Supporters of Senator Grace Poe’s controversial, issue-ridden quest for the presidency in May 2016 lament that the 1987 Constitution is unfair to foundlings like Poe. They invite attention to the provision of the Constitution which restricts the presidency to natural-born citizens of the Philippines, a provision which excludes foundlings from the equation.
Poe’s critics retort that the Constitution may not be perfect or ideal, but because it is the fundamental law of the land, it must be obeyed by everyone—by the government, by the people, and by Poe—and as long as he is sojourning in the Philippines, by Poe’s American husband as well.
As in past charters, many provisions in the 1987 Constitution are rather arbitrary. Ironically, however, its arbitrary provisions create a set of rules that must be followed by everyone precisely because their arbitrary nature applies to everyone. Thus, a provision of the Constitution may seem arbitrary, but its arbitrariness is somehow diluted when one realizes that the provision applies to everybody in the Philippines, regardless of gender, age, financial status, educational attainment, or religious affiliation.
For instance, the Constitution prescribes the minimum age for election to specific high public offices—40 years for the president and vice president; 35 for senators; and 25 for members of the House of Representatives. How these minimum age ceilings were arrived appears to be whimsical, but nobody is complaining.
While the presidency of the Philippines is admittedly a very important office, why must the president be at least 40 years old to qualify for it? Although it may be argued that virtues and qualities come with age, this 40-year age requirement suggests that only those who are a least 40 years old are wise, experienced, and competent enough to run the country as its president. That is arbitrary, because one who is at least 40 years old but who has no experience in public office—like Corazon Aquino and Fernando Poe Jr.—is qualified to run for president, while a less-than-40-year old senator with the political experience of a three-term representative is disallowed from running for the presidency. Despite the whimsical nature of this age requirement, nobody is complaining.
It will be recalled that under the 1935 Constitution, the minimum age for the presidency was 40 years, and that under the 1973 Constitution, the mininum age was increased to 50. Why? Did candidates deteriorate in wisdom, experience, and competence in the past decades that the 1973 Constitution had to increase the minimum age?
Political observers say that the increase in the minimum age was designed to prevent then Senator Benigno Aquino Jr., the top political opposition leader of the period, who was already 40 years old in early 1973, from running for president during the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos. There is, however, no evidence to support that theory. Besides, not all of the delegates who wrote the 1973 Constitution were allies of President Marcos. Several delegates opposed to the Marcos administration—Diosdado Macapagal, Dakila Castro, Pacifico Ortiz, to name a few—actively participated in drafting the charter.
The duties of members of Congress, whether in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, are virtually identical, except that the Senate may concur in treaties entered into by the president. Even the power of the House to impeach is hardly any different from the power of the Senate to try impeached officials.
Despite the virtual identity in the duties of senators and representatives, the Constitution imposes a higher minimum age requirement for senators. This seems to suggest that senators are wiser, more experienced, and more competent than representatives. Many members of the House will disagree.
Wisdom, experience, and competence are different facets of an ideal candidate for elective public office, but the Constitution whimsically treats all three as synonyms. Nobody is complaining.
The Constitution mandates that justices of the Supreme Court must retire upon turning 70 years old. This is also arbitrary. Does a justice become incompetent or senile upon reaching the age of 70? Apparently not, as seen in the number of retired magistrates working elsewhere after leaving the bench. Recent history reveals that one magistrate became the Secretary of Justice under President Joseph Estrada, and another still writes a newspaper column today. Nonetheless, justices have to retire when they turn 70 because the Constitution says so. Nobody is complaining.
In America, the justices of the United States Supreme Court are appointed for life. Thus, they can serve beyond their 70th birthday. Are American justices who reach 70 healthier in mind and body than Filipino justices who reach that age?
Another question—why does the Constitution set a retirement age of 70 for justices and judges, while the rest of the workers in the civil service must retire at 65? Are justices and judges healthier in mind and body than other civil servants that they are given a longer period to serve in the government? Some justify this special treatment by citing that justices and judges are highly skilled and trained individuals so much so that their service should be maximized for the public good. If that is so, then why are professors of public universities, who are also highly skilled and trained individuals, compelled to retire at age 65? Once more, nobody is complaining.
There are many other arbitrary provisions in the Constitution. One is the definition of a natural-born citizen, which leaves out foundlings. Why can’t foundlings be considered eligible for the presidency? It’s not their fault that they are foundlings. Well, it’s not the fault of those who seek the disqualification of Poe, either. It’s just that the Constitution says so.
Disqualifying Poe from running for president is not discrimination against foundlings. It is to enforce the Constitution which, while mandating arbitrary standards, nonetheless imposes it on everyone without exception. The compulsory nature of its arbitrary provisions is what makes the Constitution unique and, more importantly, binding on everybody, Poe included.