Grace Poe case in the SC: A guide for non-lawyers

When lawyers discuss a legal topic, non-lawyers would usually have difficulty understanding them because the use of legal terms cannot be avoided and these legal terms do not have simple definitions or equivalents in the vernacular.   

The aim of this piece is to help readers understand the concepts and terms that would be encountered if one were to follow the developments in the disqualification cases against Senator Grace Poe that are now before the Supreme Court. The major hurdles that Senator Poe has to overcome are also identified for a better appreciation of the case. If the media coverage of the first round of oral arguments in the said case is any indication, some familiarity with the legalese and issues that would be heard from this unfolding story should be helpful in understanding the case and the decision that the Supreme Court will hand down.

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are proceedings wherein lawyers of opposing sides try to explain their legal arguments to the Justices composing the Supreme Court – who are also lawyers - in attempt to convince these magistrates to decide one way or the other. One could imagine, then, that for non-lawyers watching oral arguments transpire, the exchanges can be confusing if not incomprehensible as most terms and concepts are already familiar to the main participants and are no longer explained or elaborated.

To begin with, the underlying and essential questions that the Supreme Court must grapple with involve Senator Grace Poe’s possession of the citizenship and residence qualifications for President. Section 2, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution requires, among others, that the President must be a natural-born Filipino citizen. The President must also be a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding the election in which he or she would be elected President.

Citizenship

Citizenship should be a familiar concept to most. What may be unfamiliar, however, is the rule that under our laws, possession or acquisition of Philippine citizenship is governed by the Philippine Constitution in force at the time one is born, even if there is already a new Constitution such as the 1987 Constitution that is in effect when a question concerning one’s citizenship arises. In the case of Senator Grace Poe, she was born under the 1935 Constitution, and the provisions of this Constitution will determine her citizenship.

In the 1935 Constitution, one would be considered a citizen of the Philippines if one’s father were a Filipino at the time of one’s birth. If one was born of a non-Filipino father but of a Filipino mother, one had to elect or make an affirmative act choosing Filipino citizenship soon after reaching the age of majority. This means that if one was born when the 1935 Constitution was in effect, one is not automatically a Filipino if only one’s mother is a Filipino. There are other categories of Philippine citizenship under the 1935 Constitution, but these are not relevant to this discussion.

A "natural-born citizen" is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. This concept would include those born of Filipino fathers under the 1935 Constitution. By definition in the 1987 Constitution, the concept of "natural-born citizen" includes those born of Filipino mothers under the 1935 Constitution and who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. While Senator Poe’s citizenship would be governed by the 1935 Constitution, it is the definition of a "natural-born citizen" under the 1987 Constitution that would be used in deciding the disqualification cases against her, since the qualifications of a President under the 1987 Constitution are what she must satisfy.

This manner of determining one’s citizenship based on the citizenship of one’s parents is referred to as the "jus sanguinis" principle, or "rule of blood relationship." The alternative principle, which prevails in other countries like the United States, is the "jus soli" principle or “citizenship by place of birth”, wherein one is considered a citizen of such countries when they are born within their territory regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents.

The problem Senator Poe is facing on the issue of citizenship stems from the lack of information about the identities and citizenships of her father and mother. Thus, by the rules of citizenship governing those born under the 1935 Constitution that were anchored upon the citizenship of one’s parents, Senator Poe cannot stake a claim to Philippine citizenship, much less natural-born Philippine citizenship. As reported in the news, Senator Poe is considered a “foundling”, or one who was deserted or abandoned as an infant and whose parents and circumstances of birth are unknown.

Residency

The other issue confronting Senator Poe is her possession of the ten-year residence qualification for President. The sense that the term "residence" is used here is "permanent residence" or "domicile." One's domicile is one's place of habitual residence, or that place that one has established as his or her permanent home and to which one intends to return when, for one reason or another, one has to stay for some time in another place.

In this regard, the point that Senator Poe has been having difficulty dealing with, among others, is the rule that a foreigner who has not obtained the appropriate visa from Philippine immigration authorities cannot be allowed to establish permanent residence or domicile in the Philippines. Counting back from the May 2016 elections, the required ten-year period of residence would include months during which Senator Poe was still an American citizen who had not obtained a visa allowing her to be a permanent resident of the Philippines.

During those months at the beginning of the required ten-year period, Senator Poe was not even a dual citizen, that is – one who is a Filipino and an American citizen at the same time. The argument against her is that she cannot satisfy the required ten-year residence in the Philippines if she could not have been allowed to establish permanent residence here as a foreigner during the earliest months or stages of the required period.

Comelec jurisdiction and the PET

Senator Poe's camp has argued that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) does not have jurisdiction to pass upon Senator Poe’s qualifications for President because it is the Presidential Electoral Tribunal that supposedly has exclusive jurisdiction to pass upon such qualifications. The term "jurisdiction" in this context means the authority to decide a case. The "Presidential Electoral Tribunal" or PET, on the other hand, is actually the Supreme Court en banc, or with all Justices participating.

The Supreme Court is called the PET when a case involving the election and qualifications of an elected President or an elected Vice-President is brought before it. The Supreme Court already clarified this in the case of Tecson versus Comelec (G.R. Nos. 161434, 161634 and 161824, March 3, 2004) wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the Comelec had jurisdiction when the latter decided that Senator Poe’s father, the late Fernando Poe, Jr., was qualified to run for President in the 2004 national elections. In other words, when the qualifications or eligibility of a candidate for President are being questioned, the Comelec – not the PET – has jurisdiction, as the jurisdiction of the PET is limited to cases involving an elected President or an elected Vice-President.

Grave abuse of discretion

Then there’s the phrase "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction”. In deciding the disqualification cases against Senator Poe, the Supreme Court will be determining whether or not the Comelec committed such grave abuse of discretion in deciding against Senator Poe. While there is more to the concept of "grave abuse of discretion," ultimately, what this means is that the Supreme Court must decide whether or not they agree with the Comelec’s decisions to disqualify Senator Poe.

The Supreme Court would rule that Comelec "committed grave abuse of discretion" if it would not agree with the Comelec’s decisions. On the other hand, the Supreme Court would rule that there was "no grave abuse of discretion" on the part of the Comelec, and therefore uphold the Comelec’s disqualification of Senator Poe, if the highest court of the land agrees with the latter’s conclusions.

Atty. Edgardo Carlo L. Vistan II is a member of the faculty at the University of the Philippines College of Law.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website.