Category: supreme court

Unelected people ready to enact a law on foundlings?

Oscar P. Lagman, Jr.

Last Tuesday at the resumption of the hearing of the oral arguments on the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) cancellation of Senator Grace Poe’s certificate of candidacy and her disqualification from the presidential race, Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P. A. Sereno asked Comelec member Arthur D. Lim, “If you’re saying that foundlings are not natural born citizens, have you thought about the impact on the rights of all foundlings?”

The Comelec’s decision on Ms. Poe’s candidacy was based on her not being a natural born Filipino citizen. Both the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions say that citizens of the Philippines are those whose fathers or mothers are Filipino citizens. As the biological parents of Ms. Poe are unknown, it is unknown if either one was a Filipino citizen when Ms. Poe was born. Until she is able to show evidence that her father or mother is or was a Filipino citizen, the Comelec considers Ms. Poe a non-natural born citizen.

Ms. Sereno observed that many countries recognize foundlings are citizens. That does not make local foundlings natural born citizens of the Philippines. Many countries have divorce laws. That has not allowed divorce in the Philippines.

It seems CJ Sereno has been influenced by the pleadings of Sen. Poe’s lawyers and perhaps by the story Ms. Poe’s sympathizers have told the public. The lawyers’ pleadings and the story are woven around the fact that Baby Grace was abandoned by her parents days after she was born.

Sympathizers of Ms. Poe have even put out a full-page ad in the daily newspapers in defense of the foundling.

“When you hear the word foundling, feel for all the children who have been abandoned in toilets and trash cans, doorsteps and alleyways, convents and empty fields, churches and elsewhere — who can never aspire to be congressmen, senators or even president if they are not considered natural born Filipinos,” the ad tells the readers. Ms. Poe’s lawyers and defenders of foundlings seem to be invoking the principle that those who have less in life should have more in law.

But the issue before the Supreme Court is not about the plight of the foundlings; it is about the nature of Ms. Poe’s Filipino citizenship and its implication to her qualification for the presidency of the Philippines. In the first place, Baby Grace was not abandoned in a toilet, trash can, doorstep, alleyway, convent, or open field. She was found in the holy water font of Jaro Metropolitan Cathedral, the seat of the archdiocese of Jaro whose archbishop at the time was the Most Reverend Jaime Sin. Baby Grace was first given to the heiress of a wealthy sugar baron who subsequently entrusted her to the newly wed showbiz celebrities Fernando Poe, Jr. and Susan Roces.

The affluent couple eventually adopted her and raised her in comfort, if not in luxury. She spent her high school years in a convent school known as the exclusive girls’ school for the rich. Ms. Poe herself said, “If I didn’t live there (United States) I would not have experienced nonentitlements, being an ordinary citizen.”

Besides, the impact of declaring foundlings as non-natural born citizens is not as great as Ms. Sereno thinks it is.

I know personally a foundling who was admitted into the Philippine bar. An American — by blood, physical features, and citizenship (he was a lieutenant-colonel in the US Armed Forces when he came to the country with the US liberation forces — founded a law firm in the Philippines in 1946. At about the same time another American citizen who also served in the US Armed Forces during World War II established a certified public accounting company. Both men achieved prominence in their respective profession, their firms becoming among the biggest in their respective field. Their American citizenship is public knowledge.

Another foreign national practiced medicine in the country. I also know personally an American citizen who was elected mayor of a town in Northern Luzon, although his American citizenship was kept secret from his constituents.

If foreign nationals can practice law, public accountancy, and medicine in the country or be elected to public office, many foundlings with unmistakable Filipino features can aspire to be lawyers, certified public accountants, doctors, and even mayors, and congressmen, contrary to the fears of Ms. Sereno and the defenders of foundlings.

There must be a large number of foundlings who are practicing law or public accountancy or occupying sensitive government positions whose citizenship was never questioned because their physical features are unmistakably Filipino, they never became citizens of another country, and they never aspired to be president of the Philippines.

At one point in the hearing last Tuesday, Commissioner Lim asked Ms. Sereno, if her advocacy is for foundlings. The Chief Justice replied, “My advocacy is for the rule of the law.”

Philippine laws are silent on foundlings though.

While those who have less in life should have more in law, still a law that evens things up for them has to be passed. The 13th Congress enacted a law, RA 9442, that entitles persons with disabilities to a 20% discount in certain service establishments such as hotels and restaurants.

Ms. Sereno said, “The Court now has to categorically answer the question about her (Poe’s) status because the pronouncements we will make will affect many others.” True, judicial decisions interpreting the laws form part of the legal system. As there is no law on foundlings, the Supreme Court has no law to interpret and therefore is unable to answer the question on Ms. Poe’s status.

Ms. Sereno cites cases wherein the Filipino citizenship of foundlings was presumed. That does not make it right. The Supreme Court is not infallible. It has reversed many of its decisions, Ms. Sereno herself a party to some of those reversals.

The Constitution is explicit as to who is a natural-born Filipino citizen. The law may be harsh on foundlings but it is the law. To remedy the adverse situation, the law has to be amended or replaced. But the power to amend or replace laws is vested in the Congress of the Philippines, not in the Supreme Court.

Associate Justice Marvin M. V. F. Leonen suggested that the issue should be thrown to the electorate. That is in consonance with the opinion of Retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban which opinion the ALL4GP Movement quotes in its series of ads in daily newspapers. Mr. Panganiban has written several times in his column in the Inquirer that “doubts on legal issues involving elections and popular sovereignty should be solved in favor of letting the people decide them freely through the ballot.”

The suggestion raises many questions. Who are the people who can vote? Who can run? Can any piece of paper be considered a ballot? Who will count the votes?

The people cannot just freely decide. Certain rules have to be set.

If the honorable Panganiban and Leonen say the existing rules on eligible voters, ballots, and ballot counters should be followed, that would be selective application of the rules governing elections. Besides, the people had decided once — on Feb. 2, 1987.

On that day 76.37% (or 17,059,495 voters) favored ratification of the final draft of the 1987 Constitution. To set aside the provisions of that Constitution would be to thwart the will of the people.

It would be strange for the President elected not in accordance with the electoral process defined in the 1987 Constitution to say on his inauguration: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution…”

It matters not to me whether the president is a natural born citizen of the Philippines or a naturalized Filipino. It is his or her loyalty to the country that counts. Loyalty to the country and love of the Filipino people do not arise out of circumstances of birth. They spring from one’s character.

Ms. Poe renounced her fidelity to the country of her birth. And now she implores the highest court of the land to recognize her as a natural born Filipino citizen so that she can be president of the country she abandoned to live with her American husband. That is the character of the person who is asking the Filipino people to be their leader.

Oscar P. Lagman, Jr. is member of Manindigan!, a cause-oriented group that takes stands on national issues.

Resolving the EDCA controversy

I am concerned that the decision unnecessarily expands executive power over foreign policy. Justice Carpio’s argument for Edca as justified by our need to have a military alliance with the United States against China reinforces this concern. This is too important to leave only to the President; the people through its elected representatives must be involved in the decision.

~ Tony La Viña

SET decision on Poe’s citizenship unsettling rather than comforting

Mel Sta. Maria

The Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) decision throwing out the petition questioning the citizenship of Senator Grace Poe is an uncomfortable one. The number of the votes and the members either voting for or against the petition are causes for serious concern.

Read on…

ambeth & the supremes, rizal & his ultimo adios

it is ironic that 3 supreme court justices i cheered on for dissenting on the enrile bail case are the same 3 justices i am now jeering at for  buying (so to speak) not just DMCI’s, but even ambeth ocampo’s, arguments against the demolition of  torre de manila.

given her husband’s connections with DMCI, i don’t understand why chief justice sereno did not inhibit from the case the way associate justice perez did, his son being the owner of a torre unit.  and, take note, just a week after the court issued the TRO (that she voted no to) on june 23, almost a month before the first oral arguments, cj sereno in a letter to associate justice jardeleza (ponente of the case) enumerated “issues” that should be tackled in oral arguments and en banc deliberations, among them:

“What is the total damage to be sustained by private respondents [DMCI], including the workers, the subcontractors, the investors, and the buyers of the project, in case the building is demolished?”

Sereno even put a footnote quoting “Article III, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution [as it provides] that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”

excuse me, your honor, ma’am, with all due respect, the original clear-sky background of the rizal monument is public property that DMCI, by building beyond the 7-floor limit, dared despoil for private profit.  it’s not as if torre de manila deserved to be in the same sacred space, looming over and distracting from, the rizal monument.  it’s not as if the kind of progress and development that DMCI stands for has brought any prosperity except to a privileged few (at the expense of the many).  DMCI took a gamble, big time, on getting away with it, and deserves to lose, big time.

as for the overrated ocampo’s argument that rizal did not even want a monument, all rizal wanted was a simple grave, he said so himself in a letter to his family, which is to say that the monument does not honor rizal’s wishes, and therefore torre de manila does not dishonor rizal?  i can’t believe that sereno, carpio, and leonen swallowed  that hook line and sinker.

sixth orals

the one shining moment was when associate justice teresita leonardo de castro pounced on NHCP chair serena diokno for the NHCP statement re the front view of the rizal monument not being obstructed by the torre.  duh, nga.

The justice said the NHCP was to be blamed for what she branded as “miscommunication” and “inefficient way of dealing with the situation.”

De Castro told the NHCP chief that the “issue about the background was raised before your commission but you did not deal with it.  You had a very clear idea of what the issue is about — the background [view].”

De Castro … criticized the NHCP for not taking a stronger position on the issue so as to guide the local government. The magistrate said that even if its guidelines were merely recommendatory, part of NHCP’s mandate is still to provide the correct opinion to LGUs. 

indeed, NHCP has been glaringly inconsistent in its official recommendations.  june 2012, to the manila city council,  it was a no to the torre (keep vista points and visual corridors to monuments clear for unobstructed viewing appreciation and photographic opportunities).   november 2012, to DMCI consultant alfredo andrade, it was a yes (Your project site is outside the boundaries of the Rizal Park and well to the rear of the Rizal National Monument, hence it cannot possibly obstruct the front view of the said National Monument).  august 2014, in a position paper submitted to the senate hearing, it was back to a  no (Diokno’s letter said that the front view of the monument is not the issue, but the obstruction presented by Torre de Manila on the Rizal Monument’s back view. … the condominium adversely affects the monument’s visual corridor).  sa oral arguments, day 6, it was back to a yes (The property of Torre De Manila is not part of Rizal Park and well beyond).

still on day 6, some embarrassing gems from sereno, carpio, and leonen.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, on the other hand, asked how other cities are treating the monuments if there are any in their area, like the Bonifacio Shrine in Caloocan, which is facing the LRT 1 station and being surrounded by malls, the EDSA Shrine, which was built in front a mall and the MRT and the Ninoy Aquino monument in Makati, which is crowded with high-rise buildings.

uh, ma’am, none of those locations are sacred like luneta, formerly bagumbayan, where rizal (and many more filipino martyrs) were executed by the spaniards.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said “his (Rizal’s) dying wish was to face east but the captain of the guard said no so he died facing west.” …“Now, Rizal is still facing west. We still deny him his dying wish…”

uh, sir, rizal’s wish to face east was so he would die facing the firing squad that faced west.  is the good justice suggesting that if the firing squad had been facing east, rizal would have been okay being shot in the back?  facing east was the important thing, and not facing his killers?

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen added that “when the Constitution says conserve and promote historical heritage, it also means that we should actually grant Rizal his dying wish so that our people know that our heroes should be humble, that our leaders should not have billboards, should not have markers, should not be ‘epal’ because that is somebody that we should emulate.” … “Therefore, what we are fighting for in this case is really a monument which Rizal did not want.”

uh, sir.  sino ba talaga ang epal dito?  di ba’t ang torre de manila ng DMCI ang medyo bastos at garapal, butting in where it’s not wanted, intruding brazenly shamelessly on our vista of the rizal monument to make capital of the wonderful view?

and, grabe lang, sir, the way you dignify a message that was only for family, a message that rizal did not even bother to smuggle out, or to hide in his other shoe.

“Bury me in the ground, place a stone and a cross over it. My name, the date of my birth and of my death. Nothing more. If you later wish to surround my grave with a fence, you may do so. No anniversaries. I prefer Paang Bundok.”

rizal, of course, would not have asked more of his family.  but of nation, he certainly did, ask more, in his last poem that begins, “Adios, Patria adorada.”   ito mismo, hindi ang bury-me note, ang final testament ni jose rizal.

adios, patria adorada

this untitled 14-stanza poem, that presumably rizal finished writing on the eve of his execution, was found hidden in a lamp (some say a stove) that rizal gave a sister after a last visit on that last day.  the family made copies and sent them out to friends.  bonifacio’s tagalog translation of this emotional farewell reached, touched, the masses and fanned the flame of revolution.

needless to say, i am surprised, nay, shocked, that ocampo dares talk about rizal’s dying wishes without acknowledging, even once, this poem that we know as “Mi Ultimo Adios” – as though it did not exist, as though it did not matter, as though it were not relevant to the public outcry against torre de manila.

does ocampo really think we have all forgotten, too, or that, like him, we are content to thrill at the trivial, and glorify the mundane, about our heroes?  or maybe he’s just not into literary masterpieces, least of all one that makes you think, and feel, and weep for inang bayan?   isn’t that the height of academic irresponsibility?  rizal would not be amused.

not only is it great poetry by the most brilliant filipino intellectual ever (saludo sina adrian cristobal at jorge arago), this last poem reflects rizal’s state of mind the day before he was to face a firing squad, full of fervent hope that his dreams for a free and proud filipinas would come true, yet fearful that his sacrifice might be for nought, uncertain that he would even be remembered.

from nick joaquin’s translation

Should you find someday, somewhere on my gravemound, fluttering
among tall grasses, a flower of simple frame:
caress it with your lips and you kiss my soul.
I shall feel on my face across the cold tombstone,
of your tenderness: the breath – of your breath: the flame.

Suffer the moon to keep watch, tranquil and suave, over me;
suffer the dawn its flying lights to release:
suffer the wind to lament in murmurous and grave manner
and should a bird drift down and alight on my cross,
suffer the bird to intone its canticle of peace.

from andres bonifacio’s:

Kung sa libingan ko’y tumubong mamalas
sa malagong damo mahinhing bulaklak,
sa mga labi mo’y mangyayaring itapat,
sa kaluluwa ko halik ay igawad.

At sa aking noo nawa’y iparamdam,
sa lamig ng lupa ng aking libingan,
ang init ng iyong paghingang dalisay
at simoy ng iyong paggiliw na tunay.

Bayaang ang buwan sa aki’y ititig
ang liwanag niyang lamlam at tahimik,
liwayway bayaang sa aki’y ihatid
magalaw na sinag at hanging hagibis.

Kung sakasakaling bumabang humantong
sa krus ko’y dumapo kahit isang ibon
doon ay bayaan humuning hinahon
at dalitin niya payapang panahon.

rizal imagined a gravemound and wildflower, and in the next breath, a cold tombstone, and further on, a dark graveyard where only the dead keep vigil.  he knew it was possible that he would be forgotten, but he himself would not forget, and he would haunt us.

And when in dark night shrouded the graveyards lies
and only, only the dead keep vigil the night through:
keep holy the peace: keep holy the mystery.
Strains, perhaps, you will hear – of zither, or of psalter
it is I: O land I love: it is I who sing to you!

At kung ang madilim na gabing mapanglaw
ay lumaganap na doon sa libinga’t
tanging mga patay ang nangaglalamay,
huwag bagabagin ang katahimikan.

Ang kanyang hiwagay huwag gambalain;
kaipala’y marinig doon ang taginting,
tunog ng gitara’t salterio’y mag saliw,
ako, Bayan yao’t kita’y aawitin.

rizal did not imagine a national monument such as the one we have built him, and improved on over the years.  i have no doubt that he approves, even, that he cheers us on who see torre de manila as a symbol of capitalist oppression in a land no longer as enchanted or beautiful as when he lived and died for inang bayan.

take it down.

*

consunji,semirara, torre de manila, atbp. 
Much ado about Ambeth Ocampo
jeremy barns on torre de manila
sona, tsona, torre de manila #takeitdown
TAKE IT DOWN #torredemanila
Rizal, the Noli-Fili, and the Torre de Manila