Inside Philippine politics & beyond

President Gloria Arroyo gave Chinese consular officials and their relatives full diplomatic immunity

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

By Raïssa Robles

Ordinarily, consular officials enjoy only limited diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention. This means they can be criminally prosecuted in Philippine courts, unlike diplomats who enjoy full immunity.

However, a 2009 agreement – signed by the Arroyo government represented by Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo, and the People’s Republic of China represented by Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi – broadened the diplomatic immunity of consular officials and their relatives of both countries. The agreement gave them full diplomatic immunity.

My thanks to the high government official who explained to me why China could invoke full diplomatic immunity in the double murder case in Cebu City involving Chinese consular officials and the spouse of one of them.

The official (not from the Palace) explained to me that Section 34 gives consular officials immunity from “judicial and administrative jurisdiction”.

Section 35 states that “a consular officer is under no obligation to give evidence as a witness.” However, the immunity does not extend to the administrative, technical or service staff.

Section 41 extends full diplomatic immunity to family members of consular officers.

My highly knowledgeable source told me the immunity is enjoyed by consular officials of both China and the Philippines.

I must confess, this is the first time I heard of this agreement and saw the entire agreement.

The agreement has become important in the light of the shooting in Cebu City, which left two consular officers dead and two others wounded.

Here is my story on the matter. And you can read the text of our counsular agreement with China below that:

China invokes immunity for all consulate staff related to fatal shooting in Cebu

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 22 October, 2015, 5:51pm
UPDATED : Thursday, 22 October, 2015, 6:14pm

Raissa Robles in Manila

Beijing has invoked diplomatic immunity for all its staff involved in the investigation into the killing of two Chinese diplomats in Cebu city in the Philippines.

Mayor Mike Rama, who met China’s envoy to the country, ambassador Zhao Jianhua on Wednesday night, told the radio station DZMM the Chinese authorities had invoked diplomatic immunity.

A senior government official confirmed the Chinese government had taken the step.

Two suspects, Guo Jing and her husband, Li Qingliang, were taken into custody after the shooting at a Cebu restaurant on Wednesday afternoon. Guo works in the visa section of the consulate, a source earlier told the South China Morning Post.

To read the rest, please click on this link

Comments

  1. Well, diplomatic immunity is part and parcel of international law. Kahit away ko sa kanya you gotta give justice to her

    • Consular staff are not necessarily diplomats by international law – unless they are declared to be attaches as well which is what many Filipino consuls, vice-consuls etc. are – but that means they are accredited by the host state, there is a note verbale that confirms this. I know that world very well.

      New article out: http://filipinogerman.blogsport.eu/the-chinese-challenge/ – this gives an overview of the situation – globally, locally, historically, economically and strategically. You are all invited to comment.

  2. PDP-LABAN ADOPTS RESOLUTION MAKING DUTERTE ITS SUBSTITUTE PRESIDENTIAL BET

    “The prospect of Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte running for president remains alive even if the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) has fielded anti-crime advocate and Quezon City barangay captain Martin Dino as its standard bearer.”

    “The party on Tuesday (today) passed a resolution compelling Duterte to substitute for Dino in the event the latter withdraws from the presidential race for any reason, or is disqualified by the Commission on Elections.”

    “In Resolution No. 2, series of 2015, PDP-Laban said it must “compel any one of its members who can carry the banner and torch of the party to victory, to substitute Martin “Bobot” Dino, as the party must have its candidate in the coming May 9, 2016 election.” (GMA NEWS ONLINE 11:14am 10/27/15)

    Duterte had already been informed of the Party’s latest decision but he has yet to response to the resolution

  3. INTERESTING POLITICAL TIDBITS

    GPL PUTTING UP AN UNCONCERNED FRONT on the meeting between Binay and Escudero: While admitting that she was surprised when she saw a picture of Escudero with Binay and his allies, “she saw nothing wrong with the meeting between her running mate, Senator Francis Escudero, and Vice President Jejomar Binay in Davao City.”

    MIRIAM SANTIAGO ON MARCOS: she will not defend her running mate, Senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr, against criticisms … “It is not my function to defend Marcos. He should defend himself. Otherwise, I will withdraw from our coalition. We have an informal coalition.”

    PING LACSON OUT OF POE’S SENATE SLATE

    – His statement on Mar Roxas: “Siya ung walang corruption issue and has integrity. Second, siya lang ‘yung walang disqualification case. Third, siya lang ‘yung walang health issue. Kapag tinignan mo ‘yung buong field, siya ‘yung huling nakatayo pagdating ng election.”

    – His statement on the other Presidential Candidates: “We don’t know what awaits Sen. [Grace] Poe kasi may disqualification case, Vice President [Jejomar] Binay has so many issues and of course Sen. Miriam [Defensor Santiago], I don’t know but I could only say good luck and good health.”

    • sinasabi lang yon ni ping kasi…”Poe on dropping Lacson: Give others a chance” si edu manzano ang ipinalit sa kanya. hehehe

      • mas guapo kasi si edu keysa ping. at saka, pareho sila ni grace, ate vi at edu, movie connection ang common ground nila. with edu, sigurado si grace na maipapatuloy ang legacy ng tatay niya and that is to make more movies, aliwin ang taumbayan, di bale na kung gutum sila, basta may bagong sineng mapapanuod, okay lang.

  4. When cruel things take place on a massive and institutionalized scale behind closed doors and out of sight in societies, only jarring confrontation can shatter the delusions. If the ear won’t listen, tell it to the eye.

    A ‘forced process’ on German POWs by the Allied Armies’ policy of postwar denazification, to purge Germany of the remnants of Nazi rule and rebuild its civil society, infracstructue, and economy. They also used this policy in compulsory visits to nearby concentration camps, posters displaying dead bodies of prisoners hung in public places, forcing German POWs to view films documenting the Nazis’ treatment of “inferior” people.

    Can we do this more on the dictatorship of the Marcos Martial Law regime?

    Link

    https://www.thevintagenews.com/2015/09/25/this-is-how-the-german-soldiers-reacted-to-footage-of-concentration-camps-1945/?src=fba&type=wca&page=tvn

    • Good idea. DEPED should build a field trip program to students and even parents so we will not forget.

      • @leona, I wonder what term would you suggest to call the ‘forced process’ on Marcos loyalists to ‘purge’ the Philippines of the ‘remnants’ of Martial Law rule and rebuild its ‘civil society’ moral structure and economy? “demarcosification”?

        • That could be the right word – DEMARCOSIFICATION. . . fed-up.

          . . . or i-SukaMarcosism will do also.

          . . . or (as Pelang got the tip) – i-oro-siMarcos!

          hahaha

  5. Tune in now to ANC. Ma’m Raissa is asking PNoy some questions re searches of stocks owned by politicians.
    its FOCAP time.

    • While we are on the topic of FOCAP, here is the link and excerpts of President Aquino’s Speech.

      SPEECH OF PRESIDENT AQUINO AT THE 2015 FOCAP PRESIDENTIAL FORUM (October 27, 2015)

      http://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2015/10/27/speech-of-president-aquino-at-the-2015-focap-presidential-forum/#sthash.lFxkoOWP.dpuf

      Excerpts:
      ——————————————————–
      Because you must adhere to international standards of reportage, you never overlook a couple of the primary missions of the journalist: to situate a story in its proper context, and to develop a long view that allows the audience to follow the development of a story with all its complexities. In other words, even as some of you must understandably measure success in breaking a story milliseconds ahead of the competition, you also put a premium on balance and context.

      How I wish all media would do the same. Let me give you an example: Early in my term, I had an occasion to talk at a gathering of the most senior men and women in local media. During our meeting, I submitted what I felt was a logical and diplomatic request: Could we come back to the idea of balanced news? By this, I mean that news should be reported “as is, where is,” and that, if there are negative stories, then would it be too bad to have some positive stories as well?

      Let me emphasize that I never asked that media refrain from reporting negative news. All I asked for was a reasonable balance. To that, I remember one of the local media personalities replying something like, “We are a business. It’s not our job to trumpet the positive.” I was truly taken aback by her response. I am not sure now if I asked, “Are we not all Filipinos? Does this mean that you are not concerned about what happens to our country?” Today, I also believe that there is enough reason to ask: Do we just take it as gospel truth that bad news sells?

      I don’t think I am the only one who cannot understand why we insist on bringing ourselves down—why we are so intent on self-flagellation, as some have put it. I wonder what any country would gain if all media did was milk a tragedy for all its worth, and ignore any positive developments related to it.
      ——————————————————–

      • The reporter who said that has one thing in her mind, PROFITS and MORE PROFITS, not the welfare of the Filipino people, but of themselves and their ilks.

      • Could we come back to the idea of balanced news? . . . PNoy says.

        Can a news reporter or journalist at the time of getting any news, put a ‘balanced news’ in due time for printing and publication?

        By this, Imena that news should be reported “as is, where is” . . . PNoy continues.

        Balanced and ‘as is, where is’ . . . ? Trumpeting the NEGATIVES is that something is being TAKEN AWAY from the people who needs to know about it. People knows already positive trumpeting re news.

        To Public officials: Do Not Create Bad Acts As Sources for Bad News!

  6. With their body languages/actions we can summarily gauge the character of each candidates for P/VP thru their hearts. First is SaBong, they got an APATHETIC hearts bcause how they deal with issues, Brenda how she handles her issues with her kasambahay that was posted here, treatment of colleagues like bobo/no respects trato thinking she was way superior, now Bongx2! Why should I Say sorry about? GPL/Chiz ah Double By Passed hearts, from one citizen to another say it all, Chiz? Divorcing his wife? Got anothet heart, NoyBi? RORO? Royal Match of King and Queen of Heart. I hope they will win more hearts in 2016 ??

    • bong marcos is going to be more sorry if and when, in one of her dark moments when her mind is wandering soul, miriam shots bong, the ways she shot her child. bang! bang! may baby shot me down, bang, bang! na bang bang si bong bong, he, he, he.

  7. READING AN ONLINE SURVEY WITH THE ADDITION OF MY THOUGHTS

    There is an online Philstar survey on the question “Which of these issues — Corruption, Poverty and economy, and Peace and security — should be prioritized by the next leader?” I don’t know when the survey started, but as of the time I viewed it (2015-10-26 12:43PM) the results are:

    Corruption ———————– 62%
    Poverty and the economy — 29%
    Peace and Security ———– 9%

    If this new online survey has just started, the numbers are most likely to change, even markedly. Notwithstanding this, here are my comments:

    1. Though admittedly the respondents are not random, the online readers are of course those with laptops, tablets or smartphones and thus, are most likely of the ABC socio-economic class with some from the D class who have those gadgets.

    2. Being thus relatively well off, the respondents are not so much hurt or bothered by the Second and Third Issues — Poverty and Economy and Peace and Security Issues. So, they may view the First Issue — Corruption — as the bigger concern; and reason that the Second and Third Issues are correlated with the more important First Issue.

    3. We note that the concern for Corruption is about double the concern for Poverty and economy; and the latter, in turn, is triple that of Peace and Security.

    4. Assuming that the poor has a different view on these issues, we may generously make it as the following for their class:

    Corruption ——————– 33%
    Poverty and the economy — 33%
    Peace and Security ———– 33%

    5. But the likelihood is that if there is a random survey over the entire population, it is between these numbers and the numbers I cited in the beginning.

    6. Which brings me to the conclusion that Roxas-Robredo will profit from such a survey if shown to hold water. And certainly not Binay with a corruption tag on his face.

    • It is also laughable if the duo Santiago-Marcos will run on a platform against corruption with Marcos family’s corruption stink still being smelled. For that matter, so too is the Poe-Escudero campaign with the duo associating themselves with the corrupt: Ongpin, of Alphaland fame, among others.

      • Laughable indeed, NH.

        In her haste to be the President, Poe is unmindful of the issues surrounding the businessmen financiers being offered by Escudero. Compared that with the LP machinery and the goodwill of the siitting president, she could have run on the basis of a high moral ascendancy if ever it was proven that she is qualified to run as VP or even to retain her Senate seat.

        There is an FB comment saying that Escudero convinced Poe to run as Poe so the Mar votes will be reduced by the Poe votes, ultimately benefiting Binay whom he supported in 2010. Escudero did not want Mar to win that time, and he still doesn’t want Mar to win this time, either. He is eyeing the 2022 presidency, this Escudero.

        I wonder what he and Binay talked about just recently.

        • Re-last line: interesting, especially as there was an apparent effort to explain the “chance” meeting. The dramatis personae of Noy-Bi in a chance meeting in an environment where the Poe-Escudero tandem is in trouble, meaning GPL, particularly, at the SET and Comelec. Interesting indeed! Like in the movies, a Noy-Bi II?

        • gumaganti lang si escudero palagay ko, parang gustong takutin si grace. Minsan kasi, pinadala niya ang anak niyang si Brian sa proclamation ni Trillanes as VP. meaning, suportado din niya si Trillanes. at saka noong nasa Albay siya, at tinanggap niya ang support ng mga Villafuerte. tinanong din siya ng isang reporter na paano kung si Robredo ang nanalo pagka-VP sa election, ano ang masasabi niya, sabi niya pwede rin. palagay ko itong si Grace sumasagot ng mga tanong at nagsasalita na lang siya basta, wala sa isip, tuliro. Pwede ba namang, suprotahan niya si Trillanes, half-heartedly samantala ang VP niya ay si Escudero. At sasabihin niyang ok lang sa kanya kung si Robredo ang nanalo sa VP at hindi ang kapartido niyang si Escudero.

    • In short, NHerrera, as a COMMON DINOMINATOR, corruption is present always in in the other TWO issues.

      I agree. No proof(s) needed why this is the case. But many do not know why.

      The ‘why’ is because in CORRUPTION there is that ‘tempting’ process. In having poverty, does it tempt to be poor or to be in poverty? No. In having a poor economy, same answer. And in peace and security, no one is tempted to have an unstable peace and security.

      Only in corruption where the tempting is so prevalent and strong. So, with that, all the other two issues are generated as a result.

      Corruption. RoRo Away Corruption!

  8. The HOT NEWS are: elections, citizenship/residency/, LYING of some/many politicians, China, sickness of someone, atbpa.

    Here’s one news appearing to become so HOT, it is coming BACK. The kidnapping of LOWELL MENORCA, INC minister.

    He now reveals – “According to Menorca, they were kidnapped in Bulan, Sorsogon by Quezon City policemen on July 17 after a church service.”

    Link

    http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/10/26/1514897/cops-tagged-kidnap-inc-couple

    DOJ no panel of investigators have yet to be on this. When? Mr. President? Mr. Secretary of DOJ?

    We will keep watch on this. Corruption has gone so deep down to even religious entities with conspirators, etc.

    • The earlier this Inc case is worked on to its finish line, the better. To delay it because the evidence have become COLD. . . is rank injustice. Strike this case while it is still HOT.

      When victims and witnesses are already ‘cold’ what is there to investigate?

      • “The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

        The INC hierarchy seems to be of the belief that they’re untouchable by the government due to their solid votes that all candidates, up to barangay level, and including Leila, are ready to kneel before them for their most-sought support.

        Our leaders look like spineless to apply the full force of the law to the Untouchables unlike the case of GMA where they threw hook, line and sinkers including kitchen utensils and bath tubs to keep her detained on flimsy legal excuses since PNoy took over as president.

        • The Cases against GMA are now under the courts. We would not want PNOY or any president to interfere with its proceedings. They are supposed to be independent.

        • Will the Iglesia case corrupt the LP, Mar and Robredo, to go on not touching the untouchable?

          If and when SIGNS are revealing that the INC case is not proceeding as it should be in investigating and prosecuting this case to it’s finish line, then corruption HAS taken over this Administration. The opposition will capitalize this for sure against RORO.

          I’ll call it ORong-ORong or OrOro. (ask the Warays what is ‘oro’)

          :-)

        • he-he-he! leona. i think even those who are not warays understand what oro-oro is. i won’t reveal because i can already smell just by reading it.

        • @mary – when a certain case, like electoral fraud, is dismissed by the court due to hastily-filled information- a new non-bailable case is already lined-up. The current case is the PCSO alleged anomaly wherein all her co-accused have long been granted bail and her case for bail has been elevated to the SC. Once the SC grants bail to GMA, another non-bailable case is already awaiting her – the malampaya scam.

          I’m no fan of GMA but fairness and not vengeance should be the hallmark of a great national leader – in which PNoy obviously is not an adherent.

      • Mapapalad pa rin ang karamihang Pilipino. Sa 2016 election parang “kiss of death” kung ang Pulitiko ay magsasabi na ang Sanguniang ng INC ay may basbas sa kanilang Kandidatura, ang Sangunian na sangkot sa kurapsyon at sa pag-detene ng mga taong akala ng Sangunian ay nagbunyag ng kurapsyon sa INC, ayon sa kay Samson at Menorca — dating Ministros ng INC.

  9. Another great explanation on GPL’s true citizenship status….
    A commenter on a Oscar Franklin Tan’s article about GPL’s defense of Grace Poe’s residency status…

    http://opinion.inquirer.net/89787/is-it-so-hard-to-count-grace-poes-residency

    Alexander lean daloga-og writes:

    IS SEN. GRACE POE’S LEGAL DEFENSE A FLOP?

    SEN. GRACE POE’S DEFENSE of her natural-born citizenship all began with a bang but recently sounded more like a whimper! She claimed to have the truth on her side at the outset, but since submitting her final pleadings before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET), she is getting less optimistic, if not desperate, knowing that the truth is gradually slipping off her fingers. Her publicly declared counter- measures in fact seem to have recently lost their vitality as forceful legal arguments.

    First, Sen. Poe draw parallelism to her adopted father’s case to which she confidently
    claimed that the Senate electoral tribunal will ultimately decide in her favor. On top of some wishy-washy documents she attached to her presumption-laden evidence, Sen. Poe merely banked on the case of Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) who certainly won the disqualification case on the basis of merit. She has probably forgotten that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the action star’s case was hinged on established jurisprudence which helped prove the latter’s consanguinity with his Filipino father. The lady senator, however, cannot do so with relative facility or ease until a judicially determined DNA test proves her to be legally and scientifically right all along. Thus far, the SET is yet to rule on her plea for extension of the submission for the actual DNA test results.

    Then recently, after deluge of three (3) more disqualification cases questioning her
    natural-born citizenship and residency, Sen. Poe invoked former Pres. Manuel
    Roxas, then delegate to the 1934 Constitutional Convention which drafted the US-patterned Commonwealth Constitution, who said that a specific binding provision on foundlings like her may not be necessary. During the intense plenary debate, con-con delegate Roxas rose to the podium and said: “Mr. President, my humble opinion is that these cases are few and far between, that the Constitution need [not] refer to them. By international law the principle that children or people born in a country of unknown parents are citizens in this nation is recognized, and it is not necessary to include a provision on the subject exhaustively.”

    True, these words were indeed spoken at the height of the heated parliamentary
    interpellations, to which it is likewise crucial to note that nothing was ever mentioned about how foundlings are supposed to be treated other than they are deemed citizens of this country. The 202 constitutional convention delegates, mostly US-educated luminaries following the dictates of the colonial government, did not for once raise a howl of protest against the implied exclusion of otherwise stateless children in the definition of who are natural-born or naturalized Filipino citizens should be once the draft supreme law of the land is adopted. If not for the provision of customary international law as part of our domestic laws (Sec. 3, Art. 2), none whatsoever referred explicitly to the status of nationality among “few and far between” abandoned children with no known biological filiations.

    In Spanish, the journal of debate stated thus: “Bajolas dispociones de los articulos sobre ciudadania que hemos aprobado, seria ciudadano por nacimiento, o se natural born todos aquellos nacidos en padre que es ciudadano filipino, ya sea una pesona nacida en Filipinas o fuera de ellas”. It’s literally translated that “under the disposition of the articles on citizenship that we have approved, it would be citizen by birth, that is to say, natural born, those born of a father who is a Filipino citizen, whether that person is born in the Philippines or outside of it.”

    If that was the case, then Sen. Poe is clearly arguing based on a logical fallacy-
    argumentum ad verecundiam – or otherwise known as appeal to authority or to then delegate Roxas, one of the leading lights during the said constitutional convention. This is not a valid way to argue before the Senate electoral tribunal or any court of law for that matter, as it is obviously fallacious and has no intrinsic bearing at all to her claimed natural-born citizenship. Just because one of the framers of the 1935 Constitution interposed an opinion which practically consigned all foundlings under the auspice of customary international law does not mean that this category of citizens is formally and legally presumed as “natural-born” as claimed by most of her lawyers and some senatorial candidates under her independent party slate. In fact, what delegate Roxas unequivocally emphasized in the course of the debate was that for foundlings to be considered as citizens by birth, their biological fathers must be Filipino citizens.

    Congressman Roman Romulo, a lawyer, publicly opined that Sen. Poe should be recognized by the SET as a Filipino citizen based on the proceedings of the constitutional convention. After all, having a nationality is a right that no less than the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) clearly stipulates and to which the Philippines serves as party signatory. Sen. Poe’s vice presidential running-mate Sen. Chiz Escudero likewise theorized that since no one can prove that the senator is a foreigner, then by all indications – choice of birth, residency and citizenship – Sen. Poe is a Filipino. But pray tell, does anyone deny her such privilege? No one, I believe, not even the framers of the 1935 Constitution nor the motley of petitioners themselves whose primary bone of contention is Sen. Poe’s natural-born citizenship rather than her being a Filipino citizen per se.

    That is a basic human right that the Philippine State adheres to as a member of the
    international community of nations. So as a matter of course, the government does not totally discriminate foundlings in the sense that they can or may yet be adopted by surrogate parents. But the rationale behind this application is subsumed under the jus soli principle where citizenship is derived out of the place where a child is born. This principle however is universally recognized in the US but not in the Philippines; hence, it is safe to assume that granting citizenship to any parentless child found within our territory is based on the US-enshrined principle of citizenship. However, to be categorized as natural-born in our own country has to be based on the controlling legal principle of jus sanguinis or right of blood in accordance with parental filiations as plainly stipulated under the 1935 Constitution (Sec. 1 [3-4], Art. IV). This of course is without prejudice at all to where the child was born, for as long as his/her father is a Filipino citizen by birth or naturalization.

    Senior SC Associate Justice Antonio Carpio during the SET oral argument has succinctly laid down the constitutional parameters of Filipino citizenship which in no unmistakable terms consider the following as citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution; (2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands; (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines; (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship; and (5) Those who are NATURALIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

    If the 1930 Hague Convention as well other subsequent multilateral treaties are to be observed, foundlings are to be recognized as nationals of the country where they were found. Having adopted this customary international law, it is indeed humane to treat foundlings like Sen. Poe as a citizen of the land. But despite efforts by some quarters to twist the legal narrative of her citizenship, nobody denies Filipino citizenship to the senator. All standard bearers of the mainstream political parties vying for the presidency believe that Sen. Poe is a Filipino. Associate Justice Carpio thinks so either – like the rest of the distinguished members of the Senate electoral tribunal. What is being probed by the SET is only Sen. Poe’s natural-born Filipino citizenship as mandated by the fundamental law since nothing is explicitly provided for under the relevant constitutional provisions.

    Ruth Sullivan, an internationally-acclaimed jurist and author of a book on statutory
    construction, says that what is not included is deemed excluded – expressio unius est exclusio alterius. This legal maxim simply means that the expression of one thing impliedly excludes another. So as the Philippine constitutional as well as legal regime applies the jus sanguinis principle as a primary derivative of one’s natural-born citizenship, it stands to reason that Sen. Poe is not a natural-born Filipino in view of the absence of conclusive proof to validate her claim. In other words, if Sen. Poe is impliedly excluded in any of the first four categories, then by force of logic she is deemed naturalized “in accordance with [customary international] law” which the Philippines duly adopts as part of its domestic laws EVEN WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF CONCOMITANT LEGISLATION or EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CRYSTAL CLEAR PROOF OF WELL-SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE!

    Thus if it is highly improbable to establish Sen. Poe’s filiations with Filipino parents under Section 1 [1-4], then by exclusionary rule, she must be a “naturalized” Filipino citizen as no biological parents can attest to her citizenship at birth. This is effectuated by no less than the application of customary international laws our government considers part of the legal corpus of the land, and not necessarily by an act of our legislature. Sen. Poe’s claim therefore that she did not perform any act, judicially or administratively, to acquire or perfect her citizenship as a Filipino does not lend credence to her legal argument that she is presumed to be a natural-born citizen. Moreover, since the 1935 Constitution is conspicuously silent on the matter of foundling citizens, then by operation of binding customary international laws she is – and should be – automatically deemed naturalized.

    This particular assertion isn’t weaved out of non-existing legal yarns at all. The
    primary basis is the 1935 Constitution itself. It is the supreme expression of the sovereign will obtaining at the time and which readily applies to the case at bar. Even if the 1987 Constitution specifically defines natural-born citizenship as distinguished from naturalization, the fundamental law cannot retroact to benefit the senator. And neither does any legislation to that effect, unless otherwise specifically so provided. It should thus be borne in mind by all Filipino citizens that being a “citizen at birth” does not automatically confer natural-born status to each and everyone; and that customary international laws do not necessarily and directly apply to our own jurisdiction unless, of course, the Philippine constitutional law or a requisite statute is duly enacted by the Philippine Congress.

    Needless to say, the constitutional requirement for a natural-born Filipino presidential
    candidate is serious matter to trifle with. It is so provided in our constitution as a privilege for those who are eligible to run and wield the reins of presidential powers unencumbered by any fundamental issues of patriotism and loyalty to the country. While all citizens have equal rights under the law, the same rights are clearly distinguished between the natural-born and naturalized Filipino citizens. If running for president is a right to be enjoyed by all citizens, then everyone, including naturalized citizens such as the Chinese or Americans, will be considered eligible. It’s just unthinkable to imagine the perplexing results, if this line of legal analysis is pursued by the SET jurors.

    Even our constitutional forefather, the United States Federal Constitution, strictly
    places high premium on natural-born citizenship as a legal high bar to hurdle before running for the US presidency. So given all these, I don’t see any cogent, or exceptional, reason why we ought to deviate, much less skip, the stringent provisions of our very own fundamental law which we all view with awe and respect as the highest manifestation of our sovereignty as a nation. Not even the will of the world’s mightiest satraps and royalties can lord over its humblest provision. And so must any ordinary subjects or rather citizens who happen to possess some grandiloquent aspirations, dreams and visions of becoming president of the Philippines.

    Ergo, in both points – the letter as well as the spirit – of our constitutional law, Sen. Grace Poe remains a Filipino citizen but only in so far as she is a foundling, and not as a Filipino citizen at birth as clarified by the distinguished framers of the 1935 Constitution.

    • Bumanat na naman itong si Oscar Franklin Tan.

      According to Antonio Contreras, a political science professor at De La Salle University who asked the Comelec to cancel the certificate of candidacy (COC) for President that Poe filed on Oct. 15:

      – The SET proceedings had established that she reacquired her Filipino citizenship on July 19, 2006;

      – The national elections including that for President is on May 9, 2016.

      The number of days between these two important dates, in so far as GPL is concerned, is 3582 days. Ten years, the minimum residency required for the Presidency, is 3650 days. So GPL is short by 68 days (= 3650 – 3582) or short by about two months and 8 days.

      Ibalik natin sa titulo ng opinion column ni Tan, “Is it so hard to count Grace Poe’s residency?”

      Ang sagot — Hindi! Pwera na lang kung hindi marunong ng arithmetic si Tan.

      • As Atty Tan explained, residency and citizenship are two different things. Reacquisition of Filipino citizenship on July 19, 2006 is not relevant to the residency question (10 years as of May 9, 2016 residency requirement). Konting lamig ng ulo. Konting hinay hinay ang banat.

        • Parentony, for purposes of discussion, perhaps you can enlighten us on your theory of GPLs residency and citizenship timeline. Obviously you are routing for GPL.

        • Thank you for not being disrespectful of a differing view.

          On Grace Poe’s qualification to run for president, I subscribe to the theory of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban. He has written at least two columns –

          With Due Respect
          Selected columns from the Philippine Daily Inquirer

          “While many of the columns deal with technical matters of laws, they are written in simple, understandable language that uses a minimum of legal jargon. Because of their simplicity of style, clarity of thought and unassailable logic, the columns make for interesting and instructive reading. Indeed, those who failed to read some or many of the columns by the retired Chief Justice will gain a better insight into the troubled years of 2007 to 2010 by going over this collection…
          This is a book written by a moral man, a Christian who not only practices the forms and rituals of his faith but who also lives it, and through his columns, spreads the gospel of uprightness, morality, and goodness.”

          – From the foreword of Inquirer Publisher Isagani Yambot – –

          On the specific issue of residency, I subscribe to the view of Atty. Franklin Tan as explained, in simple and understandable language, in his column yesterday.

      • Maraming abugado ang mahina sa math.

        Si Atty. Tan ay expert lang sa citizenship. Kasi sa residency kailangan marunong bumilang.

        Si Peter Wallace ay mahigit 30 years permanent Philippine resident. Subalit isang buwan pa lang Philippine citizen. Sa pananaw ni Atty. Tan kung ganun ay puedeng kumandidato na mayor si Peter Wallace dahil isang taon lang ang residency requirement sa mayor.

        • Hindi ganyan ang paliwanag ni Atty. Tan. Huwag balukttutin. Basahin mabuti:

          “The other theory is that Poe became resident only in July 2006, when she reacquired Philippine citizenship. However, citizenship and residence are two independent concepts. An American can reside in the Philippines. Even the Constitution’s wording clearly presents two separate requirements, and there is no requirement to have been a citizen for 10 years. Finally, this second theory likewise cannot explain where Poe planned to live in May 2006 if not the Philippines”.

          Salamat po.

        • @parengtony, I think we both agree that Grace Poe was not an OFW when she travelled to the Philippines in 2004 up to July 2006, do you agree?

          Therefore, if she was not an OFW, can we at least consider her a tourist travelling on a visit visa? Please explain to me if you disagree.

          Now, on the presumption that we both agree on these 2 points, can you kindly explain how the doctrine of Animus Revertendi, as advanced by Dean La Vina, would apply in her case? Her “name tag” or official traveller identification being the passport she used when she entered the country.

        • “and there is no requirement to have been a citizen for 10 years”

          Baka po nakalimutan o pilit na kinalimutan ni Atty. Tan na dalawa sa “qualifications” ng isang kandidato sa pagkapangulo ay:

          > Natural born citizen of the Philippines
          > At least 40 years of age on the day of election

          Hindi po ba malinaw na isinasaad ng batas na kailangan ay 40 taon na silang “citizen”? (Not just any citizen but a “Natural born Citizen of the Philippines”)

          Peace @parengtony :-)

      • palagay ko marunong naman si tan ng arithmetic. insek ‘to, di ba magagaling mga yan sa numero? baka hindi napansin na sirang ABAKUS ang ginamit sa pag compute. isa lang ang ibig sabihin nito na magaling talaga ang slide rule o tan used to round off the no. of years.

        • he, he, he, bilang intsick, magaling din si tan mandaraya, mabilis ang kamay at sadyang pinadulas sa abacus.

    • IMO, the foregoing arguments is indicative of “grasping at straws” i.e.,

      1. that foundlings bear the burden of proving that their biological parents are Filipino Citizens;

      2. that the provision on foundlings stated in the 1961 UN Convention on Statelessness “is subsumed under the jus soli principle”;…

        • Look, parengtony, this is just my opinion on this matter, but don’t you find it strange that they dropped the DNA revelation when the discussion was about Grace’s citizenship status and Justice Carpio explained in clear and great detail about what our Constitution says about status of foundlings and what the relationship of the international law vis-a-vis our own Constitution, that our Constitution prevails on that citizenship issue?

          Therefore, I am presuming that they resorted to Plan B. Plan A was to pound on Grace Poe being a natural born Filipino because of International law, but as Carpio clearly explained, it is not, so they resorted to Plan B.

          Then after the SET was adjourned for the day, they pounced on Justice Carpio for being biased.

          Hahaha….

          Then now, they are “actively,” and I’m saying this with reservation, having to find out if Grace Llamanzares’ parents were truly Filipino through DNA matching.

          Why do I say “actively”? Because it’s not being court-administered with a competent and unbiased third party.

          Can the DNA stand in court in light of the secrecy of the person being matched?

        • Parang pelikula. Da-ig and mystery thriller. Pagka and DNA na yan eh positive — meaning there is a match with the DNA of a biological Filipino father or mother to prove that GPL is a NBFC — pero ang detalya ay gusting isekreto ni GPL, magkaka-problema. At siguradong makakasama sa Kandidatura nya. What is more I do not know if SET will allow the detail to be a secret — considering that this is about a candidate for the Presidency. ABANGAN.

        • nherrera, supposing just supposing, dna result points to grace being born of the loins nina rosemarie at por dyos por santo – fjp! an inadvertent product in one of those drunken nights when one is young and all inhibitions were thrown out the window! and for being in the background, presumably enamored of rosemarie and being her lover, marcos got blamed for impregnating her. anak ni zuma!

          better suppressed the dna result. too shameful for susan, he, he, he.

        • At least two instances were cited as bases. May I hear your position and bases on these two issues, please?

        • I’ll give you a story about foundlings na maaaring kahalintulad ng kay Grace Llamanzares.

          What if the Chinese planted a sleeper couple in the Visayas. The couple was ordered to leave a newborn in a church. A Filipino found the child, and took care of it.

          Now, that child was adopted by a rich couple, but this Filipino couple is complicit with the Chinese government. So that the child grew thinking he was a Filipino.

          What would the child be, a natural born Filipino or a naturalized Filipino?

          Yan ang safeguard ng Constitution sa atin, para di tayo masingitan kaya nga foundlings are just considered naturalized.

          Well, that’s how I see it. Read lang ako ng opinyon na mas malapit sa Constitution, bakit ka pa lalayo. Pag nasa ibang bansa ka, saka maginternational…

        • 2nd point, we follow the jus sanguinis principle. Those that fall under the jus soli would be considered naturalized. Simplistic view lang yung sa akin.

        • Nice conspiracy theory. Pwede script sa next movie ni Angelina Jolie, temang “SALT”. :)

          Stretch your premise a little bit more and cast the net wider, and soon lahat ng mukhang foreigner (maputi, matangos ilong, singkit, matangkad, mestizo, etc. etc.) eh i-question na rin natin ang loyalty at baka sleeper foreign spies pala lang sila growing up in the Phils., just pretending to be NBF’s? Should we start outlawing these foreign looking NBF’s from ever holding government office on the (minute) probability that they were “planted”? Quite absured eh? :)

        • Do you know your history, VING C? Don’t you know that before the Japanese invaded the Philippines, they planted sleeper agents in Mindanao, Visayas and Luzon many years before as a way of spying out the land? Or hindi ka nagbabasa ng history or absent ka?

          My question is plausible, the situation is logical. Ano ang tawag sa foundling planted by the Chinese government in the Philippines adopted by Filipino parents, natural born Filipinos or naturalized?

          Why is it that the Constitution is very specific that only natural born Filipino be at the helm of the highest posts in the land?

          What is the safeguards it put in place to achieve that goal?

        • Saka wala akong sinabing outlawing the foundlings. They are considered naturalized, but not NBFCs. Filipino citizen pa rin sila…

        • ‘MANILA – The granting of Japanese citizenship, residency visas or working visas to Filipinos descended from Japanese who migrated to the Philippines in the early 20th century may usher in better lives for them and their families, but not necessarily without hardships and problems.’

          Filipinos of Japanese ancestry are known as the Philippine “nikkei-jin” (Japanese descendants).

          They too had to face Japanese Immigration laws – ‘The Philippines became a destination for Japanese migrants starting in 1903, at which time the islands were under American rule, when Japanese laborers were contracted for a major road project in the northern part of Luzon Island.’

          ‘Noting the multiethnic identity of Philippine nikkei-jin, he said, “Japan’s entrenched ‘jus sanguinis’ (right of blood) principle based on Japanese bloodline will appear out-of-date in this age of post-nation state and transnational citizenship” if its government fails to integrate them into Japanese society.’

          So, Japan has an entrenched ‘jus sanguinis’ (right of blood) principle based on Japanese bloodline.

          Link

          http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/10/29/national/filipino-japanese-face-integration-hurdles/#.Vi-KZrcrI-V

        • First, from my point of view, they are not NBFCs, just naturalized.

          Saka hindi ako tumitingin sa physical features, but on the circumstances, one, walang known Filipino parents, which is a primary requirement for being NBFC.

          You are twisting the words, ikaw ang magaling ang imagination. LOL.

        • @BFD, kung ang tingin mo sa isang foundling ay Naturalized, ano naman ang tingin mo sa magiging (mga) anak ng isang foundling na kinasal sa isa ring foundling? Naturalized pa din ba dapat ang tawag sa mga anak nila?

          How can the state question the loyalty of people who were born and raised in this country? If ever the Philippines goes to war with China, are all Chinese-Filipinos in this land of questionable loyalty now? Even if they were born here? Schooled here? Grew up here? Maybe 5 generations removed from their ancestors in China?

          My point is, the state cannot, as with foundlings. And if by chance some of these people would like to run for highest office, I say why would we discriminate against them?

        • kahapon, ngayon at bukas sila at sila parin ang biological parents ni gpl. people who want/wanted to cover up the real story made the picture vague to make it look speculating.

          to those concern it is easy to play bulag bulagan rather than bye bye to their personal ambition.