SC asked to consider IBP stand on Poe DQ case

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) was asked yesterday to consider the position of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and several prominent lawyers in resolving appeals on its ruling last month allowing the presidential bid of Sen. Grace Poe.

In a last ditch plea, former senator Francisco Tatad submitted media reports on the IBP stand and published opinions of lawyers questioning the SC decision on Poe’s case.

The IBP said in a recent statement that legal questions on Poe’s eligibility still stand since the SC ruling did not resolve the issues involving her qualification as natural-born and the 10-year residency as required under the Constitution.

“While the decision appears to have rendered an opinion as to whether (Poe) is a natural-born as well as whether she has satisfied the 10-year residency requirement for the presidency, it should be emphasized that the dispositive portion of the decision merely orders the reversal of the decisions of the Commission on Elections granting the petitions to disqualify her... and states that she is qualified to be a candidate for president in the national and local elections on May 9, 2016,” read the one-page statement.

“For this issue to be finally settled, the decision of the Supreme Court posits that, it is apparently necessary, for the eligibility of Poe to be determined with finality, that she must first win in the May 9 presidential election and someone must file a quo warranto petition against her with the Supreme Court sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal, for this tribunal to rule on this matter with authority, with jurisdiction and with finality,” the IBP pointed out.

Tatad also submitted the reported opinions of Far Eastern University Institute of Law dean Melencio Sta. Maria; lawyers Jeremy Gatdula and Cristina Montes of the Philippine Principles Institute; unseated Marinduque Rep. Regina Ongsiako-Reyes and newspaper columnists Jose Sison, Raul Palabrica and Emil Jurado.

Sta. Maria disagreed with the pronouncement of the SC in its decision favoring Poe.

“The issue on presidential qualification demands an exacting resolution based on solid grounds – not on possibilities, more-than-ample-probabilities, disputable presumptions, statistical certainty, extraneous international law and, yes, even biological physical features of the candidates,” he said.

For her part, Reyes, who was earlier disqualified by the high court, could not help but compare the circumstances in her disqualification case to that of Poe’s and pointing out the different rulings of the high tribunal.

Reyes lamented how the SC treated Poe, whose parents are unknown, as a natural-born citizen with 10-year residency eligible for the highest post in the land while, on the other hand, she was declared ineligible for a congressional seat when she is “a natural-born citizen, with a birth certificate, whose parents are Filipino citizens and are known public servants.”

“If Poe-Llamanzares is allowed to run, should not, with more reason, Gina Reyes be allowed to run?” the ousted lawmaker stressed.

Tatad’s lawyer Manuelito Luna said these opinions demonstrated the public disapproval of the SC ruling.

“In Philippine history, this was just the second time that the legal community criticized the ruling of the Supreme Court – the first was during martial law. The move of the IBP, the national organization of 56, 000 lawyers, not to side with the SC insofar as its ruling that Poe is eligible to run for president is monumental or historic,” Luna said.

Tatad, one of four petitioners in the disqualification cases against Poe in the Commission on Elections, urged the SC to consider these opinions as these demonstrated the repercussions of the ruling on Poe’s case.

“Tatad respectfully pleads the honorable court to grant him leave of court and to admit request for judicial notice of the aforementioned Internet articles, they being relevant to the arguments raised in respondents’ motions for reconsideration of the decision, promulgated on March 8, 2016,” read the pleading.

The former senator cited Section 2, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, which provides the “court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge or are capable to unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.”