PUBLIC LIVES

Vox populi and the Constitution

Philippine Daily Inquirer
By: Randy David, November 26th, 2015 12:32 AM
At a press conference for Philippine media last Sunday night in Kuala Lumpur, President Aquino was asked, among other
things, what he thought of the cases questioning Sen. Grace Poes eligibility to run for president. His answer was: At the
end of the day, sovereignty resides in the people. Let the people decide. This sentiment seems to echo the belief of
many, that the natural-born citizenship issue against Grace Poe should not cause her disqualification from the 2016
presidential race.
Three senior Supreme Court justices sitting in the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET), however, think otherwise. They
contend that eligibility is a question of law, and that, under our system, questions of law should be adjudicated, not
decided through the ballot box.
To help make sense of the issues, it may be useful to distinguish eligibility from electability. Eligibility refers to ones
qualification to run for public office. This is what the Commission on Elections and the electoral tribunals try to determine
in the exercise of their adjudicatory powers. On the other hand, electability (or, as we like to call it here, winnability)
refers to ones capacity to be elected to the office one seeks. This is what voters decide in an election. We should not
confuse the two.
The Constitution sets the minimum eligibility requirements for anyone seeking the presidency: He/she must be a naturalborn citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the
election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election. (Art. VII, Sec. 2,
1987 Philippine Constitution)
Some citizens have challenged Grace Poes claim to being a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, as well as the length
of her residency in the country prior to the 2016 elections. Setting aside the question of residency for now, lets take a look
at the citizenship issue.
Citizenship means basically membership in a political community, carrying with it certain obligations, rights, and privileges.
Chief among these are the right to protection by the state and the right to vote and be elected to public office.
Grace Poe insists she is a Filipino. Like many ordinary people, I find no reason to doubt that. But, being a Filipino and
being a citizen are two different things. Being Filipino is a self-description that encompasses a whole array of social and
cultural traits and sentiments. Chief among these is ethnolinguistic and historical affinity with the Filipino people. Philippine
citizenship, in contrast, is a legal and political concept. Far from disparaging its value, I hasten to say that it does
presume, normatively, allegiance to and identification with the Filipino nation.
Clearly, one can be part of the imagined community called the Filipino nation while living abroad and holding a foreign
passport. From this standpoint, it matters little whether one is still a Filipino citizen or not, or, even less, whether one is a
natural-born citizen. It is the legal perspective that has an interest in the details and circumstances of ones citizenship.
This perspective is triggered when, for instance, one runs for a position expressly reserved by the Constitution to naturalborn citizens.
In the case of Grace Poe, the main legal issue is whether a child abandoned on Philippine soil, whose biological parents
cannot be ascertained, may be conferred the status of a natural-born citizen. A related issue is whether a natural-born
Filipino citizen who renounces her citizenship in the course of acquiring foreign citizenshipbut later reacquires itmay
still qualify as a natural-born citizen as defined by the Constitution.
In a judicial proceeding, the facts of the case are first established, and then the applicable laws and jurisprudence are
determined in order to arrive at a judgment. This procedure is constrained by law itself and is not to be performed
arbitrarily. Judges are expected to state the facts and the applicable laws as they see them, and to demonstrate the
reasoning behind their decisions.
This brings up the dilemma posed by the quo warranto petition filed at the SET challenging Grace Poes right to the
senatorial seat she won in 2013. The SET has nine membersthree Supreme Court justices and six senators chosen
proportionally according to party affiliation. The most senior justice chairs the tribunal. This composition recognizes the

importance of the political perspective in the appreciation of the facts and norms of a case, while highlighting the
imperative to ground SET decisions in the law.
Five senators, constituting the majority, voted to throw out the petition. The three justices of the high court, plus one
senator, voted to disqualify Grace Poe from holding a Senate seat on the ground that she is not a natural-born Filipino
citizen. Ive only had the chance to read Justice Arturo Brions lucid dissenting opinion and the brief concurring opinions of
Senators Bam Aquino and Cynthia Villar. Brion covers all the possible legal and constitutional issues. Aquino and Villar
ground their arguments primarily on the moral rights of foundlings, inferring from the Constitution policy intentions not
expressly articulated in its provisions.
One does not need to be a lawyer to see where the law leans in this case. Commonsense, however, may not always
appreciate the wisdom behind legal reasoning. Theres a right time and occasion to amend the law when needed. But, to
pit vox populi against the Constitution is to court political instability.
public.lives@gmail.com