The hearings in the Supreme Court relating to the four disqualification cases filed against Senator Grace Poe, all seeking to disallow her from running for president in the May 2016 elections, will soon be concluded.
Earlier, the Commission on Elections ruled that Poe is disqualified from joining the presidential derby because she is not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and she has not been a resident of the country for the past 10 years counted from the May 2016 polls. Under the Constitution, the president must be a natural-born citizen, and must have resided in the country for a period of at least 10 years prior to the election.
It appears that the focus of the discussions in the hearings is the citizenship aspect in Poe’s disqualification cases. Poe’s critics maintain that since Poe is a foundling, the circumstances of her birth cannot be ascertained, and since the Constitution reckons natural-born citizenship on the basis of one’s birth, a foundling cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.
Obviously, the main issue against Poe is her lack of the requisite qualifications to be president—qualifications mandated by the Constitution—and not her status as a foundling. Having run out of valid arguments, Poe’s supporters have resorted to underscoring Poe’s status as a foundling, and making it appear that the disqualification cases against Poe are calculated to discriminate against foundlings. That’s desperation, plain and simple.
Other desperate Poe supporters have taken the extra-constitutional path. They want the Supreme Court to violate the Constitution by allowing the voters to decide for themselves if Poe is qualified to be president. That is disobedience to the Constitution. What Poe’s supporters are advocating is mob rule, no different from the infamous assembly which gathered before Pontius Pilate to demand the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, despite the absolute absence of any legal ground for the death sentence sought.
Mob rule was also responsible for the imposition of the controversial 1973 Constitution on the Filipino people, despite the fact that it was not validly ratified in a plebiscite. As a result, the country was under an authoritarian regime for 14 years.
From the way the hearings in the Supreme Court have gone, it seems that a couple of justices are inclined to accommodate Poe and to allow her to run for president.
So far, two magistrates remarked in the course of the hearings that it is unfair to discriminate against foundlings, and that to disqualify Poe from the presidential race will create a chain of unfortunate consequences to other foundlings. Evidently, the two magistrates were of the view that if Poe is disqualified from becoming president because she is a foundling, then all foundlings in the Philippines will never be able to hold any office reserved for natural-born citizens of the country.
A well-known expert in election law argued otherwise. He correctly pointed out that if Poe is to be disqualified from running for president, it is because Poe failed to meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution, and not because Poe is a foundling.
In the absence of good reasons to do otherwise, it is unfair to assume or to suggest that the parties seeking Poe’s ouster from the presidential derby are on the warpath against foundlings. Under established legal doctrines obtaining in the country, good faith on their part is necessarily presumed.
For Poe, her problem is that the Constitution does not have any provision that allows a foundling to enjoy the same political rights as natural-born citizens of the Philippines. Call it a defect or an oversight, call it unfair or discriminatory, but until and unless the Constitution is properly amended, the Constitution must be obeyed and enforced without fear or favor. That means everyone in the Philippines, the Supreme Court and Senator Poe included, must comply with its provisions, regardless of whether or not Poe is a foundling.
It is not advisable for the Supreme Court to allow a liberal interpretation of the provision of the Constitution which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen. That provision is clear and unequivocal. There is no ambiguity in it. Where no ambiguity exists in a provision of the Constitution, no ambiguity may be assumed.
If the Supreme Court finds an excuse to allow Poe to run for president despite being disqualified from doing so, that will amount to an amendment of the Constitution, which is outside of the powers vested in the Supreme Court by the Constitution.
It will be recalled that in 2013, the Supreme Court maintained a strict approach in its construction of the provisions of the Constitution.
In early 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition urging it to compel the Comelec to enforce the prohibition against political dynasties recited in the Constitution. The Court said that the Constitution requires an enabling law enacted by Congress before the prohibition may be enforced. As far as the Court was concerned, the Constitution must be strictly enforced as to what it mandates.
Later that year, the Supreme Court also dismissed a petition to compel Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario to press the Philippine claim to Sabah (North Borneo) before the appropriate international tribunals. The Court said that pursuant to the principle of separation of powers underlying the Constitution, foreign affairs are the exclusive concern of the executive branch of the government. Again, as far as the Court was concerned, the Constitution must be strictly complied with.
The dedication of the Supreme Court to the mandate of the Constitution, as demonstrated in the foregoing cases involving political dynasties and the Philippine claim to Sabah, is laudable, because the Court is the guardian of the Constitution. Having thus established its dedication to the mandate of the fundamental law of the land, the Supreme Court is urged to take a strict stance in the resolution of the constitutional issues raised in the disqualification cases currently pending against Senator Poe.