Common sense over legal brilliance
By the skin of her teeth, Sen. Grace Poe won the first round in the disqualification case against her at the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). Of the nine SET members, five senators (Loren Legarda, Vicente Sotto III, Cynthia Villar, Bam Aquino and Pia Cayetano) voted in her favor; the other four (Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Teresita Castro and Arturo Brion and, of course, Sen. Nancy Binay, whose father is now having great difficulty duking it out with the impregnable Poe for the presidency in 2016) would rather see Poe back in the dump where she was abandoned as a baby!
From a layman’s point of view, we hail the gutsy decision made by the five senators who, despite being perceived as somehow lacking in the kind of brilliance that the three Supreme Court justices are said to be imbued with, found the common sense to agree with what is obviously the right thing to do. Former chief justice Artemio Panganiban had actually articulated the most sensible view: A foundling found in the Philippines enjoys the legal presumption that his/her parents are Filipinos albeit unknown; hence, being one whose parents are presumed Filipinos, that child cannot be otherwise than a natural-born Filipino (“Q & A on Grace Poe’s natural-born citizenship,” Opinion, 9/27/15).
Why the three Supreme Court justices chose a position that is so prejudicial and derogatory to all foundlings found in the Philippines and that would consign them to the status of being second-class citizens is beyond us. Aren’t they the self-righteous ones who pontificate most of the time that justice and equity demand that those who have less in life should have more in law? That to the less privileged should go all presumptions of law most beneficial and favorable to them? Why the foot-in-mouth mumbo-jumbo now?
Having thus voted unequivocally, the three SET justices should have the delicadeza to inhibit themselves from any Supreme Court deliberations on the issue of Poe’s citizenship when the matter reaches there and leave it to the 12 justices to act on it more impartially. A Supreme Court justice routinely excuses himself from participating in the review of a decision he himself penned or concurred in while he was in the Court of Appeals. The same ethical proscription should apply to the three justices who have already made known their biases while sitting at the SET. That is so elementary it should go without saying.
—YVETTE SL PETROCELLI, [email protected]
