that students can think for themselves, know what is best for
them and for their future, and thus must be given the freedom to pursue their destiny.
The NUSP was founded on the proposition that the best in a person and in society can be attained
only in freedom, dignity, equality and shared responsibility.

Some of my contemporaries then were Emmanuel Soriano, Homobono Adaza, John Osmeña, Raul
Roco, Rene Saguisag and Jesus Elbinias. The NUSP’s alumni of the 60s, 70s and 80s included
checkered personalities like Ricardo Puno Jr., Michael Mastura, Salvador Britanico, Jose Cuisia,
Sonia Malasarte, Macapanton Abbas Jr., Mervyn Encanto, Sonia Zaldivar, Miriam Defensor, Tina
Monzon, Jose Lina, Sonny Ramirez, Edgar Jopson, Francis Pangilinan, Chito Gascon, and if I may be
permitted to add, Elenita Carpio who is now known as AIM Professor Leni Panganiban, my loving
wife.

A New Paradigm of Harnessing Leadership

Indeed, by their fruits you shall know them. But you may ask: If 50 years ago NUSP was already
shaping leaders, as indeed it has produced some of the country’s dynamic leaders, why is the country
still struggling with the same problems of violence, malgovernance, corruption and poverty? In fact,
it would appear that the problems have worsened — violence is more deadly; corruption, more
rampant; malgovernance, more endemic; and poverty, more widespread.

That there are still problems and granted, arguendo, that the problems have in fact worsened over
the years, should not daunt us into inaction or doubt; but should challenge us to try even harder.
After all, life is a continuous process of facing mutating challenges and conquering increasingly more
formidable odds. That is why I welcome theAYLC, which promises to provide what the youth of
yesterday lacked, and to solve the more perplexing challenges of this century. I am sure that twenty,
thirty years from now, you — the alumni of AYLC — will be recalling memories of this Congress, and
exchanging notes on how each of you has been helped by the inspirations evoked, the discussions
shared, and the lessons learned here.

Indeed, Ayala has elevated the paradigm for youth leadership by focusing its resources on a scientific
and systematic method of harnessing and developing the executive skills of the young.

Mountains of Leadership Literature

In tackling this year’s AYLC theme, “Leadership in Challenging Times,” I realize that there are
mountains of existing literature, speeches, books, articles, even movies and TV shows, on effective
leadership. They describe how charisma, good looks, imagination, genes, science, passion,
opportunity, and greed have propelled many people — both the popular and the obscure; the brainy
and the mediocre; the plodding and the lucky — to the center stage of leadership in business
organizations; in civic groups, in religious hierarchies, in political machineries, and ultimately in
governmental positions.

I will not be true to myself, and perhaps even unfair to you, if I just mouthed the incantations of
these “how tos.” If I did just that, you might be better off surfing the Internet, rather than listening to
a rehash and recycle of these published leadership ideas. At least, in the Internet, you have the
complete freedom to shut off the computer, or change the window at will. Thus, to justify my
presence here, I will just speak from my heart and say plainly how I believe young people can meet
the leadership challenges confronting them in the 21st century.

Clear Idea of Goals and Methods

Right off, let me say that every leader must have a clear idea of what ultimately he or she wants to
accomplish, and of the specific ways of how to achieve the declared goals. If one is embarking on a
journey, one must have — prior to departure — a pre-selected destination, and a specific mode on
how to get there. I refer to this statement of goals, values and methods as the “vision-mission” of
every leader or organization. Some good examples of Vision-Mission Statements are those of the
Ayala Corporation [2], the Ayala Foundation [3], and the Philippine Daily Inquirer [4], copies of
which I am including as footnotes so you can study them later.
Now, it is one thing to be able to put together a vision and mission statement, it is quite another to
get an organization to embrace it and get it done. Otherwise stated, talk is easy, but let’s see some
action. More pointedly, did I, as your keynote speaker, have a vision-mission statement, and as Chief
Justice, was I able to get it done?

Well, you be the judge. Let me just give you the facts.

Two Roles of the Chief Justice

Let me start off by saying that the Chief Justice has two major roles: first, he is the highest magistrate
of the land, the primus inter pares (the first among equals) among the fifteen members of the
Supreme Court; and second, he is the leader of the entire judicial branch of government composed of
about 2,000 justices and judges plus about 26,000 employees nationwide; as well as of the
Philippine bar composed of about 40,000 lawyers.

As primus inter pares, the Chief Justice presides over all en banc sessions of the Supreme Court. He
is thus able to control the flow of the proceedings. He shapes the Court’s agenda, opens the
discussion of the cases and summarizes the arguments. Nonetheless, like his fourteen colleagues, he
has only one vote. So, it is by his moral ascendancy and persuasive skills, not by any boss-
subordinate relationship, that the Chief Justice leads the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, the Chief Justice is also the Chief Executive Officer of the entire judiciary.
Outside the realm of decision-making in the Supreme Court in which he has one solitary vote, the
Chief Justice is the unquestioned administrative boss of the entire Judicial Department of
government; nothing happens without his say-so. But more than a boss, he is the leader of the
judiciary. The 2,000 justices and judges, as well as the 26,000 court personnel all over the country,
hold him up for inspiration and example. Indeed, the Chief Justice is looked up to as the leader who
inspires, motivates, and leads other officials to work unceasingly, to rise above their puny
limitations, to excel beyond themselves, and to achieve collectively their loftiest dreams and highest
aspirations.

Sometimes, these two major roles of the Chief Justice clash. Let me explain.

As a jurist, the Chief Justice is expected to be detached, mysterious, unreachable, untouchable and
even unfathomable; yet as a leader and CEO, he must be transparent, knowable, accountable and
reachable. The judge in him impels him to follow tradition, to uphold precedents and to stabilize
judicial thought; the leader in him, requires him to innovate, to re-engineer, to reinvent new and
better ways of managing and moving forward. As a jurist, the CJ must be a recluse; yet, as a leader,
he must have people skills.

Vision-Mission

After briefly explaining the dual roles of the Chief Justice, let me now directly answer the earlier
question of how I have, during my tenure, put into practice my earlier thesis about goals and
methods.

Upon being inducted into office, I did announce my vision-mission statement, which is summarized,
as follows:

VISION
A judiciary that safeguards the liberty and nurtures the prosperity of our people under the rule of
law.

MISSION
1. To lead a judiciary characterized by four Ins: independence, integrity, industry and
intelligence.
2. To reform the justice system by fighting the four ACID problems that corrode justice in our
country; namely, (a) limited access to justice by the poor; (b) corruption; (c) incompetence;
and (d) delay in the delivery of quality judgments.
3. To revitalize the legal profession by breeding competent and ethical lawyers.
4. To grant all judicial employees maximum benefits allowed by law and within my discretion to
give; in turn, I ask for three things encapsulated in the code DHL: dedication to duty; honesty
in every way, and full loyalty to the Supreme Court.
There are three key words or phrases in my “vision,” namely: liberty, prosperity and rule of law. Let
me say a few more words about each of them.

Safeguarding Liberty
Safeguarding liberty has long been a traditional expectation from our courts. Their role is to be the
great equalizers when individual freedoms—whether civil, political or economic—are buffeted by the
awesome powers of the State and governmental institutions. These epic constitutional struggles
between the government and its citizens are written in the annals of our nation’s history, to be
invoked over and over, as often as challenges to individual liberty persist to this day.

Indeed, an individual becomes a majority of one when courts uphold that person’s freedom, which
may have been transgressed by an unconstitutional law passed by the people’s representatives and
approved by a President elected by a majority of the voters.
From the British Magna Carta, to the French Revolution, to the American Declaration of
Independence, and to the Filipino struggle for nationhood as codified in the Malolos Constitution,
history rings for the people’s right to participate in the political processes, including the freedom to
vote and be voted for; as well as the freedoms of expression, of assembly and of religion.

A never-ending saga of trials and triumphs for the judiciary and for our people is the battle for civil
liberties, especially the inviolability of our persons from illegal arrests and our homes from arbitrary
searches and seizures, those guaranteeing our freedoms of abode and travel, and the so-called
Miranda rights of persons accused of crimes.

Judicial Policy to Uphold Liberty

In litigations involving civil liberties, I believe that the scales of justice should weigh heavily against
the government and in favor of the people — particularly the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized,
the dispossessed, and the weak. Laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights, like freedom of
expression and of the press, come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their validity. This
policy is commonly referred to as “heightened” or “strict” scrutiny.

Consistent with this policy of “strict” scrutiny, the Supreme Court last year—during my incumbency
as Chief Justice—promulgated three landmark decisions involving (1) Executive Order 464 in which
the right of Congress to summon executive officials for investigations in aid of legislation, in
conjunction with the people’s right to information on matter of public concern, was upheld; [5] (2)
the so-called Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) policy was scuttled as the High Court ruled in
favor of the people’s right to peaceful assembly for a redress of grievances; [6] and (3) Presidential
Proclamation 1071, in which the fundamental rights of the people under a “state of national
emergency” [7] were recognized. Verily, in all these pivotal cases, the Supreme Court upheld the
primacy of civil liberties over governmental actions.
Nurturing Prosperity

While safeguarding liberty is a fairly common task for the judiciary, nurturing prosperity is
something even seasoned jurists and lawyers may not all readily understand and agree with. Some of
them may even disagree with the proposition that the judiciary should exert conscious thought and
effort to nurture progress. Nonetheless, I strongly advocate that whatever the measure of a country’s
economic progress, courts should contribute to the nurturance of prosperity.

True, the two political branches of government—meaning the Presidency and Congress—have been
given the primary responsibility of promoting the economic well-being of the country. But it is
equally true that the Constitution contains several provisions involving the economic rights of our
people which the judiciary is mandated to protect and enforce.

Thus, our basic law [8] commands the State to “promote a just and dynamic social order that will
ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty x x x.”
Equally significant is Article XII, which is devoted in its entirety to “National Economy and
Patrimony,” the goals of which are set forth without equivocation: “a more equitable distribution of
opportunities, income and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services
produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to
raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.” [9] We can truly say that in our
country, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s famous “freedom from want” [10] has been constitutionalized.
What we need is a responsive government to implement it and a prudent judiciary to enforce it.
It is also clear that the Constitution does not contemplate palliatives as the solution to our economic
woes. Donations and dole-outs, while welcome, cannot constitute the promise of prosperity that the
fundamental law holds out. What the spirit and the letter of the Constitution demand is the
institutionalization of social justice. [11]
The Constitution does not end by merely directing that priority be given to social justice. It further
decrees that “the promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic
opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.” [12] In so doing, it subscribes to the
classical thought that social justice is a matter of distributive justice; that is, all social groups
participate equitably in the resources, the patrimony and the progress of the nation. Hence, the
systematic and systemic exclusion of any social group from the blessings of prosperity constitutes
social injustice.
These pronouncements of our Constitution, as well as the activist efforts of the
business/philanthropical sector and the supportive stance of international developmental
institutions to help the human race [13] buttress my belief that political liberty, the clarion call of the
past, must continuously be safeguarded in the present and in the future, if we must be true to
Wendell Phillip’s reminder that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” However, I am equally
persuaded that the prosperity of our people requires as much nurturing in the present century as that
accorded to liberty in the past. To be relevant, courts must be constantly attuned to the needs of the
present and the vagaries of the future, so that they can respond timely and prudently to the people’s
ever-expanding well-being.
The Judiciary’s Response to The Call for Poverty Alleviation

After hearing all these motherhood incantations, you may now ask: how can and how has, in fact, the
judiciary responded to the call for the alleviation of poverty, disease and disability?

My answer: In litigations affecting prosperity, development and the economy, the courts—as a
matter of policy—must defer as much as possible, to the actions of the political branches of
government, namely the Presidency and Congress. This approach is referred to as the “deferential”
interpretation of laws and executive actions.

And how has this judicial policy been implemented by the Supreme Court in its decisions? Let me
cite two specific cases.

In Tanada v. Angara [14], the Court deferred to the wisdom of the Senate when it upheld that
legislative body’s consent to the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization Agreement.
To demonstrate this deference more vividly, I would like to quote portions of the Decision which I
had the honor of writing, as follows:
“It is not impossible to surmise that this Court, or at least some of its members, may even agree with
petitioners that it is more advantageous to the national interest to strike down Senate Resolution No.
97 (which embodied the Upper House’s consent to the ratification of the WTO Treaty). But that is
not a legal reason to attribute grave abuse of discretion to the Senate and to nullify its decision. To do
so would constitute grave abuse in the exercise of our own judicial power and duty. Ineludably, what
the Senate did was a valid exercise of its authority. As to whether such exercise was wise, beneficial
or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. That is a matter between the elected
policy makers and the people. As to whether the nation should join the worldwide march toward
trade liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that our people should determine in
electing their policy makers. x x x.”

This laissez-faire judicial policy on economic issues was reiterated in La Bugal-B’laan Tribal
Association v. Ramos, [15] which affirmed the constitutionality of the Mining Law allowing 100-
percent foreign investments in large-scale mining. Thus, the Court held thus:
“x x x. The Constitution should be read in broad, life-giving strokes. It should not be used to
strangulate economic growth or to serve narrow, parochial interest. Rather, it should be construed to
grant the President and Congress sufficient discretion and reasonable leeway to enable them to
attract foreign investments and expertise, as well as to secure for our people and our posterity the
blessings of prosperity and peace.”
Let me just stress that my vision is not liberty or prosperity; it is liberty and prosperity. These twin
beacons of justice must go together; we cannot sacrifice one for the other; they may otherwise be
stated as freedom and food, democracy and development, ethics and economics, integrity and
investments.

To my mind, the peculiar facts and distinct circumstances of the Philippines make the formula
Liberty and Prosperity still the most viable economic and judicial philosophy here. After all, during
the years of Martial Law, authoritarian rule was proven to be incapable of producing meaningful
long-term economic progress. Even more important, our people value their freedoms very dearly and
will not exchange them for food, Indeed, the Filipinos may endure occasional hunger, but they will
never tolerate injustice and indignity for long.

Rule of Law

The third key phrase in my “Vision” is “rule of law.” The safeguarding of liberty and the nurturance
of prosperity must always be planned, worked on and carried out in accordance with, and within the
limitations contained in pre-agreed rules and procedures. Let me give some parallels in common
experiences.

Every sport has rules. When these rules are violated, a foul is called and, depending on the gravity of
the act, the offender is penalized. No team, no matter how talented or strong, can win without
following the rules. Thus, when a basketball player “forces” himself on the opposite team, a foul is
called and the basket made is not counted. The referees cannot award the trophy, until the game is
finished within the prescribed period. And after the regulation time, no basket may be counted.

In the same manner, no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law. In their impatience, some people resort to short cuts and immediately condemn an accused
because lengthy “procedures” should not stand in the way of “justice.” If the accused is obviously
guilty because his crime had been committed in the full view of cameras, why should the State waste
valuable time and resources in hearing and trying him? Just jail him, period. So they say.

There is an inherent danger in this argument. When people ignore the rule of law and belittle due
process, they really abet authoritarianism. What differentiates libertarianism from authoritarianism
or dictatorship is the rule of law. No person, no matter how powerful or talented, can be above the
law. Everyone, rich or poor, powerful or powerless, must follow pre-agreed rules.

The rule of law also differentiates democracy from the rule of the mob. The mere fact that the gallery
wants a team to win despite repeated violations of the rules will not entitle that team to the trophy.
The mere fact that, allegedly, six million people have lodged a petition [16] to initiate changes in our
Constitution in violation of the constitutional procedures governing amendments and revisions is of
no moment; it cannot be allowed. The rule of law will not tolerate short cuts and bully tactics. The
end never justifies the means.
In a speech before the Global Forum on Liberty and Prosperity held in Makati on October 18-20,
2006, Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin exclaimed that the “rule of law is the cornerstone
of all democratic societies… without the rule of law, government officials are not bound by standards
of conduct. Without the rule of law, the dignity and equality of all people is not affirmed and their
ability to seek redress for grievances and societal commitments is limited. Without the rule of law,
we have no means of ensuring meaningful participation by the people in formulating and enacting
the norms and standards which organize the kind of societies in which we want to live.”

Mission of the Judges

After that extended discussion of my vision, let me now explain my “mission”—how in general the
vision could be fulfilled. From Day One of my incumbency, I knew I could not accomplish my vision
single-handedly. I needed the help of my major constituencies—the 2,000 justices and trial judges,
the 26,000 judicial personnel (clerks of courts, sheriffs, stenographers, bailiffs, even the messengers
and the janitors), and the 40,000 lawyers all over the country.

Thus, to the judges, I addressed the first mission: embrace the judiciary’s CORE VALUES:
four Ins(independence, integrity, industry and intelligence); to the lawyers, I pleaded for EC (ethics
and competence) and from the employees, I asked for DHL (dedication, honesty and loyalty). And
from all of them, I appealed for reforms in the justice system, to fight the ACID problems that
corrode justice (access to justice by the poor, corruption, incompetence and delay in making quality
judgments).
A few words about my mission for the judges: the four Ins or CORE VALUES. The first In,
independence, is probably the most important attribute of a judge. Magistrates decide litigations
only on the basis of the rational relationship between the law and the facts, free from any extraneous
influence. They should not allow the “ships” that plague public service — kinship, relationship,
friendship and fellowship — to interfere in their work. They should resist influence, interference,
indifference and insolence from any source. A referee in a basketball game must not take sides; so
must a judge be fair and objective at all times.
Independence requires the men and women who wear the black robes to be free not only of mental
and emotional biases but also of emotional baggage brought about by a misplaced sense of gratitude
to the appointing authority (or to those who claim to have had a hand in their appointments.) Of
course, this is easy to say but sometimes difficult to implement. Pressures on judges come not just
directly, but many times indirectly from relatives, close friends, and even family physicians or
dentists.

The greatest threat to civil liberties emanate from the government, particularly from executive
officials. Ironically, the appointing authority of judges is the President who has control and
supervision over the entire Executive Department. And yet, judges are expected to be neutral in every
struggle between the government and the citizens. Worse, under my vision of safeguarding liberty,
laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to court with a heavy presumption against
their validity; and, thus, judges are called upon to scrutinize them strictly against the executive
official who issued, or who are enforcing them. And, to stress, when a court decides to uphold the
right of the citizen, that individual becomes a majority of one against an entire government voted to
office by a majority of our people.

Such is the awesome task of a judge: To apply the Constitution and the law objectively, and to do
justice “though the heavens may fall.”

Integrity, Not Mere Honesty

The second In, integrity, goes beyond mere honesty in dealing with fellow human beings; it is not a
mere refusal to tell a falsehood; it encompasses the moral courage to denounce a wrong and to
promote the truth.
I attended a Mass not too long ago presided by a well-known archbishop who delivered a stirring
homily. He said: “In the Old Testament, there are Ten Commandments, but in the New, our Lord
Jesus Christ reduced them to two: love thy God, and love thy neighbor. And how does one love thy
neighbor?”

Quoting Scriptures, Archbishop Oscar Cruz explained the obvious answer: we show love when we
feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the prisoners. But the sagacious prelate went beyond the
Gospel and asked: Shall we just feed the hungry, but not go after the greedy person who deprived
them of food? Shall we just provide clothing without chasing the robber who stole the clothes; shall
we just visit the prisoner without bringing to justice their rapacious prosecutors, biased witnesses
and corrupt judges?
Indeed, integrity, and love for that matter, cannot be a passive condoner of wrongdoings. Above all,
it should include the moral courage to pursue and punish the wrongdoers.

During the martial law years, the country was besieged by officials who arrogated absolute power to
themselves, plundered the treasury, and used their public offices to amass ill-gotten wealth. There
were, however, a handful who—even while serving under the authoritarian regime—kept themselves
personally pure, discharged their functions efficiently, and refused to join the corrupt in raiding the
public treasury. While these few good men and women can be described as honest public servants,
they did nothing to stamp out the evil around them, contented as they were with distancing
themselves from the evil conspiracy.

Towering above them were those who not only kept themselves clean and honest, but also worked
fervently and actively—at the risk of their own safety, earthly possessions and careers—to restore
freedom, to denounce the plunderers, and to make truth and justice prevail. More than being honest,
they were persons of moral courage; they were men and women of integrity.

By the same token, judges must not only be free of falsehoods; they must also have the moral courage
to rid society of those numbing falsehoods. By their actions and decisions, sometimes by their
stirring dissents, they reveal their character and herald the lacerating truth.

Integrity also includes intellectual decency and a deep sense of personal honor, which transcend a
desire for personal acclaim or recognition. Persons of true integrity perform their tasks faithfully,
regardless of whether their work is recognized by others, and whether it leads to their promotion.

Integrity likewise encompasses impartiality. Judges of integrity perform their duties without fear or
favor, bias or prejudice. They ensure that their conduct is above reproach. Propriety and the
appearance of propriety are essential to the proper performance of their duties. Thus is their
credibility maintained at all times. It goes without saying that they avoid, as far as possible, any
undue social contact and unnecessary fellowship with litigants and lawyers.

Industry and Intelligence

Industry, the third In of a good judge, demands a personal passion for work, not only during office
hours but also in the evenings and early mornings when—free from the hustle and bustle of office
and trial routines—judges find the solitude to wrestle with their conscience; to pray and to gather
courage to accord what is due every person, pursuant to the letter and the spirit of the law, regardless
of personal consequences.
The fourth In, intelligence, refers to both knowledge and wisdom. Judges must master the law. To
earn the respect of lawyers and litigants, they must be able to preside authoritatively over trials and
rule reasonably well on fine points of law and evidence brought before their courts.
For purposes of our present discussion, intelligence may be equated with excellence, which in turn
demands mastery of our chosen vocation and familiarity with all branches of knowledge. Simply put,
it means knowing everything about something and something about everything. As I always say, it is
not enough for judges to be walking databases of the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence; they
must also have a working knowledge of the arts, history, health, medicine, philosophy, mathematics,
physics, psychology, economics, computers and the latest biosciences and biotechnologies

The Mission of Lawyers

The “mission” I spelled out for lawyers is captured by the words “competence and ethics.” These go
together. Lawyers must not only be competent, they must also be ethical.

To be sure, attorneys-at-law have a great role in shaping public opinion. Not only do they raise the
people’s consciousness of burning issues, but also reflect the nation’s pulse. Members of the bar are
almost always consulted and their views obtained on almost any conceivable topic of importance—on
presidential issuances, legislative proposals and enactments, elections, and sometimes even fashion.

Sadly, however, some lawyers have forgotten the great burden that comes with their awesome
responsibility and authority. Some have become so adept at being technicians of the law they have
come to regard it as the end, rather than as a means to something much more important. Indeed,
many lawyers have had so much success in defending their client’s causes—right or wrong—that they
have lost sight of their first and foremost duty, which is to serve the ends of truth and justice. Worse,
some have jumbled up their hierarchy of responsibilities to put their interests first, those of their
clients second, and justice a far third.

In my books and addresses, I have always stressed that an ethical compass is required of lawyers.
Ethics in our profession cannot be overemphasized; attorneys are always expected to uphold fidelity
to truth and justice. Quality justice always begins with a high standard of ethics.

The Mission of Judicial Employees

The Chief Justice’s constituencies include not only the bench and the bar but also all employees of
the Judicial Department of the government. Thus, I had a mission for them too: DHL (dedication to
duty, honesty and loyalty). But the mission is not one way. I pledged to grant them maximum
financial benefits within my discretion to give. And indeed, I delivered on my vow by granting them
cash benefits of at least P10,000 per month over and above their usual salaries. The esprit d’corps
rose to an all time high and the employees reciprocated with unprecedented DHL.

This shows that leadership is also sharing and caring. More than just reciprocating, the judicial
employees found that their dedication, honesty and loyalty were recognized and rewarded. The
democratic leader is followed because he is credible and loved, not because he is feared and dreaded.

The ACID Problems

Thus far, I have discussed the specific “missions” of each of the three major components of the
Philippine judiciary. In addition to their specific goal, all three sectors were called to accomplish a
general goal, that is, to reform the justice system by eliminating, or at least minimizing, the
four ACID problems that corrode justice (limited access to the court system; corruption;
incompetence; and delay).

I will no longer explain in detail these ACID topics. Otherwise, I will take one more hour of your
time. However, for your workshop discussions, I have annexed to the hard copy of this speech,
Chapter 10 entitled “Addressing theACID Problems of the Philippine Judiciary” of my new book,
Liberty and Prosperity, published in October 2006. And those interested in more details can refer to
another book I wrote in 2005, Judicial Renaissance, in which these reforms are discussed at length.

During your group discussions, you may also want to craft your personal and/or common
(for AYLC 2007) vision-mission statement, and how you intend to accomplish it. That puts into
action what you learned in theory.

EPILOGUE

Let me end this address with a little story, a true story.

On his first day in office, the new chief executive of one of the top ten Philippine companies asked
how many cars were assigned to his office as president. He was stunned to learn that there were
more than five dozens. He retained only one and ordered the immediate sale of the remainder.
On his second day, an assistant visited his office with a big briefcase full of cash, which he was told
was his personal share of the commissions for advertising placed by his companies in several media
outlets. He ordered the assistant to hand them over officially to the company cashier, and to have
them deposited in the company’s bank account.

On his third day, he noticed that many of the executives under him arrived in their offices only about
10:00 a.m. Without commenting on the dismaying habits of his subordinates, he asked his secretary
to make arrangements so that he could be brought to the office by his driver at 8:00 a.m. daily.

In those first three days, without giving a pep talk and without criticizing anyone, the executive led
his subordinates and employees in practicing prudence in spending, integrity in money matters and
on-time office arrival. After a few years of leadership by example, the worth of the corporation
multiplied tenfold and its corporate ethics, a hundred fold.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are many ways to lead: by delivering boring lectures like this, by
sporting an iron fist to badger everyone on the way, by buying people’s loyalties and obeisance, and
by inheriting a throne and commanding reverence appropriate to the king.

It helps to be a great orator and a financial wizard. Patting backs and rewarding good work have their
uses. But leadership by example is the most credible way to lead.

Having a clear vision and mission is an essential beginning. Leading by example is the best, if not the
only, way to accomplish the vision and mission.

After 60 minutes of talking, I can now summarize in four words my short answer to AYLC’s crucial
question of how to lead during these challenging times: visionary leadership by example.

Maraming salamat po.

_______

Keynote address delivered by retired Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban on the opening day of the
9th National Ayala Young Leaders Congress (AYLC 2007) on February 7-9, 2007, at the San Miguel
Corporation Management Training Center, Alfonso, Cavite.

[1] See Starweek (the Sunday magazine of the Philippine Star) issue of January 21, 2007.

[2] “Mission

“Ayala Corporation, a holding company with a diverse business portfolio, has a legacy of pioneering
the future. Founded in 1834, it has achieved its position of leadership by being values driven, goals
oriented, and stakeholder focused. Anchored on values of integrity, long-term vision, empowering
leadership, and commitment to national development, we fulfill our mission to ensure long-term
profitability, increase shareholder value, provide career opportunities, and create synergies as we
build mutually beneficial partnerships and alliances with those who share our philosophy and values.
With entrepreneurial strength, we continue to create a future that nurtures to fruition our business
endeavors and personal aspirations.”
www.ayala.com.ph, last visited on Jan. 29, 2007.

[4] “Vision
“Our vision is to be a leading foundation committed to national development harnessing corporate
social responsibility towards:

– Developing social technologies providing better quality of life

– Facilitating access to knowledge and learning; and

– Instilling pride in being a Filipino”

www.ayalafoundation.com.ph, last visited on Jan. 29, 2007

[5] “OUR VISION

“To be the dominant, most respected and influential Philippine media organization for Filipinos here
and abroad.

“OUR MISSION

“We are a world-class processor of news and information, publishing the country’s newspaper of
record, informing and influencing our public, providing other excellent services and serving as a
catalyst for social progress – all within the framework of a liberal democracy.

“CORPORATE VALUES

“Excellence

“We uphold the highest standards in journalism and provide top-quality service to readers,
advertisers and clients. We perform our roles to the best of our abilities and continuously seek to
improve our expertise and skills. We strive to be reliable, accurate, efficient and effective in the
delivery of our services and management of our finances.

“Integrity

“We abide by the principles of honesty, fairness and incorruptibility in our journalistic, business and
interpersonal conduct. Through these, we establish our credibility and become worthy of the trust of
our stakeholders.

“Editorial Independence

“We maintain the freedom to take a position regardless of external and internal pressure, ensure that
we hear out all sides, decide responsibility without fear or favor, and respect independent thinking
and freedom to express views and opinions.

“Responsibility

“We work for the betterment of our nation and strive to preserve and conserve resources in all our
undertakings.

“Teamwork

“We respect and trust each member of the team and work harmoniously to achieve the organization’s
goals.

“Dynamism

“We continuously improve and respond to the changing needs of the environment, the market and
the organization. We adopt an open-minded, forward-looking and proactive stance in meeting the
challenges of the future.

“In upholding these values, we seek the guidance of Divine Providence to attain higher levels of
development.”
www.inquirer.com.ph, last visited on Jan. 29, 2007

[5] Senate v. Ermita, GR No. 169777, April 20, 2006. More accurately, the Court invalidated the
major provisions of Executive Order No. 464. In its simplest terms, the Decision held that Congress
had the right to compel the appearance of executive officials in congressional investigations, because
the power of legislative inquiry was as broad as the power to legislate. Hence, held to be
unconstitutional were the provisions of EO 464 that allowed the Executive Branch to evade
congressional requests for information without properly invoking executive privilege in recognized
instances. Nonetheless, the Court directed Congress to indicate, in its invitation to executive officials,
the subject matter of the inquiry and of related questions, so that the President or the Executive
Secretary could properly invoke executive privilege, if warranted.
To the extent that investigations in aid of legislation were to be generally conducted in public, the
Court held that “any executive issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of information in such
investigations necessarily deprives the people of information which, being presumed to be in aid of
legislation, is presumed to be a matter of public concern. The citizens are thereby denied access to
information which they can use in formulating their own opinions on the matter before Congress – –
opinions which they can communicate to their representatives and other government officials
through the various legal means allowed by their freedom of expression. x x x.”

[6] Bayan v. Ermita, GR No. 169838, April 25, 2006. This ponencia, penned by Justice Adolfo S.
Azcuna, stated thus:
“x x x[T]his Court reiterates its basic policy of upholding the fundamental rights of our people,
especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. In several policy addresses, Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban has repeatedly vowed to uphold the liberty of our people and to nurture their
prosperity. He said that ‘in cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against
the government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the
weak. Indeed, laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy
presumption against their validity. These laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny.”

[7] David v. Arroyo, GR No. 171396, May 3, 2006. Writing for the majority in this case, Justice
Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez ruled as follows:
“All powers need some restraint; practical adjustments rather than rigid formula are necessary.
Superior strength — the use of force — cannot make wrongs into rights. In this regard, the courts
should be vigilant in safeguarding the constitutional rights of the citizens, specially their liberty.

“Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban’s philosophy of liberty is thus most relevant. He said: ‘In cases
involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government and in favor of
the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak.’ Laws and actions that
restrict fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their constitutional
validity.”

[8] The following provisions of the Constitution, among others, mandate the State to promote
economic prosperity:

Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies)

“Sec. 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate
social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life
for all.

“Sec. 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to
foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation
and development.”
Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony)

“Sec.1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income,
and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the
benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all,
especially the underprivileged.

“The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural
development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and
natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the
State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.

“In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given
optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, shall be encouraged to
broaden the base of their ownership.”

“Sec. 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally
produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.”

“Sec. 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms
and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.”

[9] Art. XII, Sec.1.

[10] During his annual message to the US Congress on January 6, 1941, Roosevelt outlined, as his
vision for the world, four freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to
worship God, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

[11] Thus, Sec. 1 of Art. XIII of the Constitution expressly ordains as follows:

“The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the
right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic and political inequalities, and
remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.

“To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use an disposition of property and
its increments.”

[12] Art. XIII, Sec. 2

[13] In my recent book, Liberty and Prosperity, I explained the emerging role of private business
and the international developmental agencies in nurturing prosperity, alleviating poverty and
healing diseases.

[14] 338 Phil. 546, 604-605, May 2, 1997, per Panganiban, J. (now CJ).

[15] 445 SCRA 1, December 1, 2004, per Panganiban, J. (now CJ).

[16] In the famous 2006 initiative case, Lambino v. Comelec, GR No. 174153, October 25, 2006, I
wrote in my Separate Concurring Opinion, thus:
“At bottom, the issue in this case is simply the Rule of Law. Initiative, like referendum and recall, is a
treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system. It was born out of our world-admired and
often-imitated People Power, but its misuse and abuse must be resolutely rejected. Democracy must
be cherished, but mob rule vanquished.
“The Constitution is a sacred social compact, forged between the government and the people,
between each individual and the rest of the citizenry. Through it, the people have solemnly expressed
their will that all of them shall be governed by laws, and their rights limited by agreed-upon
covenants to promote the common good. It we are to uphold the Rule of Law and reject the rule of
the mob, we must faithfully abide by the processes the Constitution has ordained in order to bring
about a peaceful, just and human society. Assuming arguendo that six million people allegedly gave
their assent to the proposed changes in the Constitution, they are nevertheless still bound by the
social covenant — the present Constitution — which was ratified by a far greater majority almost
twenty years ago. I do not denigrate the majesty of the sovereign will; rather, I elevate our society to
the loftiest perch, because our government must remain as one of laws and not of men.”

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

← The Right Man for the Right Job

Safeguard Liberty, Conquer Poverty, Share Prosperity (Part Two – For the Legal Profession) →

FEBRUARY 23, 2014 · 5:29 PM

Safeguard Liberty, Conquer Poverty, Share

Prosperity (Part One – For the Alumni of
Mapa High)
Address delivered by retired Chief Justice ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN as guest speaker during the
Grand Alumni Homecoming of the Mapa High School held on February 23, 2014 at the Metro Tent,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City

I thank Congressman Benny M. Abante Jr. and Beth I. Ong, President and Secretary, respectively, of
the Mapa High School Alumni Association; Mr. Desidero Gurno, President of the VMapa
Foundation; and my batch mate Leonides S. Bernabe Sr., President of the Blue Falcon Association,
for inviting me as your “very special guest and speaker” during our Grand Alumni Homecoming
today. Their letter of invitation asked me to speak on how I became a “sterling example of what a
true-blue Mapan should be, one who is worthy of emulation and admiration not just by your past co-
alumni but by the present and future Mapans as well.”
I am deeply honored by their kind words and specific request, even as I feel unworthy of their high
esteem. Let me just say that I am what I am, in large part because of what I learned from Mapa High
School, from our strict but competent teachers and from my brilliant classmates. Of our gurus, I
fondly remember Mrs. Rocio Kapunan, our economics teacher who taught us how to save by
requiring us to open savings bank accounts, Ms. Leticia Ramirez, whose lessons in English grammar
I used when I wrote my decisions in the Supreme Court, Mrs. Magdalena Aytona, our always cheerful
social studies teacher, Ms Gloria Reyes, whose Tagalog lessons I still remember up to now, and many
others.

Mapa High of Old

During my stay at Mapa High from 1950 to 1954, there were only four major public high schools in
Manila, which were all named after four eminent deceased jurists; namely, Chief Justice Cayetano
Arellano in the north, Chief Justice Manuel Araullo in the south, Chief Justice Victorino Mapa in the
east and Associate Justice Florentino Torres in the west. Of the four, Mapa High was the largest, with
over 6,000 students. Our fourth year batch alone was composed of over 1,200 students.
Apart from its wooden three-story main building in Mendiola (which has now been replaced by a
concrete structure), Mapa High rented several annexes in many parts of Manila. I remember we went
to the Guipit Annex in G. Tuason Street, Sampaloc for our first year, to the R. Hidalgo Annex in
Quiapo (where we had to squat on the cement floor for lack of school desks) for our second year, and
to the main building for our third and fourth years.

Mapa High has distinguished alumni, many of them from the Supreme Court in fitting remembrance
of the hero after whom our alma mater was named, like, to name a few, Justices Jose A. R. Melo,
Efren Plana and Isagani Cruz. Of course, there are several more in other fields like Sen. Arturo
Tolentino, Sec. Salvador Enriquez, accounting legends Washington Sycip and Alfredo Velayo,
national artist Jose T. Joya, Dr.Yolando Sulit (a multi-awarded heart specialist), and yes, our
esteemed President, Dr. Benny Abante.

Most of the students of my time, and I suppose even now, came from very poor families. But through
education and hard work, we all overcame poverty and ushered in prosperity. Indeed, we all have the
common denominator of conquering poverty through education and hard work. Looking back, we all
defeated the curse of poverty and turned it into an opportunity; into our motivation to rise, and to
excel in our respective professions and undertakings. We all proved that poverty is not an excuse for
failure. Rather, it became our challenge for our success.

In my particular case, my family was so poor that I had to hawk newspapers, peddle cigarettes and
shine shoes to support my elementary and high school education. I started hawking newspapers
when I was eight years old and had to sleep on the cold sidewalks of Sampaloc, waiting for my ration
of newspapers to sell. I shed many a tear in self pity thinking about other kids cuddling their soft
pillows and sleeping in their warm beds. I promised myself an impossible dream: I would work hard
so one day I would be president of the Manila Times, the largest-circulated newspaper at that time.
In college, I had to sell textbooks to my classmates, and bibles to my professors.

Youthful Aspirations

Many of my classmates and I wanted to study at the University of the Philippines. Once in a while,
we would go to the UP Campus in Diliman, and before the Oblation, we would promise one another
that we would study diligently to earn scholarships at UP.

True enough, my friends and I got our cherished UP scholarships but unlike them, I was not able to
study at UP because my impoverished parents could not afford the then 15-centavo bus fare from our
small rented apartment in Cataluna Street in Sampaloc to the UP Campus in Diliman, Quezon City.
They encouraged me to enrol at nearby Far Eastern University, which also granted me a scholarship.

I also tried to enrol at the University of Santo Tomas, which was also near our home, but I was not
awarded a scholarship because I failed to answer the last of three simple questions of an old
Dominican priest: First, he asked, “How many Gods are there?” to which I correctly answered “One”;
second, he continued, “How many persons are there in one God?” to which I again correctly replied
“three;” and third, he asked the tough question, “Name them” to which I sheepishly answered,
“Susmaryosep! Jesus, Maria at Joseph.” Yes, I miserably failed the test because, to be brutally frank,
I was a religious ignoramus.

After several years of persevering study, my Mapa High mates – some of whom are here – finished
their studies at UP and distinguished themselves in their respective professions, like Dr. Cornelio
Banaag Jr (a world famous psychiatrist), Dr. Reginaldo Picache (an accomplished surgeon in the US,
who performed the first kidney transplant in our country three decades ago), Engineer Filemon
Berba Jr. (who headed some of the biggest companies here), Banker Angelo Manahan, and his
brother Architect Geronimo Manahan (past dean of the UP College of Architecture), and of course,
my esteemed companero, Leonides Bernabe Sr.
Like Jun Berba, I wanted to be an engineer. In fact, in our Mapa High yearbook, I memorialized my
“ambition: to be a chemical engineer.” But my strict father ordered me to take up law, saying
“Napaka-pilosopo mo, kaya mag-abogado ka.” He himself finished only high school and never reach
college. Being the eldest in his orphaned family, he had to work double time at two jobs at an early
age to support his seven siblings and four children. Since I was his youngest child in a brood of four,
he probably felt that I was his last chance to fulfil his frustrated ambition to be a lawyer.

I was, of course, doubly disgruntled. I was not able to enrol at UP, and I was not able to study
chemical engineering. But taking up law at FEU turned out to be one of the best turns of my life,
because I met there the brilliant law Dean Jovito R. Salonga who taught me his insights from the
three schools he studied in, namely, UP for his basic law degree, Harvard for his master’s degree and
Yale for his doctoral degree. I will always remember his basic advice: “Artemio, I know you have
many extra-curricular activities, but your first duty is to be excellent in your academic studies.”

At FEU, I also encountered the culture icon Alejandro R. Roces who, at 37, later became the youngest
secretary of education; and, the dignified FEU President Teodoro Evangelista who both encouraged
my student leadership activities. I was the first sophomore student to win the presidency of the FEU
Central Student Organization, and later to organize and head the National Union of Students, the
largest student association in the Philippines.

Professional and Business Pursuits

After graduating cum laude from law school and after coping 6th place in the 1960 bar examination,
I was – at the recommendation of Dr. Salonga – granted a scholarship at Yale. But I could not enjoy
it because I was denied a travel grant by the US Embassy. Instead of graduate studies, I immediately
took on three jobs: as an assistant in the law firm of Dr. Salonga, as legal counsel and consultant of
Education Secretary Roces and as a professor at FEU. After three years, I formed my own law office.
I also dabbled in business. I organized Baron Travel Corporation which enabled all our five children
to travel to the United States and finish their graduate degrees in pedigreed universities, like
Harvard, Stanford, University of California, University of Chicago and University of Michigan.

In 1985, I was elected in Rome, Italy as the first Asian and the only Filipino to be international
chairman of the American Society of Travel Agents, the largest travel organization in the world. And
in 1991, prior my stint in the judiciary, I became part-time president of the Philippine Daily Inquirer,
the largest-circulated daily in our country, a fulfilment of my boyhood impossible dream.

I also intensified my study of my Catholic faith, took special tutoring from knowledgeable
theologians like Monsignor Gerardo Santos, participated in Catholic charismatic seminars, and read
over 100 books on religion. Fortunately, my strengthened faith was recognized by the Church. I was
invited to be one among the few lay persons to join the Catholic bishops during the Second Plenary
Council of the Philippines in 1991. This Council, popularly known as PCP II, met daily for over a
month to implement in the Philippines the reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council or
Vatican II. Later, I was named by Pope John Paul II as the only Filipino member of the Pontifical
Council for the Laity based in Rome for the 1996-2001 term.

Journey to the Supreme Court

Like my entry to the law profession, I did not plan my journey to the Supreme Court. On June 17,
1992, then President-elect Fidel V. Ramos called me to his private office at Pasay Road in Makati and
offered me to be his Secretary of Justice.
I was surprised at his unexpected offer, but I respectfully declined, saying “Thank you Mr. President
but I am not worthy to join your Cabinet because I did not campaign for you during the last elections.
I believe you should have only people of the same political persuasion in your official family. Besides,
my dear wife is averse to any political office. She told me I could be anything except a politician.”

However, Ramos was insistent, explaining “I know you did not campaign for me. In fact, you did not
even vote for me. You voted for your mentor, Jovy Salonga! But that is alright. I want to have a non-
partisan Cabinet, to include even those who do not belong to my political camp.” He gave me two
weeks to think about it.

After two weeks, he called me again. After I respectfully advised him of my wife’s adamant position,
he finally said, “Ah, sa Supreme Court ka na lang.” I joyfully replied, “Mr. President, huwag po sana
ninyong i-lalang ang Supreme Court. Okay po yan, independent at hindi political.” To cut the long
story short, I was appointed a member of the highest court of the land by a President whom I thought
was the last person to do that, he being on the opposite political camp of my defeated presidential
candidate.

After I had served for 10 years as an associate justice, then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. retired.
Without much ado, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo named me the 21st Chief Justice of the
Philippines without having spoken with me about it prior my appointment. I hope she did not regret
having appointed me because the Panganiban Court was truly independent. In the big cases, we
ruled more times against President Arroyo than in her favor.

For example, we invalidated the People’s Initiative in 2006, which would have changed our
presidential form of government to the parliamentary system. Had the Charter change or Cha-cha
been victorious and parliamentary system successfully installed, President Arroyo would have
become Prime Minister, and could possibly have headed the Philippine government for an indefinite
period of time, even up to the present, because re-election for any number of terms was not
prohibited under the parliamentary system.

As a member of our highest court especially as chief justice, I tried my best to promote and
implement my legal philosophy of “Liberty and Prosperity Under the Rule of Law.” In its most
abbreviated sense, this means that our judiciary should not only safeguard the political and civil
liberty of our people, like the freedom of expression, freedom of suffrage, the right to due process
and the right to be presumed innocent till proven guilty. Equally important, the judiciary must also
nurture the prosperity of our people, and secure them from illness, poverty and disease. To me,
justice and jobs; freedom and food; ethics and economics; democracy and development; liberty and
prosperity must always go together; one is useless without the other.

My Post Retirement Activities

After my retirement from the judiciary in December 2006, I changed tires and embarked on a new
journey in the business community where I was elected independent member or adviser of the
boards of directors of some of the largest and most prestigious corporations listed in the Philippine
stock market. I enjoy my work because it requires independence, integrity, competence and probity,
values I was used to in the judiciary. As an independent director, I do not represent any shareholder
or private interest. Essentially, my work is to see to it that the companies I sit in observe faithfully
the Securities Regulation Code and their Manuals of Good Corporate Governance.

After my retirement also, Inquirer Chair Marixi R.Prieto invited me to write for her paper. My guru,
Dr. Salonga, tried to discourage me, saying, “I do not know of any retired chief justice who became a
columnist. Chief justices do not write history; they make history.” However, I thought that column
writing would force my mind to be agile and enable me to share my humble views on current public
issues.
At this point in my life, I have also decided not to practice law. After I joined the Court, my partners
and I dissolved our law office to pre-empt any accusation of insider lobbying by a favored firm.
Neither have I accepted any regular teaching job or offers to rejoin government.

Giving Back to Society

My fellow Mapans, I do hope I have complied with your letter of invitation. But I cannot yet end
because the letter of invitation also asked me to speak about how the present and future alumni of
Mapa High can also serve our country; how we can all give back to society in our respective stations
in life.

Well, my advice would still be consistent with my legal philosophy of “Liberty and Prosperity Under
the Rule of Law,” with a more comprehensive scope, in the sense that all of us who succeeded
through education and hard work, can help others, especially the poor and the underprivileged, by
safeguarding liberty, conquering poverty and sharing prosperity.

By prosperity, I refer not just to money and material possessions. Rather, I refer to three “Ts:” time,
talent and treasure. The sharing of time and talent is just as important as the sharing of treasure or
money. Certainly, all of us have one or more of these three Ts of prosperity. Truly, “no one is so poor,
he cannot share something; and no one is so rich, he does not need anything.” Even the rich and the
powerful need medical and legal help, as well as the love, affection and care of real friends and
relations.

To safeguard liberty, we need not be lawyers, we can be writers and artists, and by our work, protect
liberty. When physicians, dentists and nurses go on medical missions, and when engineers and
artisans volunteer their services to build homes for the victims of typhoon Yolanda, they share their
time and talent. So do plain citizens when they peacefully rally to redress grievances, or simply use
the various social media, like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, to develop the social conscience. Yes,
through social media, you can pass on and forward interesting articles and readings to others.

At this point, you might say, it is easy to preach. But are you, Chief Justice Panganiban, practising
what you preach? How are you sharing your three Ts of prosperity? Are you leading by example? Or
are you all talk and no walk? Well, modesty aside, let me answer that critical question.

First, I give back my time and talent by actively participating in selected foundations. Let me give
three examples: (1) I am chairman of the Board of Advisers of Metrobank Foundation, which
searches for and rewards excellence, and assists “the least, the lost and the last,” thereby enabling me
to give back for the blessings I received as an impoverished newsboy, bootblack and cigarette
peddler. (2) I am President of the Manila Cathedral Foundation which raises P200 million for, and
oversees the reconstruction and retrofitting of the Manila Cathedral, thereby empowering me to
reciprocate the bounties of our God; and (3) I am chair of the board of trustees of the Foundation for
Liberty and Prosperity which, among other projects, created and administers 10 professorial chairs
in 10 law schools, thereby allowing me to continue spreading my legal philosophy of “Liberty and
Prosperity Under the Rule of Law” in my private capacity.

I would have preferred not to speak of sharing my treasure to charitable causes for these should
really remain anonymous, but to answer the issue of leadership by example, I will just mention two
items which are already of public knowledge. To celebrate my 75th birthday two years ago, I
contributed half of my retirement pay from the Supreme Court to the Foundation for Liberty and
Prosperity, and my one-year income as a columnist to the Inquirer Foundation for Newsboys. And
today, may I contribute, starting next school year, eight subsistence scholarships for poor but
deserving Mapans.

To God Be the Glory

After that rather long answer to your letter of invitation, let me finally conclude. When I was new in
the Supreme Court in 1995, I composed a prayer that I would like to recite here, as follows:

“The Lord is my Shepherd. There is nothing I shall want. He has given me more than I deserve — a
happy home, a healthy body, accomplished children over whom I no longer worry, a stable career,
a chance to serve our people, an opportunity to be remembered longer than my own life. Other
than fulfilling my role in the Court, I have no more earth-bound ambition. I live my life with only
one consuming passion: on that inevitable day when I will finally knock at the pearly gates, my
Lord and Master will open the door, spread his arms and say: ‘Well done on your earthly sojourn.
You have passed the test. Welcome home to my everlasting Kingdom!’

From the time I composed that prayer in 1995 up to the present, I look back poignantly at my
trials and triumphs, victories and defeats, frustrations and exaltations; and, in all of them, I always
find my faithful God.

Indeed, I have journeyed from being a poor newsboy in the backstreets of Sampaloc to being
president of the most widely-read newspaper in our country; from an ignorant Catholic to being a
member of the highest lay council of the Catholic Church in the Vatican; from a frustrated applicant
for graduate studies to being father of five wonderful children who each achieved my impossible
dream of graduating from a pedigreed US university; from a fumbling shoeshine boy to the board
rooms of the best corporate giants in our country; from an aspiring chemical engineer to a reluctant
lawyer and, finally, to the highest judicial position in our country.

As I contemplate my life and move toward its sunset, I know that God has woven my many pains and
gains into a magnificent tapestry showing His mystical presence. Truly, there is one constancy in my
life: the presence, care and providence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him I dedicate all I
was, all I am, and all I will ever be. To God Be the Glory. Amen.

Thank you very much.

Xxxxxxxxxxxx

← Safeguard Liberty, Conquer Poverty, Share Prosperity (Part One – For the Alumni of Mapa High)
The Manila Cathedral-Basilica Reopens →

MARCH 26, 2014 · 7:00 AM

Safeguard Liberty, Conquer Poverty, Share

Prosperity (Part Two – For the
Legal Profession)
* Address delivered by retired Chief Justice ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN during the monthly
Luncheon Fellowship of the Philippine Bar Association held at the Tower Club, Makati City on
March 26, 2014.

I thank your amiable President, Beda G. Fajardo, for inviting me as your Guest Speaker during
today’s Luncheon Fellowship of the Philippine Bar Association. I am fortunate to enjoy a most
pleasant and friendly relations with him, especially at the Asean Law Association and at the
Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc., where I am Chairman-emeritus and he, a member of the
board of trustees and a much-sought-after professional arbitrator and mediator.[1]

Despite my non-membership in the PBA, I thank your distinguished organization for conferring on
me, though thoroughly unworthy, an “Award of Honor” on the occasion of PBA’s 116th Foundation
Day Celebration on April 26, 2007 after I had retired from the Supreme Court. I am truly grateful
and humbled for being cited by the oldest and most prestigious voluntary bar association in our
country as “a principled and visionary leader by example; a prolific writer of the Supreme Court, bar
none; a renaissance man and a nobly-souled and gifted jurist; a much sought-after speaker; a
recipient of over 250 awards and citations from national and international entities and
organizations, including several honorary doctoral degrees; an eminent lawyer, law professor,
Catholic lay worker, civic leader and businessman; a scholar imbued with mental dexterity; and, an
exemplary family man.”

Yes, I have already long retired from active public life. Thus, I generally decline speaking
engagements, media interviews and similar public exposures, (save for my Sunday columns in the
Inquirer) but I made an exception today due to my gratitude to your association for bestowing on me
the “Award of Honor.” I also thought this meeting would give me the opportunity to meet with the
younger generation populating our noble calling, and exchange ideas on the present realities and
future prospects of our profession.

Rapidly Changing World

Indeed, since I started practicing law in 1960, the world has rapidly changed. Take communications
for example. In the 1960s, I was amazed at how conversations could be transmitted over land lines,
and how black and white moving pictures could be received over long distances on television tubes.
Then came colored and digital TV, telex, fax machines, cell phones, SMS, personal computers,
Internet and email. Now with Magic Jack and Viber, people can talk with friends in the United States
without any charge, and with Skype, can even watch each other live. With social media, like
Facebook, Twitter, Linked-In and Foursquare, people can easily communicate with anyone,
anywhere in the world. And with sniping, like CCTVs, YouTube, GPS, drones and robots, there are no
more secrets. Soon, newspapers, land lines, movie houses, the post office and even our
constitutionally-protected privacy will disappear.

From the revolutions in communications, let’s move to medicine. In the old days, physicians (and
earlier, quacks and witches) were called to heal diseases; then, the medical profession veered to
preventing illnesses through isolation and vaccinations, and later, it brought well-being to the
healthy and good-looks to the wealthy. Now, with the new biotechnologies and stem cell research,
physicians promote longevity — longer, healthier and happier lives. Even eternity is now spoken
about because new sciences can regenerate worn or destroyed human tissues and organs. It is
theoretically possible to grow and preserve an individual’s limbs, kidney, liver and heart – just about
any organ or tissue – in laboratories, ready for use as “spare-parts” in case of illness, injury or
disfigurement. [2]
Evolution of Our Political System
Of course, we should never forget the evolution of our political, constitutional and legal systems,
specially as it impacts on our profession of law. As all of us know, we inherited much of our present
system of government and its underlying constitutional framework from the Americans. Uncle Sam
conquered not only our national territory but also our minds and hearts as it introduced here, its
system of free education, free enterprise and free government; in short, liberal democracy.
The Americans built the foundations of their nation amid their struggle for political independence
and against tyranny, monarchy and colonialism. They enshrined in their Bills of Rights, the
liberating influences of the French Revolution and the English Magna Charta. These American
revolutionary ideals are rhapsodized in Patrick Henry’s hypnotic oration, “Give me liberty or give me
death.”

And so it is with our people. We fought four centuries of Spanish colonization, 50 years of American
occupation, and decades of malgovernance, corruption and economic sabotage of our own Filipino
leaders. That is why our basic laws are replete with fundamental rights to guarantee the political
aspirations of our people. Our 1987 Constitution went beyond the US Constitution by expressly
including in its Bill of Rights judicially-invented doctrines like the Miranda rights of the accused and
the right to privacy of communications. In singing hosannas to protect human rights, our courts
liberally copy American jurisprudence.

Very recently, our Supreme Court – in Jesus Disini Jr. vs Secretary of Justice (Feb. 18, 2014) –
showed its versatility in using traditional doctrines to safeguard the freedom of expression when it
struck down several provisions of the Cybercrimes Prevention Law. The ponencia of Justice Roberto
A. Abad as well as the concurring and dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A.
Sereno, Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Arturo D. Brion and Marvic Mario Victor. F Leonen are
sumptuous feasts for constitutional law scholars.

Upholding Economic Rights

How I wish the same vigor and vitality in promoting our political rights would be shown by our
judiciary and our legal profession to uphold our economic rights, so we can conquer poverty and
usher in prosperity. And rightly so, because our 1987 Constitution mandated the promotion of
economic prosperity in two sections (9 and 17) of its Declaration of Principles and State Policies and
in the Bill of Rights, and dedicated a full article (Article XII) on the National Economy and
Patrimony.

May I, however, point out that our Constitution was promulgated in 1987, at a time when the
prevailing economic mantra was the protection of Filipino enterprises and services, summed up in
the nationalistic slogan, “Filipino First.” Thus, many industries, businesses, services and professions
were reserved completely or partially for Filipino citizens. Our laws, including our tariffs, taxes, and
quota systems, barred the entry of foreign wares and services, and promoted Filipino enterprises and
products to a point where our people were urged to patronize them even if they were inferior in
quality and higher in prices than similar foreign products and services.

At that time also, the government was deeply entrenched in business. It owned and operated
corporations that produced basic necessities like steel. water, electricity, telephone service,
petroleum, coconut products, sugar mills, etc. The result, as we all know now, was a disaster for the
economy: not only were the government firms grossly inefficient; they also lost heavily and became a
monstrous burden that increased our foreign indebtedness. The National Power Corporation alone
lost almost a trillion pesos and yet failed to produce enough electricity resulting in rotating
countrywide black outs in the early 1990’s.
The nationalistic fervor was used (some say “misused’) when the Supreme Court, in Manila Prince
vs. GSIS (Feb. 3, 1997), voided a public auction already won by a foreign company, on the ground
that purportedly, the subject of the bidding, the Manila Hotel, constituted a part of the “national
patrimony,” and should thus be awarded to a losing Filipino company that matched the price of the
winning foreign bidder, pursuant to Section 10 of Article XII of the Constitution that states: “In the
grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.” For the record, I was one of the dissenters in that
decision.

Abandoning self-centeredness
To repeat, soon after our new Constitution was ratified in 1987, the world changed and the
protectionist theories of economic development were abandoned in most parts of the world. And the
era of liberalization, globalization, deregulation and privatization bloomed when the World Trade
Organization (WTO) was born on January 1, 1995.[3]

The Philippine adherence to the WHO was challenged in the Supreme Court in Tanada vs. Angara
(May 2, 1997), on the ground that the WTO Treaty allegedly violated the “flagship provisions” of the
Constitution mandating economic nationalism. This novel case was assigned to me for study in 1995
when I entered the Supreme Court.

In upholding the WTO Treaty, my unanimously-concurred ponencia argued: “While the Constitution
mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, it recognizes the need for
business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity, and limits
protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are
unfair. In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut
out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the
Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into
the country, it does not prohibit them either. It fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality
and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.”

May I emphasize that in embracing globalization and the WTO, our country was in fact pursuing its
national interest. We recognized the stark reality that the world has become a global village where no
country can progress in isolation. Even socialist countries like Russia and China have joined WTO.
Only hermit kingdoms and totalitarian regimes like North Korea have not entered WTO. As a
consequence, their economy stagnated in self-damning isolation. To build our nation, we must
indeed look at the lessons of the past, but more importantly, we must live with the realities of the
present as we plan for a better future.

I took the occasion in Tanada to proclaim my core legal philosophy of “Liberty and Prosperity Under
the Rule of Law.” I believe that in litigations involving civil liberties, the scales of justice should
weigh heavily against the government and in favor of the people, pursuant to the doctrine of strict
scrutiny. But in matters affecting the economy and the prosperity of our people, courts – in the
absence of grave abuse of discretion – must defer to the Executive and Legislative Branches of
government, in accordance with the principle of deferential interpretation of laws and executive
issuances. The responsibility for promoting and developing the country’s economy rests primarily on
its political leaders. Should they fail in this duty, our people can replace them during periodic
elections.

I also believe in private enterprise as the engine of economic growth. Thus, government must
promote entrepreneurship and encourage private capital. At the same time, the government has the
duty of overseeing the fair and equitable distribution of private wealth to all our people, especially
the poor and marginalized. The government, likewise, has the responsibility of enlarging the areas of
economic growth to future generations of Filipinos. Thus, the economic pie must not only be fairly
divided, it must also be enlarged so that more benefits could be spread to more people under the
social justice principle of giving more law to those who have less in life.

Pursuant to the doctrine of deferential interpretation on economic matters, the Tanada decision
ruled, “Ineludibly, what the Senate did was a valid exercise of its authority. As to whether such
exercise was wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. That is a
matter between the elected policy makers and the people. As to whether the nation should join the
worldwide march toward trade liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that our people
should determine when electing their policy makers.”

Indeed, when it wants to, our Supreme Court is able to transcend obsolete economic barriers by
progressively citing countervailing constitutional provisions as it did in Tanada, or by thinking more
creatively, as it did more recently in Initiatives for Dialogue vs PSALM (Oct. 9, 2012 per Justice
Martin S. Villarama Jr.), which ruled that water flowing in a river is a natural resource reserved for
Filipinos. However, once “appropriated” by a qualified local company and “collected in a dam,” it
becomes private in character and may thereafter be used by a Korean firm to generate electricity.[4]
Because of the need to attract investors, there have been proposals to amend the Constitution. While
Charter Change would be the more definitive and permanent solution, in the meantime, a more
progressive and creative interpretation would do.

Two Ways of Interpreting the Constitution

Before leaving the subject, let me just say that there are at least two ways of interpreting or
construing constitutions and laws. The textualists or originalists interpret according to the original
intent of the framers, regardless of the dire consequences on current and future events. They rely on
“dura lex sed lex.” Their self-imposed duty is “to apply laws faithfully and desist from engaging in
socio-economic or political experimentations,” which they denounce as “judicial legislation.”

On the other hand, the liberals or progressives believe in a living Constitution; one that grows with
time, solves the vagaries of the present and anticipates the needs of the future. I belong to this latter
group who believe that jurists are not mere social technicians and legal automatons. Rather, they are
social engineers who courageously fix their gaze on the underlying principles and overarching
aspirations of the Constitution to nurture a free and prosperous nation.

The United States Supreme Court has been struggling for a long time on these differing schools of
constitutional construction. During my term as Chief Justice, I visited US Justice Antonin Scalia,
said to be the leader of the originalists in the US Court. I was inviting him to speak before the Global
Forum on Liberty and Prosperity that our Supreme Court was sponsoring on October 18-20, 2006
just prior my retirement.
He smiled and said, “Mr. Chief Justice, you do not really want me there. I would be useless in the
Forum because I do not believe in international law. When I joined the US Supreme Court, I swore to
defend the US Constitution and nothing else. And I interpret it according to the original intent of our
framers, which did not include international law. Please see my friend, Justice Anthony Kennedy. I
am sure he will welcome an opportunity to expound on his international philosophies and ideas.”

True enough, when I saw Justice Kennedy later, he agreed to speak at our Global Forum even if via
teleconferencing only, because he had already committed to be in another venue on those dates.

Globalizing the Legal Profession

The irreversible march toward globalization and deregulation encompass not only the economy, but
also the professions. Section 14 of Article XII of the Constitution restricts “the practice of all
professions” to “Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law.” All professions, except the noblest
profession of law, are encompassed by congressional imprimatur. The Constitution (Section 5(5) of
Article VIII) grants the Supreme Court the power to “promulgate rules concerning… admission to the
practice of law…” In turn, the Court promulgated Rule 138 of the Rules of Court limiting admission
to the bar to Filipino citizens who must also be Philippine residents. This rule had not been amended
since it was originally issued more than half a century ago. Despite the fact that many Filipino
lawyers have been allowed to practice in many states in the United States and in other countries (like
PBA President Beda Fajardo who is a member of the New York bar and of the American Bar
Association), this rule has not been changed — only Filipinos who are Philippine residents may
practice law in the Philippines.

I think the Philippine Bar Association, reputed to be the home of the most brilliant lawyers of our
country, should review this matter and work for the updating of Rule 138. There are many Philippine
conglomerates that are now operating abroad. San Miguel and Philippine Airlines have long been
world-class brands. But since globalization dawned in the 1990’s, many more Philippine companies
have expanded overseas, like SM Investments, Robinsons Land, Metrobank, LT Group and
Liwayway Marketing (makers of Oishi snacks) in China, Ayala in Vietnam and Myanmar, Petron in
Malaysia, Meralco in Singapore and Nigeria, Metro Pacific in Indonesia and Thailand, Energy
Development Corp. in Chile and Ecuador, and Jollibee, Cebu Pacific Air, and International Container
Terminal Services (or ICTSI) all over the world. These conglomerates need Filipino lawyers to
practice in these foreign lands to assure them that the contracts they enter into and the businesses
they operate, conform to Philippine laws, in the same manner that multinationals operating here
want their foreign lawyers to check whether their contracts and operations here conform to the laws
of the countries they come from or operate in.

As one of the 10 holders of the Chief Justice Panganiban Professorial Chairs on Liberty and
Prosperity, Dean Andres D. Bautista, in a lecture on February 7, 2014, gave two real life situations
showing the need to update this Rule. Let me just quote one of them. “A Hong Kong-based energy
developer, Hopewell Holdings is building a $1.2 billion power plant in Sual, Pangasinan. Financing
for the project will be provided by a consortium of export credit agencies such as the International
Finance Corp., Japan Export-Import Bank and other international banks. The loan documents will
be governed by New York laws. So, the HK developer engages the services of an international law
firm, Clifford Chance with offices in New York and Hong Kong whose lawyers regularly travel to
Manila to negotiate the loan and security contracts.” Question: Are these “fly-in, fly-out” lawyers
practicing our profession in our country, given the expansive definition by Cayetano vs Monsod
(Sept. 13, 1991) that practice of law is “any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application
of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience?”

The Association of South East Asian Nations or ASEAN, of which the Philippines is a member,
envisions an integration in 2015. Its vision is a single market where goods, investments, capital,
skilled labor and services freely flow. We should help prepare the legal profession for this
eventuality. Let us remember that the number one export of our country are people. Our over 10
million OFWs brought in $26 billion last year and our over 1 million Business Process Outsourcing
Workers remitted US$16 billion also last year.

In short, I believe foreign lawyers should be allowed to practice here, but not about Philippine law,
which they probably do not know, but about foreign law where their foreign clients originate or
operate in, provided there is reciprocity, that is, Filipino lawyers are given the same privilege to
practice in the home states of their foreign lawyers.[5]

Need for Ethics

One final note. When I was still sitting in the Supreme Court, I made plain my vision-mission, which
in part I quote: “I look for competent and ethical lawyers who are responsible, dependable and
morally upright; and who courageously uphold truth and justice above everything else.” Having
retired from the judiciary, I can no longer sanction those who violate these simple values. However,
when these simple traits are ignored, our people lose faith in the nobility of our profession and in the
efficacy of the rule of law.

Some shyster-lawyers defend the indefensible by deliberately delaying cases in the hope that the
witnesses against their clients may forget the facts, or get tired, or die; or that presiding judges may
retire, or get promoted thereby passing the cases to new magistrates who had no opportunity to
observe the witnesses on the stand; or that the victims or their families would soon lose interest and
give up the legal fight.

On the other hand, those involved in the prosecution of criminals are at times tempted to skew cases,
not only by the blatant acceptance of bribes but by subtler methods, like the preparation of defective
informations, intentional omission of vital evidence, fraudulent loss of documents, and frequent
absences during trials. Worse it is when they file patently baseless criminal charges. While the
accused may find solace in their eventual acquittal, they have to undergo needless harassment in
terms of humiliation at being arrested, as well as the expenses, anxiety, sleeplessness and loss of time
defending themselves unnecessarily. Filing baseless charges, whether for money or malice or
otherwise, is not only unethical. It is brazenly criminal.

These malfeasances and malevolencies may provide temporary gratification and money for the
greedy, but I assure you, in the long term, they are self-defeating for soon enough the shysters and
the corrupt are exposed and get caught. But whether they get caught or not, they surely do a
disservice to our noble calling and mock our sworn duty to uphold justice. Worse, they betray our
people and tempt them to look for harsher alternatives to vindicate their quest for justice via the
ways of the jungle and the gun.

I end this speech with my hope that the PBA, as the home of the more enlightened and well-to-do
lawyers of our country, will heed my call: first, for a rededication to competent and ethical practice;
second, for a fresh look into the globalization of political and economic rights: and finally and
consequently, for the legal profession not only to safeguard the liberty of our people, but also to help
them conquer their poverty and nurture their prosperity. Yes, justice and jobs; freedom and food;
ethics and economics; democracy and development; liberty and prosperity must always go together.
One is useless without the other.

Maraming salamat po.

[1] Arbitration is the only dispute resolution method where parties may choose their own judges.
Arbitral decisions are final and unappealable to our judiciary, not even to the Supreme Court, except
by the extra-ordinary remedy of certiorari based on grave abuse of discretion.

[2]Let’s also look at business, a subject close to the corporate legal practitioners. In the 19th century,
most enterprises were conducted by single proprietorships. Then came partnerships. And as
businesses grew more complex, came giant corporations run by professional executives to conduct
the business of the moneyed who enjoy the blessings of life, just waiting for dividends and for growth
in the market price of their shares of stock. With more complicated and inter-related undertakings,
conglomerates were born.

And with globalization, deregulation and privatization, came multinationals spanning the world. At
times, conglomerates and multinationals become more powerful than governments. The collapse of
Lehman Brothers triggered the financial crisis of 2008, which almost brought the United States,
most powerful economy in the world, to its knees and the near-collapse of Ireland, Greece and other
countries. It is said that the Philippines is fortunate not to be adversely affected by this financial
crisis because our economic ship was still tied up at the piers when the financial storm hit the high
seas of international commerce and industry.

I can give a myriad of other branches of knowledge that have evolved and transformed over the
years, including astronomy (with the use of the giant space Hubble telescope), physics (with the
discovery of Higgs boson or god-particle), politics, nuclear warfare, engineering, accounting, energy,
transportation, banking, just about any human endeavor, including the conquest of time and space.
They have all drastically evolved during the last three decades.

[3] The WTO ushered, to quote the Supreme Court in Tanada vs Angara (May 2, 1997), “a new
borderless world of business by sweeping away as mere historical relics the heretofore traditional
modes of promoting and protecting national economies like tariffs, export subsidies, import quotas,
quantitative restrictions, tax exemptions and currency controls. Finding market niches and
becoming the best in specific industries in a market-driven and export-oriented global scenario
(replaced) age-old ‘beggar-thy-neighbor’ policies that unilaterally protected weak and inefficient
domestic producers of goods and services.”

[4] However, there are instances too when the Supreme Court refused to be creative and became
restrictive in interpreting the economic provisions of the Constitution. One recent example is
Gamboa vs Teves (June 28, 2011 per Justice Antonio T. Carpio), which held that the 40 percent
constitutional limitation on foreign ownership in public utilities, like telephones, should be
computed only on the “shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors… not to the to the
total outstanding capital stock,” which may include non-voting shares.
In several speeches, I have discussed this controversial decision, but for today, let me just say that
when this nationalistic provision was included in the 1935 Constitution and until now under the
present Constitution, the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission have
interpreted the constitutional provision to refer to the entire capital stock, not just to the voting
shares.

On this basis, many foreign investors have brought their capital here. I think it would not be fair to
penalize them or to deprive them of their investments now under the new Supreme Court ruling.
They have relied in good faith on the representation of our government that they were not violating
the Constitution in making their investments. To be fair, and to retain the trust of foreign investors, I
think the decision should be made prospective, and investors should be given time to divest or to
adjust to the new decision.

[5] I agree with Dean Bautista’s proposals to allow foreign lawyers to practice here on a limited basis,
provided that (1) their practice is restricted to foreign law (whether of their home or of a third
country), (2) their practice be limited only to the equivalent of the English “solicitor,” not to that of
the “barrister,” (3) their home countries provide reciprocal rights to Filipino lawyers, and (4) they be
required to follow a “Code of Responsibility for Transnational Lawyers.”
Xxxxxxxxxxxx

← Journey with the Lord

Chief Justice Teehankee Remembered →

SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 · 2:04 AM

Safeguard Liberty, Conquer Poverty, Share
Prosperity (Part Three — for the
Business Community)
Address delivered by retired Chief Justice ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN during the 4th INTEGRITY
SUMMIT held on September 19, 2014 at the Dusit Thane Hotel, Makati City, sponsored by the
Makati Business Club and the European Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

May I tell you the tale of a judge who thought he had a reputation for fairness and transparency.
Before the trial in a case began, he summoned the lawyers of the parties to his chambers.

He calmly told them, “Compañeros, both of you surreptitiously bribed me. You, counsel for the
plaintiff, gave me P250,000, while you, counsel for the defendant, sent me P200,000. As an
evenhanded and transparent judge, I will not allow anyone of you to unduly influence me. So, I am
returning P50,000 to you counsel for the plaintiff. Now. after I have leveled the playing field, both of
you can expect equal treatment from me.”

Let me also tell you of the tale of another judge known for his strictness. One day, he was visited at
his home by a practicing lawyer. “Compañero,” the magistrate boomed, “Why are you here? Don’t
you know it is unethical for a lawyer to speak with a judge outside the courtroom?” “Yes, Your Honor,
I am aware of that. But I did not come here to speak with you about my pending case. I came here to
sell you a brand new Mercedes Benz that is now parked on your driveway,” meekly explained the
lawyer. After peeping at a window to view the car, the judge retorted, “Ah, you came as a car
salesman, not as a lawyer. How much is the car?” To which the enterprising lawyer whispered,
“P1,000, Your Honor.” The judge smiled and said, “In that case, I’ll buy two, one for me and one for
my wife.”

These stories are of course anecdotal and meant to be jokes to cheer you up. Laughable these jokes
may be; nonetheless, they demonstrate some of the devilish games and witchcraft that may have
impelled the Makati Business Club (MBC) and the European Chamber of Commerce of the
Philippines (ECCP) to sponsor this “Integrity Initiative” today. The first joke shows the wrong
way to level the playing field and the second shows the wrong way to legalize a bribe.
Ladies and gentlemen, judges will not be bribed unless clients inveigle their lawyers to go beyond the
outer limits of advocacy and soar to the stratosphere of corruption and malevolence. At times,
lawyers are told by unscrupulous clients, “I do not care whether you know the law. My question is:
Do you know the judge?” Remember, there are no bribe-takers, when there are no bribe-givers.

I could really end my address now for I have already demonstrated how the business community can
stop corruption. However, as your guest speaker, I have been tasked to bore you with a long
peroration on how to properly level the playing field and how to properly solve corruption, and help
our nation prosper through judicial reforms.

Past Reform Programs

Whenever judicial reform is the topic of discussion, I am always reminded of the very
comprehensive “Action Program for Judicial Reform,” or APJR, started by my esteemed
predecessor, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. in 1998.

The APJR was supported not only by the Philippine government but also by international
institutions like the World Bank, the UN Development Program and the Asian Development Bank, as
well as all major national aid agencies, like those of the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia,
Britain and the Netherlands.

It was so successful that the World Bank uploaded it in its website as a model for all developing
countries applying for World Bank assistance for judicial reforms.

During my term as Chief Justice, I continued the APJR with emphasis on what I call the ACID
problems that corrode justice in our country. Thus, upon assuming office, I announced my “Vision
and Mission Statement” as follows:

“I vow to lead a judiciary characterized by four Ins: Integrity, Independence, Industry

and Intelligence — one that is morally courageous to resist influence, interference, indifference and
insolence. I envision a judiciary that is impervious to the plague of “ships” — kinship, relationship,
friendship and fellowship.

“I pledge to continue and strengthen the Supreme Court’s on-going Action Program for Judicial
Reforms (APJR) with special focus on what I call the ACID problems that corrode justice in our
country; namely, (1) limited Access to justice by the poor; (2) Corruption; (3) Incompetence,
and (4) Delay in the delivery of quality justice.

“I look for competent and ethical lawyers who are responsible, dependable, and morally upright;
and who courageously uphold truth and justice above everything else.

“I shall grant maximum financial and fringe benefits to our 26,000 employees nationwide from
whom, in turn, I ask for three things: (1) Dedication to duty, (2) Honesty in every way, and (3)
full Loyalty to the judiciary, or DHL

“All the foregoing visions and objectives must lead to the loftier goals of safeguarding the liberty
and nurturing the prosperity of our people.

“The twin beacons of LIBERTY and PROSPERITY constitute my core judicial philosophy.”

To promote this philosophy, I called a Global Forum on Liberty and Prosperity in Makati on
October 18-20, 2006 as my valedictory project prior my retirement. Led by the Chief Justices of
Canada, Russia, France and several others, over 300 jurists, lawyers and law professors from all over
the world attended this conference. They signed a Manila Declaration urging the Philippines to lead
in reconvening the Global Forum in other countries on a rotating basis. Canadian Chief Justice
Beverley McLacklin suggested I add “Under the Rule of Law” to my judicial philosophy, a suggestion
I happily accepted.

Unfortunately, my successors in office did not continue both Chief Justice Davide’s and my judicial
reform initiatives. Consequently, the international aid agencies discontinued their assistance. The
World Bank deleted the APJR from its website.

Realizing this, I pressed on, even in retirement, with my judicial philosophy of liberty and prosperity
under the rule of law. Using my retirement pay, I organized the Foundation for Liberty and
Prosperity, or FLP, to celebrate my 75th birthday in December 2011. With the help of the Metro
Pacific Investment Corporation and the Metrobank Foundation, the FLP – as its initial project –
created and funded 10 professorial chairs in nine leading law schools and one in the Philippine
Judicial Academy. I thought that the first vital step in inculcating the value of liberty and prosperity
is through education.

Fortunately, current Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno supported FLP’s initiative and
keynoted the launching of the Chief Justice Panganiban Professorial Chairs Program on September
18, 2012. She also saw the need for judicial reforms along the lines of the APJR and ACID, but with
her own updates. I would advise the Integrity Initiative to assist the Supreme Court in crafting its full
program. Already , the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have shown interest in helping
her.

Brief Political and Constitutional History

Indeed, judicial reforms are needed to better compensate judges, assure their independence, prevent
corruption, provide more dignified courtrooms, speed up justice and institute other systemic,
physical and internal changes. But, today, let me take up another aspect of judicial reform, that is, to
refocus the judicial mindset on the economic development of our country and thereby help conquer
poverty and share prosperity. Let me start with a little background on our intermixing political and
constitutional history.

Since our independence on June 12, 1898 and the founding of the Supreme Court in 1901, our people
had always aspired for political independence. So, all our basic laws – from the Malolos Constitution
to the Philippine Bill of 1902, to the Tydings-McDuffie Act, to the 1935 Constitution and to the 1987
Charter, the emphasis had always been the protection of political freedoms.

Our present (1987) Constitution was prepared by venerable men and women who experienced
the repressions and torments of martial law. Consequently, the Constitution they drafted made sure
that no president, however well-intentioned and patriotic, could ever install authoritarian rule again.

To achieve this goal, the framers took away much of the powers of the presidency, strengthened
Congress and the independent agencies, and most significant, gave the judiciary over-arching powers
to prevent and subdue abuses and excesses of the president and the legislature.
Accordingly, our Constitution gave the judiciary not just the power but the duty to strike down
“grave abuse of discretion… on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” Grave
abuse was not defined by the Charter; instead, it gave the Supreme Court wide latitude to flesh out its
meaning, scope and extent, which made the power even more awesome.[2]

Many other prerogatives the Supreme Court was given, but the voiding of gravely abusive acts of its
co-equal branches made our Court the most powerful tribunal in the world. Its power is limited only
by the wisdom and self-restraint of the justices themselves.

Overall, the judiciary, in my humble view, has performed well in safeguarding the liberty of our
people.[3] Moreover, if shown to be mistaken, it corrects itself. When convinced by incontrovertible
facts that the Priority Development Assistance Fund, or PDAF, was evil, it reversed its unanimous
decision in LAMP vs Sec. of Budget (Apr. 24, 2012) upholding the pork barrel and struck it down a
year later also unanimously in Belgica vs Exec. Sec. (Nov. 10, 2013). It has also carefully struck down
some “acts and practices under the Disbursement Acceleration Program” or DAP, but not the DAP
itself.

Sensitive to Public Welfare

It has also shown sensitivity to the Herculean search for lasting peace in our country. On the day the
Memorandum of Agreement on Ancient Domain (MOA-AD) was to be signed by the Arroyo
administration and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, the Supreme Court promptly issued a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). I think this was because the MOA-AD was sprung on our
people, without any transparency and without exposing the preliminary steps to public scrutiny.

In contrast, though the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) and its four annexes
contain basically the same provisions as the MOA-AD, no TRO was issued. The Court merely
required a routine comment from the respondents. I think this is because the Aquino administration
was transparent in its peace process.

Also, no TRO was issued on the petitions assailing the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
despite the constitutional provision that “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be
allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate…”

Indeed, the Supreme Court can be sensitive to the needs of our time and calibrate the use of its
awesome powers to promote the general welfare. Historically, it has been faithful to the call to
preserve and protect our people from tyranny and oppression, whether from colonizers or from
native authoritarian rulers.

May I, however, point out that our Constitution was promulgated in 1987, at a time when the
prevailing economic mantra was the protection of Filipino enterprises and services, summed up in
the nationalistic slogan, “Filipino First.” Thus, many industries, businesses, services and professions
were reserved completely or partially for Filipino citizens.
At that time also, the government was deeply entrenched in business. It owned and operated
corporations that produced basic necessities like steel. water, electricity, telephone service,
petroleum, coconut products, sugar, etc. The result, as we all know now, was a disaster for the
economy: not only were the government firms grossly inefficient; they also lost heavily and became a
monstrous burden that increased our foreign indebtedness. The National Power Corporation alone
lost almost a trillion pesos and yet failed to produce enough electricity resulting in rotating
countrywide black outs in the early 1990’s.[4]

Abandoning self-centeredness
However, soon after our new Constitution was ratified in 1987, the world changed and the
protectionist theories of economic development were abandoned in most parts of the world. And the
era of liberalization, globalization, deregulation and privatization bloomed when the World Trade
Organization (WTO) was born on January 1, 1995.[5]

The Philippine adherence to the WTO was challenged in the Supreme Court in Tanada vs. Angara
(May 2, 1997), on the ground that the WTO Treaty allegedly violated the “flagship provisions” of the
Constitution mandating economic nationalism. This novel case was assigned to me for study in 1995
when I entered the Supreme Court.

In upholding the WTO Treaty, my unanimously-concurred decision argued: “While the Constitution
mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, it recognizes the need for
business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity, and limits
protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are
unfair.”[6]

May I emphasize that in embracing globalization and the WTO, our country was in fact pursuing its
national interest. We recognized the stark reality that the world has become a global village where no
country can progress in isolation. Even socialist countries like Russia and China have joined WTO.
Only hermit kingdoms and totalitarian regimes like North Korea have not entered WTO. As a
consequence, their economy stagnated in self-damning isolation. To build our nation, we must
indeed look at the lessons of the past, but more importantly, we must live with the realities of the
present as we plan for a better future.

I took the occasion in the WTO case, which was promulgated in 1997 when I was just two years in the
Court, to proclaim my core legal philosophy of “Liberty and Prosperity.” I believe that in litigations
involving civil liberties, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government and in
favor of the people, pursuant to the doctrine of strict scrutiny. But in matters affecting the economy
and the prosperity of our people, courts – in the absence of grave abuse of discretion – must defer to
the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, in accordance with the principle of
deferential interpretation of laws and executive issuances. The responsibility for promoting and
developing the country’s economy rests primarily on its political leaders. Should they fail in this
duty, our people can replace them during periodic elections.

I also believe in private enterprise as the engine of economic growth. Thus, government must
promote entrepreneurship and encourage private capital. At the same time, the government has the
duty of overseeing the fair and equitable distribution of private wealth to all our people, especially
the poor and marginalized. The government, likewise, has the responsibility of enlarging the areas of
economic growth to future generations of Filipinos. Thus, the economic pie must not only be fairly
divided, it must also be enlarged so that more benefits could be spread to more people under the
social justice principle of giving more law to those who have less in life.

Indeed, when it wants to, our Supreme Court is able to transcend obsolete economic barriers by
progressively citing countervailing constitutional provisions as it did in the WTO case, or by thinking
more creatively, as it did more recently in Initiatives for Dialogue vs PSALM (Oct. 9, 2012 per Justice
Martin S. Villarama Jr.), which ruled that water flowing in a river is a natural resource reserved for
Filipinos. However, once “appropriated” by a qualified local company and “collected in a dam,” it
becomes private in character and may thereafter be used by a Korean firm to generate electricity.[7]

Because of the need to attract investors, there have been proposals to amend the Constitution. While
Charter Change would be the more definitive and permanent solution, in the meantime, a more
progressive and creative interpretation would do.

Two Ways of Interpreting the Constitution

Before leaving the subject, let me just say that there are at least two ways of interpreting or
construing constitutions. The textualists or originalists interpret according to the original intent of
the framers, regardless of the dire consequences on current and future events. They rely on “dura lex
sed lex.” Their self-imposed duty is “to apply laws faithfully and desist from engaging in socio-
economic or political experimentations,” which they denounce as “judicial legislation.”

On the other hand, the liberals or progressives believe in a living Constitution; one that grows with
time, solves the vagaries of the present and anticipates the needs of the future. I belong to this latter
group who believe that jurists are not mere social technicians and legal automatons. Rather, they are
social engineers who courageously fix their gaze on the underlying principles and overarching
aspirations of the Constitution to nurture a free and prosperous nation.

The United States Supreme Court has been struggling for a long time on these differing schools of
constitutional construction. During my term as Chief Justice, I visited US Justice Antonin Scalia,
said to be the leader of the originalists in the US Court. I was inviting him to speak before the
aforementioned Global Forum on Liberty and Prosperity that our Supreme Court was sponsoring on
October 18-20, 2006 just prior to my retirement.

He smiled and said, “Mr. Chief Justice, you do not really want me there. I would be useless in the
Forum because I do not believe in international law. When I joined the US Supreme Court, I swore to
defend the US Constitution and nothing else. And I interpret it according to the original intent of our
framers, which did not include international law. Please see my friend, Justice Anthony Kennedy. I
am sure he will welcome an opportunity to expound on his international philosophies and ideas.”
True enough, when I saw Justice Kennedy later, he agreed to speak at our Global Forum even if via
teleconferencing only, because he had already committed to be in another venue on those dates.
My point is: the Constitution should be interpreted according to the evolving needs of our people
who ratified it, not rigidly according to its letter. It is a living instrument that can be construed to
fight new perplexities unknown to or unanticipated by its framers.

With this mindset, our Supreme Court can use its vast powers to speed up justice, minimize
technicalities and make meaningful distinctions to promote the general welfare. It can uphold our
people’s paramount security, peace and economic wellbeing. Indeed, with the prudent use of its
awesome powers, the Court can safeguard liberty and at the same time nurture prosperity.

To sum up, I call on all of you to support the reform initiatives now being crafted by the Supreme
Court as I speak. And equally important, please help me and the Foundation for Liberty and
Prosperity to reshape the mind-set of our judiciary and the legal profession not only to safeguard the
liberty of our people but also to help conquer poverty and share prosperity. Let us join hands and
work together to secure justice and jobs; freedom and food; peace and prosperity; ethics and
economics; democracy and development; liberty and prosperity. Indeed, liberty and prosperity must
always go together; one is useless without the other.

Maraming salamat po.

[1] Address delivered by retired Chief Justice ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN during the 4th
INTEGRITY SUMMIT held on September 19, 2014 at the Dusit Thane Hotel, Makati City, sponsored
by the Makati Business Club and the European Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
[2] Clearly, the Constitution knighted the judiciary as the guardian of liberty and the nemesis of
authoritarian rule. Even the United States, from where we copied our political system, has not
endowed its judiciary with such plenary authority.
[3] To prevent a repetition of the human rights abuses during martial law, our Constitution requires
arresting policemen to verbally advise arrestees of their “Miranda” rights: “the right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of counsel.”

The Miranda rights were invented by the US Supreme Court; they are not found in the text of the US
Constitution. But our framers wrote them into our Charter. So, too, evidence obtained illegally and
confessions extracted by force or false pretense cannot be used against the accused. For this reason,
many have been acquitted, even if in fact guilty, because of the actual or feigned violation of these
rights.

[4] The nationalistic fervor was used (some say “misused’) when the Supreme Court, in Manila
Prince vs. GSIS (Feb. 3, 1997), voided a public auction already won by a foreign company, on the
ground that purportedly, the subject of the bidding, the Manila Hotel, constituted a part of the
“national patrimony,” and should thus be awarded to a losing Filipino company that matched the
price of the winning foreign bidder, pursuant to Section 10 of Article XII of the Constitution that
states: “In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and
patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.” For the record, I was one of the
dissenters in that decision.
[5] The WTO ushered, to quote the Supreme Court in Tanada vs Angara (May 2, 1997), “a new
borderless world of business by sweeping away as mere historical relics the heretofore traditional
modes of promoting and protecting national economies like tariffs, export subsidies, import quotas,
quantitative restrictions, tax exemptions and currency controls. Finding market niches and
becoming the best in specific industries in a market-driven and export-oriented global scenario
(replaced) age-old ‘beggar-thy-neighbor’ policies that unilaterally protected weak and inefficient
domestic producers of goods and services.”
[6] “In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut
out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the
Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into
the country, it does not prohibit them either. It fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality
and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.”

[7] However, there are instances too when the Supreme Court refused to be creative and became
restrictive in interpreting the economic provisions of the Constitution. One recent example is
Gamboa vs Teves (June 28, 2011 per Justice Antonio T. Carpio), which held that the 40 percent
constitutional limitation on foreign ownership in public utilities, like telephones, should be
computed only on the “shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors… not to the to the
total outstanding capital stock,” which may include non-voting shares.

In several speeches, I have discussed this controversial decision, but for today, let me just say that
when this nationalistic provision was included in the 1935 Constitution and until now under the
present Constitution, the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission have
interpreted the constitutional provision to refer to the entire capital stock, not just to the voting
shares.

On this basis, many foreign investors have brought their capital here. I think it would not be fair to
penalize them or to deprive them of their investments now under the new Supreme Court ruling.
They have relied in good faith on the representation of our government that they were not violating
the Constitution in making their investments. To be fair, and to retain the trust of foreign investors, I
think the decision should be made prospective, and investors should be given time to divest or to
adjust to the new decision.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

← Hon. Jovito R. Salonga from his Foreword to “Liberty and Prosperity”: July 1, 2006
Access to Justice →

AUGUST 25, 2006 · 5:25 AM

Spreading the Gospel of Liberty

and Prosperity
Keynote address delivered by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban during the National Forum on
“Liberty and Prosperity”, held on August 24-25, 2006, at the Manila Hotel.

I am extremely delighted to see all of you here today for this National Forum on Liberty and Prosperity.
Over a month ago, on July 20, 2006, an academic gathering was convened at the San Beda College to mull
over the scholastic foundations of the twin philosophy of “Liberty and Prosperity.” Today, we have invited
the members of the judiciary as well as representatives of the bar, the legislative and the executive
branches of government, the business community, the media, and civil society, to discuss how each of
these sectors can contribute to the safeguarding of the liberty and the nurturing of the prosperity of the
Filipino people.
Visions for the Judiciary and the Legal Profession

Upon assuming the chief justiceship of the Philippines on December 21, 2005, I immediately vowed
to lead a judiciary characterized by four Ins: independence, integrity, industry and intelligence.

To accomplish this vision, I pledged to continue and strengthen the Supreme Court’s ongoing Action
Program for Judicial Reform (APJR), with special focus on what I call the four ACID problems that
corrode justice in our country: (1) limited access to justice by the poor; (2) corruption; (3)
incompetence; and (4) delay in the delivery of quality judgments.

Likewise, I envisioned a revitalized legal profession. By that, I mean a legal profession that is
responsible, dependable and morally upright; one that courageously upholds truth and justice above
everything else; and from whose ranks shall emerge competent and ethical lawyers.

At the same time, I asked three things from all the 26,000 judicial officials and employees all over
the country; dedication to duty, honesty in every way, and loyalty to the judiciary or DHL.

I have always been quick to point out, however, that all these visions and objectives are not ultimate
ends in themselves, because they must lead to two loftier goals of safeguarding the liberty and
nurturing the prosperity of our people.

Poverty Alleviation and Big Business

At the time I formally announced my vision and philosophy in December 2006 (and thereafter),
world attention was captured by billionaire couple Billy and Melinda Gates’ extraordinary display of
their commitment to promoting prosperity; more pointedly, to the cause of poverty alleviation and
disease prevention. Through the Gates Foundation—the world’s biggest private charity with a $29
billion endowment at that time (it is much more now)—the couple spent the year 2005 giving more
money away faster than anyone ever had to save 700,000 lives through vaccinations and public
health care. For their philanthropic passion in promoting wellness and health, as well as in
alleviating poverty and diseases, the Gateses (together with their co-worker, the famous rock star
Bono) were named Time magazine’s “Persons of the Year” for 2005.

Since that time, herculean efforts to alleviate poverty have been on the upswing among the richest
people in the world. Billionaire investment guru Warren Buffett is the latest to join the crusade with
a mind-boggling $30 billion donation of blue-chip Berkshire Hathaway stocks to the Gates
Foundation.

This sum (equivalent to over P1.5 trillion or about one-and-a-half times larger than the proposed
national budget of our country for the year 2007) will be given gradually, beginning in July this year
and continuing every year for as long as one of the couple—Bill, 50; or Melinda, 42—is active in the
Gates Foundation. But each installment must be spent in the year it is given. For 2006, Buffett has
given 602,500 Berkshire B shares valued at about $1.5 billion, which must be spent by the Gates
Foundation within the year. [1]
Poverty Alleviation in the Philippines

In the Philippines, the pioneering spirit of the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP), which
has been channeling private wealth into efforts to reduce poverty, has also merited considerable
following. Big business conglomerates have formed their own philanthropic foundations to pursue
educational, livelihood, and other social causes designed to minimize poverty and empower the
people to help themselves.
Worthy of special mention is the recent announcement of taipan John Gokongwei. He has given an
endowment of P10.25 billion worth of shares, representing all his personal holdings in JG Summit
Holdings—a stock market blue chip—to the Gokongwei Brothers Foundation. In turn, the
Foundation immediately donated P50 million to the University of San Carlos. This P10.25 billion
endowment—one of the largest, if not the largest, in Philippine history—was made to celebrate Mr.
Gokongwei’s 80th birthday earlier this month.

Noteworthy also are philanthropic efforts in education, housing, medical and social services.
Contributing to these efforts are conglomerates like Ayala, San Miguel, YGC, Metrobank, and PLDT;
as well as those of taipans Lucio Tan, Henry Sy and Emilio Yap. Of course, who can overlook the
popular media outreach foundations, like Bantay Bata of ABS-CBN and the Kapuso of GMA-7; as
well as pro-poor programs of religious groups, like Catholic Charities and Pondo Pinoy. Not to be
forgotten is Gawad Kalinga led by Antonio Meloto, who recently merited an award by the Ramon
Magsaysay Foundation.

Justice and Economic Growth

What do these gargantuan philanthropic activities have to do with the judiciary? The answer is found
in the recent refocusing of visions and missions of the world’s most important developmental
institutions. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the World Bank (WB) and the
Asian Development Bank (ADB) have announced that their goals of alleviating poverty and
propelling economic growth cannot be attained, unless there is “a well-functioning judicial system
[that] enables the State to regulate the economy and empower private individuals to contribute to
economic development by confidently engaging in business, investments and other transactions.”

For this reason, UNDP is passionate about broadening the poor’s access to justice; the WB wants “an
effective and efficient judicial system that protects citizens from the abuses of government and
safeguards the rights of the poor”; [2] and the ADB desires “to enhance the effectiveness and the
accountability of the judiciary.” [3]
In the face of these challenges to end poverty and disease by the world’s philanthropists and leading
developmental agencies, what is our response? For our part in the judiciary, we respond by
redirecting attention to the effort not only to safeguard freedom from fear, but also to nurture
freedom from want.

These interlacing and interlocking paradigms of justice and development reinforce my twin beacons
of Liberty and Prosperity which, by conscious reckoning, have actually been embedded in the
decisions of our Supreme Court.

Liberty and Prosperity as Judicial Policy

Indeed, over the last ten years, I believe that Philippine jurisprudence is replete with examples
showing this policy of dual focus. First, in cases involving liberty, the scales of justice weigh heavily
against government and in favor of the people, especially the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized,
the dispossessed and the weak. Laws and actions of government and its instrumentalities come to
the court highly suspect in their constitutional validity, should they restrict the fundamental rights of
our people. Second, in cases involving prosperity and development issues, deference is accorded to
the political branches of government; namely, the Presidency and Congress.

Liberty: Strict Scrutiny

Some very recent cases on civil and political freedoms highlight the need for strict scrutiny.

In ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Commission on Elections, [4] the prohibition of election

exit polls was challenged. In resolving to allow the holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their
results through mass media, the Court declared that public opinion polls “constitute an essential part
of the freedoms of speech and of the press.”
The Court emphatically explained that, “when faced with borderline situations in which the freedom
of a candidate or a party to speak and the freedom of the electorate to know is invoked against
actions allegedly made to assure clean and free elections, this Court shall lean in favor of freedom.”
[5] This new ruling recognizing public opinion polls as a species of the freedom of expression was
echoed one year later in Social Weather Stations v. Comelec. [6]
The “[v]exatious, oppressive, unjustified and capricious delays in the arraignment” of the accused
were condemned very recently in Lumanlaw v Peralta [7] as violations of the constitutional right to
speedy trial and speedy case disposition. For almost two years, the accused was detained without
undergoing arraignment, despite 14 attempts at the proceeding. This Decision stressed that the
Court “safeguards liberty and will therefore always uphold the basic constitutional rights of the
people, especially the weak and the marginalized.” For the transgression of his constitutional right to
speedy trial, the accused was ordered freed and the criminal indictment against him dismissed.
Very recently, in April to May this year, the Court promulgated three landmark decisions. Senate v.
Ermita [8] involved the right of Congress to summon executive officials for investigations in aid of
legislation, in conjunction with the people’s right to information on matters of public concern. In
invalidating the major provisions of Executive Order No. 464, the Court — through the pen of Justice
Conchita Carpio Morales — held that Congress had the right to compel the appearance of executive
officials in congressional investigations, because the power of legislative inquiry was as broad as the
power to legislate.
To the extent that investigations in aid of legislation were to be generally conducted in public, the
Court held that “any executive issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of information in such
investigations necessarily deprives the people of information which, being presumed to be in aid of
legislation, is presumed to be a matter of public concern. The citizens are thereby denied access to
information which they can use in formulating their own opinions on the matter before Congress —
opinions which they can communicate to their representatives and other government officials
through the various legal means allowed by their freedom of expression. x x x.”

The second case, Bayan v. Ermita, [9] dealt with the right of the people to peaceful assembly for a
redress of grievances. This ponencia, penned by Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, stated as follows:
“x x x[T]his Court reiterates its basic policy of upholding the fundamental rights of our people,
especially freedom of expresion and freedom of assembly. In several policy addresses, Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban has repeatedly vowed to uphold the liberty of our people and to nurture their
prosperity. He said that ‘in cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against
the government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the
weak. Indeed, laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy
presumption against their validity. These laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny.’”

Lastly, David v. Arroyo [10] ruled on the rights of the people under a “state of national emergency.”
Writing for the majority (11-3-1) in this case, Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez began her
ponencia in this manner:
“All powers need some restraint; practical adjustments rather than rigid formula are necessary.
Superior strength – the use of force – cannot make wrongs into rights. In this regard, the courts
should be vigilant in safeguarding the constitutional rights of the citizens, specifically their liberty.

“Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban’s philosophy of liberty is thus most relevant. He said: ‘In cases
involving involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government and in
favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak.’ Laws and actions
that restrict fundamental rights come to the courts ‘with a heavy presumption against their
constitucional validity.’”

In all these cases, the Supreme Court upheld the primacy of civil liberties over governmental actions.
Prosperity: Deference

On the other hand, cases over the last ten years, involving the merits or wisdom of economic policies,
have adopted a deferential stance. In Tañada v. Angara, [11] the Court deferred to the wisdom of the
Senate when it upheld that legislative body’s consent to the Philippine ratification of the World Trade
Organization Agreement. To demonstrate this deference more vividly, I would like to quote portions
of the Decision, as follows:
“It is not impossible to surmise that this Court, or at least some of its members, may even agree with
petitioners that it is more advantageous to the national interest to strike down Senate Resolution No.
97 [which embodied the Upper House’s consent to the ratification of the WTO Treaty]. But that is
not a legal reason to attribute grave abuse of discretion to the Senate and to nullify its decision. To do
so would constitute grave abuse in the exercise of our own judicial power and duty. Ineludably, what
the Senate did was a valid exercise of its authority. As to whether such exercise was wise, beneficial
or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. That is a matter between the elected
policy makers and the people. As to whether the nation should join the worldwide march toward
trade liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that our people should determine in
electing their policy makers. x x x.”

This laissez-faire judicial policy on economic issues was reiterated in La Bugal-B’laan Tribal
Association v. Ramos, [12] which affirmed the constitutionality of the Mining Law allowing 100-
percent foreign investments in large-scale mining. Thus, the Court held thus:
“x x x. The Constitution should be read in broad, life-giving strokes. It should not be used to
strangulate economic growth or to serve narrow, parochial interest. Rather, it should be construed to
grant the President and Congress sufficient discretion and reasonable leeway to enable them to
attract foreign investments and expertise, as well as to secure for our people and our posterity the
blessings of prosperity and peace.”

La Bugal’s doctrinal pronouncements were very recently reiterated this year in Didipio Earth Savers
Multi-Purpose Association v. Gozun, [13] written by Justice Minita Chico-Nazario.
This judicial no-interference rule on economic policy should not be taken to mean, though, that the
courts will abdicate their duty to strike down (1) gravely abusive legislative or executive acts that
clearly violate the Constitution, the laws, or settled jurisprudence; [14] or (2) those that have been
issued with arbitrariness, whim, caprice, bias or personal hostility. [15]
Consistent with these two exceptions to the no-interference rule, contracts entered into by the
government have been judicially nullified. The Supreme Court—and other courts—have been taken
to task for rendering judgments perceived by business circles as “intrusive and disruptive.” But what
the critics have conveniently overlooked is the fact that even the ways of the market and of
merchants must adhere to society’s rules on fairness, equity and reasonability. It is the function of
law and of the courts to put these fundamental convictions in legal form and to make them direct
economics.

The question may then be asked. Are economic and business questions not to be reviewed by our
courts for being political or non-justiciable? No, I do not have any intention of abandoning the
doctrine of justiciability. I submit, though, that only on the clearest of grounds must judicial review
result in a reversal of legislative or executive action in commercial and business matters.
Consequently, any doubt must be resolved in favor of the political branches of government.

Although separation of powers is definitely also at work, it is more than separation of powers that
supports my proposition. Insofar as rights guaranteeing civil and political liberties are phrased as
executory by our Constitution, they are susceptible of direct application by the courts. But basically,
economic provisions of the fundamental law are considerations of what are beneficial, advantageous,
feasible and practicable; they are policy considerations best left to politicians and economic
managers to implement.
Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, the next two days will provide you ample opportunity to identify ways of
implementing, enhancing and strengthening the twin beacons of Liberty and Prosperity within your
respective spheres of influence.

Thus, I urge you to contribute fully and meaningfully to the discussions, bearing in mind that the
results of this conference will lay the groundwork for the forthcoming Global Conference on Liberty
and Prosperity scheduled on October 18-20, 2006. This early, many Chief Justices, including those
of France, Canada, the Russian Federation, Azerbaijan, Guatemela and Benin, to mention a few;
presidents and representatives of international lawyers groups, like Señor Fernando Pombo,
president of the International Bar Association, Armando Lasa Ferrer, secretary-general of the
American Bar Association, and Raymond Wong, chairperson of the British Chinese Lawyers
Association; and law deans, business leaders, and civil society advocates have already started to
accept our invitation and to register for the forum. During that global gathering, we hope to spread
the gospel of Liberty and Prosperity beyond our shores and unto the world.

May I close by thanking you in advance for the inputs and contributions you will make to refine,
implement, strengthen and propagate the twin beacons of freedom and food, democracy and
development, ethics and economics, integrity and investment—indeed, of Liberty and Prosperity for
all of humankind.

Maraming salamat po!

__________

Keynote address delivered by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban during the National Forum on
“Liberty and Prosperity,” held on August 24-25, 2006, at the Manila Hotel.

[1] Time, July 10, 2006, p. 13.

[2] Legal and Judicial Sector Manual (2002), a World Bank publication.

[3] Law and Policy Reform, ADB Report, January 2005, pp. 26-28.

[4] 380 Phil. 780, January 28, 2000, per Panganiban, J.

[5] Id., pp. 795-796. Emphasis supplied.

[6] 357 SCRA 496, 501, May 5, 2001, per Mendoza, J. In this case, the Court stressed that “because of
the preferred status of the constitutional rights of speech, expression, and the press, a law
prohibiting the publication of pre-election surveys is vitiated by a weighty presumption of invalidity.”

[7] GR No. 164963, February 13, 2006, per Panganiban, CJ.

[8] GR No. 169777, April 20, 2006, per Carpio Morales, J.

[9] Bayan v. Ermita, GR No. 169838, April 25, 2006, per Azcuna, J.

[10] GR No. 171396, May 3, 2006, per Gutierrez, J.

[11] 338 Phil. 546, 604-605, May 2, 1997, per Panganiban, J. (now CJ).

[12] 445 SCRA 1, December 1, 2004, per Panganiban, J. (now CJ).

[13] GR No. 157882, March 30, 2006, per Nazario, J. The constitutionality of the Mining Law was
raised anew in this case, insofar as the law allegedly ceded beneficial ownership of mineral resources
to a foreign contractor. Holding that this matter had already been settled in La Bugal, the Court
emphasized that the FTAA contractor was not free to do whatever it pleased and get away with it; on
the contrary, it would have to follow the government line if it wanted to stay in the enterprise. The
law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations vest in the government more than a sufficient
degree of control and supervision over the conduct of mining operations.

[14] Republic v. COCOFED, 423 Phil. 735, December 14, 2001.

[15] Benito v. Comelec, 349 SCRA 705, January 19, 2001; Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona Jr., 359
Phil. 276, November 18, 1998; and Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Confesor, 231 SCRA 41, March 10,
1994.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

← Dr. Jovito R. Salonga, My Guru and Surrogate Father

Nurturing Lives, Fulfilling Dreams →

APRIL 19, 2016 · 3:46 AM

Icons of Entrepreneurship and

Nation Building
Keynote Address delivered by retired Chief Justice ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN at the General
Membership Meeting of the Junior Chamber International Manila (JCI-Manila) on April 19, 2016
at the Tower Club, Philamlife Center, Paseo de Roxas, Makati City.

Have you heard the story of a Jaycee who was the proud father of three boys whom, through his
perseverance and hard work, he was able to send to the best schools here and abroad. One son
became a much sought-after cardiologist, the second a high-earning chief financial officer in a blue-
chip company and the third a smart lawyer, a name-partner in a top law firm.

Before he died, the father had a strange request born of his love for perfect preparation. As a token of
appreciation for his effort in seeing through his sons, he asked each of them to put P100,000 in his
coffin to help him, so he believed, start his new life after death.

When the inevitable day came, the doctor-son was broken because, even with his expertise, he could
not save his father. So he tearfully put P100,000 cash on the cold chest of his dad. Then came the
wealthy CFO who promptly shelled out his P100,000 in crisp bills. Finally, the sobbing lawyer’s turn
came. He took out his check book, wrote a check for P300,000, put it in the coffin, and took
the P200,000 cash as his rightful change. I understand he is now a candidate for a congressional seat
in the coming elections.

Introduction
Ladies and gentlemen, may I assure you that the lawyer is not a member of the JCI Manila.
With that assurance, may I thank Mr. Ramiro Villavicencio, your president, for inviting me as your
guest speaker during this general membership meeting? He asked me to speak on the Ramon V. Del
Rosario, Sr. Award for Nation Building which, together with the Asian Institute of Management and
the Del Rosario family, you sponsor annually.

Since it was launched in 2009, I have been privileged to be invited each year as the Chairman of the
Board of Judges. I am happy to witness at close hand how successful it has become and how it has
symbolized the twin advocacies of the late Ambassador, which combine the challenges of business
with a consuming passion for nation building. I know that since its founding by Ambassador Del
Rosario about half a century ago, JCI Manila has consistently undertaken projects that redounded to
the benefit of society. In the process, it also fulfilled the members’ pursuits for interpersonal
teambuilding, social interaction and communication skills.

The RVR Award itself has attracted nationwide attention for personifying these twin values of
entrepreneurship and social responsibility. Indeed, the Award has chalked up an illustrious line-up
of awardees, who all exemplify the best of private business and social progress. I would like to call
them the icons of entrepreneurship and nation building.

Past recipients
These icons are former Agriculture Secretary Senen Bacani, who founded a large banana
plantation, La Frutera, tilled by, among others, former rebels in Muslim Mindanao; former
Ambassador to Great Britain Jesus Tambunting, the founder of the micro-small-and-medium-
enterprise-focused Planters Bank now merged with China Bank; the visionary and high-minded
Oscar M. Lopez, chairman emeritus of the Lopez Group which espouses the “Power of Good;”
Philanthropist Washington Sycip who founded and headed SGV, the largest auditing company in the
Philippines and in Southeast Asia; former Senator and Trade Minister Vicente T. Paterno (now
deceased) who organized the Philippine Seven Corporation in the country and promoted the Medium
and Small Scale Industries Coordinating Action Program (MASICAP); the young and energetic Jaime
Augusto Zobel de Ayala, chairman of the country’s oldest business conglomerate involved in real
estate, banking, telecommunications, water distribution, and business process outsourcing, as well
as the leader of several educational and charitable causes and foundations; and the multi-talented
Manuel V. Pangilinan, chairman of several conglomerates, here and abroad, involved in
telecommunication, digital commerce, electric power, water distribution, tollways, railways and
other infrastructures, hospitals and health services, broadcast and print media, mineral resources,
and at the same time the unassuming head of the Philippine Business for Social Progress and many
other huge foundations, including some that promote sports here and abroad.

Uniqueness of Award
The RVR Award is unique because, as I earlier explained, it aims to promote entrepreneurship
and social responsibility, traits that quite a number of people still treat instinctively as mutually
exclusive and separate, when in fact, they should be, and are, mutually inclusive. Together, they
create inclusive progress, which in turn ultimately benefit business as well.

Yes, when business helps in proper education, people invariably become good citizens and in the
process consume higher quality food, purchase more homes and appliances, wear better-sewn
clothes, travel more frequently and use more mobile phone services. In this manner, they move the
economy and help the country.
When employees and laborers are paid correctly, treated with fairness and respect, and amply
rewarded for work done well, they become efficient and loyal, thereby helping their employers
advance the interests of their shareholders, customers, community and the nation at large.

So too, when farmers are assisted in planting, harvesting and marketing their products, they multiply
their resources. When out-of-school youth are trained to sharpen their vocational skills, they get
employed and contribute their share to nation building. When ex-convicts and former rebel are given
a chance to work in farms, factories and offices, they reform themselves and become useful members
of society, instead of going back to criminality and their old contumacious habits. And when young
athletes are trained in a world-class environment, they bring honor to our country and to themselves.

Our RVR icons do all these and more. They devote a great part of their time, talent and treasures in
helping the least, the last and the lost. Yes, entrepreneurship and social responsibility are the values
held in common by the RVR awardees.

Immersing With Poor

I am sure all of you dear Jaycees would want to lead or at least be involved in these examples of
social responsibility and nation building. But even beyond just giving your resources and time, I urge
you to have real solidarity with the poor and the marginalized by having actual or vicarious
experiences with their almost pitiful situations in life, to wade with them in their struggles to free
themselves from the shackles of poverty, illiteracy, disability and sickness.

Some of you may in fact have been in their situation, have been poor and deprived so this may no
longer be necessary. In my case, let me tell you that I have experienced the pangs of extreme poverty
and want. As a young boy, I had to hawk newspapers, shine shoes and peddle cigarettes in the streets
of Manila. To be able to continue studying I had to maintain my scholarship and to sell textbooks to
my classmates at the beginning of the school year to have a free copy as my commission from the
publishers. This became especially difficult when my father, who was our lone breadwinner as a
lowly government employee, passed away during my first year of prelaw studies. My exposure to
extreme want and my personal struggles to triumph over it gave me firsthand experience to
empathize with and assist the needy, and incidentally also, they accorded me first hand experiences
in private entrepreneurship to enable me to finish my studies.

I underscore this mutually inclusive relationship because it is in keeping with my own beliefs. As
many of you may be aware, I have always espoused “Liberty and Prosperity” as the twin anchors of
my being as a lawyer, as a jurist and as a citizen. I have written Supreme Court decisions, articles and
books, and spoken in various fora here and elsewhere, explaining and espousing this philosophy.

Liberty and Prosperity

Even in retirement, I still continue my advocacy for these twin beacons. Thus in 2011, five years after
I hung my black robes in the judiciary and celebrated my 75th birthday, I organized the Foundation
for Liberty and Prosperity. The Foundation’s philosophy is very much in line with the goals of the
RVR Award.

In fact, FLP’s basic tenets are echoed also in the “Jaycee Values” which all Jaycees recite at the
beginning of every activity: “That economic justice can best be won by free men through free
enterprise; that government should be of laws rather than of men.” These values are really a
restatement of the philosophy of liberty and prosperity under the rule of law.

Verily, FLP believes in liberty and prosperity, ethics and economics, justice and jobs, freedom and
food, peace and development; and, corollarily, it also believes that these twin beacons must always go
together; one is useless without the other. It also espouses my view that the best way to conquer
poverty, to create wealth and to share prosperity is to unleash the entrepreneurial genius of people
by granting them the freedom and the tools to help themselves and society. And liberty, ethics,
justice, freedom and peace are what create the most suitable environment for private
entrepreneurship to flourish.

If the great majority of our business leaders embrace these twin traits of a pioneering spirit and a
passion for nation building espoused by the RVR Award and their corresponding equivalents of
liberty and prosperity, the net result would be the expansion of private business and inclusive
economic growth for all our people, both for the rich and the poor, the fortunate and the less
fortunate, the privileged and the underprivileged.

Validation
We need only look at our Asian neighbors for a validation of this advocacy. For instance, as I
mentioned in a speech before the Asean Law Association on February 20, 2011 (copy may be
accessed in my personal website, cjpanganiban.com), let us go to China, the second most powerful
economy in the world and the prime promoter of the communist system. True, Mao Zedong led the
masses in a revolt that dislodged the corrupt and inefficient government born of an outdated
monarchy. But it was Deng Xiaoping who led this nation to unparalleled economic prosperity by
unleashing the entrepreneurial ingenuity of the Chinese under his “One-Country-Two-Systems”
philosophy.

Another example is Korea. As a result of World War II, this country was divided into North and
South, which unfortunately could not accept their division and engaged in a terrible war that ruined
their economies and impoverished their people. Rising from the ruins, South Korea relied on the
entrepreneurial spirit of the Korean people and built on their private initiative as well as on the
notion that innovation, creativity, freedom and hard work would enable them to conquer their
poverty, provide for their family’s well-being and attain affluence.

In contrast, North Korea – despite its technological and military bravado – wallows in abject poverty
as a result of its tight grip on creativity and inordinate fear of the entrepreneurship, education,
freedom and prosperity of its people.
Some members of the ASEAN, like Singapore, have attained first world status. Malaysia and
Thailand are exemplars on how to propel economies. And during the past few years, the VIPs of the
world – Vietnam, Indonesia and Philippines – have exhibited enviable records of GDP growths.

The common denominator underlying the success of these countries is the unleashing of their
peoples’ entrepreneurial spirit (even if inadequately in some places) for the benefit not just of the
entrepreneurs but for all stakeholders, the employees, the shareholders, the customers, the
community and the people in general.

Some of us may ask, “But isn’t it true that some of these countries, like China and Vietnam, propelled
their economy at the expense of the civil liberty of their people?”

My answer is simple: The peoples of the world have different histories, traditions, cultures,
ideologies and mindsets. But I dare say, all of them need liberty and prosperity. Some countries,
taking into account their unique backgrounds, start with improving their people’s economic lives
first and restrict temporarily in measured stages their political liberty. Some others begin with
political liberty, thinking that their economy would flourish as a necessary consequence. Still some
others rise with a combination of both liberty and prosperity at the very beginning. I think that such
differing starts and focuses are inherent in the diverse growth of nations. But, I also firmly believe
that eventually and inevitably, all the peoples of the world need and deserve liberty and
prosperity in equal measure.

Conclusion
As I conclude my speech, let me hurl a little challenge to all of you tonight. By your sponsorship
of the RVR Award, you have manifested your adherence to Ambassador Del Rosario’s twin values of
entrepreneurship and nation-building. By inviting me to be your guest speaker, you have kindly
allowed me to expound not only on these twin values but also on their counterpart values of liberty
and prosperity, ethics and economics, justice and jobs, freedom and food, peace and development;
which must go together for one is useless without the other.

It is my fervent wish that you will end this evening firmly believing in and fervently advocating these
inseparable values and that you will aspire to become, like our RVR awardees, the icons of
entrepreneurship and nation building and the promoters of liberty and prosperity under the rule of
law.

Maraming salamat po.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Educated Man

Address delivered at the 63rd Founders Day Convocation, August 28, 1964,
Silliman University, Dumaguete City.
Authors note: I was invited by my UP classmate, Dr. Cicero Calderon, the president of Silliman
University at the time, to speak at the Silliman campus in Dumaguete City during the 63rd celebration
of Founder's Day, August 28,1964. He and his elder brother Jose (Pepe) had been close to our family
since 1936 when we all began our pre-law course. In mid-1965, I campaigned for the Senate. This speech
was reproduced during the campaign by many students of Silliman and other schools and colleges.
Later, it was reprinted in various periodicals and collections of speeches, including my own collection,
entitled "Land of the Morning."

Long before your distinguished President invited me to speak on this your day of days — in point of fact,
as far back as the tender years of my childhood — Silliman had been vividly impressed upon my memory.
Every once in a while, my mind would catch, however faintly, strains of music from long, long ago, when
my elder brother, fresh from what seemed to me then a wonderful adventure in a world far from home,
used to sing that sweet song with words I can still remember — "Silliman Beside the Sea."

I felt, even as a child, that there was some strange fascination in that song, for a restless, unyielding urge
to go back to Silliman seemed to possess and haunt my brother all the time. He studied here in what he
must have considered the best years of his life and he has not quite recovered from the incredible charm
and magic of this lovely, blessed place.

Many years later — that is, after the second World War — your then President, Dr. Arthur Carson, learned
that I was going to the United States to pursue graduate studies in law and he very kindly gave me letters
of recommendation addressed to two outstanding universities in America. I would like to let you know,
and I have been saying this many a time — that those letters were given the highest degree of
consideration because the schools there considered as a university that possesses the highest traditions of
scholarship and excellence.

When I learned some three years ago that my former classmate and good friend, Dr. Calderon, accepted
the offer to become the President of this University, I was happy both for your President and this
institution, convinced as I was, that an enduring partnership had been forged and that Silliman could look
ahead, for even brighter days, in the unending quest for truth and goodness and beauty.
I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to be with you on your 63rd Anniversary. The journey started
by Horace Silliman and Dr. and Mrs. David Sutherland Hibbard on August 28, 1901 has been in a sense, a
long and tiresome journey. Were we to call the roll of the men and women — from the highest officials to
the humblest teacher and worker — who have dedicated their energies, their talents, their hearts and even
their very lives to see that the journey is not interrupted, so that the quest may not stop, so that the
tradition of excellence may go on, against seemingly endless odds and obstacles without number, we
would have a fair measure of the kind of quiet heroism that went into the making and building of Silliman.

But, in a deeper sense, the journey has not been long, it has not been tiresome. The journey has just begun
and the thrill of wonder and adventure will never end. Sixty-three years is a long time, but you are still
young. For in the language of a General who has faded away —

"Youth is not entirely a time of life; it is a state of mind. It is not wholly a matter of ripe cheeks, red lips or
supple knees. It is a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the emotions, a freshness of
the springs of life.

"Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals.
Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul. Worry, doubt, self-distrust, fear and
despair — these are the long, long wires that bow the head and turn the growing spirit back to dust.

"You are as young as your faith, as old as your doubt; as young as your self-confidence, as old as your fear;
as young as your hope, as old as your despair. In the central place of your heart, there is a recording
chamber; so long as it receives messages of beauty, hope, cheer and courage, so long are you young. When
the wires are all down and your heart is covered with the snow of pessimism and the ice of cynicism, then
— and then only — are you grown old."

May I take the liberty of reminding you that the capacity of Silliman to get into the stream of things and
contribute to the life and the spirit of the nation has not been fully tapped? True it is that from the ranks
of Silliman graduates great leaders have emerged in the field of thought and action, in the arts and
sciences, in government and in private enterprise, but we would all be committing a tragic mistake if we
were to look back only to the glories of the past and forget the new challenges of our time, if we were to
count in detail its achievements and overlook the massive tasks that would require of you more than just
planning and effort, but the vision and the dedication of a lifetime.

For when we begin to look around us, we see that amidst the physical reconstruction of towns and cities,
the rebuilding of homes and factories and shops, there has crept in a serious case of internal breakdown.
Buildings and edifices have gone up, but the edifice that constitutes the real soul of the nation is beginning
to shake and unless everyone of us does something about it, the national structure may collapse and go
down.

There is a feeling of despair and hopelessness amongst those who are overwhelmed by the immensity of
our problems — the fact of widespread, grinding poverty, the problem of massive unemployment in the
context of a society that possesses a high rate of population growth, the fact of graft and the paralysis of
initiative in public service, the chronic problem of moral breakdown and the wastage and neglect of
human resources.

But those who continue to hope and refuse to give up the good fight look primarily to the institutions of
learning to provide the guidance and direction in critical days such as these. For it is in the schools, the
colleges and the universities of the land where the youth who will pilot the affairs of tomorrow are being
taught and trained and equipped for what we trust will be a better kind of leadership.

It may well be that society is placing an impossibly difficult demand on the capabilities of institutions such
as this. For it is evident that the schools and the universities cannot, by themselves alone, do the job. Nor
can they mean much unless society itself comes to grips with the paradoxes that confront the youth.

For the youth is a witness of many glaring contradictions. He hears democracy extolled in every forum,
but wonders whether democracy is worth fighting for if it merely means the freedom to out-shout and
out-promise and out-smear the other fellow. He is told in school that honesty is the best policy, but he
sees how artfully society lionizes and pampers the fellow who made a clean million with a couple of clever
tricks. He is made to believe that it is a great thing to serve his country, but he begins to doubt that
considering how shamelessly those in power have abused it and earned the well-deserved contempt of the
people they profess to love so well.

He is told that honest toil is good and most rewarding, but he sees his elders engage themselves in the
mad, breathless drive to make a pile through fast and dubious means. He is taught that in courts of
justice, rich and poor are treated alike and that the poor man with the right cause will win out in the end
— but he never quite recovers when a crime committed in his presence is lightly disposed of, because
there are no witnesses and those in authority are only too willing to look the other way.

He is told in public schools that merit alone matters, but he finds a confirmation of his deepest suspicions
right in school itself — the teacher with the best preparation and who knows how to teach and discipline is
not promoted, because he has no backing and the student who cheats and bluffs his way through school is
considered smart, because he does not get caught. And when in his everyday world, he sees that it is not
what you are, not what you know, but whom you know and how much you are worth that matter in the
end, he becomes a hopeless, helpless bundle of confusion and unbelief.

Shall we, the school officials and teachers and students, throw up our hands in resignation and defeat and
pass back the whole burden to society?

You in Silliman cannot do that, even if you wanted to. For you are an institution of learning wedded to a
mission you cannot abandon without denying your own existence. Yours is an institution that serves the
highest end of a free society, namely, to help men develop their potentialities to the fullest extent possible
so they may live meaningful lives in a social order that accords first priority to the intrinsic worth and
dignity of the human personality. It is precisely because the problems of this our world and time are so
critical and the tasks so demanding that it becomes your peculiar, unavoidable responsibility to get into
the stream of things and relate your assets and resources to the needs of the nation. Yours is a work of
great relevance.
And in that task, your main function as a University is to produce, as you have done so in the past, the
educated man.

When I say "educated man," I do not refer to the individual who has read a thousand books and
magazines, however important reading may be to the life of the mind. One of the most unfortunate things
in this country is that so much is read by so many who do not know what to read. Because of cheap paper
and printing, comics, pulp magazines and cheap literature have replaced the classics and the great
masterpieces. As a consequence, an enormous mental garbage has been piled up beyond our collective
capacity to liquidate. Writers of history a hundred years from now, in assessing the quality of education in
the Philippines, may have ample reason to say that our schools have produced a vast population able to
read, but unable to distinguish what is worth reading. It was Mark Twain, I believe, who said he never
allowed his schooling to interfere with his education.

When I use the term "educated man," I do not mean the individual who has memorized a thousand facts
and assembled in his mind a million data, on the basis of which he has earned a string of academic
degrees. I do not mean to minimize the importance of memory, for it is stating the obvious when I say we
should be able to observe, sort out and remember relevant facts so we may have a sound basis for each
judgment. Of Themistocles, it has been said that he knew by heart the names of twenty thousand citizens
of Athens; and Cyrus, it is recorded, knew every soldier in his huge army. Indeed, how refreshing it would
be for our youth to learn by heart Jesus' inimitable Sermon on the Mount, the magnificent soliloquies of
Shakespeare, the unforgettable dialogue of Plato and in our own land, the lofty language of Arellano and
Laurel, the trenchant outbursts of Manuel Quezon and the elegant prose of Claro M. Recto. How inspiring
it would be for our young men and women to remember the historic landmarks in our struggle for
freedom — from the heroism of Lapu-Lapu to the lonely battle of Del Pilar at Tirad Pass, from the field of
Bagumbayan where the young Rizal met his tragic death to the dark dungeons of Fort Santiago, where the
youth of the land suffered a thousand times and met a thousand deaths! Nor do I minimize the
significance of degrees and diplomas in a degree-conscious society such as we have, except to emphasize
the danger of mistaking a degree for intellectual worth. A college graduate has once been described as one
who at the end of his studies is presented with a sheepskin to cover his intellectual nakedness.

When I say "educated man," I do not refer to the skilled engineer, the able trial lawyer, the talented
musician, the gifted writer, or the expert surgeon. Far be it from me to underrate the importance of skills
and talents. Sometime ago, I made reference to the fact that while we have abundant natural resources in
this country, we do not have sufficient skills to make this country great. Japan is relatively poor in natural
resources, with land scarcely enough to sustain her tremendous population, but despite a war that laid
waste her towns and cities, she has recovered and come back with greater vigor because she has a people
of abundant skills.
But I would like to submit the proposition that one becomes a great scientist, an able lawyer, or a noted
writer, only because he is first — and pre-eminently a good man. An abundant talent employed to serve an
evil end is a prostitution of divine endowment.

What, then, is the educated man? Is he the man who has read a lot? Partly yes, because his reading is
serious and discriminate and uplifting. Is he the man who remembers many facts and events? Partly yes,
because the training of memory is a wholesome discipline that requires effort and application and because
one cannot make a sound judgement without respect for remembered facts. Is the educated man, then,
one who because of his skill is able to provide for himself and his family? Partly yes, since education
should teach us how to make a living. But there is one thing we should always remember and it is this —
that far more important than the making of a living, is a living of life — a good life, a meaningful life, an
abundant life.

The educated man lives this kind of a life, because he has opened the windows of his mind to great
thoughts and ennobling ideas; because he is not imprisoned by the printed page, but chooses to make a
relentless, rigorous analysis and evaluation of everything he reads; because he is less interested in the
accumulation of degrees than in the stimulation of his mind and the cultivation of a generous spirit;
because his interest is less in knowing who is right but more importantly, in discerning what is right and
defending it with all the resources at his command; because he can express himself clearly and logically,
with precision and grace; because he is not awed by authority, but is humble enough to recognize that his
best judgment is imperfect and may well be tainted by error or pride; because he has a deep reverence for
the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, as a creature of God; because he has a healthy sense
of values, a breadth of outlook and the depth of compassion which a purposeful education generates;
because whenever he talks about good government he is prepared and willing to sacrifice himself for it;
and because he lives a life of relevance to the world in which we live, a sharing in the problems of his time
and doing whatever he can with intelligence and fairness and understanding.

In short, it is the responsibility of Silliman, as in all other institutions of learning in this country, to
produce the educated man and to produce him in such number and of such high quality of excellence that
Silliman products will be a leavening influence in a time of great challenge and in a world of countless
perils.

But Silliman is not just any other university— it is a Christian institution. The message of Jesus has a
wealth of meaning it cannot afford to ignore — "Be ye the salt of the earth... Be ye the light of the
world" And when Silliman produces, as it has in the past, these kind of men, we may better appreciate the
truth and beauty of the words of Emerson: —

"Not gold, but only men, can make

A nation great and strong.
Men who, for truth and honor's sake,
Stand fast and suffer long.
Brave men, who work while others sleep,
Who dare while others shy.
They build a nation's pillars deep,
And lift them to the sky."

POSTED BY STEVE SALONGA

14 COMMENTS:

Bea Ampaso said...

True.

OCTOBER 7, 2009 AT 8:07 PM

Anonymous said...

Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my
college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.

APRIL 24, 2010 AT 5: 02 PM

Anonymous said...

[color=#5588aa]Awesome website! I haven't bumped on jovitosalongajournals.blogspot.com

before in my browsing!I found very useful information about
[/color] [url=http://nuscin-online.info]cosmetics[/url] [color=#5588aa]here... Keep up the good
work![/color]

AUGUST 11, 2010 AT 2:05 AM

Anonymous said...

Thank you, that was extremely valuable and interesting...I will be back again to read more on this
topic.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2010 AT 11:49 AM

Anonymous said...

Hi,

I have a question for the webmaster/admin here at jovitosalongajournals.blogspot.com.

May I use part of the information from this post above if I provide a backlink back to your
website?

Thanks,
Peter

OCTOBER 15, 2010 AT 12:46 AM

Anonymous said...

Merci d'avoir un blog interessant

FEBRUARY 15, 2011 AT 6:17 PM

Anonymous said...

Hi,
This is a question for the webmaster/admin here at jovitosalongajournals.blogspot.com.

Can I use part of the information from your blog post above if I provide a backlink back to your
site?

Thanks,
James

MARCH 3, 2011 AT 9:10 PM

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the post!

MARCH 20, 2011 AT 3:38 PM

jonjigs said...

thank you for the post.

can i repost paragraph 24 & 25 - this was our recitation piece when i was in grades school.

and it was really an inspiring one.

MARCH 20, 2011 AT 3:54 PM

Steve Salonga said...

Thank you all for your comments. All requests for re-posts are approved. Kindly specify this blog
as your source. I have been busy lately but will begin to upload more materials soon.

MARCH 20, 2011 AT 6:03 PM

 Anonymous said...

to Mr. Salonga..
I am very thankful to you that you have written this piece. This piece have changed my point of
view in life and have showed me what a true educated man is. thank you and may the Lord God
bless you and your family.

JULY 20, 2011 AT 3:5 2 PM

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

A Point-by-Point Reply to Senator Sumulong's Speech on the Philippines' North Borneo (Sabah) Claim

Full text of Radio-TV speech delivered on March 30,1963, published in TheManila Times, issues of
March 31, April 1-2,1963.

When this speech was delivered in March 1963 by way of rebuttal to the speech of Senator Lorenzo
Sumulong berating the Philippine claim to North Borneo (Sabah), which had been filed by President
Diosdado Macapagal on June 22,1962,followed by the London negotiations of January 1963, British high
officials were still debating among themselves what to do with the claim. I was with the team of Vice
President Emmanuel Pelaez who headed the London negotiations on behalf of our government. The
charge of "British imperialism" must have weighed heavily in their minds. After the delivery of this speech,
the British organized the Federation of Malaysia in September 1963 and assigned their rights to said
Federation. As foreseen in my speech in answer to Seriator Sumulong, there would be fundamental
disagreements, particularly with Singapore, within the so-called Federation,
In the meantime, Indonesia, under Sukarno, carried out a policy of confrontation with Malaysia, then
under the Tungku (A bdul Rahman). Largely through the efforts of President Dibsdado Macapagal,
MaphHindo was bom, composed of Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia. How to settle the Sabah
claim of the Philippines through peaceful means was one of the items in the TokyoMaphilindo Summit of
June 1964, which I attended as Legal Adviser to President Macapagal. It was agreed that the Sabah
claim would be settled by peaceful means, but the "verbal understanding" between the Tungku and
Macapagal regarding the elevation of the case to the International Court of Justice, was denied later by
Malaysia. Meantime, Singapore, one of the component states of the Federation of Malaysia, was advised
to leave the Federation. On August 9,1965, this island state suddenly found itself independent, under
Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. The Sabah claim subsists up to this day.

A few days ago, Senator Lorenzo Sumulong spoke on the floor of the Senate to air his views on the
Philippine claim to North Borneo. My first reaction was to keep my peace and observe this shocking
spectacle insilence, particularly in the light of the request of the British panel during the London
Conference that the documents and the records of the proceedings be considered confidential, until they
could be declassified in the normal course of diplomatic procedure. In part, my reaction was dictated by
the belief, so aptly expressed elsewhere, that the best way to answer a bad argument is to let it go on and
that silence is the "unbearable repartee."
 But silence could be tortured out of context and construed by others, not familiar with the facts, as an
implied admission of the weakness of the Philippine stand. And so, I decided to make this reply, fully
aware that in an exchange such as this, considering that our claim is still pending and each side is feeling
out the other's legal position, none but our British friends and their successors may well profit.
The good Senator, whose patriotism I do not propose to impugn, has had access to the confidential
records and documents of the Department of Foreign Affairs. By his own admission, he attended closed-
door hearings of the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and National Defense, where crucial
matters of national survival and security were taken up. He knows the classified, confidential nature of the
records and documents bearing on the Philippine claim.
Senator Sumulong has now found it proper and imperative, if we take him literally, to ventilate his
views berating the merit and validity of the Republic's claim, accusing his own Government of gross
ignorance and holding in unbelievable disdain the Philippine position on the British-sponsored Malaysia
plan. He has chosen to assault the Philippine position at a time when his own Government, by virtue of
the British request, may be said to be somewhat helpless in making, right in our own country, an
adequate, fully-documented defense of the Philippine stand. I trust our British friends, here and across
the seas, will understand if, in defense of our position, we come pretty close to the area of danger.
The good Senator tells us that in view of the "importance and magnitude" of the subject, he decided to
wait "until all the relevant facts and information" were in, that he had made his own "studies and
researches," which on the basis of the press releases issued by his office, must have been quite massive.
The morning papers last Monday (March 25) quoted the Senator as having bewailed, in advance of his
privilege speech, that "only one side of the problem has been presented so far," (meaning the Philippine
side) seemingly unaware, despite the depth and range of his studies, that in the world press, only the
British side has been given the benefit of full and favorable publicity and that the Philippine side has been
summarily dismissed, just as the Senator dismisses it now with apparent contempt, as "shadowy",
"dubious" and "flimsy." It may interest the good Senator to know that his statements, particularly on the
eve of the talks in London, consistently derogatory of the Philippine claim, were seized upon by the
English press with great delight, as if to show to the Philippine panel how well-informed the Senator was.
It is, of course, not the fault of the Senator that the British, in an admirable show of unity, enjoyed and
were immensely fascinated by his press releases and statements.
But before I take up the Senator's arguments in detail, it may be well to set our frame of reference by
restating the position of the Philippine Government on the North Borneo claim.
Thousands of years ago, what is now known as the Philippines and what is known today as Borneo
used to constitute a single historical, cultural, economic unit. Authoritative Western scientists have traced
the land bridges that connected these two places. The inhabitants of the Philippines and Borneo come
from the same racial stock, they have the same color, they have or used to have similar customs and
traditions. Borneo is only 18 miles away from us today.
North Borneo, formerly known as Sabah, was originally ruled by the Sultan of Brunei. In 1704, in
gratitude for help extended to him by the Sultan of Sulu in suppressing a revolt, the Sultan of Brunei
ceded North Borneo to the Sulu Sultan.
Here, our claim really begins. Over the years, the various European countries, including Britain,
Spain and the Netherlands acknowledged the Sultan of Sulu as the sovereign ruler of North Borneo. They
entered into various treaty arrangements with him.
In 1878, a keen Austrian adventurer, by the name of Baron de Overbeck, having known that the
Sultan of Sulu was facing a life-and-death struggle with the Spanish forces in the Sulu Archipelago, went
to Sulu, took advantage of the situation and persuaded the Sultan of Sulu to lease to him, in consideration
of a yearly rental of Malayan $ 5,000 (roughly equivalent to a meager US $ 1,600), the territory now in
question. The contract of lease — and I call it so on the basis of British documents and records that cannot
be disputed here or abroad — contains a technical description of the territory in terms of natural
boundaries, thus:
 "...all the territories and lands being tributary to us on the mainland of the island of Borneo
commencing from the Pandassan River on the NW coast and extending along the whole east coast as far
as the Sibuco River in the South and comprising among others the States of Peitan, Sugut, Bangaya,
Labuk, Sandakan, Kinabatangan, Muniang and all the other territories and states to the southward
thereof bordering on Darvel Bay and as far as the Sibuco River with all the islands within 3 marine leagues
of the coast."
Overbeck later sold out all his rights under the contract to Alfred Dent, an English merchant, who
established a provisional association and later a Company, known as the British North Borneo Company,
which assumed all the rights and obligations under the 1878 contract. This Company was awarded a Royal
Charter in 1881. A protest against the grant of the charter was lodged by the Spanish and the Dutch
Governments and in reply, the British Government clarified its position and stated in unmistakable
language that "sovereignty remains with the Sultan of Sulu" and that the Company was merely an
administering authority.
In 1946, the British North Borneo Company transferred all its rights and obligations to the British
Crown. The Crown, on July 10,1946 — just six days after Philippine independence — asserted full
sovereign rights over North Borneo, as of that date. Shortly thereafter former American Governor General
Harrison, then Special Adviser to the Philippine Government on Foreign Affairs, denounced the Cession
Order as a unilateral act in violation of legal rights. In 1950, Congressman Macapagal — along with
Congressmen Arsenio Lacson and Arturo Tolentino — sponsored a resolution urging the formal
institution of the claim to North Borneo. Prolonged studies were in the meanwhile undertaken and in
1962 the House of Representatives, in rare unanimity, passed a resolution urging the President of the
Philippines to recover North Borneo consistent with international law and procedure. Acting on this
unanimous resolution and having acquired all the rights and interests of the Sultanate of Sulu, the
Republic of the Philippines, through the President, filed the claim to North Borneo.
Our claim is mainly based on the following propositions: that Overbeck and Dent, not being sovereign
entities nor representing sovereign entities, could not and did not acquire dominion and sovereignty over
North Borneo; that on the basis of authoritative British and Spanish documents, the British North Borneo
Company, a private trading concern to whom Dent transferred his rights, did not and could not acquire
dominion and sovereignty over North Borneo; that their rights were as those indicated in the basic
contract, namely, that of a lessee and a mere delegate; that in accordance with established precedents in
International Law, the assertion of sovereign rights by the British Crown in 1946, in complete disregard of
the contract of 1878 and their solemn commitments, did not and cannot produce legal results in the form
of a new tide.
I shall not, for the moment, take issue with the Senator as to his statement of the problem sought to
be solved either through the Malaysia plan or the Greater Malayan Confederation. Our commitments
under the United Nations Charter, the Bandung Conference Declaration and the 1960 decolonization
resolution of the General Assembly are matters of record and there is no quarrel about them.
Let us deal now with Senator Sumulong's analysis of the "relevant facts". He begins by saying that
"since the organization of the United Nations in 1945, Britain in accordance with the obligations imposed
by the Charter has declared herself to be the colonial power administering North Borneo as a British
colony". There is something misleading in this naked assertion. The good Senator could have informed
the people, having proclaimed knowledge of all the relevant facts, that the British Crown never considered
North Borneo as British territory, nor the North Borneans as British subjects, until July 10,1946 — six
days after the Philippines became independent. He may well have asked himself, "Why July 10,1946?" and
thereafter report to the Senate and to the people he loves so well the results of his new inquiry.
Then, with the air of a magistrate delivering a stinging rebuke, he asks: "Why was the Philippine
claim of sovereignty to North Borneo so tardily presented in the United Nations?" Yet, in the next breath,
the good Senator reassures everyone that "lam and have been in favor of our government giving every
possible support to the proprietary claims of the heirs of the late Sultan Jamalul Kiram." Now, let us
examine these interesting assertions a little more closely.
(1) If the Senator believes that the claim of sovereignty was so tardily presented", how could the
proprietary claim of dominion or ownership — which is the main element of sovereignty — regardless of
whether it is the Philippine Government or not that institutes the claim — be considered still seasonable
and appropriate?
(2) If the Senator suggests now that the proprietary claim is not yet tardy and that the Government
should merely support, "the heirs of the Sultan" in this aspect of the claim, how can he turn around and
say that it is late if it is the Government that is instituting the claim? Be it noted that the Philippine claim
includes sovereignty and dominion over North Borneo.
(3) But what arouses my curiosity is the bald statement of the Senator that he is and has always been
in favor of supporting the proprietary claims of the "heirs of the Sultan of Sulu." Well, that must have been
quite a long time! The Senator cannot therefore blame us, since he has invited and provoked the inquiry, if
we now file a bill of particulars. Did he really support the proprietary aspect of the claim since he first
became a member of the House of Representatives and assumed the Chairmanship of the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs? Probably he did not give much thought to it then. But certainly he must
have heard of the Macapagal-Lacson-Tolentino resolution of 1950. Did he give it in the Senate active and
real support, even in its proprietary aspects? He has been a member of that distinguished body for more
than 12 years — when, how and in what form, (even through a proposed amendment so as to fit his
thinking) did be give that support? The cold, lifeless records of Congress yield no evidence of what he now
eloquently professes.
The distinguished Senator makes a most interesting suggestion. He tells his colleagues in the Senate
and the Filipino people that "the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu" should have gone to the United Nations,
presumably to the International Court of Justice, so that if the said heirs lose their case, "there would be
no loss of honor or prestige for the Republic of the Philippines." I would commend to the good Senator a
closer reading of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in relation to Chapter 14 of the United
Nations Charter. Undoubtedly, he must have known that "the heirs of the Sultan" could not possibly
litigate before the International Court of Justice for the simple reason that they have no international legal
personality. They do not constitute a State, as that term isunderstood in law. Chapter 2, Article 34,
paragraph 1 of the Statute clearly provides: "Only States may be parties in cases before the Court."
The same thing may well be said of his suggestion that the heirs file a reservation or a petition before
the United Nations. And were we to follow the logic of the good Senator, we might conclude that America,
Britain, France, the Netherlands and other countries have no more prestige and honor to keep since they
have, as a matter of cold fact, lost quite a number of cases before international bodies and tribunals. But,
of course, the conclusion is wrong. For respect for the rule of law has never meant and should never mean
loss of honor and prestige.
Then, the good Senator tells us that "contrary to the impression created in the minds of our people,
the claim of sovereignty put forward by our Government as transferee of the Sultan of Sulu does not cover
the entire area of North Borneo but only a portion thereof." I do not know who created this impression, or
whether the Senator has had a hand in it, through his own statements. However, the scope of our claim is
clear: we are claiming these portions of North Borneo which were leased, as clearly defined and described
in the contract of 1878 and which are still under the de facto control and administration of the British
Crown. But the good Senator would like to know what are the "exact metes and bounds" and gloats over
the seeming inability of the people in the Foreign Affairs Department to tell him what are the exact
boundaries. International law, it may be well to remind our good Senator, does not require exact, rigid
definition of a territory by metes and bounds. In the language of international law authorities of the
highest repute, "rigidly fixed boundaries are not indispensable and boundaries of a territory may be
indicated by natural signs, such as rivers, mountains, deserts, forests and the like." (See, for example the
decision of the German-Polish Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, August 1,1929). Up to now, ancient nations, such
as India and China, are still quarreling about their boundaries. In other words, Senator Sumulong is
exacting of his own government more than what International Law requires of us. But no matter. The
lease contract of 1878 tells us in specific terms the natural boundaries and I do not think Senator
Sumulong can improve on it. Nor can the British, if we consider as correct the conclusions of reputable
writers abroad that the dividing boundary lines between the Borneo territories are neither fully-surveyed
nor well-defined (See, for example, North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak, Country Survey Series, New
Haven, 1956).
 It may be well for us, on such a delicate matter as this, to refrain from accusing our own Government
of ignorance, partly out of simple discretion and partly because the real difference between most of us is
that we are ignorant on different subjects — it may be the best thing indeed not to talk about each other's
ignorance.
Incidentally, the good Senator cites Professor Tregonning of the University of Singapore, who wrote a
book on the subject, "Under Chartered Company Rule" to support his own — not Tregonning's —
conclusion that Overbeck and Dent — the two adventurers whose exploits the good Senator carefully
avoided mentioning — "evaluated the rights acquired from the Sultan of Brunei to be 3 times greater than
the rights acquired from the Sultan of Sulu, the yearly payment to the former being Malayan $ 15,000 and
to the latter Malayan $ 5,000." His conclusion is not supported by the authority he cites. Let me quote
from Tregonning himself:
"This meager rental (of Malayan $ 15,000 paid to the Sultan of Brunei) reflects the state of affairs.
The territory had long ceased to be under Brunei control and failed to bring in any revenue. The Sultan
received Malayan $ 15,000 for nothing and he was well pleased." (p. 14).
Likewise, in reading Tregonning, the good Senator avoided telling the people that the history
professor he cited characterized the yearly payment of Malayan $ 5,000 to the Sultan of Sulu as "annual
rental" (p. 14), that the British Colonial Office objected strenuously to the grant of the Royal Charter to the
British North Borneo Company, "considering that no private company should exercise sovereign rights"
(p. 20) and that the highest British officials were reassuring one another that the Royal Charter awarded
to the British North Borneo Company did not vest the sovereignty of the territory in the British
Government (at pp. 27-29).
Assuming that we fail to recover North Borneo, the good Senator insists that "we would appear as
attempting to colonize North Borneo without any lawful or just cause." How can Senator Sumulong damn
his own country as a colonizer when it is precisely submitting its claim, based on historic and legal
considerations, in accordance with the peaceful procedures indicated in the United Nations Charter? How
can he, on the other hand, have nothing but praise for Malaya which, without any claim at all and virtually
a stranger in the region, desires to take over — thanks to British support — the Bornean territories?
Like the isolationists of old, Senator Sumulong asks us: What is the gain of involving ourselves in
North Borneo, if after all, even if we recover it, we are committed to the idea of letting the North Borneans
determine what their eventual fate would be? It is like asking a man what is the use of working if after all
he would eventually fade away — and leave his properties to his kin. One of the rosiest chapters in our
entire history as a people was written when we dispatched our young men to Korea to fight for the cause
of freedom in that part of the world. I don't remember Senator Sumulong having raised the question,
"What's the use of it all?" The good Senator seems to forget that what happens in North Borneo affects us
with greater immediacy and impact because of its proximity to us, that the North Borneans come from the
same racial stock, that years of political isolation and hostile propaganda have created a gap between our
two peoples, that despite the proud assertion that British interests have administered North Borneo for
many years, the British, by their own admission, have not prepared the Borneans for self-government,
that the natives are backward, that they are under the economic, cultural and political domination of the
Chinese and that according to the British-prepared Report (Cobbold) there exists in North Borneo "fertile
material on which Communist infiltration could work in the same way as it is already working in
Sarawak." The Communist danger, the Cobbold Report states, "cannot be excluded for the future." (p. 36).
Senator Sumulong is all praise for the success and the leadership of the Tungku of Malaya and from
these coupled with "British military and economic aid", he jumps to the conclusion that "the enlarged
Federation of Malaysia under the same leadership and with continued British military and economic aid
will be able to meet and overcome any communist attempt to capture Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and
North Borneo." But anyone who has studied logic must surely see that that is a mighty, big jump. Since
the Tungku succeeded in fighting Communism in his home base, the Senator is certain he will also
succeed elsewhere even if the conditions are quite different. This must be a new brand of logic! For one
thing, there is the simple matter of geography. The Tungku Government is a thousand miles away from
the jungles of Borneo. For another, the Borneo peoples, particularly in North Borneo, are not quite
prepared for self-government. And how can the distinguished Senator be so sure about "continued British
military and economic aid", when Britain no longer requires a military outpost in this area as an essential
link in her claim of defense, when the usefulness of fixed bases — such as Singapore — has been rendered
obsolete by new developments in nuclear warfare and when England, beset by economic problems and
stymied by many commitments, must of necessity launch a program of progressive withdrawal from
Southeast Asia? The good Senator did not care to tell our people that the whole concept of Malaysia was
designed to sterilize Singapore, that the whole plan was intended to redress Chinese dominance in
Singapore and Malaya and that the Federation was not conceived out of a sense of oneness, or of racial or
ethnic unity, or of a common heritage, but out of mutual fear and distrust. How can a Federation — so
conceived and designed — endure, much less bring stability to a region where the countries immediately
involved — the Philippines and Indonesia — have not even been consulted? The British may well be wrong
here, just as they were proved wrong in their evaluation of Singapore on the eve of the Second World War
(remember how the British thought it could "stand a long siege" and yet this "key base" fell in less than a
week's time?) and just as they are now being proved wrong in Africa where the British-inspired Central
African Federation is about ready to collapse. And if the Malaysia Federation should fail and become
instead the focal center of Communist infection, what does the good Senator intend to do? Isn't it rather
ironic that whereas in some responsible British quarters, including a sector of the British press, there has
arisen a lurking doubt as to the feasibility of the Malaysia plan, the good Senator should be so certain
about its success?
The respected Senator tells us that he cannot say whether the Greater Confederation plan is a better
substitute. I thought he had all the relevant facts. And if he did not have all the relevant facts, may it not
have been the better part of prudence to give the higher officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs all
the chance to explain the outlines of the plan? But as I said earlier, the good Senator had access to the
Government's Confidential Report. He knows or should know that incisive studies have been made and
completed since last year on the Greater Confederation Plan by an Ad Hoc Committee, composed of
professors and scholars in the University of the Philippines. Surely, he does not expect his Government to
spell out the Confederation Plan to the last detail at this time, before an agreement in principle is reached
among the proposed members. Assuming that the Greater Confederation Plan does not convince the good
Senator, after a careful reading of the studies that have been completed, can he not possibly render service
to the Republic by suggesting positive, meaningful alternatives, having in mind his massive research and
studies on the subject?
Our distinguished Senator has but one suggestion. I quote him:
"...the better course to follow is for our government to inform the United Nations in due time, i.e.,
when the Federation of Malaysia Plan is submitted for consideration in the United Nations, that we are
voluntarily relinquishing what ever claims of sovereignty we may have to any portion of North Borneo in
order to accelerate the changing of its status from a non-self-governing territory to that of a self-governing
or independent State and that we favor holding a plebiscite under UN auspices to give the people of North
Borneo the opportunity to freely express their will and wishes..."
In short, the good Senator would have us tell the world we are abandoning our claim, let Malaya take
over North Borneo under the so-called Malaysia Federation, then ask for a referendum in North Borneo to
ascertain what the North Borneans want. This, to my mind, is a proposal so naive it does not do justice to
the reputation of the distinguished Senator or to the depth and range of his studies. In the first place, a
Federation plan need not be approved by the United Nations. In the second place, a sophisticated study of
the results of a plebiscite under the circumstances set forth by the distinguished Senator (and having in
mind the plebiscites that have already been held, where there was indeed no choice but to say "yes" to
what the British and Malayans wanted) forecloses the kind of result that will be achieved. For so long the
North Borneans have been under British tutelage; the Malaysia plan is British-conceived, British-inspired
and British-sponsored; Malaya is raring to take over a territory whose native inhabitants, according to the
Cobbold Report, have a low level of education and political consciousness and who were ready to agree to
the Malaysia proposals "although they were not fully understood." Now, what kind of free elections does
the Senator expect to witness in North Borneo?
In fine, the Senator would have the Republic launch a program of defeat — born of fear and doubt
and timidity. I cannot agree to such a plan of action.
 We have told the British that we agree that their interests in the region should be respected and that
we welcome any practical arrangements to this end. But this should not take the form of colonialism in a
different guise which, instead of being a factor of stability becomes the source of endless provocation. The
Philippines is here in Southeast Asia to stay; Britain, saddled with various commitments, probably desires
to play a lesser role in Southeast Asia and make a graceful exit; Malaya, a distant stranger to the region,
desires a virtual annexation of the Bornean territories to sterilize and quarantine Singapore, the "key
base", which is predominantly Chinese and, whose loyalties are not beneath suspicion. A professor in an
Australian University, writing in the India Quarterly, makes a thorough analysis of the Malaysia Plan and
sees great difficulties ahead.
"Even in North Borneo and Sarawak the indigenous peoples are not happy about a federation. Their
own racial problems are much simpler and their economic prosperity does not require any political
integration with Malaya. In any case, Borneo territories are extremely jealous of their imminent
independence which they are reluctant to submerge in a federation.
"It is also unclear how the central (Tungku) government located in Kuala Lumpur would be able to
exercise effective control over those territories, which are separated by South China sea from Malaya by
varying distances, from about 500 miles to well over a thousand. Jesselton is nearer to Saigon or to
Manila than to Kuala Lumpur. In area British Borneo is about the same as Malaya, but its 1400 mile long
coast line is longer than the Federation's. Defence, in the event of a crisis, from Malaya would be
difficult..." (Singhal, D.P., Imperial Defence, Communist Challenge and the Great Design).
The good Senator realizes, of course, that if North Borneo should fall into hostile hands, it is the
Philippines that will be immediately affected. And yet until we filed our claim to North Borneo and talks
were conducted thereafter in London culminating in an official cognizance of our claim, there was no
attempt at all to consult with us on matters that affect the very survival and security of this country. It is
only now that Britain and Malaya have become ncreasingly appreciative of our stand and their willingness
not to prejudice our claim despite Malaysia is certainly a great credit to the Administration. If between
now and August 31,1963, the scheduled date of birth of the Malaysia Federation, these countries should
stiffen in their attitude towards our claim, I must state in all candor that for all my respect for him and
even assuming the nobility of his motives, the good Senator cannot fully escape the burden of
responsibility,
I am no apologist for the President of the Philippines, not even on the North Borneo question and will
disagree with him whenever I think that his action is not well-advised. But I believe that on such a
fundamental question as this, it may be well for us to remember that political considerations, bitterness
and endless quibbling should stop at the water's edge and that the claim to North Borneo is not the claim
of the President, nor of the Liberal Party, nor of his Administration, but a claim of the entire Republic,
based on respect for the rule of law, the sanctity of contractual obligations, the sacredness of facts and the
relentless logic of our situation in this part of the world. 

POSTED BY STEVE SALONGA 1 COMMENT: LINKS TO THIS POST

Privilege Speech of Senator Lorenzo Sumulong on The Sabah Claim

Annex A:

Privilege Speech of Senator Lorenzo Sumulong on Philippines' North Borneo

(Sabah) Claim
Philippine Senate, March 25, 1963.

I have refrained from discussing on the floor of the Senate the Malaysia plan or the alternative plan of
a Greater Malayan Confederation proposed by President Macapagal in connection with the Philippine
claim of sovereignty to a portion of North Borneo, while the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and
National Defense and Security were holding joint closed-door hearings in Camp Murphy.
 As your Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I had made my own studies and researches,
but I thought that there might be new facts and considerations which our defense and foreign affairs
officials might bring to our attention during the briefing.
Now that the briefing is over and the administration experts have submitted to the two Committees all
the facts within their knowledge and possession, I believe it is already proper, nay, I believe it is my duty
to submit for the consideration of the entire Senate and of our people the facts and considerations which I
believe are material and necessary to the formation and crystallization of an intelligent opinion about the
two plans. In so doing, I want to make clear the responsibility for the facts and considerations I am about
to present is my own.
I want to make clear that I am always subject to correction. If my facts and considerations are wrong, I
would be ready to admit and correct my mistakes. And I do hope that others will do likewise.
Our commitments
Under the United Nations Charter, it is the duty of every colonial power administering non-self-
government or independence and until that people has been made self-governing or independent, it is the
duty of the colonial power to submit to the United Nations every year a report of its administration of the
territory.
The duty of the administering power to prepare the non-self-governing territory for self-government
or independence is provided for in Chapter XI, Article 73 b of the United Nations Charter which makes it
the duty of the administering power "to develop self-government, to take due account of the political
aspirations of the (non-self-governing) peoples and to assist them in the progressive development of their
free political institutions."
No RP Protest
Since the organization of the United Nations in 1945, Britain in accordance with the obligations
imposed by the Charter has declared herself to be the colonial power administering Sarawak as British
colony and has been submitting to the United Nations every year a report of her administration of these
three non-self-governing territories. During all that time, the Philippines as a member of the United
Nations has not put forward any claim of sovereignty over North Borneo, nor has the Philippines
registered any reservation or protest to the report submitted by Britain to the United Nations every year
as the administering power over North Borneo. It was only in December of last year (1962) that the
Philippine delegation, during the consideration of the yearly report of the British administration over
North Borneo in the Trusteeship Committee, made a reservation contesting for the first time the right of
the British to rule and administer North Borneo.
Belated claim
Why was the Philippine claim of sovereignty to North Borneo so tardily presented in the United
Nations? The answer is that North Borneo is not a part of the national territory of the Philippines as
defined and delimited in our Constitution. When the United Nations was organized in 1945, the claimants
to North Borneo was not the Philippines but the heirs of the late Sultan Jamalul Kiram who died in 1936.
If the said heirs had any claims to sovereignty over North Borneo — as distinguished from their
proprietary claims — they could have filed a petition or a reservation to the United Nations protesting
against British rule and administration over North Borneo, but they did not file any such petition or
reservation. It was only in February of last year (1962) that the said heirs informed our Department of
Foreign Affairs that they were claiming sovereignty to North Borneo and they offered to turn over such
claim of sovereignty to the Republic of the Philippines, reserving however to themselves their proprietary
claims.
This offer was accepted by President Macapagal and to give semblance of legality to the transfer of
sovereignty from the said heirs to the Republic of the Philippines, in September of last year (1962) out of
the several surviving heirs of Sultan Jamalul Kiram who died in 1936, Esmail Kiram was proclaimed the
new Sultan of Sulu claiming to possess all the attributes and prerogatives of a sovereign ruler and as such
he executed a deed of cession of his alleged claim of sovereignty to North Borneo in favor of the Republic
of the Philippines.
A mistake
I am and have always been in favor of our government giving every possible support to the proprietary
claims of the heirs of the late Sultan Jamalul Kiram. But I have always believed as I still believe that it was
a mistake for the President Macapagal to have agreed to such transfer of the claim of sovereignty from the
said heirs to the Republic of the Philippines for the following reasons:
(1) The said heirs had never filed a petition or reservation before the United Nations claiming
sovereignty to North Borneo and protesting British rule and administration thereof. Since the transferee
acquires no better rights than the transferor, this weakens the present claim of the Republic of the
Philippines.
(2) Even if the said heirs had a strong claim of sovereignty to North Borneo, our government should
have advised them to file a petition or reservation to that effect before the United Nations, instead of
agreeing to a transfer of such claim of sovereignty to the Republic of the Philippines. If the said heirs lose
their case before the United Nations, there would be no loss of honor of prestige for the Republic of the
Philippines. As it is now, if the belated claim of sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines to a portion
of North Borneo does not prosper in the United Nations, the damage to our national honor and prestige
would be incalculable. We would appear as attempting to colonize North Borneo without any lawful or
just cause, contrary to our vehement denunciations of colonialism and our loud demands that the grant of
self-government or independence to subject peoples be accelerated. Even if the United Nations should
sustain the belated Philippine claim of sovereignty to North Borneo, we stand to gain nothing because we
are committed to speedily end our rule and administration there, grant its people self-government or
independence and respect their will and wishes as to whether they will join the Federation of Malaysia or
the Greater Malayan Confederation proposed by President Macapagal.
(3) Contrary to the impression created in the minds of our people, the claim of sovereignty put
forward by our government as transferee of the Sultan of Sulu does not cover the entire area of North
Borneo, but only a portion thereof. This was admitted by the Philippine panel during the London talks,
but the administration of President Macapagal has kept mum and has not brought this important fact to
the attention of our people. During our joint committee meetings in Camp Murphy, I asked the members
of the Philippine panel present if they could tell us the exact metes and bounds and the exact area of this
portion of North Borneo claimed by our government but none could give us a positive answer. This was
amazing in the extreme. When a man sues in court to recover title and possession to a piece of land, the
first thing he has to prove in court is the identity of the land. But here is the administration of President
Macapagal involving the honor and prestige of our government in a claim of sovereignty to a portion of
North Borneo, without being able to tell us the identity of that portion. And yet, administration stalwarts
have been daring the British to have the case tried and decided by the International Court of Justice.
From the compilation of documents submitted to us by Minister Benito Bautista of the Department of
Foreign Affairs, I found that before Overbeck and Dent entered into the contract of January 12,1878 with
the Sultan of Sulu, they had previously obtained from the Sultan of Brunei four other similar contracts on
December 29,1877. As narrated by K. G. Tregonning in his book entitled Under Chartered Company Rule
and borne out by the descriptions contained in the four contracts of the Sultan of Brunei.
"The Sultan (of Brunei), in three grants of territory from Gaya Bay on the west coast to the Sibuco
River on the east; and the Pengeran Tumongong (heir to the Sultan of Brunei) in a grant of his west coast
possessions, the rivers Kimanis and Benowi, ceded to Overbeck and Dent, with all the powers of
sovereignty, some 28,000 square miles of territory, embracing 900 miles of North Bornean coastline, for
a total yearly payment of Malayan $ 5,000." (op.cit. P-14)
In the later contract with the Sultan of Sulu, the territory ceded to Overbeck and Dent was from the
Pandassan River on the west coast to the Sibuco River on the east, for which the Sultan of Sulu was to
receive a yearly payment of Malayan $ 5,000. A look at the map of North Borneo will show that Gaya Bay
is farther to the west than Pandassan River. So the territory ceded under the four contracts with the
Sultan of Brunei was more extensive and embraced the territory ceded under the contract with the Sultan
of Sulu. Why did Overbeck and Dent still contracted with the Sultan of Sulu for territory already ceded to
them under the four contracts with the Sultan of Brunei? According to Professor Tregonning in his
aforecited book, after Overbeck and Dent had negotiated the four contracts with the Sultan of Brunei, they
learned later that the northeast coast, which comprised a large portion of the territory ceded by the Sultan
of Brunei, was in the hands of the Sultan of Sulu who claimed to have received it from the Sultan of Brunei
in 1704 in return for the help in suppressing a rebellion and it was for this reason that they negotiated the
contract with the Sultan of Sulu on January 12,1878 (op. cit. pp. 11,14-15). From this it appears that the
territory claimed and ceded by the Sultan of Sulu on January 12, 1878 was likewise claimed and had been
previously ceded by the Sultan of Brunei on December 29,1877 and that Overbeck and Dent evaluated the
rights acquired from the Sultan of Brunei to be three times greater than the rights acquired from the
Sultan of Sulu, the yearly payment to the former being Malayan $ 15,000 and to the latter Malayan $
5,000. It is small wonder that the administration of President Macapagal is at a loss to identify the
portion of North Borneo subject of their claim of sovereignty,
Common concern
It should be the common concern of the Philippines and of all countries whose peoples believe in the
free and democratic way of life, to see to it that Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo, are not only speedily
decolonized and granted self-government or independence, but also adequately safeguarded against the
danger of communist infiltration and subversion once they become self-governing or independent.
The balance of power in Asia between the forces of freedom on the one hand and the forces of
communism on the other, is in a very precarious and critical posture today. Laos has turned neutralist.
The ruler of Cambodia has decided to align himself on the side of Red China. South Vietnam is facing a
life and death struggle with the Viet Congs. India's borders have been invaded by Red China. If Sarawak,
Brunei, North Borneo and Singapore, should be lost to the free world by their turning communist or
neutralist, the peace and security of the free world countries in Asia including the Philippines would be
gravely imperilled.
We in the Philippines are firmly and uncompromisingly against communism. Whether under the
former Nacionalista administration or under the present Liberal administration, that has been our
consistent policy. We are a religious people and we cannot accept a godless ideology. We want progress,
but we do not want to achieve progress through dictatorship and violence; we want to achieve progress
through freedom and peaceful reform.
In the fight between the forces of freedom and the forces of communism, we do not believe in being
neutralist or non-aligned. We want to stand up and be counted on the side of the forces of freedom.
And because the military power of the forces of communism is great due to their tremendous human
and material resources, no nation can resist and fight them alone and unaided. The forces of freedom
must combine and cooperate militarily and economically in order to balance the military and economic
power of the forces of communism. Thus, we have entered into defensive alliances like the mutual defense
pact with the US and the SEATO pact.
British plan
The Federation of Malaysia is the British plan of giving self-government to Sarawak, Brunei and North
Borneo and at the same time safeguard them against communist infiltration and subversion. Under the
plan, Britain will relinquish sovereignty over Sarawak and North Borneo and withdraw protection over
Brunei and then these three newly independent states will join the 11 states now composing the
Federation of Malaya and Singapore in forming the Federation of Malaysia. In other words, the present
Federation of Malaya will be enlarged by bringing in Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo as
new members and as thus enlarged it will be renamed Federation of Malaysia. The present mutual
defense pact between Britain and the Federation of Malaya will then be extended to this enlarged
Federation of Malaysia.
The plan is to follow the same pattern by which Malaya was given independence on August 31,1957
and by means of a mutual defense pact with the former mother country (Britain), receive such military
and economic aid to enable her to fight communist infiltration and subversion successfully.
 Let us recall the history of Malaya. For a hundred years, Malaya was under British rule before she won
her independence on August 31,1957. Malaya is a Federation of 11 states, two of which were formerly
British colonies and the remaining nine were formerly protectorates. Under her constitution, these 11
states upon becoming independent agreed to form a Federation with a federal parliament composed of
two houses in which each of the 11 states was given representation.
When she became independent in 1957, Malaya was faced with a grave internal problem of communist
infiltration and subversion. In population, the Chinese is the second biggest in number, next only to the
Malays, so that the danger of Chinese communist infiltration and subversion was real and acute. This
danger had to be met realistically and the leaders of Malaya realized that it had to be fought not only with
military but also with economic weapons, for which they needed British aid and cooperation. So, the
leaders of Malaya evolved a five-year development plan to improve the livelihood of the people so that
they will not be enticed by communist propaganda harping on the poverty of the masses and promising a
classless society where there will be no poor and no rich. This five-year development plan involved an
expenditure of Malayan $ 1,358,000,000 and the British government agreed to give extensive financial
help to it and the plan was so well implemented that Malaya has achieved an economic progress next only
to Japan in the whole Far East as shown by her per capita income which is second only to Japan. Also,
there was a British grant of Malayan $ 114 million for the establishment of the federal armed forces of
Malaya and for the first three years a yearly grant of Malayan $ 25 million to help Malaya deal with the
terrorist problem. Through these economic and military measures, Malaya under the leadership of
Tungku Abdul Rahman was able to break the communist backbone in that country, in the same way that
through similar economic and military measures, Magsaysay was able to break the communist backbone
here in our country, so that the names of Abdul Rahman and Magsaysay rank high in the roster of
successful communist fighters in Asia.
Because of the success of the Federation of Malaya under the leadership of Abdul Rahman and with
the British military and economic aid to fight communist infiltration and subversion, it is also expected
that the enlarged Federation of Malaysia under the same leadership of Abdul Rahman and with continued
British military and economic aid will be able to meet and overcome any communist attempt to capture
Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo through infiltration and subversive activities.
It is pertinent to point out that Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo are outside the SEATO
area so that they cannot rely on the SEATO for protection against communism. Neither can they rely on
US military or economic aid, since the present trend in American foreign policy as manifested in Senator
Mansfield's position is to cut down on American foreign aid by not giving to those countries to which the
US has not heretofore given aid and to gradually reduce the amount as to those countries to which the US
has been giving aid. It is only Britain which can be expected to extend military and economic aid to these
countries once they become independent because Britain is their former mother country and because of
the close trade and economic ties that will have to continue even after the severance of political ties
between' them.
Alternative plan
Let me now turn to the Greater Confederation of Malay States proposed by President Macapagal. Is
this a better substitute to the Malaysia plan as an instrumentality to make Sarawak, Brunei and North
Borneo safe and secure against communist infiltration and subversion once these countries become self-
governing or independent? According to President Macapagal, it is a better substitute. For my part, I
cannot say whether it is a better substitute or not, for the simple reason that its proponents cannot give us
any information as to what concretely and specifically are the plans and the ways and means by which this
Greater Malayan Confederation is expected to help protect Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo against
communist infiltration and subversion. All that we are told is that the proposed members of are Malaya,
Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei, North Borneo and the Philippines. According to President Macapagal in a
recent interview with a correspondent of Agence de France, all that he could say was that the proposed
members will retain their separate sovereignties. This means that the Philippine claim to a portion of
North Borneo will be given so that North Borneo may become independent and sovereign and thus qualify
to be a memberof this Greater Malayan Confederation. I have asked before and I now again ask: Is it the
plan that this Greater Malayan Confederation will not seek any outside military or economic aid either
from Britain or from the US and that each member state will just rely on her own military and economic
resources to fight communist infiltration and subversion? Is the Philippines ready to extend military and
economic aid to North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak and if so, how much is the present administration
willing to appropriate for this purpose? What joint and common measures will the member states take in
order to help each other in fighting communist infiltration and subversion? Will there be a common
armed force? Will there be a common economic program? Or will this be a purely social club? These
questions are relevant, material and pertinent and must be answered by President Macapagal and the
proponent of the Greater Malayan Confederation, before they can expect any Filipino to rally to its
support and before they can expect the proposed member-states of such Confederation to be convinced
that it is a better and more effective instrument than the Malaysia plan to combat and overcome the
communist menace in their respective territories. I regret to report that in the joint committee hearings of
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and National Defense and Security, none of the defense and
foreign officials present could give any answer to these questions and they confessed to our amazement
and surprise that the detailed plans and objectives of this projected Greater Malayan Confederation have
not been spelled out.
Conclusions
From the foregoing facts and considerations, I submit to the Senate and to our people the following
conclusions:
(1) If the administration of President Macapagal seriously believes that the Philippine claim of
sovereignty to a portion of Nj&rth Borneo should be prosecuted to the bitter end, it must be prepared to
establish the identity of that portion whether the case is brought before the International Court of Justice
or before the United Nations.
(2) If the Philippines lose its case, the damage to the honor and prestige of our Republic would be
incalculable. We would appear as having attempted to colonize a portion of North Borneo without any
lawful or just cause, forgetting our colonialism and our loud demands for accelerating the grant of self-
government or independence to subject peoples especially those in Asia.
(3) Even if the Philippines win its case, we stand to gain nothing because under the United Nations
charter, the Bandung Conference declaration and the 1960 decolonization resolution of the United
Nations General Assembly, we have to give up our rule and administration to the portion of North Borneo
we are claiming, grant its people self-government or independence and respect their will and wishes as to
whether they will join the Federation of Malaysia or the Greater Malayan Confederation or exist as a
separate independent state. In this connection, it is worthy of note that judging from press reports of
Filipino newspapermen who had gone to North Borneo, the popular reaction there to our claim of
sovereignty is one of surprise and resentment rather than sympathy and support.
(4) If President Macapagal honestly believes that the Federation of Malaysia plan is not according
with the freely expressed will and wishes of the people of North Borneo, despite the information recently
given by the Mayor of Jesselton while here as an ECAFE delegates that 96 out of 111 representatives
elected to the legislative council of North Borneo last December favor Malaysia, he can raise the question
before the United Nations and ask that a plebiscite be held under the auspices of the world organization to
determine whether the people of North Borneo really favor Malaysia or not. And if Indonesia insists that
the peoples of Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo are against Malaysia, we should point out to her that
there is available UN machinery and there is the peaceful remedy of asking for a plebiscite under the
auspices of the United Nations, which renders unnecessary resort to war or use offeree and violence.
(5) If President Macapagal honestly believes that his proposed Greater Malayan Confederation is a
better substitute to the Malaysia plan to defend and protect ourselves and the other Malayan peoples of
Asia against the danger of communist infiltration and subversion, then he must abandon talking in
platitudes and generalities and at once spell out concretely and specifically, the ways and means, the
military and economic aid if any by which the Greater Malayan Confederation expects to help the people
of North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak to fight and overcome successfully the forces of communism once
they become self-governing or independent.
(6) Our people must be told and made to realize that if we are to be consistent with our avowed policy
of opposing communism firmly and uncompromisingly, then for the peace and security not only of
ourselves but of our free world allies in Asia, we must see to it that North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak,
remain on the side of the free would and not turn communist or neutralist, once they become self-
governing or independent.
(7) Rather than prosecute the Philippine claim of sovereignty to a portion of North Borneo to the
bitter end. I for one believe in all sincerity that under the present circumstances, the better course to
follow is for our government to inform the United Nations in due time, i.e., when the Federation of
Malaysia plan is submitted for consideration in the United Nations that we are voluntarily relinquishing
whatever claim of sovereignty we may have to any portion of North Borneo in order to accelerate the
changing of its status from a non-self governing territory to that of a self-governing or independent state
and that we favor holding a plebiscite under United Nations auspices to give the people of North Borneo
the opportunity to freely express their will and wishes as to whether they want to join the Federation of
Malaysia or the Greater Malayan Confederation or exist as a separate independent state.

POSTED BY STEVE SALONGA NO COMMENTS: LINKS TO THIS POST

Annex A:

Privilege Speech of Senator Lorenzo Sumulong on Philippines' North Borneo

(Sabah) Claim
Philippine Senate, March 25, 1963.

I have refrained from discussing on the floor of the Senate the Malaysia plan or the alternative plan of
a Greater Malayan Confederation proposed by President Macapagal in connection with the Philippine
claim of sovereignty to a portion of North Borneo, while the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and
National Defense and Security were holding joint closed-door hearings in Camp Murphy.
As your Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I had made my own studies and researches,
but I thought that there might be new facts and considerations which our defense and foreign affairs
officials might bring to our attention during the briefing.
Now that the briefing is over and the administration experts have submitted to the two Committees all
the facts within their knowledge and possession, I believe it is already proper, nay, I believe it is my duty
to submit for the consideration of the entire Senate and of our people the facts and considerations which I
believe are material and necessary to the formation and crystallization of an intelligent opinion about the
two plans. In so doing, I want to make clear the responsibility for the facts and considerations I am about
to present is my own.
I want to make clear that I am always subject to correction. If my facts and considerations are wrong, I
would be ready to admit and correct my mistakes. And I do hope that others will do likewise.
Our commitments
Under the United Nations Charter, it is the duty of every colonial power administering non-self-
government or independence and until that people has been made self-governing or independent, it is the
duty of the colonial power to submit to the United Nations every year a report of its administration of the
territory.
The duty of the administering power to prepare the non-self-governing territory for self-government
or independence is provided for in Chapter XI, Article 73 b of the United Nations Charter which makes it
the duty of the administering power "to develop self-government, to take due account of the political
aspirations of the (non-self-governing) peoples and to assist them in the progressive development of their
free political institutions."
No RP Protest
 Since the organization of the United Nations in 1945, Britain in accordance with the obligations
imposed by the Charter has declared herself to be the colonial power administering Sarawak as British
colony and has been submitting to the United Nations every year a report of her administration of these
three non-self-governing territories. During all that time, the Philippines as a member of the United
Nations has not put forward any claim of sovereignty over North Borneo, nor has the Philippines
registered any reservation or protest to the report submitted by Britain to the United Nations every year
as the administering power over North Borneo. It was only in December of last year (1962) that the
Philippine delegation, during the consideration of the yearly report of the British administration over
North Borneo in the Trusteeship Committee, made a reservation contesting for the first time the right of
the British to rule and administer North Borneo.
Belated claim
Why was the Philippine claim of sovereignty to North Borneo so tardily presented in the United
Nations? The answer is that North Borneo is not a part of the national territory of the Philippines as
defined and delimited in our Constitution. When the United Nations was organized in 1945, the claimants
to North Borneo was not the Philippines but the heirs of the late Sultan Jamalul Kiram who died in 1936.
If the said heirs had any claims to sovereignty over North Borneo — as distinguished from their
proprietary claims — they could have filed a petition or a reservation to the United Nations protesting
against British rule and administration over North Borneo, but they did not file any such petition or
reservation. It was only in February of last year (1962) that the said heirs informed our Department of
Foreign Affairs that they were claiming sovereignty to North Borneo and they offered to turn over such
claim of sovereignty to the Republic of the Philippines, reserving however to themselves their proprietary
claims.
This offer was accepted by President Macapagal and to give semblance of legality to the transfer of
sovereignty from the said heirs to the Republic of the Philippines, in September of last year (1962) out of
the several surviving heirs of Sultan Jamalul Kiram who died in 1936, Esmail Kiram was proclaimed the
new Sultan of Sulu claiming to possess all the attributes and prerogatives of a sovereign ruler and as such
he executed a deed of cession of his alleged claim of sovereignty to North Borneo in favor of the Republic
of the Philippines.
A mistake
I am and have always been in favor of our government giving every possible support to the proprietary
claims of the heirs of the late Sultan Jamalul Kiram. But I have always believed as I still believe that it was
a mistake for the President Macapagal to have agreed to such transfer of the claim of sovereignty from the
said heirs to the Republic of the Philippines for the following reasons:
(1) The said heirs had never filed a petition or reservation before the United Nations claiming
sovereignty to North Borneo and protesting British rule and administration thereof. Since the transferee
acquires no better rights than the transferor, this weakens the present claim of the Republic of the
Philippines.
(2) Even if the said heirs had a strong claim of sovereignty to North Borneo, our government should
have advised them to file a petition or reservation to that effect before the United Nations, instead of
agreeing to a transfer of such claim of sovereignty to the Republic of the Philippines. If the said heirs lose
their case before the United Nations, there would be no loss of honor of prestige for the Republic of the
Philippines. As it is now, if the belated claim of sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines to a portion
of North Borneo does not prosper in the United Nations, the damage to our national honor and prestige
would be incalculable. We would appear as attempting to colonize North Borneo without any lawful or
just cause, contrary to our vehement denunciations of colonialism and our loud demands that the grant of
self-government or independence to subject peoples be accelerated. Even if the United Nations should
sustain the belated Philippine claim of sovereignty to North Borneo, we stand to gain nothing because we
are committed to speedily end our rule and administration there, grant its people self-government or
independence and respect their will and wishes as to whether they will join the Federation of Malaysia or
the Greater Malayan Confederation proposed by President Macapagal.
 (3) Contrary to the impression created in the minds of our people, the claim of sovereignty put
forward by our government as transferee of the Sultan of Sulu does not cover the entire area of North
Borneo, but only a portion thereof. This was admitted by the Philippine panel during the London talks,
but the administration of President Macapagal has kept mum and has not brought this important fact to
the attention of our people. During our joint committee meetings in Camp Murphy, I asked the members
of the Philippine panel present if they could tell us the exact metes and bounds and the exact area of this
portion of North Borneo claimed by our government but none could give us a positive answer. This was
amazing in the extreme. When a man sues in court to recover title and possession to a piece of land, the
first thing he has to prove in court is the identity of the land. But here is the administration of President
Macapagal involving the honor and prestige of our government in a claim of sovereignty to a portion of
North Borneo, without being able to tell us the identity of that portion. And yet, administration stalwarts
have been daring the British to have the case tried and decided by the International Court of Justice.
From the compilation of documents submitted to us by Minister Benito Bautista of the Department of
Foreign Affairs, I found that before Overbeck and Dent entered into the contract of January 12,1878 with
the Sultan of Sulu, they had previously obtained from the Sultan of Brunei four other similar contracts on
December 29,1877. As narrated by K. G. Tregonning in his book entitled Under Chartered Company Rule
and borne out by the descriptions contained in the four contracts of the Sultan of Brunei.
"The Sultan (of Brunei), in three grants of territory from Gaya Bay on the west coast to the Sibuco
River on the east; and the Pengeran Tumongong (heir to the Sultan of Brunei) in a grant of his west coast
possessions, the rivers Kimanis and Benowi, ceded to Overbeck and Dent, with all the powers of
sovereignty, some 28,000 square miles of territory, embracing 900 miles of North Bornean coastline, for
a total yearly payment of Malayan $ 5,000." (op.cit. P-14)
In the later contract with the Sultan of Sulu, the territory ceded to Overbeck and Dent was from the
Pandassan River on the west coast to the Sibuco River on the east, for which the Sultan of Sulu was to
receive a yearly payment of Malayan $ 5,000. A look at the map of North Borneo will show that Gaya Bay
is farther to the west than Pandassan River. So the territory ceded under the four contracts with the
Sultan of Brunei was more extensive and embraced the territory ceded under the contract with the Sultan
of Sulu. Why did Overbeck and Dent still contracted with the Sultan of Sulu for territory already ceded to
them under the four contracts with the Sultan of Brunei? According to Professor Tregonning in his
aforecited book, after Overbeck and Dent had negotiated the four contracts with the Sultan of Brunei, they
learned later that the northeast coast, which comprised a large portion of the territory ceded by the Sultan
of Brunei, was in the hands of the Sultan of Sulu who claimed to have received it from the Sultan of Brunei
in 1704 in return for the help in suppressing a rebellion and it was for this reason that they negotiated the
contract with the Sultan of Sulu on January 12,1878 (op. cit. pp. 11,14-15). From this it appears that the
territory claimed and ceded by the Sultan of Sulu on January 12, 1878 was likewise claimed and had been
previously ceded by the Sultan of Brunei on December 29,1877 and that Overbeck and Dent evaluated the
rights acquired from the Sultan of Brunei to be three times greater than the rights acquired from the
Sultan of Sulu, the yearly payment to the former being Malayan $ 15,000 and to the latter Malayan $
5,000. It is small wonder that the administration of President Macapagal is at a loss to identify the
portion of North Borneo subject of their claim of sovereignty,
Common concern
It should be the common concern of the Philippines and of all countries whose peoples believe in the
free and democratic way of life, to see to it that Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo, are not only speedily
decolonized and granted self-government or independence, but also adequately safeguarded against the
danger of communist infiltration and subversion once they become self-governing or independent.
The balance of power in Asia between the forces of freedom on the one hand and the forces of
communism on the other, is in a very precarious and critical posture today. Laos has turned neutralist.
The ruler of Cambodia has decided to align himself on the side of Red China. South Vietnam is facing a
life and death struggle with the Viet Congs. India's borders have been invaded by Red China. If Sarawak,
Brunei, North Borneo and Singapore, should be lost to the free world by their turning communist or
neutralist, the peace and security of the free world countries in Asia including the Philippines would be
gravely imperilled.
 We in the Philippines are firmly and uncompromisingly against communism. Whether under the
former Nacionalista administration or under the present Liberal administration, that has been our
consistent policy. We are a religious people and we cannot accept a godless ideology. We want progress,
but we do not want to achieve progress through dictatorship and violence; we want to achieve progress
through freedom and peaceful reform.
In the fight between the forces of freedom and the forces of communism, we do not believe in being
neutralist or non-aligned. We want to stand up and be counted on the side of the forces of freedom.
And because the military power of the forces of communism is great due to their tremendous human
and material resources, no nation can resist and fight them alone and unaided. The forces of freedom
must combine and cooperate militarily and economically in order to balance the military and economic
power of the forces of communism. Thus, we have entered into defensive alliances like the mutual defense
pact with the US and the SEATO pact.
British plan
The Federation of Malaysia is the British plan of giving self-government to Sarawak, Brunei and North
Borneo and at the same time safeguard them against communist infiltration and subversion. Under the
plan, Britain will relinquish sovereignty over Sarawak and North Borneo and withdraw protection over
Brunei and then these three newly independent states will join the 11 states now composing the
Federation of Malaya and Singapore in forming the Federation of Malaysia. In other words, the present
Federation of Malaya will be enlarged by bringing in Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo as
new members and as thus enlarged it will be renamed Federation of Malaysia. The present mutual
defense pact between Britain and the Federation of Malaya will then be extended to this enlarged
Federation of Malaysia.
The plan is to follow the same pattern by which Malaya was given independence on August 31,1957
and by means of a mutual defense pact with the former mother country (Britain), receive such military
and economic aid to enable her to fight communist infiltration and subversion successfully.
Let us recall the history of Malaya. For a hundred years, Malaya was under British rule before she won
her independence on August 31,1957. Malaya is a Federation of 11 states, two of which were formerly
British colonies and the remaining nine were formerly protectorates. Under her constitution, these 11
states upon becoming independent agreed to form a Federation with a federal parliament composed of
two houses in which each of the 11 states was given representation.
When she became independent in 1957, Malaya was faced with a grave internal problem of communist
infiltration and subversion. In population, the Chinese is the second biggest in number, next only to the
Malays, so that the danger of Chinese communist infiltration and subversion was real and acute. This
danger had to be met realistically and the leaders of Malaya realized that it had to be fought not only with
military but also with economic weapons, for which they needed British aid and cooperation. So, the
leaders of Malaya evolved a five-year development plan to improve the livelihood of the people so that
they will not be enticed by communist propaganda harping on the poverty of the masses and promising a
classless society where there will be no poor and no rich. This five-year development plan involved an
expenditure of Malayan $ 1,358,000,000 and the British government agreed to give extensive financial
help to it and the plan was so well implemented that Malaya has achieved an economic progress next only
to Japan in the whole Far East as shown by her per capita income which is second only to Japan. Also,
there was a British grant of Malayan $ 114 million for the establishment of the federal armed forces of
Malaya and for the first three years a yearly grant of Malayan $ 25 million to help Malaya deal with the
terrorist problem. Through these economic and military measures, Malaya under the leadership of
Tungku Abdul Rahman was able to break the communist backbone in that country, in the same way that
through similar economic and military measures, Magsaysay was able to break the communist backbone
here in our country, so that the names of Abdul Rahman and Magsaysay rank high in the roster of
successful communist fighters in Asia.
Because of the success of the Federation of Malaya under the leadership of Abdul Rahman and with
the British military and economic aid to fight communist infiltration and subversion, it is also expected
that the enlarged Federation of Malaysia under the same leadership of Abdul Rahman and with continued
British military and economic aid will be able to meet and overcome any communist attempt to capture
Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo through infiltration and subversive activities.
It is pertinent to point out that Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo are outside the SEATO
area so that they cannot rely on the SEATO for protection against communism. Neither can they rely on
US military or economic aid, since the present trend in American foreign policy as manifested in Senator
Mansfield's position is to cut down on American foreign aid by not giving to those countries to which the
US has not heretofore given aid and to gradually reduce the amount as to those countries to which the US
has been giving aid. It is only Britain which can be expected to extend military and economic aid to these
countries once they become independent because Britain is their former mother country and because of
the close trade and economic ties that will have to continue even after the severance of political ties
between' them.
Alternative plan
Let me now turn to the Greater Confederation of Malay States proposed by President Macapagal. Is
this a better substitute to the Malaysia plan as an instrumentality to make Sarawak, Brunei and North
Borneo safe and secure against communist infiltration and subversion once these countries become self-
governing or independent? According to President Macapagal, it is a better substitute. For my part, I
cannot say whether it is a better substitute or not, for the simple reason that its proponents cannot give us
any information as to what concretely and specifically are the plans and the ways and means by which this
Greater Malayan Confederation is expected to help protect Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo against
communist infiltration and subversion. All that we are told is that the proposed members of are Malaya,
Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei, North Borneo and the Philippines. According to President Macapagal in a
recent interview with a correspondent of Agence de France, all that he could say was that the proposed
members will retain their separate sovereignties. This means that the Philippine claim to a portion of
North Borneo will be given so that North Borneo may become independent and sovereign and thus qualify
to be a memberof this Greater Malayan Confederation. I have asked before and I now again ask: Is it the
plan that this Greater Malayan Confederation will not seek any outside military or economic aid either
from Britain or from the US and that each member state will just rely on her own military and economic
resources to fight communist infiltration and subversion? Is the Philippines ready to extend military and
economic aid to North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak and if so, how much is the present administration
willing to appropriate for this purpose? What joint and common measures will the member states take in
order to help each other in fighting communist infiltration and subversion? Will there be a common
armed force? Will there be a common economic program? Or will this be a purely social club? These
questions are relevant, material and pertinent and must be answered by President Macapagal and the
proponent of the Greater Malayan Confederation, before they can expect any Filipino to rally to its
support and before they can expect the proposed member-states of such Confederation to be convinced
that it is a better and more effective instrument than the Malaysia plan to combat and overcome the
communist menace in their respective territories. I regret to report that in the joint committee hearings of
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and National Defense and Security, none of the defense and
foreign officials present could give any answer to these questions and they confessed to our amazement
and surprise that the detailed plans and objectives of this projected Greater Malayan Confederation have
not been spelled out.
Conclusions
From the foregoing facts and considerations, I submit to the Senate and to our people the following
conclusions:
(1) If the administration of President Macapagal seriously believes that the Philippine claim of
sovereignty to a portion of Nj&rth Borneo should be prosecuted to the bitter end, it must be prepared to
establish the identity of that portion whether the case is brought before the International Court of Justice
or before the United Nations.
(2) If the Philippines lose its case, the damage to the honor and prestige of our Republic would be
incalculable. We would appear as having attempted to colonize a portion of North Borneo without any
lawful or just cause, forgetting our colonialism and our loud demands for accelerating the grant of self-
government or independence to subject peoples especially those in Asia.
 (3) Even if the Philippines win its case, we stand to gain nothing because under the United Nations
charter, the Bandung Conference declaration and the 1960 decolonization resolution of the United
Nations General Assembly, we have to give up our rule and administration to the portion of North Borneo
we are claiming, grant its people self-government or independence and respect their will and wishes as to
whether they will join the Federation of Malaysia or the Greater Malayan Confederation or exist as a
separate independent state. In this connection, it is worthy of note that judging from press reports of
Filipino newspapermen who had gone to North Borneo, the popular reaction there to our claim of
sovereignty is one of surprise and resentment rather than sympathy and support.
(4) If President Macapagal honestly believes that the Federation of Malaysia plan is not according
with the freely expressed will and wishes of the people of North Borneo, despite the information recently
given by the Mayor of Jesselton while here as an ECAFE delegates that 96 out of 111 representatives
elected to the legislative council of North Borneo last December favor Malaysia, he can raise the question
before the United Nations and ask that a plebiscite be held under the auspices of the world organization to
determine whether the people of North Borneo really favor Malaysia or not. And if Indonesia insists that
the peoples of Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo are against Malaysia, we should point out to her that
there is available UN machinery and there is the peaceful remedy of asking for a plebiscite under the
auspices of the United Nations, which renders unnecessary resort to war or use offeree and violence.
(5) If President Macapagal honestly believes that his proposed Greater Malayan Confederation is a
better substitute to the Malaysia plan to defend and protect ourselves and the other Malayan peoples of
Asia against the danger of communist infiltration and subversion, then he must abandon talking in
platitudes and generalities and at once spell out concretely and specifically, the ways and means, the
military and economic aid if any by which the Greater Malayan Confederation expects to help the people
of North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak to fight and overcome successfully the forces of communism once
they become self-governing or independent.
(6) Our people must be told and made to realize that if we are to be consistent with our avowed policy
of opposing communism firmly and uncompromisingly, then for the peace and security not only of
ourselves but of our free world allies in Asia, we must see to it that North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak,
remain on the side of the free would and not turn communist or neutralist, once they become self-
governing or independent.
(7) Rather than prosecute the Philippine claim of sovereignty to a portion of North Borneo to the
bitter end. I for one believe in all sincerity that under the present circumstances, the better course to
follow is for our government to inform the United Nations in due time, i.e., when the Federation of
Malaysia plan is submitted for consideration in the United Nations that we are voluntarily relinquishing
whatever claim of sovereignty we may have to any portion of North Borneo in order to accelerate the
changing of its status from a non-self governing territory to that of a self-governing or independent state
and that we favor holding a plebiscite under United Nations auspices to give the people of North Borneo
the opportunity to freely express their will and wishes as to whether they want to join the Federation of
Malaysia or the Greater Malayan Confederation or exist as a separate independent state.