The presidential aspiration of Senator Grace Poe has suffered a major setback when the COMELEC Second Division issued a decision disqualifying her from her candidacy. It has to be clarified that the ground for her disqualification is lack of ten-year residency, and not the question on her natural-born citizenship. This is not about the rights of foundling as anchored on international law. This is about Senator Grace Poe's having allegedly told a lie under oath in her certificate of candidacy, that she has been a resident of the Philippines ten years prior to the election in May 2016. The COMELEC granted the petition filed by a lady lawyer who presented arguments and evidence showing that indeed, the truth is Poe has not complied with the resident requirement.
According to the great constitutionalist, Father Joaquin G Bernas, SJ, a long-time professor of Constitutional and Political law, and a commissioner of the 1987 Constitutional Commission, to be a resident for ten years means that the candidate is domiciled in the Philippines, with all the following requirements present: first, he or she must have been bodily present in the country for ten years; second, he or she has the intention to remain in the country, which the legal scholars called ''animus manendi;" and third, and an intention to abandon the old domicile if he or she had any. This was referred to by legal experts as "animus non revertendi." It appeared that Grace Poe was domiciled in the US and did not show concrete proof that she abandoned her domicile in America.
On the matter of citizenship, this is another major issue, which, to our mind, is more serious than residency. Justice Vitug in the famous case involving the citizenship of the late Fernando Poe Jr, otherwise known as Ronald Alan Poe, wrote: "Citizenship is a treasured right conferred on those whom the State believes are deserving of the privilege. It is a precious heritage as well as an inestimable acquisition that cannot be taken lightly by anyone - either by those who enjoy it or by those who dispute it" Justice Vitug referred to Aristotle as the one who developed the concept of citizenship in reference to rights and concomitant obligations. It is very important that those who want to lead us must prove that they are indeed natural-born citizens.
It is our considered view that, even if the COMELEC en banc should reverse, vacate, annul, or modify the unanimous decision of its second division on the disqualification of Senator Grace Poe on the ground of lack of adequate residency, the lady candidate still has to hurdle the more formidable and more intricate issue of citizenship. Having admitted that she was a foundling, and having admitted that the DNA test of her alleged putative father proved negative, it is now beyond cavil that, as of today, Senator Grace Poe is without any proof of Filipino citizenship. Natural-born citizenship cannot be presumed. For, as Justice Vitug wrote on behalf of the Supreme Court, and as Aristotle postulated, citizenship is too important an issue as to be anchored on a shaky presumption.
It is thus the considered view of this column that, if the COMELEC Second Division found enough legal and factual basis to disqualify Senator Grace Poe, on the issue of lack of residency, it stands to reason that there are more compelling grounds to disqualify her on the basis of not having any proof of being a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. The story of the life of the late FPJ is a different one compared to Grace Poe. If the High Court ruled in favor of FPJ, it does not mean that the COMELEC en banc and ultimately the Supreme Court would also rule in favor of Senator Grace. Senator Grace has an entirely different story.
This nation cannot be entrusted in the hands of someone whose citizenship is under a grave cloud of doubt. The series of surveys where it is being projected that Senator Grace is leading all candidates do not change the fact that, under the Constitution and under the law, she is not qualified. If so, all her votes shall be considered stray votes and will not be counted. Even if she should obtain a majority or a plurality of votes, she could not be proclaimed winner. And if, by certain legal twist of fate, she will be proclaimed, then, the proclamation may be annulled by the Presidential Electoral Tribunal and ultimately, by the Supreme Court. Ours is a government of laws, and not of men. This case will not be decided by popularity but by law. The presidency is too important to be put in the hands of one who may not be qualified after all. We should seriously think about it.