Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Grace Poe Manila Times
Grace Poe Manila Times
In this case, the controversial provisions of the Constitution are section 2 of Article VII which states that No personal shall be elected President unless
he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippinesand a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such elections which refer
to section 2, Article IV of the same Constitution which states that 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
Corollary to these provisions is section 1 (2), Article IV of the Constitution which states that, among others, that the following are citizens of the
Philippines: (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
There is no provision in our Constitution or any statute in this jurisdiction that defines the citizenship of a foundling in the Philippines. In its absence, the
Supreme Court must resolve the issue of the status of foundlings in this country. Why? Because law abhors a vacuum! This is a fundamental postulate
of law in our jurisdiction. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to a finally define what is the citizenship of a foundling in the Philippines, especially because
some persons dispute the candidacy of a presidential candidate who is an admitted foundling.
This is our considered opinion whether a foundling is a natural-born Filipino citizen. He or she is a natural-born Filipino citizen. Why? We resort for
answers to the question in Philippine law or rules of law. Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court on burden of proof and disputable presumption states
that The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: . . .(y)That things have
happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life. Question: What is the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary
habits of life of foundling in the Philippines? The answer cannot be otherwise that a foundling is a son or daughter of a Filipino father and mother. That
is plain and simple common sense that a foundling in the Philippines is a natural-born Filipino citizen. It is absurd to imagine that a foreigner father or
mother will go to Iloilo City just to make his or her daughter a foundling by leaving her in a churchyard in Iloilo City. That is not in the natural course of
things or the ordinary habits of life. Even more absurd, is to presume that a foundling is a stateless person. That claim is not only a serious injustice; it is
an irrational approach to a very humane question.
Under Section 1 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue to establish his
claim This is sanctified by the Latin maxim, alegata et probata. He who alleges must prove what he alleges. It is not the duty of Poe to prove that
she is natural-born. There is a disputable presumption that she. The ones who claim that Poe is not natural-born must prove their claim. That is the rule
in this jurisdiction. From what is told in media, the complainants have not presented any evidence to overthrow that disputable presumption.
Poe is natural-born Filipino
A lot of issues are raised about Poe having become an American citizen thus she should not be treated as a natural-born citizen. This conclusion is
absolutely wrong. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 states Retention of Philippine Citizenship Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizen of a foreign country are
hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
* * *
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship
by taking the aforesaid oath.
There are three key words in the afore-quoted provisionnatural-born citizen, re-acquire and retain. What is re-acquired?The natural-born citizenship!
What is retained? The natural-born citizenship! It is that simple. Why dont these people who hate Poe go to Congress to amend the law? That is the
name of the game! Whatever they say, in my legal dictionary, Senator Poe is a natural-born Filipino citizen.
Question of residence and use of American passport
Some question her period of residence in the Philippines. That period is uninterrupted from birth even if one lives in a foreign country. When she retained
or re-acquired her natural-born status, she has resided here all her life. But even assuming that her having lived in the States, there was interruption on
her physical residence, she has categorically stated that her declaration was an honest mistake in computation. Worse than Poes mistake is Dinos
mistake that he filed his certificate of candidacy as mayor of Pasay City.
Comelec says this is considered an honest mistake, thus Rodrigo Duterte could substitute him as candidate for President. Duterte substituted a
candidate for mayor of Pasay City, not candidate for President. You have to give it to Comelec for its exercise of scandalous inconsistency.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The ruling of the Comelec on the Duterte disqualification cases is in violation of the section 1, Article
III on the due process and equal protection clause of the Constitution. The Comelec is as notorious as ever in the Duterte ruling.
On the question of the use of Poe of an American passport: This is piccata minuta as an old Justice used to tell me. The use of a passport is not an
indication of loyalty to country it is a matter of convenience. Any fool knows that. To make a mountain out of a mole hill is just too much.
These issues against Poe should be laid to rest. Whether you agree with me or not, let me express my views based on what Voltaire once said: I may
not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Lets just argue rationally, let the fools resort to name-calling that will result
to violence. (Comments are welcome by sending them to adazalawoffice@yahoo.com or calling 09062661133