Apparently the question about his being a natural-born citizen is a valid and genuine issue that calls for an authoritative resolution especially now that he is running for President. It cannot be simply brushed aside as a political maneuver of his opponents who are out to derail his inexorable march to Malacañang. A lone, but very vital, undeniable and virtually admitted fact has indeed created doubts and given rise to a highly controversial question of law regarding his citizenship from birth – his date of birth on August 20, 1939 which was before his father and American mother got married on September 16 1940 based on documents submitted by his own lawyers. Having been born when his supposed parents were not yet married, he was obviously an illegitimate child. The question therefore is: does an illegitimate child necessarily follow the citizenship of his mother?
Those who want him disqualified contend that FPJ, as an illegitimate child, follows the status and citizenship of his only legally recognized parent who is his mother, an American. So from birth, he is an American, not a natural-born Filipino. Even if his parents got married subsequently, such marriage did not legitimize FPJ or made him a natural-born citizen since his father had not acknowledged or recognize him. Their position is solidly backed up by a long line of cases starting with the 1915 case of U.S. vs. Ong Tianse, 29, Phil. 332, Santos Co vs. Gov’t of P.I. 52,Phil. 543(1928), Serra vs. Republic, L-4223, May 12, 1952. Zamboanga Trans. vs. Lim 105 Phil. 1321, Board of immigration vs. Go Callano, 25 SCRA 890(1968).
Equally forceful is the opposite view. They argue that the cited cases refer to illegitimate children born of Filipino mothers and alien fathers. It does not apply to FPJ who claims to be born of a Filipino father and an alien (American) mother. To follow the rule that an illegitimate child born of a Filipino father follows the nationality of the alien mother would be to punish the child of a Filipino man and create a situation in which an illegitimate child of a Filipino man is not a Filipino citizen while the illegitimate child of a Filipino woman is a Filipino. They back up their stand by citing the 1935 Constitutional provision (also found in the 1973 and 1987 Constitution) declaring that a child born of a Filipino father is a Filipino citizen following the doctrine of jus sanguinis or acquisition of citizenship by blood relationship. The Constitution, they claim, does not distinguish between the legitimate and illegitimate child of a Filipino and does not favor the illegitimate child of a Filipino woman over the illegitimate child of a Filipino man. Of course, the cogency and persuasiveness of this argument entirely depends on whether the paternity of FPJ and the Filipino citizenship of his father are already admitted or established by sufficient and convincing documentary evidence. If not, then this position has no leg to stand on.
The contentions of both sides really call for a thorough and exhaustive deliberation so that the issue will be decisively and conclusively put to rest on solid legal grounds. Forming conclusions at this stage or hurling threats will only fan the flames of unrest. It is an insidious way of defying the rule of law. Every Filipino who loves his country, rich or poor, regardless of political leanings should just await and abide by the Supreme Court resolution which, I am sure, will be on the side of truth and justice.
E-mail: jcson@info.com.ph