More lawyers score SC for letting Poe run

Senator Grace Poe. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO / RICHARD A. REYES

THE PHILIPPINE Bar Association (PBA), a voluntary organization of lawyers, on Monday expressed “grave concern” over the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing Sen. Grace Poe to run for president, saying the high tribunal should have dealt with all the legal issues raised in the case with finality.

“It is essential for rulings of the highest court of the land to be handed down with a long view—one that sees beyond the resolution of the dispute at bar but also the consequences of the ruling on our system of laws,” the PBA said in a statement.

The Makati City-based lawyers group said the high tribunal’s ruling “portends a looming constitutional crisis with the possibility of a person elected by our people, on mere presumption of eligibility, potentially being ousted from office by a majority vote of the Supreme Court, the resulting mandate is weakened from inception, the balance of power among the great branches of government is upset and the contentious issue of succession comes to fore.”

On March 8, the Supreme Court voted 9-6 to allow Poe to run for president and reversed the Commission on Elections decision canceling her certificate of candidacy (COC) for allegedly lying about her citizenship and residency eligibilities.

The ruling became controversial after Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno said seven out of 12 justices opined that Poe was a natural-born Filipino. She excluded three other justices whom she said did not take part in the voting.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, however, said that the high court had no decision on the issue of citizenship because seven was one less than the required majority for the 15-member court to make a ruling.

Justice count

Carpio, along with the other dissenting justices, said the three justices referred to by Sereno did take part in the deliberations and should have been included in the count even if they voted only to reverse the COC cancellation due to the Comelec’s grave abuse of discretion and had no opinion with regard to the citizenship issue.

Several of the majority justices also opined that only after Poe wins should the issues of citizenship and residency be tackled by the Supreme Court sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.

The PBA pointed out that a judicial ruling was supposed to resolve issues in a legal controversy with finality. When handed down by the Supreme Court, the ruling “assumes greater significance as it establishes legal precedent and forms part of our jurisprudence.”

“For this reason, it is essential for rulings of the highest court of the land to be handed down with a long view – one that sees beyond the resolution of the dispute at bar but also the consequences of the ruling on our system of laws,” the association said.

“When a divided Supreme Court fails to resolve legal issues with clarity and certainty such that more questions are raised than answered, the rule of law is not served well. When the ruling fosters confusion on long established legal principles in matters of constitutional law, citizenship, rules of evidence, burden of proof, the value of declarations made under oath, among other facets of law, the stability of our legal system is put to task,” it said.

The high court will be tackling in its summer session in Baguio City the two motions for reconsideration on the case filed by the Comelec and the four private petitioners who had sought Poe’s disqualification.

Earlier, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines board of governors issued a statement saying that legal questions on the Poe’s citizenship and residency eligibilities remained.