And so we are presented with a math problem.
At first we thought that the Supreme Court, voting nine against six in favor of presidential wannabe Senator Grace Poe, was a clear-cut win for the senator in terms of the numbers game. But when details on the decision on Senator Poe’s citizenship came out, the voting, it appears was 7-5-3. And yet the SC claims that the decision was won through a majority. I wonder: Which mathematical theory makes seven a majority of 15? How can a simple greater-than-less-than problem defeat the Supreme Court?
All this became clear—or rather, complicated—by the details shared by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio in his dissenting opinion in the historic SC decision. He said that there is no majority of the court that holds Senator Poe’s position that she is a natural-born citizen, and that only seven justices, not nine, voted in favor of Sentor Poe’s petitions, as three judges had no opinion on the matter.
To make matters worse—and even more discombobulating—is Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno’s reaction to Carpio’s claim said that the voting was made by a “clear majority of seven.” That is a weird phrase coming from a Supreme Court Chief Justice. If one dissects the phrase “clear majority of seven,” “majority of seven” would refer to the total of fifteen judges, making the word “majority” basically an untruth. Placing the word “clear” before those three words makes everything either ironic, or making the statement somehow a double negative. We can only speculate then whether Chief Justice Sereno believes that putting two false statements together makes a true one.
But I digress, as I might be splitting hairs over an issue that should be in the first place plain and simple. Explaining things plain and simple is what Justice Carpio exactly did in his dissenting opinion. For him, Senator Poe is not a natural-born citizen. To quote him verbatim: “Any person who claims to be qualified to run for the position of President of the Philippines because he or she is, among others, a natural-born Filipino citizen, has the burden of proving he or she is a natural-born Filipino citizen. Any doubt whether or not he or she is natural-born Filipino citizen is resolved against him or her.”
Justice Carpio was so sure about that Senator Poe is not a natural-born Filipino that he dedicated his dissenting opinion on the issue and deferred the issue of residency to Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo’s Dissenting Opinion. Justice Del Castillo seemingly took upon himself to do the math for the Supreme Court and for Senator Poe. He said “she took her oath of allegiance only on July 7, 2006. Therefore, she could not possibly prove that she has been residing in the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the May 9, 2016 elections. July 7, 2006 to May 9, 2016 is about two months short of 10 years.” Justice Del Castillo may as well be the Supreme Court’s “Best in Math.”
As judges could tend to stow themselves atop their ivory towers, we could depend on those like Justices Carpio and Del Castillo to make their decisions understandable to laymen, grounding everything and everyone on public interest and the letter of the law at the same time. Court decisions—or any decision of any branch of government—should not insult the intelligence of the people; instead, these decisions should uplift the appreciation of Filipinos for the Constitution. The recent decision is an insult to the intelligence of Filipinos similar to when Senator Poe renounced her American citizenship only a day before she became the chairperson of the MTRCB.
It would be no surprise if this is the case of the Supreme Court positioning itself in the good favor of a presidential survey frontrunner. What is coming out of the woodwork is the underlying theme of convenience, both for the Supreme Court and for Senator Poe. They are trading convenience be at the cost of the rule of law and the entire electoral process—a bad precedent for a bad wannabe president.