Inconclusive and questionable

The recent Supreme Court decision in Poe versus COMELEC, et.al, (G.R 221697, 221698-700, both dated March 8, 2016), have really been sowing more controversies instead of finally resolving the issues raised because some questions have been left unanswered indeed. One cannot help but notice that the court has never been as sharply divided on issues of personal rather than national interest as to give rise to the perception that there are certain injudicious aspects in said ruling to favor one side.

Immediately noticeable is its date of promulgation which is March 8, 2016. On that date however, said decision has not yet been released. The SC spokesman simply announced the SC’s ruling that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in cancelling Poe’s Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) and declared her as qualified to run of President, by a vote of 9-6.  The decision itself was only released and circulated on March 11, 2016. If the decision was promulgated on March 8, 2016, then it should have been circulated on said date.

The decision written by Justice Jose Perez, concluded that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling Poe’s CoC mainly because: (1) it did not have the authority to rule on Poe’s citizenship and residency qualifications as these qualifications have not yet been determined by the proper authority; and (2) Poe’s natural-born citizenship is founded on the intent of the framers of the 1935 Constitution, domestically recognized presumptions, generally accepted principles of international law, and executive and legislative actions: while her residency were backed up not only by jurisprudence, but more importantly by overwhelming evidence.

On the issue of lack of jurisdiction, immediately coming to mind here is Article VII Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code about the COMELEC and its powers and functions. In said section, it is clearly provided that: “A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel the certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material contained therein under Section 74 is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than 25 days from the time of filing of the CoC, and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than 15 days before the election.”

The SC here ruled that a certificate of candidacy “cannot be cancelled or denied due course on grounds of false representations regarding his or her qualifications without a prior authoritative finding that he or she is not qualified, such prior authority being the necessary measure by which the falsity of the representation can be found. The only exception that can be conceded are self-evident facts of unquestioned or unquestionable veracity and judicial confessions.”

It must be pointed out in this regard however, that the ponente in this case, Justice Perez himself has ruled in Ongsiako Reyes v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013) and  Cerafica v.COMELEC (G.R. No. 205136 December 2, 2014) that under Section 78, the COMELEC has jurisdiction to determine the eligibility of a candidate. In Ongsiako-Reyes v. COMELEC, the Court, speaking through J. Perez, affirmed the COMELEC’s cancellation of Ongsiako-Reyes’ CoC and its determination that Ongsiako-Reyes is neither a Philippine citizen nor a resident of Marinduque. The Court even affirmed the COMELEC’s capability to liberally construe its own rules of procedure in response to Ongsiako-Reyes’ allegation that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in admitting newly discovered evidence that had not been testified on, offered and admitted in evidence.  In this case, Justice Perez reverses himself completely and overturned this existing jurisprudence recognizing the COMELEC’s jurisdiction to determine a candidate’s eligibility under Section 78.

On the issue of Poe’s residency, she personally declared under oath in her 2012 CoC for Senator that she has been a resident of the Philippines for at least “6 years and 6 months” before the May 13, 2013.  Six years and six months counted back from the day before the May 13, 2013 elections point to November 2006 as the beginning of her Philippine residence – which means that before the May 9, 2016 election her period of residency would only be only 9 years and 6 months, short of the 10-year requirement for the Presidency. Subsequently however, she claimed that she has been a resident of the Philippines since May 24, 2005 when she arrived in the Philippines and has allegedly decided to re-settle here for good. Thus, in her 2015 CoC for President, she personally declared under oath she has been a resident for “10 years and 11 months” which is contrary to her personal declaration under oath in her 2012 CoC.  These conflicting declarations are the grounds for the cancellation of her CoC by the COMELEC.

But the SC ruled that based on facts, Poe has indeed re-established her domicile here on May 24, 2005 and manifested her intent to stay here for good. In this connection, it must be pointed out however, that in coming back she used a balikbayan visa which does not confirm her intent to settle permanently in the Philippines. In fact as late as July 31, 2009, she still used her US Passport after already taking her oath of allegiance to the Philippines when she applied for dual citizenship under RA 9225 on July 18, 2006. Following its ruling in the recent case of Kauswagan Lanao del Sur Mayor Rommel Arnado, the SC should have likewise disqualified Poe to run for any public office. Why was this case not applied to her case?

On the issue of being a natural born citizen, the SC ruled that under the generally accepted principles of international law, Poe, who is a foundling, is presumed to be a citizen of the country where she was found. This presumption stems from the presumption that her parents are nationals of the Philippines. Obviously the SC here applied the principle of jus soli wherein the place of birth rather than relationship by blood or jus sangunis determines the natural born citizenship of a person which our Constitution follows. Clearly the SC decision disregards our Constitution in favor of the generally accepted principles of international law. To be sure, only seven, not nine justices have really voted in favor of the ruling on this issue. So it cannot be said that the SC has indeed declared Poe as a natural born citizen. 

Clearly, the SC decision here has broken many precedents as to render it more questionable and inconclusive.

* * *

Email: [email protected]