Friday, March 18, 2016

I Am for the Constitution



   With a vote of 9-6, the Supreme Court (SC) finally ruled that Senator Grace Poe is qualified to run for presidency. The highest court reversed the assailed decisions of the COMELEC cancelling the certificate of candidacy of Grace Poe. With this, tension arose everywhere; among the justices who decided the case and among the lawyers and non-lawyers who also shared and expressed their own opinions on the decision. Even in the social media world, netizens also shared their sentiments whether they’re Anti-Grace Poe or Pro-Grace Poe.

         I’m not against of Grace Poe. I admire her for her humility and intelligence in answering every question thrown at her. However, I am pro-Constitution. I personally do not agree with the SC’s majority ruling especially on the issue of citizenship of Grace Poe. First, our constitution does not give a presumption that a foundling is Filipino as his or her parentage and heritage is unknown. It is the burden of the foundling to prove that he or she is a Filipino since his or her parentage and heritage is unknown. Given that the Constitution provides an exclusive list under Art IV, Section 1 on who are to be considered as citizens of the Philippines, foundlings do not fall under any of the categories stipulated therewith except if they become citizens under the naturalization law.1 Also under Art IV, Sec 2 provides that natural born citizens “are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.2  Thus, since she should be able to prove his/her parentage, she has performed an act to perfect her Philippine citizenship. So, Grace Poe cannot be considered a natural born citizen. The law is very clear on that. Second, foundlings may be considered as a naturalized Filipino.  While it’s true that under customary international law specifically the Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Law, states in Article 14, “A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth” and the Convention on Reduction of Statelessness under Article 2 states that “A foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born within the territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State.”4 There is no presumption under the constitution that foundlings shall be considered as natural born citizens of the country they are found in. If the State should exercise some compassion with regard to foundlings, the State, as Parens Patriae (Latin for “parent of the country”), should grant them citizenship, though not as natural-born citizens.5 Therefore, Grace Poe may be considered a naturalized citizen, not a natural born Filipino.

               On the issue of residency, I agree with the point of the SC that Grace Poe has been residing in the Philippines since May 2006. Evidences such as getting a TIN from BIR, enrolling her children in schools here in Metro Manila, acquiring property, resigning from her job in US proved that during that time she returned to the Philippines for good. However, I agree with Justice Del Castillo’s dissenting opinion that her mistake in her COC is unacceptable. I do not find it justifiable also that because the COC’s words are confusing; she made a mistake on the number of months when she filed for candidacy for Senator. As Del Castillo said, Poe was well educated and that the language was simple and clear. Poe did not officially correct her COC as early as June 2015, only through public statements.According to him, he cannot help but conclude that these public statements were for the purpose of representing to the general public that she is eligible to run for president since they were made at a time when she was already contemplating on running for the position. They were not made at the earliest opportunity before the proper forum.

               A 9-6 decision is not a very strong decision. I respect the majority. After all, they’re not there for nothing. But one thing will never change; I will and always am for the Constitution.





1 PHIL CONST. Art IV, § 1
2 PHIL CONST. Art IV, § 2
4 Convention on Reduction of Statelessness, 1961, Art 2, 989 U.N.T.S. 175
5   ISAGANI CRUZ & CARLO CRUZ, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW (2014), supra note 10

No comments:

Post a Comment