Read 2009 MAY 12 text version

Congressional Record

PLENARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE 14th CONGRESS, SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 CALL TO ORDER At 4:00 p.m., the Deputy Speaker, Rep. Arnulfo P. Fuentebella, called the session to order. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is called to order. NATIONAL ANTHEM THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Please stand for the singing of the Philippine National Anthem. Everybody rose to sing the Philippine National Anthem. PRAYER THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Please remain standing for a minute of silent prayer. Everybody remained standing for the silent prayer. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is suspended. It was 4:01 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 5:10 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, allow me to acknowledge guests in the gallery. May we acknowledge the presence of Vice Mayor Dexter Dominguez of Abucay, Bataan, better known as Teri Onor, and Vince Octaviano, guests of Congresswoman Herminia B. Roman. (Applause) THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Welcome to the House of Representatives. REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, allow us to further acknowledge the guests of the Hon. Rene M. Velarde, the Abante Abayon Ablan Agbayani Aggabao Agyao Albano Alcala Alcover Almario Amante Angara Angping Antonino Antonino-Custodio Apostol Aquino Arbison Arenas Arnaiz Arquiza Arroyo (D.) Arroyo (M.L.) Bagatsing Balindong Barzaga Belmonte Biazon Binay Bondoc Bonoan-David Briones Britanico Cabilao Cagas Canonigo Cari Castelo-Daza Castro Cayetano Cerilles Chatto Chavez Chipeco Chungalao Clarete Climaco Codilla Cojuangco Coquilla Coscolluela Cruz-Gonzales Cua Cuenco Datumanong Dayanghirang The Secretary General called the roll, and the result is as follows, per Journal No. 72. PRESENT No. 72 Hon. William Irwin C. Tieng and the Hon. Ma. Carissa O. Coscolluela of Party-List Buhay: the representatives from the Catholic Women's League (CWL) of Pasig and Cubao, headed by Mrs. Mel Pagkalinawan and Mrs. Nits Naniong. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Please rise. Welcome to the House of Representatives. (Applause) ROLL CALL REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we call the roll. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Secretary General is directed to call the roll.

2 Daza De Guzman De Venecia Defensor (A.) Defensor (M.) Dela Cruz Del Mar Del Rosario Diaz Dilangalen Dimaporo Domogan Dumarpa Dumpit Dy Emano Enverga Ermita-Buhain Escudero Estrella (C.) Estrella (R.R.) Francisco Fuentebella Garay Garcia (A.) Garcia (P.) Garcia (P. J.) Garcia (V.) Garin Gatchalian Gatlabayan Golez Gonzales (N.) Guanlao Gullas Gunigundo Hataman Hernandez Hofer Hontiveros Ilagan Jaafar Jala Jalosjos-Carreon Jikiri Joson Lacson Lagdameo Lagman Lapus Leonen-Pizarro Lim Lim (T.) Lopez (C.J.) Lopez (J.) Madrona Maglunsod Mandanas Mangudadatu Mariano Matugas Maza Mendoza (R.) Mercado Miraflores Mitra Montemayor Nava Nograles Ocampo Olaño Omar Ong Ortega (F.) Ortega (V.) Pablo Padilla Paez Palatino Pancho Pancrudo Piamonte Pichay Ping-ay Pingoy Piñol Prieto-Teodoro Puentevella Puno Ramiro Remulla Reyes (C.) Reyes (V.) Robes Rodriguez Rodriguez-Zaldarriaga Roman Romualdez Romualdo Roxas Salimbangon Salvacion San Luis Sandoval Santiago (J.) Santos Sarmiento III Seares-Luna Singson (E.) Soon-Ruiz Suarez Sy-Alvarado Taliño-Mendoza Tañada Teodoro Tieng Tupas Umali (A.) Ungab Uy (R. A.) Uy (R. S.) Valdez Valencia Velarde Villafuerte Villanueva Villar Villarosa

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 Yap Yu Zamora (R.) Zialcita

APPEARED BEFORE AND/OR AFTER THE ROLL CALL Abaya Asilo Biron Casiño Colmenares Crisologo Gonzales (A.) Gonzalez Guingona Javier Kho Macapagal Arroyo Malapitan Mamba Mendoza (M.) Noel Palparan Singson (R.) Susano Umali (C.) Vargas Zubiri

The House, through the Secretariat, is in receipt of the official notice of absence of the following Members: Reps. Antonino, Alvarez (G.), Amatong, Arroyo (I.), Bautista, Bichara, Celeste, Chong, Diasnes, Ecleo, Fabian, Fua, Jalosjos, Limkaichong, Magsaysay, Marañon, Nava, Nicolas, Seachon-Lanete, Teves, Vinzons-Chato and Zamora (M.). The Speaker is present. Mr. Speaker, the roll call shows that 188 Members responded to the call. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). With 188 Members present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we approve Journal No. 69 dated May 5, 2009. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. GARIN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that we proceed to take up the Reference of Business. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Secretary General is directed to read the Reference of Business. REFERENCE OF BUSINESS The Secretary General read the following House Bills on First Reading, Communications, and Committee Report, and the Deputy Speaker made the corresponding references: BILLS ON FIRST READING House Bill No. 6306, entitled: "AN ACT TO STRENGTHEN THE RECYCLING PROGRAM FOR ALL RECHARGEABLE

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 BATTERIES MANUFACTURED, SOLD AND DISTRIBUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" By Representative Bonoan-David TO THE COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY House Bill No. 6307, entitled: "AN ACT REGULATING THE USE OF CELLULAR PHONE WHILE DRIVING AND PROVIDING PENALTIES IN VIOLATION THEREOF" By Representative Bonoan-David TO THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION House Bill No.6315 , entitled: "AN ACT CREATING A BARANGAY TO BE KNOWN AS BARANGAY POBLACION 2 IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF VILLANUEVA, PROVINCE OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL" By Representative Emano TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT House Bill No. 6316, entitled: "AN ACT CREATING A BARANGAY TO BE KNOWN AS BARANGAY POBLACION 3 IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF VILLANUEVA, PROVINCE OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL" By Representative Emano TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT House Bill No. 6317, entitled: "AN ACT CONVERTING THE CABULA-IMBATUGBAUNGON-NANGKA-LIBONA JUNCTION ROAD FROM PROVINCIAL ROAD IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAUNGON, PROVINCE OF BUKIDNON INTO A NATIONAL ROAD AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR" By Representative Pancrudo TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS AND THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS House Bill No. 6318, entitled: "AN ACT RENAMING THE REGION 1 MEDICAL CENTER TO DR. FRANCISCO Q. DUQUE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7893 FOR THE PURPOSE" By Representative Arenas TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH ADDITIONAL COAUTHORS Rep. Raul V. Del Mar for House Bill No. 77; Rep. Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva for House Bill No. 98; Rep. Carmelo F. Lazatin for House Bill No. 263; Rep. Pedro "Loloy" P. Romualdo for House Bills No. 405 and 4244; Rep. Rolando "Klarex" A. Uy for House Bill No. 1551; Rep. Ma. Laarni "Lani" L. Cayetano for House Bill No. 1772; Rep. Ma. Theresa B. Bonoan-David for House Bills No. 2717 and 3455;

3 Rep. Agapito H. Guanlao for House Bills No. 4077 and 4873; Rep. Abdullah D. Dimaporo for House Bill No. 4631; Rep. Lorenzo R. Tañada III for House Bill No. 4785; Rep. Leonila V. Chavez for House Bill No. 4873; Reps. Haron D. Omar, Pastor M. Alcover Jr., Jovito S. Palparan Jr. and Raymond Democrito C. Mendoza for House Bill No. 5043; Reps. Luis R. Villafuerte and Reynaldo S. Uy for House Bill No. 5213; Rep. Arnulfo F. Go for House Bill No. 5877; Rep. Marcelino "Marcy" R. Teodoro for House Bill No. 6242; Rep. Neri J. Colmenares for House Bills No. 1113, 1114, 1115, 2223, 2224, 2263, 2492, 2493, 2587, 2588, 2589, 2618, 2619, 3259, 3535, 3536, 3958, 4370, 4926, 4927, 4928, 5030, 5476, 5600, 5657, 5658, 5659, 5831, 5832, 5839, 5840, 5841, 5923, 5924, 5925, 6091, 6092, House Concurrent Resolution No. 1 and House Resolutions No. 80, 106, 172, 184, 197, 232, 243, 262, 297, 298, 331, 366, 418, 425, 426, 433, 445, 457, 458, 459, 460, 469, 470, 471, 584, 641, 677, 692, 777, 789, 797, 800, 829, 830, 841, 843, 862, 869, 881, 882, 885, 887, 888, 916, 917, 918, 919, 921, 922, 937, 942, 943, 948, 949, 997, 999, 1000, 1019, 1020, 1045, 1046, 1064, 1065, 1066 and 1067; Rep. Reynaldo S. Uy for House Joint Resolution No. 36; Rep. Ma. Theresa B. Bonoan-David for House Resolution No. 539; Rep. Mar-Len Abigail S. Binay for House Bill No. 4734 and House Resolution No. 1026; and Rep. Anna York P. Bondoc for House Resolution No. 1026. COMMUNICATIONS Letter dated May 5, 2009 of Joaquin C. Lagonera, Senior Deputy Executive Secretary and Acting Head, Presidential Legislative Liaison Office, Office of the President transmitting herewith two (2) original copies of Republic Act No. 9591, entitled: "AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 57 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8754, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MALOLOS" TO THE ARCHIVES Letter dated May 6, 2009 of Wilfredo M. Tayag, EVP-GM of Aliw Broadcasting Corporation, informing us of the corporation's compliance with the terms and conditions of the franchise from 1992 to the present and submitting its 2008 financial statements TO THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISES Letter dated May 6, 2009 of Ma. Teresa M. Ijan, Operations Manager, Insular Broadcasting System, Inc., informing us of the corporation's compliance with the terms and conditions of the franchise from 1995 to the present and submitting its 2008 financial statements TO THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISES

4 Letter dated April 30, 2009 of Amando M. Tetangco, Jr., Governor, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), submitting a Report to Congress on Public Sector Foreign Loans approved by the BSP for the First Quarter of 2009 TO THE COMMITTEE ON BANKS AND FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES Letter dated April 23, 2009 of Amando M. Tetangco, Jr., Governor, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), submitting the 2008 Report on the Implementation of Republic Act No. 9178 (BMBEs Act of 2002) TO THE COMMITTEE ON BANKS AND FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES Annual Audit Reports on the Ragay Water District, Ragay, Camarines Sur; Bato Water District, Bato, Catanduanes; Labangan Water District (LWD), Labangan, Zamboanga del Sur; Jolo Mainland Water District (JMWD), Camp Asturias, Jolo, Sulu; Lamitan Water District (LWD), Lamitan City, Basilan Province and Pagadian City Water District, Pagadian City for the year ended December 31, 2007 TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Annual Audit Reports on the Jaro Water District, Jaro, Leyte; Maasin Water District, Maasin City, Southern Leyte; Metro Hilongos Water District, Hilongos, Leyte; Sogod Water District, Sogod, Southern Leyte; Naval Water District, Naval, Biliran and Calubian Water District, Calubian, Leyte for the year ended December 31, 2006 TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Annual Audit Reports on the Lingayen Water District, Lingayen, Pangasinan; Dagupan City Water District, Dagupan, Pangasinan; Pozorrubio Water District, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan; Mangaldan Water District, Mangaldan, Pangasinan; Urbiztondo Water District, Urbiztondo, Pangasinan; Villasis Water District, Villasis, Pangasinan; Rosales Water District, Rosales, Pangasinan; Candon City Water District, Candon City, Ilocos Sur; Balungao Water District, Balungao, Pangasinan; Urdaneta City Water District, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan; San Nicolas Water District, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte; Pandan Water District, Pandan, Antique; Toledo City Water District, Toledo City, Cebu; Metropolitan Cebu Water District, Cebu City; Tanjay Water District, Tanjay City, Negros Oriental; Bayawan Water District, Bayawan City, Negros Oriental; Metro Siquijor Water District, Siquijor, Siquijor; Talibon Water District, Talibon, Bohol; Sibulan Water District, Sibulan, Negros Oriental; Carcar Water District, Carcar City, Cebu; Ayungon Water District, Ayungon, Negros Oriental; Pinamungajan Water District, Pinamungajan, Cebu; Dalaguete Water District, Dalaguete, Cebu; Dumaguete City Water District, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental; Clarin Water District, Clarin, Bohol; San Jose Water District, San Jose, Northern Samar; Basey Water District, Basey, Samar; Calbayog Water District, Calbayog, Samar; Isabel Water District, Isabel, Leyte; Wao Water District, Wao, Lanao del Sur; Cagayan de Oro City Water District, Cagayan de Oro City; Malaybalay City Water District, Malaybalay City; Misamis Occidental Water District, Maningcol,

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 Ozamiz City and General Santos City Water District, General Santos City for the year ended December 31, 2007 TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Financial Audit Reports on the Rosario Water District, Rosario, La Union; Ilocos Norte Water District, Laoag City; Basista Water District, Basista, Pangasinan; Alcala Water District, Alcala, Pangasinan; Asingan Water District, Asingan, Pangasinan; Bugallon Water District, Bugallon, Pangasinan; Bulacan Water District, Bulacan, Bulacan; Dipaculao Water District, Dipaculao, Aurora; Gen. Natividad Water District, Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija; Tarlac City Water District, Tarlac City, Tarlac; Norzagaray Water District, Norzagaray, Bulacan; Angat Water District, Angat, Bulacan; Baliwag Water District, Baliwag, Bulacan; San Rafael Water District; San Rafael, Bulacan; Candaba Water District, Candaba, Pampanga; Orion Water District, Orion, Bataan; Talugtug Water District, Talugtug, Nueva Ecija; Porac Water District, Porac, Pampanga; Gen. Tinio Water District, Gen. Tinio, Nueva Ecija; San Ildefonso Water District, San Ildefonso, Bulacan; Sta. Maria Water District, Sta. Maria, Bulacan; San Jose City Water District, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija; Ramos Water District, Ramos, Tarlac; Paniqui Water District, Paniqui, Tarlac; Cabiao Water District, Cabiao, Nueva Ecija; Camiling Water District, Camiling, Tarlac; Cuyapo Water District, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija; Sasmuan Water District, Sasmuan, Pampanga; Talavera Water District, Talavera, Nueva Ecija; Hagonoy Water District; Hagonoy, Bulacan; Limay Water District, Limay, Bataan; Plaridel Water District, Plaridel, Bulacan; Macabebe Water District, Macabebe, Pampanga; San Miguel Water District, San Miguel, Bulacan; Balagtas Water District, Balagtas, Bulacan; Bagac Water District, Bagac, Bataan; Lubao Water District, Lubao, Pampanga; Meycauayan Water District, Meycauayan, Bulacan; Calumpit Water District, Calumpit, Bulacan and City of Malolos Water District, City of Malolos, Bulacan for the year ended December 31, 2007 TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT Report by the Committee on Energy (Committee Report No. 2002), re H. No. 6320, entitled: "AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED SEVENTYEIGHT THIRTY-TWO, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE `ANTIELECTRICITY AND ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES/MATERIALS PILFERAGE ACT OF 1994' " recommending its approval in substitution of House Bills No. 1245, 2590, 4057, 4073, 4074 and 4204 Sponsors: Representatives Macapagal-Arroyo, Valdez, Romualdo, Singson (R.), Aggabao, Bagatsing, Suarez, Golez, Magsaysay, Lopez (J.) and Go TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 CONSIDERATION OF H. JT. RES. NO. 36 PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Joint Resolution No. 36, under Committee Report No. 1992, as reported out by the Committee on Appropriations. May I ask the Secretary General to read the title of the measure. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Is there any objection ? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.* Consideration of House Joint Resolution No. 36 is now in order. With the permission of the Body, and since copies of the measure have been previously distributed, the Secretary General will read only the title thereof without prejudice to inserting its text in the Congressional Record. THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Joint Resolution No. 36, entitled: JOINT RESOLUTION URGING THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION AND POSITION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IN THE GOVERNMENT AND TO IMPLEMENT THE SAME INITIALLY EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2009, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon. Junie E. Cua to sponsor said measure. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The honorable Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is recognized. SPONSORHIP SPEECH OF REP. CUA REP. CUA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations has consolidated and finished, in record time, the various measures authorizing the increase in salaries, allowances and benefits of government employees. These measures include, among others, Joint Resolution No. 24, modifying the government's compensation and position classification system, which the honorable Speaker himself had introduced. Today, the committee submits for consideration the substitute Joint Resolution No. 36, a product of many minds and many hours of discussion with stakeholders. This substitute joint resolution, which aims to motivate and invigorate public service and lifts the current compensation system to a higher level, shall attract, motivate, retain and invest civil servants. Not only will it trace salaries of government workers, it will also inform the system to make it more effective in putting teeth to the principle of standardization or equal pay for substantially equal work with due regard to the financial capability of government and for it to be responsive to the call for performance orientation and transparency in the bureaucracy.

* See MEASURES CONSIDERED (printed separately)

5 Twenty years ago, Congress heeded what has been embedded in the Philippine Constitution, and I quote, "To provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials and employees." It passed on August 21, 1989, Republic Act No. 6758, the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, otherwise known as the Salary Standardization Law or SSL. This law covered the national government agencies, local government units and government-owned or controlled corporations. The SSL is the government response to the clamor for a more equitable and rational approach in remunerating employees in the public sector. On March 7, 1994, five years after the passage of Republic Act No. 6758, the House of Representatives and the Senate passed Joint Resolution No. 1, series of 1994, urging the President, and I quote: "To revise the existing compensation and position classification system to make it more responsive to the economic needs of government personnel and to improve the quality of public service." Both RA 6758 and the Joint Resolution No. 1994 have been successful in putting in place a unified and standardized compensation system. Twenty years after it was first enacted, however, the SSL needs to be revisited in the light of developments in public management and the global economy. Moreover, certain weaknesses need to be addressed. Foremost among these weaknesses is that government compensation is not competitive with the private sector. This is true, especially for the senior professional and executive levels. Data revealed that compensation of government professionals are on the average, only at 50 percent of their counterparts in the private sector. On the other hand, the pay of government executives not far behind, is only at 20 percent of their private sector counterparts. Government therefore, is unable to attract and retain highly-qualified people, particularly at the higher ranks where expertise, leadership and managerial skills influence the quality of service delivery. And how often have we heard government offices not being able to hire doctors, lawyers, accountants and IT personnel due to the existing salary schedule as characterized by substantial overlaps in salaries between positions. This leads to problems in relationships between superiors and subordinates. Who would want to be a superior in rank and yet, get a lower salary than a subordinate who has long been in a certain position? This situation, you must see, is demoralizing and serves as a disincentive for promotion and possibly leads to a lack of accountability and shirking of responsibilities. Third, complexity in duties and responsibilities is not well-compensated. Because of the very small differences in salaries between positions, the existing salary structure does not clearly distinguish and recognize substantial differences between the levels of responsibility and accountability, or in short "answerability." Fourth, inequity in the grant of allowances and benefits is prevalent. For instance, the Magna Carta benefits such as subsistence allowance and hazard pay are given varying rates among public health workers, social workers, and science and technology personnel. Conditions for entitlement to these benefits also vary even among employees in similar work

6 situations. This persists because, at the moment, no agency acts as oversight to the rules and regulations issued by the different lead agencies concerned. It is time to take a really serious look at these benefits and put rhyme and reason to their implementation. This substitute joint resolution revisits the existing compensation system and introduces changes to address the weaknesses that undermine the integrity of the system. It also suggests certain alternatives, imperatives, if you will, that this Congress must do to raise the level of our civil service, not tomorrow, but starting today. Allow me then to present the highlights of the joint resolution: 1. It will authorize the President to modify the existing compensation and position system in accordance with these governing principles: First, equal pay for work of equal income; Second, comparability of government compensation with private sector pay; Third, standardization and rationalization of compensation of all government personnel; Fourth, installation of a performance-based incentives scheme; and Finally, keeping public sector compensation modest, at a reasonable proportion of the budget. 2. It will rationalize the salary schedule for civilian personnel while maintaining the existing salary structure of 33 salary grades, with eight steps per salary grade now with adequate differentials between salary grades. This proposed measure offers Congress a rare chance to approve salary rates that: First, raises salaries significantly to a level more competitive with those of a mid-sized private firm; Second, even at the lowest rate, it places a family of five above the poverty threshold, which is P6,772 per month, and provides sufficient hedge against inflation; Third, it has no overlaps between salary grades; and Fourth, it motivates people towards a high level of performance. 3. Finally, it will provide for the adoption of a total compensation framework wherein all direct remuneration will be categorized into just four types to facilitate the rationalization and standardization of allowances, benefits and incentives as follows: a. Salaries including step increments; b. Standard allowances and benefits; c. Specific purpose allowances and benefits, and finally, incentives. 4. It will raise the salary grades of teachers, nurses, lawyers, accountants, medical officers and some allied medical positions in recognition of changes in skills and competency requirements, and conditions in the labor market. Under the joint resolution, a Teacher I and a Nurse I, both Salary Grade 10 in the existing system, will be upgraded to Salary Grade II. A new teacher or new nurse occupying the starting Salary Grade II position will receive a monthly salary of P18, 549, an increase of P6, 523 per month or 54 percent upon full implementation of the joint resolution. A doctor or Medical Officer I, Salary Grade XIV will be upgraded to Salary Grade XVI and will receive a monthly salary of P26, 878 or 77 percent more than what he is receiving

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 now. A Legal Officer I will also be receiving the same rate of P26, 878. 5. It will adopt a separate total compensation framework for military and uniformed personnel. A move is necessary in view of the unique nature of their work. I must add that the joint resolution prescribes a new base pay schedule for our men and women in uniform and the pay increases are indeed significant. 6. The personnel and economic relief allowance or PERA at P500 per month and the ADCOM or additional compensation at P1, 500 per month will be combined and called simply "PERA" at P2, 000 per month. This will translate to higher take-home pay in view of the tax yield. This will mean higher allowances for LGU personnel regardless of income tax. 7. It will uphold the Magna Carta benefits for qualified personnel. There will be no reduction in their benefits, but to ensure consistency in the implementation and to promote equity and fairness, the joint resolution tasked the DBM in coordination with the agencies concerned to act as the oversight agency relative to the policies on the grant of Magna Carta benefits. 8. It will grant barangay officials and employees in addition to monthly honoraria and cash gift that they are already enjoying, a year-end bonus equivalent to their monthly honoraria. 9. It will institutionalize a performance-based incentives scheme that integrates personnel and organizational performance to reward exemplary civil servants and wellperforming institutions. For this purpose, the CSC or the Commission on Civil Service and the DBM, Department of Budget and Management, will set in place a mechanism using the organizational performance indicator framework or OPIF and the performance management system or PMS they are developing now. And lastly, to promote greater transparency and accountability, it will mandate SSL-exempt entities to report their existing compensation and position classification system for purposes of public disclosure, monitoring of compliance with established policies, and as basis for future policy decisions. Mr. Speaker, as we can see, this joint resolution does not overhaul the current system. It simply amends, corrects certain deficiencies and weaknesses, which, when adequately addressed, would significantly improve government compensation and uplift the economic status of public sector workers. A chance of a lifetime is in our hands. How will the provision of this joint resolution impact on this august Body legislatively? The full implementation of the salary schedule and base pay schedule will cost more than P120 billion for the 1.2 million from the national government, including military and uniformed personnel. In view of the huge budgetary requirement, implementation is targeted to be in four tranches, and the first tranche is to take effect on the first of July of this year. Some P18.4 billion is already provided in Fiscal Year 2009 General Appropriations Act, under the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund, which will cover the requirement for the first tranche. Even with the full implementation of the joint resolution in 2012, the compensation gap will continue

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 to exist until such time that an affordable solution is found. At the very least, this important legislation attempts to narrow the gap and hopefully, alleviate the economic plight of our government personnel. Before I leave this podium, may I remind every one of us here that, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution, the salary increases for the President, Vice President and Members of Congress shall take effect only after the expiration of the respective terms of the incumbents when the adjustment was approved. With that in mind, may I present this joint resolution for approval. With its large cost, let us look upon it as our investment towards a better performing civil service from whom we can demand more efficient, effective public services. Different studies on competitiveness have mentioned that the quality of our bureaucracy is weak, our policies and procedures are inefficient. On top of this, new challenges of massive proportions, like the global economic recession and climate change, continue to bombard us and demand that the government is strong, forward looking, innovative, and capable. So, let us give our civil servants the incentives they need to perform; then we can demand, they perform. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Majority Leader is recognized. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What is the pleasure of the distinguished Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro City? REP. RODRIGUEZ. I wish to interpellate the distinguished Sponsor. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). If the Sponsor so desires to yield. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). What is the pleasure of the Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya? REP. PADILLA. May we make a reservation after the Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro, Mr. Speaker? THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Gentleman's reservation is noted. REP. PADILLA. Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations may respond to the questions or the interpellations of the Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro City. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be interpellated by the Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro City.

7 REP. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. I would like to focus on teachers, the salary grade for teachers. May I know from the distinguished Sponsor: what would now be the salary grade of the entry level for teachers, and what is the difference between what they have now and what will be implemented starting July 1, 2009? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, if this joint resolution would be adopted, school teachers will now be receiving a salary of P18,549, which is salary grade 11. At the moment, under the current salary schedule, they are at salary schedule 10 and are receiving P12,026. That makes a difference of about P6,000 plus, Mr. Speaker. REP. RDRIGUEZ. Thank you. The difference would be P6,523 to be exact. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, I am one of the authors of the bill that would increase salary rates for teachers in the next three years, by P9,000 or an average of P3,000 a year. In other words, it is a gradual increase. But the way it is now, what we are giving the teachers, at P6,523 divided by four--because what we have here is a four-year implementation, in accordance with, to wit: "Section 13.­ Initial Implementation. The salary schedule," in item 4B, "will be implemented four years." And so, what we have here will only be a very measly increase of P2,100 per year. Would that not be quite unjust to our teachers who had, for so long, been taking P12, 000, Mr. Speaker? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the appreciation of the Gentleman with regard to his advocacy to have a higher salary increase for teachers. But in the modification of the compensation system, firstly, it is important that we do this from a holistic point of view--to increase only a particular sector or a particular position, leaving the others with no increase of the same proportion, will distort the compensation system. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the increase of P9,000 as proposed, or an additional increment of P3,000, will translate to about P20 plus billion, Mr. Speaker, and that is for teachers alone. Upon full implementation, that would translate to P70.4 billion only for DepEd personnel; teaching and non-teaching positions, and for other education institutions, it will need an increase of P11.4 billion. So, all told, for the whole educational system, it will need P81.8 billion upon full implementation, which is four years, and on an annual basis, from year one, it would mean roughly about P20 plus billion. So, Mr. Speaker, we understand the position of the Gentleman, and we, the committee, feels very strongly that we should be able to modify the compensation system from a holistic point of view and on a level that the government can really afford, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, our country is a signatory to the Convention on the Millennium Development Goals, and one of these goals is to really be able to afford education to everybody. To be able to do that, we should be able to have our teachers be equipped with the necessary financial remuneration, because

8 the quest for quality education cannot be realized without addressing the basic needs of our teachers. And what is stated in the resolution is that we should provide a just and equitable pay, and our teachers practically are in school 12 hours a day, really addressing the educational needs of our children. Would it be better if we, instead of giving a measly one salary grade step increase from salary grade one to two, would the proponent or the Sponsor agree that we insert, under paragraph C, Section 4, a statement that the salary grade of teachers and non-teaching personnel of the Department of Education shall be upgraded by three levels to be able to have affirmative action for our teachers who, for a long, long time, had really suffered from this very small salary level which is not commensurate to the service that they are doing for this country. Would that not be possible, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, I can really agree with the proposal of the Gentleman if only we have sufficient resources to back up that advocacy. I can really agree with him about the important role that teachers play in our nation building efforts. However, Mr. Speaker, the budgetary implication of such a proposal may not really be within the capability of our government at this time. Mr. Speaker, I must mention, as well, that the present ratio of our personnel services expenditure in relation to total budget has already reached a very high level of about 31 percent compared to our ASEAN neighbors like Thailand, for example, at 20 or so percent. Singapore has less than 20 percent. To accede to the proposal of the Gentleman would have serious and heavy budgetary implication. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that it is difficult really for the committee to accede to such a proposal, not because we do not recognize the importance and significance of the role played by the teachers, but because to do so will really distort the whole compensation scheme and will result to a financial burden that will not be sustainable now and in the near future, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our teachers deserve affirmative action to be able to address their plight. I believe that a one-step increase and an increase of P6,500 in real terms over four years would not do justice to our teachers and would not be able support our country's program to achieve our millennium development goals. At the proper time, Mr. Speaker, I would move for the amendment of this and get the sentiments of our colleagues, that we join hands and be able to address once and for all the measly, the unjust and not commensurate salary scheme that we have been giving to our teachers. So, may I proceed now to the next set of officials that I would like to ask on, Mr. Speaker, and these will be the nurses and those in the public health system. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Sponsor: under the Magna Carta for Public Health Workers, the nurses, under the law, are supposed to already have a salary grade of 15. May I know what salary grade the nurses will have under this position classification plan? REP. CUA. Under the proposal, Mr. Speaker, the nurses will be receiving a salary grade of 11... REP. RODRIGUEZ. 11.

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 REP. CUA. ...similar to that of the teachers. And we feel that is the level that can be sustained at the moment, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, my question is: would this Joint Resolution No. 9092, under Committee Report No. 9092, prevail over the expressed provision of law that mandates that nurses should have a salary level of 15. REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, a joint resolution is a resolution that is supposed to be passed by both Houses and signed by the President. And from my understanding, this joint resolution, if it passes the scrutiny of both Houses and signed by the President, would have the force and effect of a law. And I think there is jurisprudence to that effect. And so, that being the case, if having the force and effect of a law, it would amend that Act. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, are we telling the public health sector, the nurses, that we are withdrawing what had been given them by the previous Congress, Salary Grade 15, and we are demoting them to Salary Grade 11? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly the sense of the resolution because at the end of the day, what counts really is the amount of salary that they will begin to bring home to their family. While it is true that the salary grade that we are proposing is not a salary grade as provided for in the Nursing Act, you would note that the salary that they will receive or the takehome pay would be a substantial increase, more than 40 percent, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I understand fully the well-meaning intention at that time. However, it is unfortunate that, if that law would be implemented which will provide a Salary Grade 15, that will make the salaries of nurses, for example a Nurse I, higher than the salary of a doctor. The doctor or Medical Officer I, under present legislation, receives Salary Grade 14. We will have a scenario, Mr. Speaker, if that law is implemented, where a nurse, whose educational requirement is a four-year course, will be receiving a salary higher than a lawyer, whose educational qualification requires him to study for as long as eight years and pass the Bar. We will have a scenario, Mr. Speaker, where a Nurse III for example, will receive a salary higher than the chief of the hospital. So, it is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that implementing it, much as we want to because we understand the role that nurses play, may really endanger the entire compensation system which has been standardized and has been set at levels with regard to qualification and responsibilities of the position holder, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the reality is, we are losing our workers in the public health sector. They have been going out of the country and precisely because we have not been able to implement the Salary Grade 15 under the Nursing Act. The solution is not to demote the salary grade from 15 to 11 by the mere expedient of a joint resolution because a joint resolution, I believe, cannot amend the law. Joint resolutions are, according to US jurisprudence, resolutions in Congress for small matters that are taken up by

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 the Congress. In this case, there is already a law--the Nursing Act that provides for Salary Grade 15. The solution would have been to increase the salaries of doctors so that the doctors, who have labored so hard studying, would be able to get their due compensation. Again, the health sector is very important for the wellbeing of our people. At the proper time, Mr. Speaker, I would propose that we have an amendment that we follow and implement the Nursing Act, instead of repealing the Nursing Act as far as the salary grade of nurses are concerned. May I now go to another point, Mr. Speaker. REP. CUA (J.). Mr. Speaker, at the proper time, we will have an opportunity to discuss that. But let me make a short comment to the proposal that the solution is to increase the salaries of the doctors, rather, to set the salary grade of doctors higher than that of nurses, which is being proposed as Salary Grade 15. Mr. Speaker, we have asked the DBM to make some calculations. If we adopt such a proposal, the budgetary implication of increasing the salaries of nurses to Grade 15 and correspondingly increase the salaries of doctors to higher grades, would already mean a further requirement of more than P20 billion. And that is only with respect to the public health sector, not to consider the budgetary implication to say, lawyers and accountants who would naturally clamor for modification of their salary increase. Anyway, at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the salary grades, to my mind, is not the determining factor. The determining factor really is the amount of salaries that, at the end of the day or at the end of each pay day, a position holder brings home to his or her family. And we feel very strongly that, at the levels of salaries that we are proposing, we have substantially increased the amount of salaries and thereby, improving his ability to cope up with economic condition presently obtaining, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, distinguished colleague. Mr. Speaker, I will go to the next point. I would like now to ask about policemen. What is the salary grade for Police Officer I? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, the proposal is Salary Grade 11. REP. RODRIGUEZ. How much would be the pay of policemen under Salary Grade 11? REP. CUA. They would be receiving a salary of P18, 549, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, on page 13, that is not so stated. On page 13, there is another pay schedule for policemen where they will only receive P14,230. So, there is a disparity between what was stated by the distinguished Sponsor and what is contained in our classification system. It is only P14,230 for Police Officer 1. REP. CUA. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. I was looking at the wrong table. I was looking at the proposed salary schedule for civilian employees. The uniform personnel, which include the police, would be under a

9 different pay schedule. And for the Police Officer 1, the salary would be P14,230. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, under the entry, the salary of teachers will be P18,549 at Salary Grade 11, while for our policemen, the entry level will be P14,230. Is it not that they will be therefore receiving much lower than the teachers, at a difference of about P 4000 plus? Is it that correct, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, what you said is essentially correct but with respect to the uniform personnel as explained in the joint resolution, we are adopting a total compensation framework scheme. And while it is true that the basic pay of a policeman is set at P14,230, the policemen receive other allowances. And if we add these allowances which the policemen receive monthly, we will be having a total compensation close to what the teachers will receive, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, is the distinguished Sponsor aware that the PNP Law, provides that the policemen should have same salary rate as teachers? We are not talking in that law about the total compensation package but the salary level and so, the intention of that law is to make policemen also have the same level of salaries as those of the teachers. Would this joint resolution again amend and repeal the PNP Law that requires that policemen should have the same salary scale as teachers? REP. CUA. Yes, in effect, Mr. Speaker, if the joint resolution would be signed and therefore, would have the cause and effect of law, it will amend that provision of the law. Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to understand that what your committee is proposing, at this juncture, is a new concept that will standardized the compensation system of the whole government bureaucracy. We must understand that the concept we are enunciating is the concept of total compensation such that an employee of government, whether he is in the civilian sector or in the military or the police sector, they will be receiving salaries of essentially standardized levels, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the query of the Gentleman, let me say that that, essentially, would be the effect of passing this resolution, amending the provision of the PNP Law. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, policemen are on-call 24 hours a day. They are exposed to dangers to life and limb. That is probably the reason the PNP Law saw it fit that policemen should, at least, have a salary scale together or at the same level as teachers, because as teachers are vital cogs in our millennium development goals, our policemen are needed to be able to provide peace and order in our respective communities. And so, again, the question is: we are going to have a demotion, a lowering of what the PNP Law has already granted, the same salary level--I am not talking about additional compensation for, indeed, policemen would have more compensation or allowances because of the hazard that they are exposed to. And so, would the distinguished Sponsor

10 not see that we should be able to maintain the PNP Law proviso that the policemen should, at least, have the level of the salary grade of teachers, at Salary Grade 11 or P18,300 a month instead of only P14,230? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, let me respond by saying that the salary levels that we are now proposing for policemen are salary levels that would substantially increase what they are receiving today. For example, for Police Office I, the percentage increase is 50 percent; for Police Officer II, it will be 51 percent; for Senior Police Officer I, for example, it is 54 percent. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the increases that we are proposing are not really that minuscule. While we may not be able to achieve the parity between the salary grade of police and that of the teacher, it is also important for us to appreciate that the salary increases that we are giving are really substantial. Mr. Speaker, at the level that we are proposing, the policemen will receive salaries almost similar to the teachers. There are studies made, for example, that would compare the salary of teachers in many states in the U.S. and the salary grade of policemen. Invariably, the salaries received by teachers are much higher than the police. That is, again, I would say, one way of appreciating also the significant role of teachers. What we are trying to say, at this juncture, Mr. Speaker, is that we are putting some logic into the relationship of the salaries of the civilian and the military. In fact, we would like them to be at almost parity. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of the proposal. And, of course, at the end of the day, this being a collegial Body, we will respect the collective wisdom of this Body at the proper time, and amendments will be introduced, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I brought this out because it was the collective wisdom of the previous Congress that has seen and made into law that the salaries of policemen be at the same level as those of the teachers. And so, my only question is that there is already a law that has seen that policemen, like teachers, deserve to be given a salary grade that will be commensurate to the kind of service that they give on-call for 24 hours, with danger to life and limb. And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, while the statement of the Gentleman is correct that there is an increase of 50 percent, that 50 percent is computed within four years. Because the increase in the salary of the policemen, say, Police Officer I, from more than P9,000 to P14,000 is applicable and will be implemented over four years. Meaning, that the P4,000 plus the increase that they will be given, will only be reached four years from now. That will be four years from July 2009, from this year. It will, therefore, be in 2013. And the increase is only more than P1,000 per year for the teachers, and that is why I would say that we have existing laws that have already been fully discussed by previous Congresses, giving precisely the same salary scale of the teachers to the policemen. And lowering the salary by P4,000, the disparity between the salaries of teachers and policemen despite the law, the PNP

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 Law, then, will be doing a disservice to our uniformed personnel. So, at the proper time, Mr. Speaker, I would be presenting an amendment to be able to serve the present law, to be able to make policemen receive the same level of salary as the teachers. The same is true of the nurses in that there is an existing law that they should be given a Salary Grade 15. So, may I now go to the next point, Mr. Speaker, and this is on the soldiers. May we know how much soldiers, the privates, in the DND, and the Fire and Jail Officer I for BJMP and BFP, would receive, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, the Fire Officer I would receive the same level of salary as Police Officer I and also, the Jail Officer I. They would be receiving P14, 230 versus P9, 466.00 that they are currently receiving as base pay, Mr. Speaker. REP. RODRIGUEZ. What about the privates, what is the entry point for privates in the Armed Forces of the Philippines? REP. CUA. The privates, Mr. Speaker, would receive the same salary as Police Officer 1. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Is the distinguished Sponsor aware that, under the AFP Modernization Law, the soldiers, the privates, should have the same salary level as the police? And since the PNP Law says that the policemen should have the same salary level as teachers, then, we should have that the privates will also receive what the teachers would receive, which is P18,000 plus under Salary Grade 11. So, would that, again, be at the salary levels for the AFP, for the soldiers who are dying in the fields of Basilan in Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, and Maguindanao, Mr. Speaker? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, in a way, I agree with the statement. However, the salaries set in those laws such as the PNP Law, the law that you mentioned about the military, and the Nursing Act, for example, these are laws that have set certain salary grades for these positions. However, while they have been set by those laws, these laws have been included in the long list of laws that continue to be unfunded, for the main reason that these laws, when implemented, would result in distortion of the compensation system, and will eventually lead to a budgetary requirement that cannot be sustained by the government. And so, Mr. Speaker, we would like to look at this as an opportunity to rationalize all these and put the entire compensation system again in a coordinated way--in a manner that would have logical relationship. REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker. REP. CUA. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, there is no diminution or loss of salaries that are being received. In other words, maybe this is the time to revisit those laws, because those laws had been passed and have given rise to expectations which the government really cannot sustainably support and which will seriously impair the important balance between our expenditures on personnel, expenditures on MOE and expenditures for capital outlay, Mr. Speaker.

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 REP. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, our soldiers are fighting the enemies of the State, 24 hours a day. They, for a long, long time, were only receiving P9,000. With this increase spread over four years, we are going to give an increase of only P1,000 additional every year until it reaches P14,000. Previous Congresses have seen this plight of soldiers who died in the fields of Sulu, Basilan and other parts of the country, fighting the enemies of the State. And then we, instead of implementing the laws, would now, in fact, make a disparity of their pay vis-à-vis the others in service. What will happen with this joint compensation plan, Mr. Speaker? It will violate, first, the Nursing Act because instead of Salary Grade 15, they will only be given Salary Grade 11. Second, this classification position scheme violates the PNP Law which says that policemen shall have the same salary level as teachers, meaning, if the teacher receives P18, 000, Salary Grade 11, the law requires us to give P18, 000 and not P14, 230. Third, the salary classification will also violate the AFP Modernization Law that says that the soldiers should have the same salary scale as policemen, and since policemen under the PNP Modernization Law should have the salary level of teachers, therefore, at P14, 000, it will violate what these laws have already granted to our policemen. And so, at the proper time, Mr. Speaker, we should be able not to only give lip service to teachers, nurses, policemen and soldiers because these are sectors of the public delivery system, our public employees and officials who, in the past, have not been given their due remuneration for many, many years. I believe that it is about time that we take that giant step to implement existing laws and to be able to give justice and equity, first, to the teachers, justice and equity to the nurses, justice and equity to policemen, and justice and equity to our soldiers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. At the proper time, this Representation will move for the implementation of the laws that I have mentioned, to be able to give justice and equity to those in the services that I have mentioned. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the time given to this Representation. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker. REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker. REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya, who has made an earlier reservation to interpellate, is now recognized. REP. PADILLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, before we move on to another interpellator, let me just make a little reaction to recapitulation of the Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Please proceed. REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, we understand that there are existing laws that have provided higher salary grades for

11 those sectors which the Gentleman has mentioned. Mr. Speaker, much as we would want to just repeat the provisions of those laws, doing that, to our minds, would be the least in our responsibility of recognizing the need for making our compensation system one that is sustainable, and a system or legislations rather that do not give false hopes and expectations to our government employees and which have become the source of agitation because of its nonimplementation. They are not implemented for many years now because they are not sustainable and will distort the entire system. This is an opportunity for us to correct all of that. Mr. Speaker, the proposal that your committee is bringing forth to this august Chamber even at this modest level, would already mean a budgetary increase upon full implementation, of P120 billion every year. This P120 billion again will be added to the P420 billion or so that we currently need. We understand the need for a salary increase so that our government employees would be able to cope with the present economic situation. But we feel that they must be at levels that are sustainable and reasonable and achievable, Mr. Speaker. Acceding to the proposal of the Gentleman would translate to more than P120 billion or so of additional expenditure for personnel services, bringing our total personnel services from P400 billion to almost P600 billion. This will resolve in a distorted ratio and in distorting the fragile balance between PS, MOE and capital outlay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). The Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya is now recognized. REP. PADILLA. May I now proceed to interpellate our distinguished colleague,... THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). Please do so. REP. PADILLA. ...the Honorable Junie E. Cua from the neighboring Province of Quirino. Because Quirino and Nueva Vizcaya are neighbors, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the explanation of our good Chairman of the committee, especially the last one, in reply to the points raised by the distinguished Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro. And he impressed upon us the budgetary implication of the proposals articulated by our colleague from Cagayan de Oro. But, Mr. Speaker, this does not prevent this humble Representation to reinforce the points that were raised by our distinguished colleague from Cagayan de Oro. Siguro mas mabuti na makulit tayo, Mr. Speaker; after all, we Catholics, everytime we pray, we pray the same prayers everyday. And God, I think, does not mind and hopefully, will ultimately listen and hopefully, the distinguished Gentleman from Quirino, including the Secretary of the DBM who is with us, and the President for that matter, would be convinced that there is really a need to accommodate those proposals coming from the Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro which we are supporting, Mr. Speaker. Not only this Representation but other Members of the House are prepared

12 to stand up in order that they could fully buttress the position which was earlier pursued by the Gentleman from Cagayan de Oro. So, on the matter of the salary of teachers, Mr. Speaker, I have here a position paper coming from the Secretary of Education, the Hon. Jesli A. Lapus, a former colleague, and here. He is advocating that, under the proposed Salary Standardization Law, the salary grade of the teachers be increased from the present Salary Grade 10, meaning the entry level, to at least three grades higher. Therefore, if we follow this, that means even the Secretary of Education is fully convinced and is supporting the proposal. In fact, the proposal is short of one step because if the salary grade at the moment is Salary Grade 10, plus three, that will be Salary Grade 13. However, if we are proposing Salary Grade 11 plus three, that will be Salary Grade 14, Mr. Speaker--magkapareho lang. Now, my first question as a clarification is: when you said the teachers and the nurses will receive a salary equivalent to Salary Grade 11, this does not appear in the proposed joint resolution, Mr. Speaker. It is not so provided. Is there a provision here, Mr. Speaker, that tells us that the teachers and the nurses would have to get Grade 11 salary, or it is just within the proposal that will be submitted by the President and the DBM implementing the provisions of this resolution the moment it is approved by both Houses? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, you are correct in your observation that we did not put that as a benchmark in the joint resolution. REP. PADILLA. So, we did not place it here. REP. CUA. That is correct. REP. PADILLA. But we are just authorizing the President to rationalize. REP. CUA. That is correct. REP. PADILLA. I used the term "rationalize" for one thing, of a better term to express what I would like to convey. REP. CUA. Yes. REP. PADILLA. But, Mr. Speaker, if we will do that, we will only authorize the President and yet, existing laws ­ for example, if we go to the nursing profession, there is already an expressed provision authorizing the executive branch and telling the executive branch that they must get a salary equivalent to Salary Grade 14. So, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that while a resolution may have the force and effect of a law, but you are just authorizing the President to determine. In the case of the professions involved, particularly the nurses, what the law has already determined. So, I believe that there is something that is against the principle of delegation of legislative power, that will contravene the principle of delegation of legislative power. So, what I am saying, binigyan na po natin ng authority ang Presidente, ibinigay na natin ang legislative power na iyan, as expressly provided by existing laws and yet, the joint resolution, which is just a mere resolution, will only mandate

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 the President to determine. And in so determining, the President should take into consideration the provision of the existing laws, Mr. Speaker. She should not escape from that responsibility of taking into consideration the provisions of the existing laws. Please take note, Mr. Speaker, that, with regard to the Magna Carta or the law for nurses, Republic Act No. 9173, this was signed by the President herself, Gloria MacapagalArroyo. And this was a well-studied bill, and I am sure that it would have been vetoed by the President if she believed that the provisions of the law are untenable. I just want to express that because when the time comes, I think, some quarters would be willing to go to court to question the implementation of the proposed joint resolution, and I feel that there is something wrong, Mr. Speaker, with that provision of the proposed joint resolution. Anyway, let me go back to the teachers, Mr. Speaker. Did the Gentleman from Quirino, the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, take into consideration the provision of the Constitution, particularly on paragraph 5, Section 5 of the Article XIV, Mr. Speaker? May I read the pertinent provision, "The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching..."-- this is what I would like to point out--"...that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment." Mr. Speaker, many surveys have been conducted and one of the findings is, pababa ng pababa ang standard ng educational system natin dahil pababa rin ng pababa ang quality of teaching dahil pababa rin ng pababa ang kapasidad ng mga mag-aaral na gustong kumuha ng education. And even during the days of the EdCom, of which this Representation was given the opportunity to be the Co-Chairman, that was one of the findings. So, there were recommendations in order that the teaching profession would be able to "attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration." So, what I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is, yes, we believe in standardization, but taking into consideration a number of factors. We are not distorting, Mr. Speaker. That is the point that I would like to insist in this time given to me. So, I do not know if, at this stage, the Gentleman from Quirino would like to react but perhaps, before doing so, let me, Mr. Speaker, ask him what he means by what Section A of paragraph 1, specifically, I think, this is the second page, may I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the second page of the resolution which says: "All government personnel shall be paid just and equitable compensation in accordance with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value." I agree with that, but I think, there is a problem in trying to compare which profession would have equal value and equal worth. Then, it says, "differences in pay shall be based on verifiable compensation and position classification factors." I would like the Gentleman from Quirino to please take note of the last sentence. You are recognizing differences in pay based on verifable compensation and position classification factors, Mr. Speaker. And I have cited already a few instances that would justify giving the teachers higher compensation, not Salary Grade 11 but Salary Grade 14.

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 Mr. Speaker, I would allow the Gentleman from Quirino to react meanwhile. REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, the questions of the Gentleman are many, but let me first react on the earlier points. Firstly, Mr. Speaker, the committee agrees with what the Gentleman has mentioned about giving importance to education, and the constitutional provision of allocating the highest priority to education. Mr. Speaker, it is in the recognition of that constitutional mandate that you find in the General Appropriations Act, the highest level of allocation to education. REP. PADILLA. But, Mr. Speaker, if I may butt in, that is not the point that I was raising. I only read that because it is part of the last point that we would like to bring to the attention of the Gentleman from Quirino. And this is, "will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents." REP. CUA. That is correct, Mr. Speaker, yes. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the compensation scheme, while it is true that the entry level of teachers is at Salary Grade 11, as a teacher progresses in the ladder of his or her career, the salary grades increase as well. And you will note that teachers would finally end up with a salary grade of over 20. He will end up with Salary Grade 28. In other words, while the Gentleman's appreciation that the teacher is not accorded the importance he deserves, if you look at the total salary system, you find the teachers' salary occupying important salary grade levels. So, I think that that is a way of giving importance and which the Constitution seeks to provide. That is one, Mr. Speaker. Number two, I think the first question was--what was the first question, Mr. Speaker? REP. PADILLA. I am virtually saying, Mr. Speaker, that we are now losing the best among our youths... REP. CUA. Yes. REP. PADILLA. ...to other professions. We are not able anymore to attract the best talents to go into the teaching profession. And this is validated by a number of surveys, including that one conducted by the EdCom, although this was more than 10 years ago, but please take note that, even the EdCom made proposals to the effect that we do something in order to improve the remuneration, to enhance the remuneration of teachers because of the role being played by the teachers. Mr. Speaker... REP. CUA. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I may react. I would like to mention that the proposal of the committee would mean a salary rate increase of at least 46 percent on full implementation. And, if you look at the salary grades of the teachers who would occupy not only Salary Grade 11, but they would be also find our teachers in Salary Grades 14, 16, 18, 20 and the highest would be 28 as bureau head. So, if you look at the increases, it would be ranging from 46 percent to almost 90 plus percent, Mr. Speaker. So, we feel that this

13 kind of salary rate increases, percentagewise, would already be substantial and significant. To ask for more, Mr. Speaker, to further reflect the importance of the teachers, would already be providing more than a hundred percent salary increase which, in our calculation, may not really be sustainable. In other words, sinasabi lang natin is, puwede talaga naman nating itaas ang salary grade pero sa aming pananaw, ang percentage increase is already significant and substantial, na sa tingin namin ay puwede na at kung mas tataas pa doon, baka hindi na kayanin ng budget. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker, I see the point of the distinguished Gentleman from Quirino, the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. But, I think that explanation does not support the intention of salary standardization and does not jibe with the existing realities. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that a pertinent provision of the Magna Carta for public school teachers reads as follows: "They shall compare favorably with those paid in other occupations requiring equivalent or similar qualifications, training and abilities." Now, Mr. Speaker, if I bring your attention to this proposed joint resolution, I would like to bring you to page 13, and this is the base pay schedule for the military. When you speak of similar qualifications, training and abilities, I think, for the military, a second lieutenant is a graduate of a four-year course. He must have graduated from the PMA or from any university or college for that matter, and the base pay is P28,648. Mr. Speaker, this is the monthly base pay at hindi pa po kasama ang mga ibang allowances. Now, under your proposal, Salary Grade 11 would only be P18,549. So, if I were to follow this proposed resolution, there is really distortion somewhere. Take note, Mr. Speaker, imagine a cadet, even if he is only one-day old in the PMA, already gets P25,140 monthly basic pay, and a teacher who finished four years, who took the board exam, et cetera, the starting pay is only P18,000 plus. So, where is the rationalization scheme here? Uulitin ko, Mr. Speaker - cadet, P25,000. Kapapasok lang sa PMA, second lieutenant, P28,000. Mayroon pa silang allowances. Ang teacher, P18,000 lang, Mr. Speaker. I do not see the wisdom of this resolution. REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, maybe it is difficult for us to compare an orange to an apple. Comparing a cadet, let us say, to a teacher may not really be a good comparison in the sense that a cadet, who is enrolled in the Philippine Military Academy, is a different breed as potential officials of the military. To compare a small group of potential leaders and heads of the military organization to that of a teacher, for example, who is not selected from among thousands of applicants, would not really be a good example of comparing. The reason cadets are being paid a starting salary of P25,000 is because the cadet is supposed to be chosen from among the many thousands or probably, not only a few thousands but tens of thousands who would apply all over the country and who would have leadership quality. So the criteria for choosing a cadet and that of, let us say, an ordinary teacher may not be that comparable, Mr. Speaker.

14 REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker, assuming but not admitting that the Gentleman is correct, let me abandon the cadet; let me go to a technical sergeant, who is not even a college graduate. His basic monthly pay is P19,359. So if you do not want to accept the cadet as an example, then let me go to the technical sergeant and definitely, he gets higher than what a teacher gets, and most of them are only high school graduates. I am not trying to undermine them, Mr. Speaker, but that is the reality, and this does not include their allowances. So if you include the allowances, for all you know, Mr. Speaker, the technical sergeant gets more than P20,000. His basic pay is already P19,359. Now, the poor teacher will only get P18,000 plus under your proposal. I believe, Mr. Speaker, in the saying that, if there is a will--kung gugustuhin natin-- there is a way. Now, if you are telling us that the teachers have to be relegated into the background because the soldiers--I am not against the salary scheme being offered to the military. I agree with Congressman Rufus Rodriguez. Perhaps, we even downgraded when we should increase. But what I am trying to say is, this is already an existing law, the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. It says: "They shall compare favorably with those paid in other occupations requiring equivalent or similar qualifications, training and abilities. REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. You may, perhaps, say the Magna Carta is already obsolete because it was approved 30 or 40 years ago. Yes, some provisions could be obsolete but this principle, Mr. Speaker, is never, never obsolete. REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the comparison made between the technical sergeant and the teacher. REP. PADILLA. Mr. Speaker, if the Gentleman does not want to accept the technical sergeant, what profession could you offer just so that we could abbreviate this discussion? Kung ayaw ninyong tanggapin iyong cadet, kung ayaw ninyong tanggapin iyong sarhento, ano po? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out that when we prepared the pay scale, the appropriate comparison would be, let us say, in the military, it would be... The better comparison would be a Teacher I and the private, because Teacher I is the entry level of the teacher and the private would be the entry level in the military. In the police, it will be the Police Officer I and for the Fire, it would be Fire Officer I. REP. PADILLA. But the reason, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to compare the teacher to the private is that it would be more glaring that there is a faulty comparison. A private could be just a high school graduate, Mr. Speaker. And the Magna Carta for teachers says, "shall compare favorably with those paid in other profession requiring equivalent or similar qualifications." So, where is the similarity in qualifications, Mr. Speaker? A private is a high school graduate; the teacher has to finish a four-year course and has to pass the board exam before she could teach. So, I beg to disagree, Mr. Speaker. I could not accept the private as the equivalent of the teacher. We are degrading the teachers, if we would accept that.

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 REP. CUA. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I could list them a little higher, with regard to the technical sergeant. The technical sergeant, while his qualifications may not compare to those of a teacher, for example, this technical sergeant may be someone who rose from the ranks and probably, would be in the service for more than 15 years. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I see the point of the Gentleman. What we are trying to say here is that we apply that principle, But, of course, across sectors, it may not really be that easy to apply the principle. But the point is that in the standardization, in setting the standards, that would be one of the basic factors that would be considered--educational qualifications. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned this is a collegial body. At the proper time, we would be ready to discuss proposals for amendments, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Yes, I would like to thank you for that statement, Mr. Speaker. Before I leave this issue, because I would like to go to another issue, even the five-year development program of this Republic tells us that, if we want to be globally competitive, we must improve the quality of education in this country. And one of the basic ingredients of quality education is quality teaching. And when you speak of quality teaching, it means quality teachers. And we would be able to attract quality teachers if we are going to improve the remuneration system for the teachers. So, Mr. Speaker, I have yet to see privates or sergeants being pirated in America or in other countries. But I see the exodus of teachers, being pirated even by America. So, we are losing, Mr. Speaker, the good teachers of this country. Hindi bale sana kung iisa, dalawa, pero marami. Libo-libo. And if we do not do something about it, we can never be globally competitive. Because the main ingredient to be globally competitive, the main strategy as set forth by the five-year development program, is to improve the quality of education, to include support for science and technology. Matatalo tayo. And we are not following the things that we are teaching, Mr. Speaker. Kami naman dito, we are just trying to point out na mayroong mga existing policies tayo. Mayroon tayong mga existing batas and the realities would tell us that we have to do something to improve the plight of the teachers. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I know that other Members of the House will take the floor at the appropriate time to buttress further this point. Now, let me go to the second point and this was also started by Congressman Rodriguez--in the matter of the nurses, Mr. Speaker. As I have said, Republic Act No. 9173 mandates that the nurses should have to start at Salary Grade 14. But under your proposal, it is Salary Grade 11, Mr. Speaker. As I have said, you will delegate the authority, the power, to the President to determine the implementation of the New Salary Standardization Law. But the law already tells us, including the President, that the nurses should start, at least, at Salary Grade 14. Mr. Speaker, just like our teachers, we are losing our nurses. So, if your fear is other professions will follow suit, it will open the floodgates, that should not happen because the law is clear. There is already a law mandating us. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this law was approved in 2002. It has never been implemented. And here comes the joint resolution

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 undermining that law, virtually disregarding the provisions of that law, Mr. Speaker. I think it is not good to see that we had approved the law and yet, we have never implemented it. The President signed it and the President herself is not following it. If you want to support the President, Mr. Speaker, why do you not follow Republic Act No. 9173 because she signed this into law? She could have vetoed it if she thought it was not a good law, Mr. Speaker. REP. CUA (J.). Mr. Speaker, before I react to that point, let me go back to one point that was raised, that we are losing our doctors, our nurses. I think that phenomenon is correct. But even if we increase the salaries of our nurses to the level that we want, or our teachers to the level as advocated, I do not think we can still prevent the exodus of our teachers simply because these are market forces that exist, and it is really very difficult for us to counter that because in the U. S., a teacher is paid two to three thousand dollars a month, and that is practically more than the salary of our President. So, I think, what we are trying to do here is really to come up with a salary scheme that we can really afford. A salary scheme that has taken into total perspective, that would be rational and reasonable, if we consider the other positions in the total compensation scheme. On the matter of the laws that we have passed which we are trying to do, in effect, by way of this joint resolution, certainly, the discussions that we are having here form part of the records and will form part of the intent and the spirit of the joint resolution that we are discussing. Mr. Speaker, let me just reiterate the position of your committee which I have said earlier in response to the query of Hon. Rufus, which is the same position that I would like to mention as I respond to the point of the Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya, that here, we are trying to come up with a proposal which the committee feels would finally be implementable because the laws that we have passed before-- laws that we have passed for many years already until now-- would really not be implemented and they are forming part of those laws that are unfunded simply because it is not sustainable and if implemented, will create more problems, instead of solving them, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I have made my point quite clear and I know that other Members of the House would take the floor to pursue further these two points that so far I have raised. Now, I just want to go to the last point, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the allowances, please take note that there are also existing laws, existing Magna Cartas and it would seem that the intention of this resolution is to disregard these Magna Cartas. I would like to appeal to the Committee on Appropriations and to the assembly, Mr. Speaker, that based on computations that were submitted by our resource persons who attended the various committee hearings, including the Alliance of Health Workers, it would seem that when you abolish those Magna Cartas, they would even stand to lose under the new scheme, of course, there is a provision here which tells us na hindi mababawasan ang tatanggapin nila. Assuming na hindi ito mababawasan, Mr. Speaker, it defeats the purpose why we are upgrading their salaries. We thought it was our intention to come up with a new scheme because we recognize the hardships being

15 encountered by our government workers. So, if the argument is--hindi ito mababawasan--you are not helping them. Please consider, Mr. Speaker, that we have the inflation rate as a factor to reckon with. If we input, therefore, inflation, talo pa itong mga health workers natin, assuming but not admitting that your position is correct, na hindi mababawasan. But their computation says otherwise, Mr. Speaker. So, I hope and I know that the Gentleman from Quirino would be able to rationalize on the floor the position of the committee. But I am now, Mr. Speaker, winding up my interpellation by appealing to our distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and to the DBM that, during the period of amendments, we should do something, Mr. Speaker. Magbigayan tayo. I hope that, under this spirit, we would be able to reach a win-win solution. But, definitely, we believe that the joint resolution, as now presented to us, is not acceptable in view of the reasons that we have already articulated earlier, Mr. Speaker. Kaya ang pakiusap na lang, naniniwala ako eh, if there is a will, there is a way. Kaya gumawa tayo ng paraan, my distinguished colleague from Quirino. REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have always adoped the attitude of keeping an open mind. And, as we have said all along, legislation is a dynamic process. It is a process of transparent debate and at the end of the day, agreeing on a common ground. Let me assure the Gentleman that we will try to find an acceptable middle ground for all of these. Now, just to allay the fears of the Gentleman from Nueva Vizcaya, our neighbor, the provision on Magna Carta benefits, the last sentence provides, and I would like to read: "That there shall be no decrease in the amount and kind of Magna Carta benefits already received by the qualified employees." In other words, what we are just trying to enunciate in this provision is an administrative process. Because, as you see, in the present Magna Carta laws, there is no body that tries to acts as an oversight; the determination of who shall be given, or who shall be entitled to Magna Carta benefits, is solely left to the lead agency. And we feel that this is not healthy because when you leave the determination of who is qualified and how much to give to the lead agency, there is a likelihood of being abused. So, what we are saying here is that, at the moment, the guidelines for this are not uniform and there is a need for a body, like the DBM, to do that. But with respect to the Magna Carta benefits, we have categorically said that there shall be no decrease in the amount and kind of Magna Carta benefits, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. So, are you saying, Mr. Speaker, that on top of what they would receive under the joint resolution, they will still receive some amount because of the Magna Carta? REP. CUA. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. REP. PADILLA. That is something that is reassuring, but I hope, Mr. Speaker, that at the appropriate time, we could further review this because, as I have said, based on the findings of those who are interested in the implementation of these various Magna Carta laws, Mr. Speaker, they seem to lose and not to gain under our proposal.

16 Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Gentleman from Quirino for the accommodation and hopefully, at the appropriate time, we would be able to strike a win-win formula in order that we could accommodate those that were already advocated by our colleagues, not only in the committee level, but even now as we are discussing this joint resolution in the plenary, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. REP. CUA. Yes... SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Fuentebella). With the permission of the Majority Leader and the Gentlemen on the floor, the Chair declares a suspension of the session for a few minutes. It was 7:26 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 7:32 p.m., the session was resumed with Rep. Janette L. Garin presiding. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin). The session is resumed. REP. DE GUZMAN. Mme. Speaker. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. DE GUZMAN. May we recognize the Hon. Risa Hontiveros for her interpellation. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin). The Hon. Risa Hontiveros is recognized for her interpellation. REP. HONTIVEROS. Thank you, Mme. Speaker, and good evening to the good Sponsor. REP. DE GUZMAN. Good evening, too. REP. HONTIVEROS. Good Sponsor, I would like to raise questions around five issues, concerns po ng Confederation of Independent Unions in the public sector or CIU. First of all po, in Section 4(b), Compensation System, Salary Grade 1, Step 1, it provides for P9,000. Mme. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, hindi ba mababa ito, considering na ang mismong National Economic and Development Authority ng gobyerno ay nagtakda na kailangan ng bawat pamilya ng P12,000.00 sa isang buwan para lamang manatili sa ibabaw ng poverty line? REP. CUA. Mme. Speaker, I am terribly sorry to disagree with the data mentioned by the Gentlewoman because ang data po na nakuha natin na poverty threshold average sa buong Pilipinas, for the year 2008, is P6,772. So, medyo malayo po doon sa P12,000. REP. HONTIVEROS. Malayo.

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 REP. CUA. These data are provided by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). REP. HONTIVEROS. Malayo po talaga, Mme. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, kahit kung, halimbawa, ikuwenta natin doon sa legislated minimum wage sa National Capital Region, na P382 per day, lalampas naman siguro sa P6,772 na sinasabi ng good Sponsor na mula sa NSCB, hindi po ba? REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, you are right. REP. HONTIVEROS. So, kung ganoon, Mme. Speaker, iibahin ko nang konti ang tanong. Hindi po ba mababa pa rin ang P9, 000 kung ihahambing sa legislated minimum wage sa NCR? REP. CUA. Mme. Speaker, iyong legislated wage sa NCR is, I think, ,sa ngayon ay P382 per day at kapag atin pong ipinatupad ang ating panukala, ang magiging minimum wage, in effect, daily, will be P402.80, kasama po iyong ADCOM at saka iyong PERA. So, medyo mas mataas na rin po tayo sa private sector kapag atin pong naipatupad ito on the first year of implementation. REP. HONTIVEROS. All right, Mme. Speaker, good Sponsor. Pero puwede pa rin nating i-argue further na kahit iyong legislated minimum wage, na alam din naman natin ay mas honored in breach, ng mga manggagawa natin ay hindi pa rin aktwal na sasapat sa actual cost of living ng isang pamilya. So, ipu-pursue ko po iyon in further deliberations pagkatapos kong mai-check iyong sinabi ng good Sponsor na NSCB figure na P6,772 lamang. Ang pangalawang isyu po, Mme. Speaker, good Sponsor, batay po sa pag-aaral ng CIU, dito sa dati ay Joint Resolution No. 24 pero ngayon ay consolidated, substituted ng Joint Resolution No. 36, ay mukhang mababa po iyong increase doon sa unang 18 Salary Grades, mula Salary Grade 1 hanggang Salary Grade 18 kumpara sa increase mula Salary Grades 18 hanggang 33 or kapag tiningnan natin ang differential between each Salary Grade. On the average po, ang differential between salary grades, mula Salary Grade 1 hanggang Salary Grade 18 ay, on the average, mga P1,290, pero kapag tiningnan naman po natin ang differential between salary grades mula Salary Grade 18 hanggang 33, on the average ay P6,000. Pero differentials lang po ito between salary grades at ang mas importante po ay, bakit po lumalabas na mas mababa ang increase ng mga nasa mabababang salary grades kaysa sa proportional increase ng mga nasa matataas na salary grades, considering na ang mga nasa mabababang salary grades ang mas nangangailangan ng umento sa suweldo nila? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, iyon pong nasa ibabang level, although medyo po mas mababa ang percentages ng increase kaysa doon sa nasa itaas na salary grade, kapag ito po ay naipatupad, mas mataas na rin po ang suweldo ng nagtatrabaho sa gobyerno compared doon sa suweldo na ibinabayad ng private sector mula doon sa Salary Grade 1 hanggang sa Salary Grade 18. Iyon pong nasa medyo mataas na salary grade ay kinakailangan pong talagang ganoon kataas ang maging percentage ng pagtaas sapagkat itong mga levels na ito, ito na ang medyo nasa itaas ng

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 organizational structure, ito ang level na malapit o nandoon na sa mga executive level, supervisory level, sapagkat ang mga pasuweldo natin sa supervisory level at saka sa executive level ay talagang napakalayo na po, compared doon sa ipinasusuweldo ng private sector. And even if we do this, ay hindi pa rin tayo makahahabol but, at least, medyo nai-angat din natin ang malaking porsyento para medyo maretain. In other words, kinakailangan po nating gawin iyon, kailangan ganoon ang mangyari sapagka't doon sa ibaba, hindi naman tayo napapag-iwanan. Dito sa itaas talagang medyo napag-iwanan na tayo. REP. HONTIVEROS. But, of course, Mme. Speaker, good Sponsor, doon naman sa mas matataas na salary grades, mas may mga benefits o privileges compared doon sa nasa mabababang salary grades na halos talagang iyon lamang mga suweldo at saka benefits nila sa ilalim ng batas ang naaasahan nila. And in any case po, good Sponsor, gayun din mahirap naman pong ihambing iyong ano ba dapat ang tama nating gawin kaugnay ng ating mga public sector employees kung ikumpara natin sa mga private sector employees dahil iyong nasa private sector ay talagang kawawang-kawawang-kawawa So, mahirap namang sabihin na dahil mas okay ng kaunti ang gusto nating gawin para sa public sector employees kaysa sa kapalaran sa ngayon ng nasa, halimbawa, formal labor, on its own, kailangan pa rin nating tingnan kung ano ba iyong tamang gawin para sa public sector employees. Going on to a third issue, Mme. Speaker, good Sponsor, napansin ko lang po dito sa Section 8, ang military and uniformed personnel, mabuti naman at para doon sa ilalim ng DND na candidate soldier, ang proposed po natin na monthly base pay ay P11,265 na malapit na ng konti doon sa una kong binanggit na P12,000 na figure. Nagtataka lang po ako, good Sponsor, bakit ang candidate soldier ay may panukala tayong monthly base pay na P11,265 samantalang ang nasa Salary Grade 1 doon sa Section 4 (b) ay P9,000 lamang. So, why the difference, good Sponsor? SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. CUA. May I move for a minute suspension of the session, Mme. Speaker. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin). The session is suspended. It was 7:42 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 7:44 p.m., the session was resumed. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin). The session is resumed. REP. CUA. Mme. Speaker. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin). The distinguished Sponsor is recognized. REP. CUA. Madam Speaker, in response to the query of the Gentlewoman, what in effect she is saying is that, bakit

17 ang proposal na maging suweldo ng candidate soldier ay P11,000, samantalang sa civilian, ang pinakamababang suweldo ay P9,000. Now, Mme. Speaker, ang ka-level kasi ng candidate soldier ay hindi Salary Grade 1, kung hindi ang ka-level niya ay Salary Grade 7 which is around P13,000. So, maybe, that would answer the query of the Lady. REP. HONTIVEROS. Salamat, good Sponsor, pero sa susunod ay babalikan ko pa rin po itong usaping ito dahil parang mahirap namang tingnan na ang pinakamababang salary grade sa civilian employees natin sa public sector ay mas mababa pa sa candidate soldier na nasa, kung baga, pinakaunang salary grade din sa ating mga uniformed personnel sa public sector. At para sa, hindi pala panlima kundi pang-apat at huling isyu na gusto ko pong itanong, Mme. Speaker, good Sponsor, dito po sa page 15, item no. 13, sinasaad: "Initial Implementation.­The Salary Schedule in item (4)(b) and the base pay schedule in item (8) shall be implemented within four (4) years:" Hindi po kaya mas maganda na iyong mga nasa lower salary grades, mula Salary Grade 1 hanggang Salary Grade 18 man lamang, na makakatanggap ng proportionately mas maliit na umento sa suweldo nila ay mapatupad man lamang iyong salary standardization para sa kanila sa loob ng isang mas maikling panahon? Halimbawa, hindi lalampas sa dalawang taon, lalo na at dahil maliit naman per year ang projected na umento sana sa kanila at lalo na po, good Sponsor, dahil tayo ay nasa gitna ng isang economic crisis at ngayon ay kailangan ng mga nasa lower salary grades iyong umentong ito. Iyong mga nasa higher salary grades ­ halimbawa, Salary Grades 19 to 33, baka sila pa, kasama iyong mga Miyembro ng House pagkatapos natin, ay puwedeng i-phase sa loob ng proposed ninyo na four-year period. Ano po kaya ang opinyon ng good Sponsor diyan, Mme. Speaker? REP. CUA. Mme. Speaker, iyon pong panukala na iyan ay maganda. In fact, sa aming Technical Working Group meetings, iyan po ang isa sa panukala na naipahayag at amin pong inatasan ang DBM para i-compute kung ito ba ay kakayanin sapagka't gusto nga namin na iyong medyo nasa ibabang salary grade ay medyo maiksian ang implementation period. Subali't medyo malaki ang kakailanganin, baka hindi maging sustainable. So, it is for reason of "unsustainability" that we had to forego such a very good proposal. REP. HONTIVEROS. Bilang pagwakas sa interpellation ko, Mme. Speaker, balikan ko na lang po itong isyung ito sa period of amendments at baka puwede na ring simulang iconsider ng good Sponsor at ng komite nila, halimbawa, iyong posibilidad na ipatupad itong salary standardization para sa mas mabababang salary grades sa loob ng dalawang taon pa rin kung, halimbawa, liliitan ng konti iyong umento sa mga nasa pinakamatataas na salary grades. Ito ay para naman mabigyan ng konting cushion iyong mga nasa lower salary grades sa gitna nitong economic crisis samantalang iyong mga nasa pinakamatataas na salary grades ay, anyway, baka naman can afford, na hindi muna makatanggap ng kaunting bahagi ng umento. Dapat gawin ito, lalo na sa loob nitong apat na taon o dalawang taon dahil sa economic crisis.

18 Maraming salamat, Mme. Speaker, at maraming salamat sa good Sponsor. REP. CUA. Maraming salamat din, Mme. Speaker. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. DE GUZMAN. Mme. Speaker, may we recognize the Hon. Dela Cruz of ABAKADA Guro for his interpellation. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin). The Hon. Dela Cruz is recognized. REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. Will the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the Gentleman from Quirino, yield to a few questions? REP. CUA. Yes, it is my pleasure. REP. DELA CRUZ. IV. REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mme. Speaker. We are relieved that the Chairman, the Gentleman from Quirino, mentioned that, in this particular resolution, there will be no dimunition of basic salaries for existing employees. That is, of course, something that we look forward to. Because as the previous speakers mentioned, there are a number of Magna Cartas that have already been in place for sometime and therefore, it will be quite unfortunate, really, if we left the personnel already in place to go into a situation where their salaries will be diminished. So, this is for our clarification, Mr. Chairman, Mme. Speaker. These rates are actually for entry level rates only? REP. CUA. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. The P9, 000 per month is at entry level, at Salary Grade I. In other words, iyong mga utility personnel o mga clerk na papasok sa umpisa, iyon ang pinakamababang suweldo niya. REP. DELA CRUZ. In the case of the educational sector, Mme. Speaker, where will the administrative personnel fall in this particular classification, the nonteaching personnel? REP. CUA. The non-teaching personnel, Mr. Speaker, will--iyong mga bagong pasok, if they will have to start at entry level, step one muna iyon. REP. DELA CRUZ. Step one. REP. CUA. Now, iyong mga administrative personnel, siyempre depende kung ano ang position. Kung ang trabaho ay janitor, Salary Grade I. Kung kahera, for example, Cashier I, that would be Salary Grade 10. Kung Supply Officer I, that would be Salary Grade 10. So, depende sa... REP. DELA CRUZ. Classification. REP. CUA. ...sa position. REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much.

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 Mme. Speaker, despite the fact that we are quite relieved by the assurances of the Gentleman from Quirino and Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I will still request him to please consider the advice earlier of Congressman Padilla, if we can try to reconsider the monthly base pay for the civilian and for the military and police personnel. Because I think there is a way by which we can synchronize these items properly. It will really be unfortunate if a chief master sargeant, for example, or a first chief master sargeant gets more than a teacher gets, no matter what the classification is. REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, iyon na nga iyong sinasabi natin na baka mahirap tayong mag-compare ng apple to orange sapagkat hindi ho pare-pareho ang responsibilidad, years of experience in the service at saka ang responsibility. So, baka iyong master sergeant ay, hindi natin dapat ikumpara doon sa Teacher I kung di sa ibang level ng teacher. It can be Teacher III...

REP. CUA. Or IV. ...or IV, depende, para maging comparable REP. DELA CRUZ. Ang nais ko lang, Mme. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure that our government employees in these sectors appreciate what we are trying to do. Because I appreciate the fact that we are trying to alleviate their situation right now, especially in times of crisis, and it will be quite unfortunate if they do not understand the rationale for this recompensation and reclassification system. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. But there are two other things, Mme. Speaker, that I would like to discuss, if the good Chairman will allow us. REP. CUA. Yes, with pleasure. REP. DELA CRUZ. You mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that we will need P120 billion, am I right? REP. CUA. That is correct. REP. DELA CRUZ. We will need P120 billion for this to be a sustainable program for a year? REP. CUA. Yes. Upon full implementation of the program, meaning, after four years, the budgetary effect of this would be about P120 billion. REP. DELA CRUZ. Mme. Speaker, may we know the basis for such calculation? REP. CUA. Mme. Speaker, we have a total of 1.12 million government employees. About 200,000 plus of this would be uniformed personnel. Based on the salary increases that we are proposing and the number of personnel, both in the civilian and in the uniformed service, if you multiply the number of personnel, the number of positions, by the rate of salary increase, you will arrive at P120 billion. REP. DELA CRUZ. But, Mme. Speaker, am I right in

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 saying that this particular rate of increase already accounts for all the allowances, or this is just for the basic rate, for the basic salary? REP. CUA. No, Mme. Speaker, the P120 billion would already account for total compensation. REP. DELA CRUZ. For the total compensation? REP. CUA. That is correct. REP. DELA CRUZ. Mme. Speaker, would the Gentleman advise us on what will be the percentage of personnel services in the national budget if that comes to fruition? Do you have an idea? REP. CUA. It will be around 31 percent, close to 32 percent REP. DELA CRUZ. Close to 32 percent? REP. CUA. Yes. And then, if you compare this with our Asian neighbors, medyo mataas na tayo kasi Thailand, for example, would be 20 plus; Malaysia, I think, is about 20; Singapore would be about 16 to 18, so medyo mabigat na. A difference of, let us say, 10 percent of total budget, our total budget now is 1.415 trillion and if we multiply that by 10 percent, we are talking of P140 billion, na imbes na mapunta sa development, mapupunta sa pasuweldo. REP. DELA CRUZ. Personnel services. REP. CUA. So, medyo mabigat pa rin. REP. DELA CRUZ. Mme. Speaker, are you suggesting that the bureaucracy is bloated? REP. CUA. Yes. REP. DELA CRUZ. It is bloated right now? REP. CRUZ. Yes. REP. DELA CRUZ. Mme. Speaker, the reason I am asking what is the percentage of the personnel services in the national budget is that I wanted to make a comparison between what we have in the national budget and what we are going to propose for the local government units, as provided for in Section (7), Local Government Units, and my appreciation of this, Mme. Speaker, is that, if we will allow the paragraph, and I will read: "Only the salary adjustments for personnel in LGUs adopting the salary schedules for their income classes shall be waived from the personal services limitation in LGU budgets under Republic Act No. 7160." I think this is a trigger, Mme. Speaker, for some agitation, especially in most of the local government units. If there is a way by which we can strike this out from this resolution, it would be most appreciated. By way of comparison, right now, most of the LGUs already have 45 percent of their total budget for personnel services, 2 percent for their development fund, and 5 to 10 percent for their

19 calamity fund. That accounts already to 75 percent of their budget. If we will allow this particular paragraph in place, we will unnecessarily put the local government units in such jeopardy. We will not be able to even sustain their development activities. I hope the Sponsor, the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, will take a look at this seriously so that we can also provide some leeway for our local government units to undertake their activities in a manner that will also be sustainable. REP. CUA. Mme. Speaker, if you read through the provision in its entirety, what is meant or what is intended by that provision is to provide flexibility to local government units to pay more if they can afford it. In other words, if they have sufficient resources to pay a higher salary to be able to attract and retain competent people, they can do so. Kung sila ay may kakayahan at ang gusto nila ay ma-maintain, maretain, ma-attract ang mga magagaling na tao, puwede silang magbayad ng mas mataas na suweldo kaysa doon sa level na itinakda ng batas para sa kanila because, if you will know, there is no uniformity in the financial capability of local governments dahil mayroong first-class, second-class, up to the sixth-class. Iyong mga may kakayahan, ina-allow natin iyan na magbayad ng up to 100 percent pero iyong pinaka-mababa, up to about 65 percent lang. So, ang sinasabi natin, kung may kakayahan ka ay puwede kang magbayad ng mas mataas na pasuweldo kaysa doon sa allowed by law provided that the PS cap as provided in the Local Government Code is not violated. In other words, for as long as your PS in relation to your total budget will not exceed, say, the percentage allowed by law, puwede kang magbayad ng mas mataas na pasuweldo more than what is allowed to you by law. REP. DELA CRUZ. Mme. Speaker, are you suggesting or are you saying that this particular provision will be taken in consonance or in conformity with the existing caps provided for under the Local Government Code? REP. CUA. That is correct, because if you read the portion pertaining to the local government unit, that principle is clearly provided for. REP. DELA CRUZ. Mme. Speaker, the only reason I wanted that clarified is that we are afraid that this will be a source of agitation for most of our local government employees. And, if that is the clarification provided for by his Honor, then we will be happy to incorporate this properly in the manner that it should be taken in consonance or in coordination with the provisions of the Local Government Code, which brings me to my third and last point, Mme. Speaker. Is the Gentleman in a position to provide an idea of the extent of devolution and how much the local government units are now funding this devolution under the Local Government Code? REP. CUA. Mme. Speaker, under the Local Government Code, the devolved functions are supposed to be funded by local government units. That is, in fact, the spirit of devolution; we devolve the functions because we are sharing with local

20 government units the revenue collection of the national government. Prior to the Local Government Code, there is no mandated sharing of internal revenue to the local governments. The assistance to local government units are at the discretion of the national government. Kaya nga nagkaroon tayo ng formula, out of 100 percent of the total internal revenue collection, 40 percent goes to the local government, 60 percent goes to the national government. But the national government takes care of external obligations: it takes care of defense, foreign affairs and many others. The local government takes care of specific devolved functions, including health, communal irrigation and many other activities. For the 40 percent that was allocated to them, they are supposed to perform devolved functions. However, as we all know, not all of the devolved functions are being performed by the local government, and many of these devolved functions continue to be funded by the national government. REP. DELA CRUZ. Mme. Speaker, do you have an idea of the provinces for the local government units where these devolved functions are properly devolved and where the devolved functions are not properly devolved? Do you have an idea on this, Your Honor? REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, I have no official study on that, but I would imagine that much of the functions that have been devolved are really performed by the local government units. Of course, we cannot claim 100 percent. As to how much is the percentage, I am sorry to admit that I am not privy to such a study. Maybe such a study should be undertaken now, or maybe studies have been made pero hindi ko lang alam. REP. DELA CRUZ. Mme. Speaker, thank you very much. I asked that question because the general information that I have been getting, especially from our colleagues in the local government units, is that the national government agencies from where these devolved functions were taken, continue to have budgets for the devolved functions. In other words, they have excess budgets which they have not shared with the local government units. So they have left the local government units in such a problematic stage that many of the local government units cannot even perform such devolved functions. I hope the committee will consider this in the finalization of this compensation and pay scheme because, if there is a way by which the national government agencies can share part of their budget for the devolved functions especially, it will be better because then that will provide the local government units the flexibility to undertake those functions in as responsible a manner as possible. REP. CUA. Of course, that would be another issue, certainly a different matter that deserves discussion, but let me respond by saying that under the Local Government Code, the local government has been allocated what has been enshrined in the law which is 40 percent of total internal revenue collection and if that is insufficient, they would need further support from the national government. There is nothing that would prevent each and every local government unit to seek assistance from national government agencies and that

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 is happening. They are being assisted by the national government by way of a memorandum of agreement or programs of the national government agencies that are precisely packaged to help local governments. REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much. Mme. Speaker, is it possible under this particular resolution, Your Honor, to have such a uniform standard by which the sharing can be undertaken, especially in the case of personnel? REP. CUA. May I beg your pardon. REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes. Since we are discussing this joint resolution and the compensation scheme, Your Honor, is it possible to have a standard by which the national government agencies and the local government units can come together, a way of sharing, especially for personnel services in the case of the devolved functions. So that, as I said, the implementation of such devolved functions will be more responsible and proper in most instances. REP. CUA. That is a point well taken, but maybe this would not be the proper place to put it in. I think that is an issue that deserves further discussion. What we are crafting today is just a modification of the existing compensation system by addressing the weaknesses, by addressing the deficiencies and by strengthening the system, Mme. Speaker. REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. Finally, is the Sponsor of the resolution aware that we have a huge budget, I would suppose, for casuals and contractuals in the national government agencies? REP. CUA. I am not sure how much would be for the contractuals in terms of total budget. Certainly, there are. But under the rationalization plan or Rat Plan of the government now, this number of contractual and casual employees is supposed to be minimized. REP. DELA CRUZ. That is the effort, because I was given a note from the Department of Budget and Management where they are saying that the number of casuals and contractuals, per their figure, is 26,000. I cannot believe this, of course, because I know that there is more than this number of casuals. But for 26,000 employees, meaning casuals and contractuals alone, Your Honor, we are spending P3.9 billion. So if you are going to minimize the number of casuals and contractuals in government, we can probably make use of this to support the requirements, for example, of local government units. REP. CUA. Mme. Speaker, I think under the rationalization plan, the intent really is to streamline the organization and as much as possible make do with existing permanent plantilla positions. But certainly, we cannot completely eliminate the hiring of casuals and contractuals because sometimes, when workload would be heavy, agencies may be forced to hire additional manpower, not on a permanent basis but on a contractual or casual basis.

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. There are a number of other things that I wanted to input, but I know that there other speakers, so I would just like to thank the Sponsor, Mme. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity. We will have time probably in the future for some amendments to this particular resolution. Thank you very much. REP. CUA. Thank you so much for your valid questions. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin). The Floor Leader is recognized. SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. DE GUZMAN. Mme. Speaker, I move that, in the meantime, we suspend the consideration of House Joint Resolution... May I move for a one-minute suspension of the session. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin). The session is suspended. It was 8:14 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 8:15 p.m., the session was resumed with Rep. Rene M. Velarde presiding. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). The session is resumed. REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. GARIN. I move for a one-minute suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). The session is suspended. It was 8:15 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 8:16 p.m., the session was resumed. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. JOSON. Mr. Speaker. SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move for a few minutes suspension of the session.

* See MEASURES CONSIDERED (printed separately)

21 THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). The session is suspended. It was 8:16 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 8:18 p.m., the session was resumed. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). The session is resumed. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION H.JT. RESOLUTION NO. 36 REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, allow me to reiterate the previous motion as forwarded by the Hon. Del R. De Guzman. I move that we suspend consideration of House Joint Resolution No. 36. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we ratify the bicameral conference committee report on Senate Bill No. 2963 and House Bill No. 3514. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up a matter under the Business for the Day. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Dep. Majority Leader will please proceed. CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 6319 ON SECOND READING PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Bill No. 6319, under Committee Report No. 2001, as reported out by the Committees on Higher and Technical Education, Appropriations, and Ways and Means. May I ask the Secretary General to read the title of the measure. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.* Consideration of House Bill No. 6319 is now in order. With the permission of the Body, and since copies of the measure have been previously distributed, the Secretary General will read only the title thereof without prejudice to inserting its text in the Congressional Record.

22 THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 6319, entitled: AN ACT CONVERTING THE DON HONORIO VENTURA COLLEGE OF ARTS AND TRADES IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BACOLOR, PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA TO A STATE UNIVERSITY TO BE KNOWN AS DON HONORIO VENTURA TECHNOLOGICAL STATE UNIVERSITY AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR. REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Explanatory Note be considered as the sponsorship speech. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, there being no Member who wishes to interpellate on said measure, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate. Further, Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of amendments but there being no member who would like to introduce any amendment, I move that we close the same. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we vote on Second Reading on House Bill No. 6319 as contained in Committee Report No. 2001. VIVA VOCE VOTING THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep.Velarde). As many as are in favor, please say aye. SEVERAL MEMBERS. Aye THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep.Velarde). As many as are against, please say nay. FEW MEMBERS. Nay. APPROVAL OF H.B. NO. 6319 ON SECOND READING THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). The ayes have it; the motion is approved. House Bill No. 6319 is approved on Second Reading. CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. NO. 1053 PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Resolution No. 1053, under Committee Report No. 1987, as reported out by the Committee on Rules. May I ask the Secretary General to read the title of the measure.

* See MEASURES CONSIDERED (printed separately)

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). Is there any objection ? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.* Consideration of House Resolution No. 1053 is now in order. With the permission of the Body, and since copies of the measure have been previously distributed, the Secretary General will read only the title thereof without prejudice to inserting its text in the Congressional Record.* THE SECRETARY GENERAL, House Resolution No. 1053, entitled: RESOLUTION BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECOGNIZING AND HONORING FRANCIS DURANGO MAGALONA, ALSO KNOWN AS "FRANCIS M" FOR HIS TALENT FOR MUSIC AND HIS FERVENT DESIRE TO USE THIS TALENT TO INCULCATE NATIONALISM TO OUR COUNTRYMEN. ADOPTION OF H. RES. NO. 1053 REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we adopt the said resolution. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep.Velarde). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. House Resolution No. 1053 is adopted. REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, here, number seven. REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up House Resolution No. 1045 as contained in Committee Report No. 1986. REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). Yes. REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, can we request that we go home now? SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). The session is suspended. It was 8:22 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 8:23 p.m, the session was resumed. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). The session is resumed. CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. NO. 1045 PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Resolution No. 1045, under Committee Report No. 1986, as reported out by the Committee on Rules.

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 May I ask the Secretary General to read the title of the measure. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.* Consideration of House Resolution No. 1045 is now in order. With the permission of the Body, and since copies of the measure have been previously distributed, the Secretary General will read only the title thereof without prejudice to inserting its text in the Congressional Record. THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Resolution No. 1045, entitled: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE PROFOUND CONDOLENCES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE DEMISE OF MR. FRANCIS DURANGO MAGALONA, KNOWN AS "THE KING OF FILIPINO RAP MUSIC" TO MILLIONS OF FILIPINOS. ADOPTION OF H. RES. NO. 1045

23

REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we adopt House Resolution No. 1045. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. House Resolution No, 1045 is adopted. ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION REP. GARIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn the session until four o'clock tomorrow afternoon, May 13, 2009. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Velarde). The session is adjourned until four o'clock tomorrow afternoon, May 13, 2009. It was 8:23 p.m.

* See MEASURES CONSIDERED (printed separately)

Information

2009 MAY 12

24 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

262968


You might also be interested in

BETA
2009 MAY 12
2009 MAY 12