Nagging questions about Sen. Grace Poe’s eligibility

I agree with Ateneo’s Dean Tony la Viña, a legal luminary, that the disqualification case filed with the Senate Electoral Tribunal by losing senatorial candidate Rizalito David against Sen. Grace Poe should be thrown out. Not being a legal expert, I can only react with disapproval over the purported ground for disqualification: her being a foundling, with no information on the citizenship of her biological parents.
Nonetheless, I still have serious doubts about the eligibility of Poe to run for national office – and that includes her candidacy for senator – owing to the circumstances surrounding her claimed “reacquisition” of Philippine citizenship, ostensibly based on RA 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003.
In this regard, a very prominent FilAm community leader – a lawyer who wrote a book on getting a green card, lobbied actively for the passage of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act and RA 9225 and was a spearhead of US Pinoys for Noynoy-Mar (now US Pinoys for Good Governance) – sent me the I following email concerning Poe’s case:
“You are right. As a matter of law, she did not perform what all of us dual citizens did to reacquire our Filipino citizenship – go to the ConGen or at the Philippine immigration Office, swear allegiance to the Filipino Flag pay the fée of $50 And get a certificate of being Filipino once more.
“It seems Grace Poe did not do that. She just renounced by her action of not using her American passport. Why is nobody but you asking those questions?”
Hopefully, someone will question Poe’s eligibility based on something with a clearer and less emotion-packed basis in law than being a foundling. By that means, she will be constrained to prove her legitimate reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and her Philippine residency, in compliance with the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the following nagging questions remain unanswered:
1. Did Poe ever formally become a dual citizen by reacquiring Philippine citizenship while still a US citizen? (She appears to have answered that in the negative but it is best for her to confirm it).
2. Alternatively, upon renunciation of US citizenship, did she formally reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines and complying with the requirements for reacquisition, as mandated by the Bureau of Immigration and stipulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs?
3. When did her renunciation of US citizenship become effective?
4. Does her claim to have reestablished her domicile in the Philippines even while she was still a US citizen comply with the specific provisions of the Constitution that state:
“ARTICLE VI. THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT . Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.
“ARTICLE VII. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT . Section 2.  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.  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. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President.”
Poe asserts (based, presumably, on an opinion given in a recent newspaper column by former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban) that the period of her Philippine residency, even while still a US citizen, is in compliance with the provision of the Constitution on the residency of candidates for senator, vice-president or president.
With due respect to the former Chief Justice, he may not necessarily be correct. The provision clearly stipulates and enumerates, in simple English, what, in effect, is a “package” of qualifications. To assert that each qualification can be taken separately and not in the total context surely deserves a challenge before the Supreme Court.
The residency question is rendered even more confusing with the varying versions of when Poe’s renunciation took effect. She says she made her renunciation on October 20, 2010 before a Philippine public official. By US law, that was not valid and Poe remained an American citizen. In fact, US records indicate that she ceased becoming an American only in 2012.
In various media interviews, Poe has stated that (a) she never lost her Philippine citizenship based on the provisions of RA 9225; (b) all she had to do was renounce her US citizenship and by that means, she “automatically” reacquired her Philippine citizenship; and (c) she did not have to do anything else such as, presumably, taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines and complying with the requirements of the Bureau of Immigration, which are also stipulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
A news report following the attempt of David to file a disqualification case against Poe, quoted her rationale: “’The deliberation in Congress clearly proves that it was the intention of the law,’ the senator said, stressing that her status before she became a naturalized US citizen was a natural born Filipino, thus, when she repatriated, she is not deemed to have lost her Filipino citizenship.”
In an interview with GMA News, Poe stated: “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.)
Again, on May 18, 2015, in a news report, Poe “e xplained that to be able to regain her Filipino citizenship, all she had to do was to renounce her US citizenship as required by Republic Act 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003.”
In all of these public statements, Poe made no mention of ever taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines to formalize her reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. For perspective, following are the pertinent provisions of RA 9225:
“Section 2. Declaration of Policy   - It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
“Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship   - Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic…” (The text of the Oath follows).
Section 2 clearly establishes that automatic retention of Philippine citizenship occurred upon effectivity of RA 9225 – not before. And nowhere in the text of RA 9225 does it say that a renunciation of foreign citizenship “automatically” restores Philippine citizenship. The law, in fact, clearly mandates taking the Oath of Allegiance to effect reacquisition.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will resolve this matter, if and when a case is filed against Poe on these issues, assuming, of course that she decides to run for president or vice-president. Even before that, David could probably amend his complaint against Poe to include the validity of her “reacquisition” of Philippine citizenship.
Meanwhile, Sen. Grace Poe must consider it a matter of duty and honor to confront this challenge in the spirit of honesty and integrity, which she claims to be her guiding principles. ([email protected])