Last week, the Senate Electoral Tribunal ruled that Senator Grace Poe is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and dismissed the petition filed against her by election crusader Rizalito David. The SET is composed of nine individuals—three justices of the Supreme Court, and six senators, with the most senior justice as its chairman.
Poe won by a slim 5-4 vote. Senators Paolo Benigno Aquino IV, Pia Cayetano, Loren Legarda, Vicente Sotto III, and Cynthia Villar sided with Poe. Justices Antonio Carpio, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, and Arturo Brion, and Senator Nancy Binay, ruled against her.
As expected, Poe was happy with the outcome. Although Poe supporters branded the ruling as a victory for all foundlings in the country, everyone knows that her 5-4 victory stands on thin ice.
David correctly observed that the SET decision was a moral victory for him and for everybody who want to uphold the mandate of the Constitution that only natural-born citizens of the Philippines may be elected president. He has good reason for making that statement—all three learned justices of the SET, arguably among the best legal minds in the country, held that Poe is not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. Their collective view is anchored on the Constitution, which reckons natural-born citizenship from birth, and not from any other basis.
Moreover, the Constitution defines a natural-born citizen of the Philippines as one who has not performed any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship. Since Poe renounced her American citizenship years ago so she can claim to be a Filipino again, Poe obviously fails to comply with the definition provided in the Constitution.
The majority opinion, however, pales in comparison to the pronouncement of the justices. For the majority, it is unfair to disqualify a foundling from running for high public office, and that under international law, a foundling is considered a natural-born citizen of the country where the foundling is discovered. Although the five senators relied heavily on international law, it appears that their appreciation of the nature of international conventions is incorrect. In fact, the majority opinion is devoid of any legal argument which can validly impeach the rationale underlying the pronouncement of the three justices.
For one, the premise of the majority opinion—foundlings should not be discriminated against—sounds nice because it is a motherhood statement. That premise, however, is not supported by the majority’s subsequent references to international law. The main international covenant cited by the majority has no legal value to the SET case because the Philippines is not a signatory to it. Other international covenants ratified by the Philippines may seem favorable for Poe, but these covenants are likewise bereft of legal value to the SET case because they contravene the Constitution, or because the enabling law, required by the covenant, has yet to be enacted by Congress. Evidently, the majority ruling is legally untenable, and becomes patently worthless vis-a-vis the legal opinion of the three justices.
Resolving an issue involving the citizenship of an individual, particularly as to whether or not the individual concerned is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, requires specialized skills in Constitutional Law and Public International Law—which not all lawyers have. Four of the five senators who voted for Poe are not lawyers, much less experts in either or both fields.
This remark should not be taken as an indictment of non-lawyers. Rather, it is an assertion that when non-lawyers venture into a sensitive realm where specialized legal expertise is very vital, if not absolutely indispensable, their opinions must have substantial legal justification, especially when such opinions differ from the views of the top magistrates of the land.
Senator Cayetano is the only lawyer among the senators sitting in the SET. Observers say Cayetano sided with her four colleagues possibly because she is involved in proposed legislation calling for the improvement in the lot of foundlings. Accordingly, Cayetano could not be expected to rule against Poe under such circumstances.
The absence of any substantial legal justification in the majority ruling by the five pro-Poe politicians in the SET, as well as the majority ruling’s marked contrast to the pronouncement of the three justices, is explained by the fact that politicians and justices are not alike. Justices are expected to render judgment judiciously, and on the bases of applicable law and jurisrprudence. On the other hand, almost all politicians resolve issues using populist standards and partisan interests, and with almost no regard for constitutionalism and the rule of law.
Perhaps the majority ruled for Poe because she had become a friend in the three years she has been in the Senate. Maybe they voted for Poe in order to court the votes of foundlings and naturalized Filipinos who have identified themselves with the senator. It is also possible that since the losing party is sure to elevate the ruling of the SET to the Supreme Court anyway, they decided to get on the good side of Poe, which may prove very useful to them in the future if Poe wins as president. Any of that qualifies as crass opportunism, but that’s politics.
Although the five pro-Poe senators in the SET are entitled to vote in the way they see fit in the case, whatever discretion they may have in the adjudication process is necessarily circumscribed by the Constitution and the applicable jurisprudence. Since each senator has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, their vote in the SET cannot impugn or disregard the dictates of the fundamental law of the land.
Inasmuch as the majority ruling cannot be justified in terms of law and jurisprudence, it is undoubtedly attended with grave abuse of discretion. Being so, David is authorized by the Constitution to bring his case to the Supreme Court where, fortunately, political considerations are expected to take a back seat to what the Constitution says and, more importantly, what the Constitution means.