Constitutionally Mandated

The May 2016 elections is just barely two months away and the Supreme Court has just ruled one of its biggest issues, it is regarding the eligibility of one of the candidates for Presidency- Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares.

The SC ruled in favor of Grace Poe to run for President. They gave credit to her error in stating her time of residency as a mistake in good faith and her citizenship on the probability of her being born to Filipino parents.

Personally, I do not see that she has effectively met these requirements. I do think that she has the burden of proving her eligibility and that she meets all the requirements for such position, just like any job that one wishes to enter. No employer would want an employee who lacks their minimum requirement. Our issue at hand is not a simple one, it is aiming for the highest and most powerful position of the land. It should not be taken lightly just like any other job offerings. The evidence should not only be convincing but clear as well.

The Constitution is clear, a natural-born status is required for a President. International laws and principle requires a state to extend citizenship to foundlings found within their territory. It does not necessarily mean that it has to be a natural-born status as long as citizenship is granted. This is for the reason that stateless persons could associate themselves with a state. There are things that the law grants, and there are things which it does not.

In case the law really intended foundlings to be natural-born citizens and that RA 9225 would confer back to her such status, she still lacked the necessary time for her to run. Before she took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, or before July 2006, pursuant to RA 9225, she is residing in the country not as a Filipino but as an American. By analogy, the Constitution requires that a Filipino should be residing in the Philippines for ten years prior to the day of elections. Our laws are strict when it comes to counting days, 364 days would not be counted as a year. I believe that the reason for the ten year residency is that a Filipino would have some time to grasp what is happening in her country and to be able to sympathize with her countrymen. It is very much accepted that one who knows they are a Filipino would essentially think for Filipinos, while an American for Americans. Some people change citizenship because they chose to be with the country in which such citizenship is conferred. Choosing citizenship is choosing on who to be nationalistic to, nationalism is patriotism.

These are matters that we all should take very seriously because it affects not only the majority but all of the Filipinos worldwide. She should effectively meet what is required of her, otherwise, it cannot be said that she is fit for the job. Dura lex, sed lex.

Supreme Court Decision on Grace Poe- Llamanzares case

      The Supreme Court promulgated its decision on March 8, 2016. The issues discussed in the case are whether Grace Poe satisfies the natural-born citizenship and residency requirements to be a candidate as President of the Philippines.

       I do not agree with the Supreme Court decision that COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that Grace is not qualified to run for presidency. I believe that COMELEC stood by the Constitution.

       The requirement of natural-born citizenship represents the requirement of loyalty only to the Philippines but not with the Philippines and with another country. For me, loyalty is staying or standing up for something no matter what happens. Grace willingly gave up her Filipino citizenship on October 18, 2001. I wonder where the loyalty to the Philippines is in that act. History can repeat itself. There is a high probability that Grace can renounce or not be loyal to the Philippines again if given with certain circumstances which can be more beneficial to her and the whole family. Public office is a public trust. How can we trust a person, sitting in the highest position of the country, who has a history of leaving the country for a better life in another country?

    The customary international law which states that the foundlings are entitled to a nationality and are presumed to be citizens of the country where they are found should be reconciled with the Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution which states that the “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”. Under customary international law, the Philippines can grant Filipino citizenship to the foundling but not the kind of natural-born citizenship because it will be against the Constitution. Not granting the natural-born type of citizenship does not rendering a person stateless.

     The 10-year residency requirement represents the need of a candidate to know more about the country he is wishing to serve. The residency does not mean staying in a place but rather an establishment of domicile. Domicile is the place where you intend to remain and return. It is true that Grace and her family made efforts to establish their home here in the Philippines, but for me, these are just superficial acts. How can a person have a domicile in a place where she is not a citizen? Grace became an American citizen on October 18, 2001, reacquired her Filipino citizenship on July 18, 2006, and renounced her American citizenship only on October 21, 2010. In my opinion, only on October 21, 2010 that Grace finally established her domicile in the Philippines because before this date, she was still an American citizen, naturally she can still go back to the US anytime she wanted to or whenever it will be beneficial to her and the family. Before October 21, 2010, she was still torn between the Philippines and the United States. She had interest with the United States because she still had allegiance on it and she was not yet focused on the welfare of the Philippines.

     What scares me the most is that, this decision is a precedent and a part of the law of the land. Anyone who has an ambition to rule or serve the country even when he is actually faithful to another country might use this in advancing his career in politics and the service will be tainted with personal interests.

     The law may be harsh but it is the law. I am a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and I am forever loyal to my country and the Constitution.

Grace Poe is a natural-born: A preponderance of evidence

Grace Poe is a natural-born: A preponderance of evidence

One of the qualifications for the presidential candidacy of the Philippines is that he must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.[1] Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without performing any act to perfect or obtain their citizenship.[2] Senator Grace Poe-Llamanzares, who now runs for presidential elections in 2016 is a foundling as evidenced by her documentary records. According to International laws, foundlings are considered as citizens of the country where they are found. The issue is whether or not Senator Grace Poe is eligible to run for the 2016 presidential elections despite the fact of being a foundling.

According to the Supreme Court decision regarding the citizenship of Senator Grace Poe[3], she is qualified to run for the upcoming presidential elections on May 2016. Allegedly, Senator Grace Poe cannot run for presidency as she is a naturalized citizen and not a natural-born. However, according to international laws, foundlings are considered citizens of the country where they are found. The Philippines is not a party  in the 1930 Hague convention nor the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness but it doesn’t mean that the principles therein are not binding. Our country is a signatory in the Hague Convention, therefore the Philippines is obliged to confer to the international laws and consider foundlings as citizens of the Philippines. The court also ruled that Senator Poe cannot be disqualified because there must be a decision of final judgment stating that the certain candidate failed to sustain the required qualifications for presidency. In this case, it would take a long-time for the court to prove every single information in dispute for Senator Grace Poe’s citizenship. It might take them even after the time of the 2016 presidential elections to investigate on the matter. Therefore Senator Poe cannot be disqualified by mere allegations on her citizenship because there is a need for strict compliance to the law by having a decision of final judgment by a competent court to disqualify a presidential candidate.

Evidence have proven that Senator Grace Poe is eligible as presidential candidate for the 2016 presidential elections. The court has now the burden of proof to provide counter-evidence that Grace Poe is not a natural-born. As for now, we cannot do anything but to uphold the law unless otherwise proven. The eligibility of Senator Poe may only be disputed after the 2016 presidential elections whether if she wins. The only thing left to every Filipino-citizens is to be a wise voter. We must have our own stand and belief. We must no vote for a candidate just because he/she is the most famous or he/she is the richest of them all. We must choose a candidate that would bring change in our country and deliver us from poverty.

---

[1] CONST.  art. VII  sec. 2

[2] CONST. art. IV sec. 2

[3] Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC G.R No. 221697

Setting the standard for Filipino Americans: Grace Poe's Eligibility for Presidency

As I read the decision of the Supreme Court about the case of Grace Poe Llamanzares regarding her qualification to run as the next President of the Philippines, I believe that the decision would have an unfavorable effect in the eligibility and qualifications of future presidential candidates.

Based on the arguments of Justice Perez, Grace Poe is qualified to run for President based on two points: citizenship and residency. For me, the most important issue at hand is her citizenship. Justice Perez has argued that even though the constitution has been silent on the status of foundlings as natural-born citizens then it only rightful to confer them natural born citizenship based on the provisions of international law. 

However, this not about her status as a foundling anymore but the fact that she has renouncement of her Filipino citizenship. All of our previous presidents stayed in the Philippines majority of their lifetime and never did they acquire another citizenship in during this time. The fact that Grace Poe actually renounced her Filipino citizenship in favor of being a US citizen decries the provision in our constitution that our President should be a natural born citizen of the Philippines. The law is clear that the next President should have never have renounced her citizenship considering that a person performs an act to reacquire their natural born Filipino status under RA 9225. The fact that Justice Perez explained that this statute only enables a former citizen to restore their natural born status then Poe is eligible to run as Presidential candidate.  

Grace has reacquired her citizenship thru RA 9225, which is in my opinion is an act on her part which is contrary to Section 2, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that a natural born Filipino does not perform an act to perfect their Philippine citizenship. In addition, Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution provides that dual citizenship is inimical to national interest. Hence, when Grace reaquired her citizenship, she was first a dual citizen of the Phiilppines and the United States who in the process had to do several acts to perfect her citizenship such as renouncing allegiance to the United States, establishing her domicile in the Philippines and reacquiring her Filipino citizenship thru law. 
  
With all things considered, the Supreme Court made an unlikely precedent regarding this issue on citizenship which may be a leeway to Filipinos who due to globalization have renounced their Filipino citizenship in favor of greener pastures. The fact that a Filipino citizen renounces his natural born status should have been an immediate ineligibility to run for the highest office of the Philippines. Our country deserves loyalty to the Philippines and given that Grace Poe pledged allegiance to another country prior then she should have not been eligible to be the next President of the Philippines. 

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

ChaCha: Shall we dance?

The call for charter change (ChaCha) is not new. In almost every administration, there have been initiatives to amend the Constitution. This clamor for constitutional reform was spurred by three main issues— economic liberalization, federalization, and a shift to a parliamentary system of government.

On the first issue, Article XII, Section 2 limits the owning of capital of foreigners to only 40%. Proponents of ChaCha argue that this protectionist policy prevents investors and multinational companies from investing in the Philippines, resulting in a high rate of unemployment since there are not many local Filipino entrepreneurs that create jobs in the country. Although the utopic view of an economically vibrant Philippines with foreign capitalists providing means of livelihood for the impoverished Juan sounds tempting, there is a flaw in its principle— it encourages Filipinos to be dependent on foreign control. The “employee mentality” is what keeps the lowly wage earner in the rat race. It is worth mentioning that the Philippines is not only replete in natural resources, but also in human talent and skill. It is sad to see how our brightest minds, who have the capacity for innovation and progress, move to other states because they find no incentive in staying in their own. The protectionist policy espoused by the Constitution should spur our government to stand on its own feet.

On the second issue, the focus on imperialist Manila is said to hinder the growth of local government units (LGUs). This dominance, however, is already recognized in the 1987 Constitution, hence the decentralization of power to the LGUs by explicitly granting them the power to, among others, to create its own source of revenue, and create its own laws. In addition to this, RA 7160 was passed to better define these powers. I believe the problem does not lie with the framework, but with the implementation. Proactive efforts should be made to strengthen the capacities of the LGUs. For example, government agencies in cooperation with private sectors could come up with programs that would generate livelihood using the available resources (natural and human) of the LGU.

And lastly, advocates of the Parliamentary form of government criticize how the current presidential system is reduced to a mere popularity contest, and if the president comes from a different political party from the majority of the Congress, how deadlock keeps important laws from being passed. This is a thorny issue as both the parliamentary and presidential forms of government have their merits and demerits. The parliamentary system is prone to the dominance of one party, and the voice of the minority may be drowned out. Political contestation is healthy in a country. I am, thus, of the opinion that it is not the form of government that matters, but the quality of men that one puts in them.

A friend once remarked how the Philippines has so many laws, but most of them are not being followed or enforced. It then leads one to reflect how maybe it is not the dance that is the problem, but where one puts his/her feet. 

LED LIGHTS

Our constitution vested our government to powers to prohibit and regulate private individual's property by law, which is the limit of our liberty given by our constitution. However, there are test whether a certain law is compliant to the mother of laws in our country our constitution. Under the constitution, a law is constitutional if it is vested with public interest and objectives that applies to all, if it is reasonable and does not go against the rights of a person and finally if it is clear and showed all the details of what it is to be followed.

Recently, LTO (Land Transportation Office) passed a memorandum prohibiting the use of LED lights and all other modification not prescribed by the car manufacturers. The purpose is to uphold public safety for the safe use of roads, because LED lights are so bright it tends to blind other motorist. The intention is very good because of the promotion of public safety however; the law may be subjected to the question of constitutionality.

One of the tests is if the law is vested with public with public interest and the objectives will apply to all. It is definitely vested with public interest since it talks about the public safety of our roads however, this may not apply to all since a lot of modern vehicles is already equipped with LED lights straight out of its factory, does this mean that LTO shall confiscate and impound a vehicle that is equipped with the prohibited accessory? If they did, this shall violate the second test which is the reasonable means and that it should not go against the rights of a private individual. With regard to the third test, LTO's memo does not provide clear standards it just bans the use of LED lights and all other modifications thus making it vague.

The constitution is the supreme law and all laws that shall be passed shall abide and jive to it. The LTO should not continue implementing such law that is clearly unconstitutional.