SC decision rests on FPJ’s own evidence

A Senate committee headed by Edgardo Angara will hold a second hearing today on claims of document fabrication at the National Archives. It comes in the heels of a hearing last week at the House of Representatives on the same matter, but with a different slant by Rep. Prospero Pichay. The aim of opposition leader Angara is to show that Archives director Ricardo Manapat doctored records on the birth of Fernando Poe Jr.’s father and the marriage to Paulita Gomez. The mission of administration stalwart Pichay is to show that the records do exist in an authentic sequence on microfilm.

The parallel hearings display the true partisan nature of legislators. It can be fun watching them use their awesome powers to rouse sympathy for or against FPJ. But they will not be the ultimate judge of whether FPJ is a natural-born Filipino and can thus run for President. FPJ’s political plan hangs in the Supreme Court, where a petition to disqualify him pends.

"The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice President and may promulgate its rules for the purpose." Citing the provision in the 1987 Constitution (Art. VII, Sec. 4) lawyers Jeanette Tecson and Felix Desiderio are asking the Court to void the Comelec’s earlier vote on the issue. More so since the Comelec, while letting FPJ join the race, also admitted that it has no jurisdiction over him. In its resolution, the Comelec conceded that its power "is limited to contests relating to elections, returns and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials".

If the Supreme Court decides to take on the issue, it may opt to look into the Archives records over which the Senate and House committees are holding separate shows. But Tecson and Desiderio are also training the attention of the justices to the very documents submitted by FPJ. That is, his birth certificate of 20 Aug. 1939 and his parents’ marriage contract of 16 Sept. 1940.

Both documents state that FPJ’s father is Filipino and his mother is American. Based on the dates, Atty. Victorino Fornier had argued before the Comelec that FPJ clearly was born out of wedlock. Citing jurisprudence at that time, he said FPJ was thus born American. In US vs Ong Tianse, 29 Phil. 332 (1915), the Court had ruled that illegitimate children follow the citizenship of the mother.

In trashing the case over which it conceded to have no dominion, the Comelec had leaned on the 1935 Constitution, which defines Filipinos as "those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines". It said the provision did not distinguish between legitimate or illegitimate children. Thus, it ruled, FPJ can only be Filipino. FPJ bolstered this with proof that he and his dad had always acted as Filipinos, voting in elections and owning land that can only be done by Filipinos.

Tecson and Desiderio stress to the Court, however, that only legitimate children follow the citizenship of their father. Illegitimate ones are under the parental authority of the mother and follow her nationality. They cite not only US vs Ong Tianse but a similar case as well, Serra vs Republic, L4223 (12 Mau 1952), where a child born out of wedlock "acquires the citizenship of the only legally known parent, i.e., the mother". FPJ’s birth certificate may state that he is legitimate and that his parents were married at the time, but the marriage contract 13 months later contradict such entries. The contract in fact states that his parents were then single.

The petitioning duo cite still another jurisprudence, Paa vs Chan, SCRA Vol. 21, 31 Oct. 1967, (pp. 753-765), which they describe as "akin" to FPJ’s status. It involved Quintin Chan, who was elected on 12 Nov. 1963 as councilor of San Fernando, La Union, but whose citizenship was disputed by loser Norberto Paa. The latter had brought the case to the Court of First Instance (CFI), stating that Chan was not eligible to run for office for being a Chinese citizen. Chan’s father was Filipino and his mother was Chinese. He was born on 24 Mar. 1917, and his parents married four years later in 1921. Chan had claimed to be Filipino by birth to a father who was a citizen of the Philippines.

The CFI had upheld Paa’s complaint. It noted that Chan at first thought he was Chinese, and thus registered for several years as an alien. He even filed for naturalization with the same court, but subsequently withdrew the application for Filipino citizenship by showing his birth certificate that states his father to be Filipino. Chan said the consequent marriage of his parents legitimized him. Thence, he acquired land, was issued a permit to run a public utility which is accorded only to Filipinos, and was elected councilor in 1963 when nobody doubted his citizenship. The CFI nonetheless declared him to be Chinese and ordered him to vacate his public office.

Chan appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, but the CFI decision was upheld. The Court said that real estate declarations and permits to run businesses reserved exclusively for Filipinos do not constitute proof of Filipino citizenship. Citizenship entries in such documents are written only from what persons represent themselves to be. Even birth certificates and marriage contracts do not serve as proof of Filipino citizenship. If at all, the Court said, these are proofs only of the dates of the events. Chan thus had to leave office.

In that ruling, the Court also said that a child – born out of wedlock, but whose parents consequently marry – does not automatically acquire legitimacy. The parents have to expressly file for legitimacy before or after the marriage, proof of which Chan failed to present. In FPJ’s case, Tecson and Desiderio now argue that, based on the dates in the birth certificate and marriage contract, the presidential aspirant is illegitimate. He has not shown proof that his parents had filed for his legitimacy. He thus remains American, even if he has acted like a Filipino many times.

* * *

Catch Linawin Natin, Mondays at 11 p.m., on IBC-13.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]