Time and time again, it has been pointed out in this column that the Constitution mandates that only natural-born citizens of the Philippines are qualified to hold office as a senator, or as the president of the republic.
As used in the charter, the term “natural-born” is self-describing. Its twin components are the words “natural” and “born,” which are simple terms in themselves as well.
The word “natural” means something which isn’t artificial or created by the intervention of a human, or something which takes place as a matter of course. For example, the sun rises in the east and it sets in the west, and there is nothing man can do about that. A real sunrise or a sunset is a natural occurrence. What is created by nature is natural; what is created by man is artificial.
The term “born” relates to an event which is the consequence of a natural biological condition called pregnancy. While it may be argued that pregnancy arises from sexual intercourse which involves a human act, not all instances of sexual congress leads to pregnancy. A child is conceived and eventually born, not because of sexual intimacy, but because an egg gets fertilized by a sperm.
Both “natural” and “born” are related, if not complementary words, and many dictionaries consider both words almost akin to synonyms. For example, one who is born ambidextrous will find it in his nature to use either hands with great ease.
Thus put, the use of the words “natural” and “born” in the current Constitution is a clear indication that natural-born citizenship must be reckoned exclusively from one’s actual birth, which is a natural event. Proceeding from the same premise, natural born citizenship cannot be acquired by adoption because adoption is not a consequence of nature.
The same observation applies to foundlings. Because the material circumstances surrounding the actual birth of a foundling are unknown, a foundling cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.
At any rate, interpretations and conjectures to the contrary are effectively barred by the categorical definition of a natural-born citizen supplied by the Constitution itself—“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.” The first part of the constitutional definition puts sole emphasis on actual birth, while the second part forbids any human intervention beyond actual birth. From this concise and detailed definition in the charter, the affinity between the terms “natural” and “born” is manifest and beyond doubt. The language of the Constitution clearly means that foundlings are outside the coverage of the term “natural-born citizen.”
Since the term “natural-born” speaks for itself, there appears to be no valid reason for five of the six senators in the nine-member Senate Electoral Tribunal to declare Senator Grace Poe, who is admittedly a foundling, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. It can only mean that either the five senators do not or refuse to understand the Constitution, or it was a case of politics all along.
The fact that politics was the principal motivation for the five senators to vote in favor of Poe in the SET is admitted by one of the senators herself—Senator Cynthia Villar. In her recent statement to the news media, Villar acknowledged that their decision was “not purely legal.” Villar added that for politicians like those in the majority of five who voted for Poe, it’s a big thing that the people elected Poe as senator. In other words, it’s “to hell with the Constitution.”
The predilection displayed by Villar is disturbing. As a senator, Villar took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. What happened to that oath? Is a senator excused from living up to that oath the moment he or she becomes a member of the SET? That seems to be the import of Villar’s explanation.
In 1991, the Supreme Court declared in Lerias v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal that “politicians who are members of electoral tribunals must think and act like judges” and that “they must resolve election controversies with judicial, not political integrity.” If Villar speaks for the rest of the senators who sided with Poe in the SET, then it appears that all five of them failed to comply with the edict of the Supreme Court.
Under these circumstances, one will not find it difficult to agree with the great Lawrence of Arabia who once said that politicians are engaged in “a very lowly profession.”
Equally disturbing are the press statements of a number of non-government organizations which are openly supporting Poe’s bid for the presidency in the May 2016 elections. Citing international covenants invoked by Poe but which have no force of law, these organizations deliberately appeal to emotion by declaring that foundlings should not be discriminated against. In the process, they subliminally suggest that a decision against Poe is a ruling in favor of discrimination against foundlings.
These organizations conveniently overlook the fact that a decision against Poe is a ruling which upholds the supremacy of the Constitution. They fail to see that, as held by the Supreme Court, the SET must rule judiciously, and not on the basis of whim or emotion. An appeal premised on charity and sympathy will not work, either, because unlike the Philippine Red Cross, the SET is not a charitable or social welfare establishment.
The welcome news is that a division of the Commission on Elections recently ruled that Poe is not a natural-born citizen. Poe will surely seek a reconsideration of that decision, and under the Constitution, her case is automatically elevated to the Comelec en banc.
In the meantime, the heated debate about Poe will continue, but the recent victory of constitutionalism and the rule of law in the Comelec should dilute whatever hollow justification Poe’s political allies may have for the untenable majority decision of the SET.