How US may change the PHL Constitution

THE United States-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the most contentious international treaty in memory.

It starts from the fact that the US government has not released a full copy of the agreement. In fact, the most detailed information comes from the group WikiLeaks. The controversy has been going on for 18 months, and negotiations started five years ago.

For an agreement that will cover about 40 percent of the global economy, shrouded in secrecy and confusion even from supporters, no one seems that enthusiastic about TPP, except government officials and multinational corporations.

US labor unions say that the TPP will allow a massive inflow of foreign workers pushing Americans out of their jobs. South Koreans are opposed, because the potential to disrupt their beef and rice industries is very real, as they must open up to foreign imports. Because the TPP requires signatories to adhere to US copyright regulations, Japanese artists are furious that the Japanese tradition of “self-publishing” will be curtailed.

All countries must also follow a drug-patent extension provision, which, according to the US publication the New England Journal of Medicine, will “cause an increase in medical drug prices in less-developed countries, as generic drugs might not be available until the US Food and Drug Administration gives its approval.”

As recently as April 3, Trade Secretary Gregory L. Domingo, said there is not enough time for the Philippines to join the TPP.

The song has now changed. From the BusinessMirror on June 25: “The Philippines is definitely joining the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership bloc once presented the opportunity, Trade Secretary Gregory L. Domingo said on Thursday.”

But here is the kicker: “The DTI noted that the TPP will require liberalizing restrictions on foreign-equity ownership and government procurement and adopting zero tariffs for all products with sensitivities to agriculture and industrial products. The DTI conceded that ‘selected sections of the Constitution may be amended at a certain point when the Philippines takes a solid step toward joining the TPP.’”

While we will give Domingo the benefit of the doubt for thinking out loud about possible future discussions, the irony of all this is unmistakable.

The Philippines is “definitely joining” a trade agreement of which no one in the public has seen the details. We have not been enlightened on any of the specific benefits or disadvantages to the Philippines. The TPP requires changes to the economic provisions of the Philippine Constitution that has strong opposition and that Congress has already tacitly rejected.

Why the sudden urgency for joining the TPP? Is there any chance at all that the Philippines must be a part of the TPP and change the Constitution because of US pressure in light of the current situation in the West Philippine Sea? Things are never what they appear to be.

source:  Business Mirror

Ex-Chief Justice weighs in on citizenship issue

Now that Senator Grace Poe has overtaken in the public opinion polls all the aspirants for the presidency, she and her supporters should brace themselves for a minute scrutiny of her qualifications to vie for the highest position in the land. This will not necessarily be malicious but mandatory in the interests of electing a legally qualified President.

In my previous column, I asked:

When and how did Poe reacquire her Philippine citizenship, thereby becoming a dual citizen?

Or did she simply assume that she “automatically reacquired” Philippine citizenship upon renouncing her US citizenship?

Poe appears to have answered the two questions herself in an interview with GMA News, which I quoted verbatim:

“To revert back to Filipino citizenship, ire-renounce mo lang yung US citizenship mo. Yun lang ang ginawa ko. Yun kasi ang condition ng Dual Citizenship Law. Hindi iyon to reacquire Philippine citizenship kasi it reverts back to that automatically.” (To revert back to Filipino citizenship, you simply renounce your US citizenship. That’s all I did. That is the condition of the Dual Citizenship Law. You need not reacquire Philippine citizenship because it reverts back to that automatically)

Poe’s statement implies that she did not undergo any formal process to reacquire her Philippine citizenship, having presumed, in her own words, that “to revert back to Filipino citizenship, ire-renounce mo lang yung US citizenship mo.”

And she underscored that by stating, “Yun lang ang ginawa ko.” (That’s all I did.)

Sadly, Poe is mistaken. In the case of Labo, Jr. vs Comelec, the Supreme Court held: “Philippine citizenship is not a cheap commodity that can be easily recovered after its renunciation. It may be restored only after the returning renegade makes a formal act of re-dedication to the country he has abjured and he solemnly affirms once again his total and exclusive loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.”

Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban has written two pieces in another paper on this controversy. In the first piece, Panganiban supported the thesis that as a foundling, Poe could be considered a natural-born Filipino. The second piece discussed Poe’s reported “reacquisition” of her Philippine citizenship.

In his second piece, Panganiban may have assumed that Poe took the Oath of Allegiance to the country. But he raised a red flag when he commented on the case of David vs Aglipay:

“Renato David, who became a Canadian before the effectivity of RA 9225, represented himself to be a Filipino citizen in his application to purchase public land filed before he took his oath of allegiance. Not having taken the required oath, he had not yet reacquired his Philippine citizenship when he executed under oath his said application. Thus, the Court held that he was liable for falsification of a public document.”

There are several steps required for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, through the Bureau of Immigration, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Justice. The final act is taking the Oath of Allegiance.

The question that Poe should answer is: Did she or did she not follow the mandated procedures, particularly taking the Oath? If not, then she did not reacquire her Philippine citizenship, based on the jurisprudence cited by Panganiban and based on the provisions of RA 9225.

Now, granting for the sake of argument, that Poe did take the Oath. If that happened as a consequence of her renunciation of US citizenship -- which was either in 2010 or 2012, depending on which media report you wish to believe (according to one news report, Poe’s US passport was issued by the Washington Passport Agency in December 2011) -- this means she lacks the 10-year residency requirement to qualify as a candidate for President or Vice-President.

It would help clarify the issue if Poe were to voluntarily present documents to establish the legality of her alleged reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, as well as the corresponding timeline. Disappointingly, she has chosen to remain silent, perhaps buying time while her lawyers study the situation. Unfortunately, that erodes her self-proclaimed moral ascendancy.

I hate to say this, but this matter, if left unresolved, could open a whole new can of worms. First, it brings into question the legitimacy of her appointment as head of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), which requires Philippine citizenship. One is constrained to ask: Was Poe wittingly or unwittingly guilty of falsifying a public document?

Then there is the matter of repeated trips to the Philippines using her US passport; the fact that she managed and, conceivably, worked in her late father’s company; and the fact that she bought a house in the Philippines in 2005 “as a temporary residence while a more permanent house was under construction,” to quote a media report.

Did she do all of these as an American citizen and was she allowed by law? To the jaded observer, there’s probably nothing wrong with that, what with aliens routinely illegally working, doing business and buying property in our country, under the approving noses of authorities.

But for someone being considered for the presidency of the Philippines, that is crucial. And for someone who has waved the banner of honesty and integrity as the standard for her political career, the issue cannot simply be dismissed as “the way things are done.”

The situation gets murkier for Poe. In her certificate of candidacy for the Senate, filed in 2012, she stated, under oath, that she would have been a resident of the Philippines for six years and six months by election day, May 13, 2013.

That issue, raised by UNA party interim president Representative Toby Tiangco, may be enough to place Poe’s residency as a presidential candidate under a dark cloud. The cloud becomes darker if she reckoned her Philippine residency as a US citizen, rather than as a citizen of the Philippines.

Article VII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution states: “No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.”

Section 3 states: “There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President.”

In other words, the fundamental law of the land is crystal clear on the matter. The 10-year residency requirement is an integral part of the enumeration of the qualifications of a Philippine President. The legal eagles may argue that residency is separate from the other qualifications, but that argument would be treading on very shaky ground indeed.

But, in fairness to Senator Poe, we may all be like Chicken Little, frantically announcing that the sky is about to fall. Poe has continued to be noncommittal about her presidential or vice-presidential plans, if any. She may decide not to run for either position at all, and all of these could be nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

Of course, Poe’s advisers may suggest that the best way to overcome the objections is to fabricate documents to support the validity of her Philippine citizenship and her residency.

I should hope not. Otherwise, we can all forget about her purported honesty and integrity.

Greg B. Macabenta is an advertising and communications man shuttling between San Francisco and Manila and providing unique insights on issues from both perspectives.

gregmacabenta@hotmail.com

source:  Businessworld

WITH DUE RESPECT by Artemio V. Panganiban: Grace Poe’s citizenship

CRITICS CHALLENGE the citizenship qualifications of Sen. Grace Poe to run for, be elected to and hold a higher public office allegedly because 1) as a foundling, she was stateless, 2) by her marriage, she acquired the American citizenship of her husband, and 3) her adoption by Fernando Poe Jr. and Susan Roces did not confer natural-born citizenship on her. I respectfully disagree.

Natural-born citizen. Under our 1987 Constitution, “[n]o person may be elected President [or Vice-President or Senator or Congressman] unless he [or she] is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines…”

In turn, “[n]atural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.”

Since the Constitution requires natural-born citizenship “from birth” and since Senator Poe was born in 1968, the governing law would be the 1935 Constitution. Neither that Charter nor any statute as of that year expressly conferred citizenship on foundlings.

However, the framers of the 1935 Constitution explained that expressly providing citizenship rules for foundlings was unnecessary since that could be determined from international law. Note that under the same Charter (and also under the present one), “the Philippines … adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation.”

Applicable international law. Mijares vs Ranada (April 12, 2005) held that “generally accepted principles of international law … even if they [are] not derived from treaty obligations… [have] two elements: the established, widespread and consistent practice on the part of states; and a psychological element known as the opinio juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity) … a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it.”

Under Art. 2 of the 1961 International Convention on Statelessness, “[a] foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born within the territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State.”

Applying that article to Senator Poe, a foundling found in the Philippines is presumed, in the absence of contrary proof, to have Filipino biological parents. Since she was found near a church in Jaro, Iloilo, when she was only a few days old, her parents are presumed to be Filipinos.

Therefore, she is a natural-born citizen.

True, the Philippines is not a signatory or a “Contracting State” in this treaty. However, the treaty possesses the two elements of a generally accepted principle of international law because the grant of nationality to a foundling is an “established, widespread and consistent practice” of many states since 1961 to the present. Hence, it is deemed a “part of the law of the Nation.”

According to Razon vs Taglis (Dec. 3, 2009), this “widespread practice” or “international custom” could be shown from “State practice, State legislation, international and national judicial decisions, recitals in treaties and other international instruments, a pattern of treaties in the same form, the practice of international organs, and resolutions relating to legal questions in the UN General Assembly.”

Further, under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which the Philippines is a signatory and which our Supreme Court has consistently enforced, “Everyone has a right to a nationality.” Thus, a denial of nationality or citizenship to Senator Poe would be a plain violation of the UDHR.

Parenthetically, it is high time the Philippines acceded to and joined the 1961 Convention on Statelessness for the benefit of all Filipinos, especially illegitimate children whose parents are unknown, not just of Senator Poe. After all, it is not their fault that their parents have abandoned them.

American citizenship and adoption. True, she acquired American citizenship after she married her American husband. But she already renounced such citizenship in accordance with American law. And the American Embassy has affirmed such renunciation.

This affirmation is important because under the 1930 Hague Convention on the Conflict of Nationality Laws, “[i]t is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals.” Thus, American, not Philippine, law determines who are American citizens.

True also, our Supreme Court has ruled several times that adoption does not confer citizenship. It only gives the adopted child the civil rights of a legitimate child, like the right to use the surname of and to inherit from the adoptive parents.

In my humble opinion, these rulings do not apply to foundlings. They were issued by our Court to prevent aliens from short-circuiting our strict naturalization rules by undergoing the easier adult adoption processes.

However, I will no longer dwell on this issue because Senator Poe does not derive her natural-born citizenship from her adoption but from generally accepted principles of international law on the presumed citizenship of foundlings.

Her presumed citizenship can become indisputable if her paternity is established by deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence. Under existing jurisprudence starting with Tijing vs Court of Appeals (March 8, 2001) and People vs Vallejo (May 2, 2002), a DNA test is a conclusive way of proving filiations.

I will take up Grace Poe’s residence qualification in another column.

* * *

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/85819/grace-poes-citizenship#ixzz3dzkwk6na
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Gang rape of the Constitution by Fr Joel Tabora SJ

THERE is a gang rape ongoing. It is led by Speaker Sonny Belmonte and his gang of rapacious congressmen. It is to be joined by like-spirited senators. It is not a simple rape. It is multiple rape, violent and vicious. The victim: the Constitution.

The rapacious organ? The phrase: “unless otherwise provided by law,” inserted violently over and over again to kill the Constitution’s protection of the Filipino patrimony and its mandate to social justice.

In the national disarray that has seen the nation’s advocates for social justice divided – ironically – on the constitutionality of the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law, on the constitutionality of the K-12 basic education reform, and the ferocious unfinished debate about the presidential qualification or disqualification of a man alleged to be thoroughly corrupt and of a damsel presumed to be Filipina, the rape is proceeding surreptitiously to subjugate the Constitution to a sinister will whose master appears to be “more investments” (see the “whereas” clauses) but whose real masters seem to be big local business or powerful foreign interests. With practically no serious national discussion on the rationale and the effects of the proposed constitutional amendments, the “Resolution of Both Houses No. 01” was passed by the House viva voce without actual quorum, on the understanding that the Senate is immediately to follow their rapacious action as a matter of urgency.

With no free, informed, prior consent of their constituents, with the resolution still unpublished in the official congressional website, approval without amendment was endorsed by the House Committee on May 3, 2015 “that by a vote of three –fourths (3/4) of all its Members, each House voting separately, and pursuant to Article VII of the Constitution, to propose amendments to Articles XII, XIV & XVI of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, with the following proposals…” Incredibly, the House has approved this rape. The Senate has calendared its participation in it.

For instance, pertinent to “all lands of the public domain, waters, mineral, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fishers, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna and other natural resources …owned by the state” the Constitution provides, “The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or association at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.” To this provision the joint congressional resolution now inserts: “unless otherwise provided by law.” The Constitutional provision precisely aimed at laying the ground rules in the national interest for all valid laws pertinent to such corporations exploiting the Filipino patrimony, is de-fanged by a killer provision that allows any law to disrespect or contradict this provision. “Unless otherwise provided by law” is license for lawmakers to craft laws in the best interest of foreign investors. We cannot say that such legislative treason is beyond lawmakers. Consider the current Philippine Mining Act (RA 7942) that allows foreigners to exploit Philippine minerals in a manner fully disadvantageous to the Filipino people. This was acknowledged in President Aquino’s. E.O 79 on mining. The Constitution safeguards the national patrimony for the Filipino people, but the resolution allows lawmakers to totally disregard it.

For instance, pertinent to “Land of the public domain …classified as agriculture, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks,” the Constitution provides: “Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.” To this provision, the resolution appends, “unless otherwise provided by law.” This means that despite the Constitutional limits on the length of time a corporation may hold land and despite the Constitutional limitation to the size of land that may be held, Congress may legislate that owners, Filipino or foreign, may hold and exploit lands of the public domain, like mineral lands, for two hundred years. But what happens if the mining interests and activities of such a company displaces indigenous peoples like the B’laan of South Cotabato and threatens the integrity of the fresh water supply of Mindanao? What happens if a foreign company, that can be Swiss, Canadian or Chinese, is so capital strong that it can handle mineral exploration and exploitation in 25,000 hectares of our national patrimony, and does so, not to contribute to the development of the Philippine common weal but to maximize its profits and strengthen its own foreign economy? Would not such investments deprive the Philippine economy of valuable irreplaceable minerals its own entrepreneurs may wish to mine, exploit and utilize in the interests of the Philippine economy?

For instance, pertinent to Philippine education, the Philippine Constitution provides: “Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens.” To this safeguard the resolution now inserts the rapacious clause, “unless otherwise provided by law.” This means that law may provide that schools owned, operated and controlled by foreigners may now operate in our country. The rapacious clause does not limit this to higher education, where academic freedom is more appropriate, nor elucidate the framework within which foreign universities might interact with local universities. It would allow fully foreign owned and foreign controlled schools to operate even on the level of basic education where foundational life-long values of the students are formed. What if a school spouting the values of materialism in global free-market world has no interest in the value, makabayan, and no interest in the promotion of the Filipino common weal?

This rape is vicious because it hurts precisely those people which the Constitution seeks to help, the socially disadvantaged, the marginalized, the excluded, under the alibi of bringing in more investments. At least a discussion, similar to that on the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law or the K-12 reform, of the proposed Constitutional amendments in the light of the social justice provisions of the Constitution and a genuine national dialogue on the desirability of the changes should have preceded the approvals.

Where the Constitution is involved, more real thought should have been provided by our legislators to specify the changes desired rather than the use of the rapacious clause “unless otherwise provided by law” to cover their theoretical vacuity. The changes proposed do not dismantle the “economy that excludes,” which Pope Francis condemns in EvangeliiGaudium (# 53-54). They strengthen it.

Finally, the gang rape opens up the Constitution to change of any of its other provisions. Defensive statements of legislators that this is not so are neither credible nor true. That means, from a constituent assembly or constitutional convention called prior to the next election to amend “economic provisions” of the constitutions, other provisions of the Constitution like the mandate for autonomous regions, the protection of academic freedom, and term limits may be disturbed. To do this before a regular national election is insane. It may even create a scenario where no elections are possible, extending the President’s term without a formal extension.

The multiple gang rape of the Constitution is a heinous crime.

source:  Manila Times

‘Vice President does not enjoy immunity’

If sued for plunder, Jejomar Binay will make history as the first vice president to be haled to court

MANILA, Philippines – The role of the Vice President vis-à-vis public accountability will most likely be placed under a magnifying glass if and when plunder charges will be filed against Jejomar “Jojo” Binay. The Vice President is expected to go to the Supreme Court where he will raise immunity from legal suits as his pivotal defense.

Should this happen, Binay will make history as the first vice president to be charged in court. “There are no legal precedents in the Philippines to go by,” said Vicente Mendoza, former Supreme Court justice. “We are writing on a clean slate.”

A plunder case against Binay is pending with the Ombudsman for allegedly overpricing a Makati parking building contract by more than a billion pesos. Should this prosper, the Ombudsman will file charges against Binay with the Sandiganbayan, a setback to his campaign for the presidency.

But it looks like the Vice President’s claim for immunity will face tough legal obstacles.

Mendoza, a foremost authority on the Constitution, said that Binay does not enjoy immunity, unlike the President, because of two reasons:

• Binay allegedly committed corrupt acts when he was mayor of Makati, hisprevious position, and not when he was vice president. Neither is he being prosecuted for acts as chair of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council, his cabinet post.
• The vice president does not have “multifarious duties and powers” like thepresident who is commander-in-chief, who controls the executive department, administers foreign policy, issues executive orders, among others.

“The overriding principle [in not clothing the vice president with immunity] is the rule of law, ” Mendoza said. “The vice president is just like any cabinet secretary...No man is above the rule of law.”

Similarly, Pacifico Agabin, former dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law and an expert on the Constitution, earlier told us that the vice president is not immune from suit. The Constitution does not guarantee the vice president’s immunity, he said: “It’s only the President who is immune [from suit] and that is based on tradition, because he is busy handling affairs of the state. But that cannot be said for the vice president.”

We requested to interview him for this story but he begged off, saying that Vice President Binay has already engaged him.

Fr Joaquin Bernas SJ, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, also categorically said that Binay is not covered by executive immunity. “No, the vice president is not immune…The Constitution doesn’t say he is immune,” he told us in a telephone interview.

(When pressed to discuss the issue further, Bernas declined, saying he was busy. We gathered from those who are in touch with him that he no longer grants media interviews.)

President’s immunity settled

The 1987 Constitution is not explicit on executive immunity unlike the 1973 Constitution which contains a specific provision guaranteeing the president’s immunity, Bernas wrote last year in the Inquirer.

The Supreme Court, however, has already settled the president’s immunity in a number of cases.

During the term of President Corazon Aquino, the Court said: “The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office-holder’s time, also demands undivided attention. But this privilege of immunity from suit pertains to the President by virtue of the office, and may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any other person in the President’s behalf.” (Read the decision here.)

More recently, in 2012, the Court decided in Rodolfo Lozada vs President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo: “It is settled jurisprudence that the President enjoys immunity from suit during his or her tenure of office or actual incumbency.”

Argument for VP immunity

Romulo Macalintal, an election lawyer, has opined that Binay is covered by immunity, just like the President, because he can only be removed throughimpeachment.

“If the President is immune from suit while in office, the same privilege could be extended to Vice President Jejomar Binay, considering that the Office of the Vice President is regarded as a component of the Executive Department of the government,” Macalintal argued. (Macalintal is reportedly being considered for the senatorial slate of the United Nationalist Alliance or UNA, founded by Binay.)

Harry Roque, an activist lawyer, wrote in his blog that Binay is immune from suit but doesn’t explain why. Roque openly supports Binay’s bid for the presidency.

Spare tire

Claims that Binay enjoys immunity point to the larger issues of the Vice President’s role in the executive department and his accountability as a public official.

Going by Article VII of the Constitution, the vice president is given limited functions. He or she can be appointed to the cabinet. But the most important duty is to succeed the president in case of “death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation…” The vice president’s functions, Mendoza pointed out, do not justify a grant of immunity.

Like other cabinet officials, Binay is legally accountable for corruption and abuse of power. The Constitution has enshrined, after all, that public office is a public trust.

In Latin America, two vice presidents are currently facing lawsuits for alleged corrupt activities. Argentina’s vice president was charged with bribery last year. He continues to hold office.

In Guatemala, the vice president recently resigned after the Supreme Court stripped her of immunity because she was reportedly involved in a Customs corruption racket.

Two historical examples of US vice presidents in trouble with the law are often cited. Vice President Aaron Burr was indicted for murder in the 1800s. He did not argue then that a sitting vice president was immune from criminal prosecution.

In the 1970s, the US justice department investigated Vice President Spiro Agnew for extortion, bribery and tax fraud. Agnew eventually resigned and avoided trial. –Rappler.com

Citizenship by convenience

What kind of country have we become, when we have to debate the fine legal issues of whether Senator Grace Poe-Llamanzares remains a US citizen or how long she has lived in the country to be qualified to run for President or Vice President?

For chrissakes, she renounced being Filipino when she became a US citizen, and she doesn’t even care to tell us when.

To become one, she declared under oath, to use the words of the US Oath of Allegiance, that she “absolutely and entirely renounces and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to the’ Philippines.” In that oath, she even vowed to “bear arms” on behalf of the US.

And you want somebody who solemnly renounced — the meaning of “abjure” — the Philippines to be our leader?

Aaargggh.

We are not talking here of a case like that of her adoptive father, Fernando Poe, who had no choice but to be American, as he could not have chosen his parents.

We are talking here of somebody who had a Filipino citizenship but who decided in her adult life to be an American citizen, who even probably, I dare speculate, risked being an illegal alien – “TNT” is how they are called by Filipinos in the US – for a time.

Background: Poe’s US passport. She denounced her country to be an American. Now she wants to be our leader?

Was she poor that she just wanted her family to escape poverty from her unwanted country? No. Was she escaping political persecution? No.

She comes from a family that was among the Philippines’ rich elite. She studied in the most expensive schools here (high school, Assumption College San Lorenzo) and abroad (Boston College). She had famous and very rich step-parents. Her father was even rumored to be the most powerful Filipino ever, Ferdinand Marcos.

Yet, she decided to renounce her being Filipino, and swore allegiance to the US.

For what? For the convenience of shopping at Saks Fifth Avenue or Tiffany’s or maybe even Walmart, and touring Disneyland and Hollywood anytime she wanted? What does that tell us of her character and deepest values?

C’mon guys. Do you think somebody in Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, or the Republic of Timbuktu would dare to run for any public office there after having renounced his or her citizenship in those countries? Then reassumed the citizenship in order to win a high office?

By becoming senator and now lusting after the highest office of the land, Mrs. Llamanzares is insulting our notions of country and nationalism.

I was expecting her to say that she renounced her US citizenship when she realized that she wanted to serve the country of her birth and of her parents, whoever they were.

But instead, she matter-of-factly said she had to do that since her appointment as head of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board “required it.”

Her husband still a US citizen?
Has her husband renounced his US citizenship? Or are they keeping their options open, one foot on each of their two countries, and decide where they’ll stay when doing so becomes convenient and profitable for them?

If she lost in the senatorial election, would she have applied for citizenship — since renouncing one’s US citizenship is irrevocable — in Canada instead, or like that noisy over-the-hump singer, in Australia?

I’m afraid I may have gotten old without realizing it, but I cannot understand that the next generation of Filipinos, that of Llamanzares, has taken citizenship as a trivial matter, and one of convenience.

There are probably 5 million Filipinos who have immigrated to the US, Canada, and Australia to become citizens of those countries. Half of my high school class at the Ateneo and probably half of my relatives, including in-laws, are in North America.

That is their choice which I respect, especially since most of them had children whom they thought would have a better life in the most developed countries in the world.

But I cannot respect people who take advantage of our depraved celebrity-politics, and who, like Llamanzares, think – just because her name-recall commands stupid votes – she can lead the country and change citizenships like a jacket one has gone tired of wearing.

Citizenship for Llamanzares is obviously one of convenience. Did she ever show any interest in social issues even in the US, and more so in the huge problems of our country, to think she can lead us as President? Did she study political science or public administration that led her to want to contribute her expertise to the development of her country?

Nations are really fraternities, an organization of which you are a member, and to which you have allegiance. Imagine if a member of Alpha Sigma denounces it for some vague reason and joins Sigma Rho. Years later he decides to leave Sigma Rho, to rejoin Alpha Sigma. Would that fraternity accept him back and allow him to be Grand Chancellor or whatever?

I am sure this is the only country in Asia, and even in the world, where somebody who has renounced her or his citizenship still gets to be elected senator (or Parliament member) and even arrogantly intends to seek the highest post of the land. I don’t think such really foolish issues arise in other civilized societies.

The US could be an exception, with one president and several would-be presidents having been accused of being born not in the US, and therefore not natural-born, as alleged in the recent cases of George Romney, who was born in Mexico and John McCain, in Panama.

Of course, there were questions over US President Obama’s citizenship, but these obviously were merely raised by bigoted American whites who rejected the idea of having an African-American as president.

Seriously, do you think Obama would have even become Illinois State senator if at any time of his life, he had renounced his US citizenship, as Llamanzares did of her Filipino citizenship?

Mamasapano report
I admired Llamanzares for her courage in leading the Senate committee’s investigation that concluded it was a case of command responsibility over the Mamasapano massacre of 44 of our elite troops by Muslim rebels. But she stopped there, a one or two days’ moment of independence. She has done nothing to make Aquino, his bosom friend Gen. Allan Purisima and army generals who refused to rescue our commandos accountable for the crime.

Or was it all simply her way to catapult herself to the name-recall level for the presidency, or even to nudge Aquino, “make me your candidate, or else.” The kindest assessment of Llamanzares is to revise that adage to read: “In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed lady is Queen.” In this Senate crop of mediocre-minded senators and Aquino lackeys, anybody who can just demonstrate a modicum of integrity and courage gets front-page praises, to be queen of the blind.

But she demonstrated a lack of delicadeza when she signed the resolutions of the committees of Aquino lackeys Antonio Trillanes 4th and Aquilino Pimentel 3rd recommending plunder charges against somebody who obviously was her biggest obstacle to the presidency.

There is a pragmatic reason why we are worried over Llamanzares’ past. It is well known that not a few Filipinos of adult age, in their desperation to become US citizens, had risked being illegal aliens for a time and stay in the US even after their tourist visas expired, until they could get expensive lawyers to win for them a court decision allowing them citizenship.

Unless, Llamanzares provides us with all the details and documents of how she became a US citizen — such as how and when she entered the US — we can’t be sure that some CIA operative (or even an investigative reporter) would unearth that she was using fake documents for a time or worked without a work permit until she became a citizen.

Do we want to risk a scenario in which the US blackmails the Philippine President to force her to comply with all its interests, even provide any information it requires? Do we risk a scenario where the nation is humiliated, with an American investigative journalist writing a banner article headlined: “Philippine President once an illegal alien in the US?”

What kind of a country have we become when a senator carrying the name of one of our great nationalists, Claro M. Recto, trivializes the citizenship of our Republic?

I am referring to Ralph Recto, who took the effort to issue a press statement he thought was cute: “If they pursue that line of inquisition against Grace, she might end up being adopted by the whole nation. Baka ampunin pa siya ng bayan.”

It’s not a line of inquisition, but a serious, valid concern that the masses, which the elite have deprived of access to accurate information, elect a US citizen. Recto’s is inane thinking. Llamanzares had been adopted by rich and famous Filipinos, Fernando Poe Jr. and Susan Roces. But she chose to be adopted by the US. Now Recto thinks Filipinos would not only adopt her, but make her their leader?

tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com
FB: Bobi Tiglao

source:  Manila Times