Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7168x9728 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail
Hide article pages Show article pages
  1. Page 1
    Page 1 thumbnail
  2. Page 2
    Page 2 thumbnail

Article text

On this Page 1
DELEGATES
HEAR WARM
DISCUSSION
Palma and Singson Encarnacion
f Clash Over Question Of
National Territory
| NO PLACE IN CONSTITUTION
Veteran Politicians Thrill De
legates with Sensational
Debate
V
A thrilling encounter between De-
j legate Singson Encarnacion and
Delegate Palma.. veterans in po
litics who have seen active service
in the Philippine government in
various capacities from the time
'of the Philippine commission, was
l the main feature of the session of
the constitutional convention yes
terday afternoon when it proceeded
to discuss the question of the na-
tional territory of the Philippines
as defined in article 1 of the draft
Palma, Encarnacion
Hold Opposite Views
The two delegates, representing
the old elements In the convention,
held opposite views on the advisa
bility of including the provision in
question In the constitution. Dele
gate Palma expressed the opinion
that It would be not only unneces
sary but superflous to have that
provision embodied In the consti
tution. On the other hand, Delegate
Singson Encarnacion declared that
It Is absolutely necessary.
Territory Definition
Unnecessary Says Palma
Palma declared that It Is his
i understanding that a constitution
does not contain a statement of
facts such as a definition of what
constitutes the territory of a coun
try or nation, like the Philippines,
(Continued on page S)

DELEGATES HEAR
WARM DISCUSSION

( Continued from page 1 )
but that a constitution contains
only statements of principles or
precepts in broad outline. If the
constitution under study would
contain facts, the convention would
never finish drafting that consti
tution.
The definition of the territory of
the Philippines, said Palma, has
no place in so serious document
as the constitution. The extent
of the territory of the country, ac
cording to him. cannot be deter
mined in a moment's notice, for
it requires patience and the work
is arduous. It requires a thorough
investigation. He recalled that
when the treaty of Paris was being
concluded whereby Spain ceded the
Philippines to the United 8tatea
after the war between the two

countries, the members of the Span
ish delegation contended that Min
danao and Sulu did not form part
of the Philippine archipelagto.
Until ht present time, smd Phi-,
ma, the investigation into the vo
luminous documents of history
about the Philippines has not
shown the real extent of the ter
ritory of this country. There may
be other documents that might dis
close other facts, he said, about the
Philippine territory, so that the
inclusion of a provision defining
the territory of the country in the
constitution may preclude action on
the discovery.
Palma categorically declared that
the provision in question is super
fluous and useless in that it says
nothing but a definition of what
the national territory of the Phil-'
ippines should be. This fact is so
well known that even a child knows
about it, he sold.
Singson Encarnacion, the first
time he appeared before the con
vention to speak since its opening,
took the floor and answered Pal
ma in connection with what he
said some confusing views express
ed by the former. The principal
point raised by Singson Enoarno-
cion was that it is necessary to
include the provision in question
in the constitution in order to pro
vide security to the claim of the
Filipinos to the lands they de
clare in the constitution as be
longing to them.
Without such a definite pro
nouncement in the constitution, ac
cording to Singson Encarnacion, It
may be possible during the com
monwealth period that an American
representative of the Washington
government, in view of a change
of circumstances in the Far East,
may claim an island or a set of
islands as property of the Unit- j
ed States. This becomes more ap- 1
parent, according to him, when it j
is taken into account that the Ty-
dings-McDuffle law is silent on I
the treaty between the United 1
States and Great Britain whereby |
the latter admits that the Turtle i
islands and others near them be- !
long to the Philippines.
Singson Encarnacion emphasized ;
in his speech the fact that this is j
the time for the Filipinos to ac- j
quire anything which they believe l
belongs to them because the state I
of the minds of the American ad- I
ministrators in Washington is most
favorable along that line. The Fi
lipinos, he said, should take ad
vantage of that opportunity. I
This debate was provoked by the j
amendment presented by Delegate
Aruego to suppress article 1 of the
draft of the constitution. Hie de- '
bate was opened by Delegate Buen- ;
dia, chairman of the committee on '
territorial delimitation of the con- 1
vention. He narrated the procedure
taken by t£e committee in the stu
dy of the question and then gave
the conclusion that the provision
in question should be preserved.
In support of his amendment,
Aruego discussed the subject from
& legal point of view. He maintain
ed that the provision is unneces
sary. He said in part:
'There Is no necessity for includ- j
ing in the constitution a definition j
of our national territory. Its inclu
sion would only tend to make the
constitution unnecessarily volum
inous. A constitution, by its na
ture, is a place wherein to include
only strictly fundamental prlnd-

i.
pies of government, principles con-
ected with the purposes ofl a cons
titution; namely, (1) to define the
drgaatea tion of the! govdpment,
(2) to determine thfe distribution
of governmental powers, (3)
to establish certain fixed prin
ciples governing the operation
of the government, and (4)
to define the rights of individual :
citizens. However valuable may be
an information on the limits and
boundaries of the nation, I sincere
ly feel that the constitution is not
the proper place for putting this
information. I feel that we should
reserve the constitution wholly for
fundamental precepts of govern
ment. It will be a great credit to
the great ability of the members
of the convention in constitution-
making, if the constitution that
will eventually be drafted by it,
because it has confined Itself en
tirely to fundamentals, carefully
setting aside matters not directly
connected with the fundamental
objects of constitutions, will be
brief but comprehensive as are all
well-drafted constitutions.
"And even if a definition of ter
ritory were proper for constitu
tions, although unnecessary, per
sonally I would still object to the
inclusion of an article of national
territory in the constitution that
we are drafting because I feel that
we should not perpetuate in this
historic document the national hu
miliations of a tragic past. I feel
that we should not embody in this
priceless legacy to the coming gen
erations of Filipinos the history of
our subjection as a race, the his
tory of our frustrated attempts to

set ourselveB free. The Treaty of
Paris, in the conclusion of which
we were completely denied any
representation, for our plenipoten
tiary, Agoncillo, was denied admis
sion to the Paris Conference of
1898 serves, as far as I am con
cerned, not as a monument of a
glorious past, but as a reminder
of subjection. Mention of Article
III of the Treaty of Paris carries
with it the unfortunate controver
sies regarding the Twenty Million
Dollars often referred to as the
purchase price of the Philippine Is
lands. I feel, Mr. President, that it
is humiliating to the dignity of the
race to perpetuate in this docu
ment a reminder of all of these
things.
"However proud I may be as a
member of the race, I would be
willing , to swallow my pride be
cause after all the events around
the Treay of Paris have been ac
complished facts that could not be
j changed. I would be willing, I re-
| peat, to swallow my pride, if the

inclusion of a definition of our ter
ritory were indispensable in the
constitution. I would sacrifice all
if such a sacrifice is necessary. I
sincerely believe, Mr. President,
that there is no fundamental rea
son for the inclusion of the defi
nition of our territory in the na
tional constitution, I see no harm
for the omission of a definition of
j our territory. Our omission of this
! article defining our terirtory, will
not deprive us of the territory that
we are entitled to. The extent of
our territory depends not upon the
provisions of the constitution, but
upon the rules of international law.
The extent of our territory will be
what the United States will give
us and what we shall be entitled
to under the rules of International
law; and no provision in the Phil
ippine Constitution will give us ti
tle to any territory that we are

not entitled to, according to an act
of cession by the United States and
acording to the rules of interna
tional law:
The amendment was defeated by
a vote of 127 to 43.
Many perfecting amendments
were presented but so far all of
those discussed yesterday after-
boon were defeated.
The convention failed to finish
the debate on article 1 and will
continue it this afternoon.

$