Treaty of Manapat

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Treaty of Manapat
Sunday, 02 22, 2004

I am not being original here. Somebody coined it during the oral arguments on the Poe disqualification case before the Supreme Court, out of exasperation over the funny and rambling presentation of a petitioner, who was then trying to link the manapatized marriage contract between FPJ’s father to a character straight out of El Filibusterismo, indicating his nationality as Spanish, to the status of FPJ’s grandfather who was considered a Filipino under the treaty of Paris.

Yes, as certain as the $20 million consideration for the Treaty of Paris, there is a Treaty of Manapat. The turmoil outside the Supreme Court session hall last Thursday, exacerbated by the overacting crowd dispersal units of the police, finds its genesis in the ill-conceived plan to disqualify FPJ via this treaty, which is now causing division to our nation.

It was conceived in the late November 2003 under circumstances that everybody now knows. The conspiratorial signatories to the treaty have been identified, covering the jurisdiction from Perea to Arlegui via Azcarraga, with affiliates in Padre Faura, Philcoa and V. Luna. What we do not know is for how much, but the prize certainly is the presidency of six years, a prize valued at very much more than the consideration for the Treaty of Paris. The Treaty of Manapat led to the filing of the petition for disqualification with the Comelec based on fabricated documents eventually landing before the court.

The court tackled the Treaty of Manapat over 12 hours of oral arguments, all of them exposing the flimsy and lilliputian arguments of Fornier, et al.. From all indications, the Treaty of Manapat may not be ratified at all. From the drift of the questions propounded, the answers given, and the unanimous stand taken by the four amici curiae, one can most predict the impending verdict: That FPJ is a natural-born Filipino.

I refuse to believe the text messages regarding the alleged impending 8-4-2 ruling of the court unfavorable to FPJ. They are the work of the devils out to sow intrigue. I still believe, as I always have – in the wisdom of our honorable justices to side with the law. Right off, the 8-4-2 being bandied about is already wrong. Two members of the court who figured prominently in the text circuit as inhibiting from the case, were in fact present and asked questions during the oral arguments, which only means they will vote.

Justice Tinga hit it right on the head, when he asked petitioner Fornier how a bigamy charge could possibly be leveled against FPJ’s father one year before his marriage to Bessie Kelley in 1940. Obviously, the Treaty of Manapat overlooked this crucial detail in the fabrication process. Fornier cannot explain. But, of course, to Remmel, Emman and Vicelyn, who were present, the bigamy charge was made only in December 2003!

The Treaty of Manapat imputes to FPJ the manapatized sin of his parents, that of begetting him before they married. Justice Puno made this query: Why penalize an illegitimate child for his “involuntary coming into this world?” Why, indeed, should anyone prevent FPJ from exercising his political rights, like running for public office? After all, he had no participation in the alleged illicit relationship of his parents, if there ever was one. There should be no discrimination against illegitimate children, for this violates the equal protection of the laws clause, as asserted by Justice Puno, citing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which the Philippines is a signatory.

Amicus curiae Ruben Balane, our idol in law school many years ago, whose brain matter continues to marvel everyone, who has gained weight but elegant still, extracted these from the New Civil Code which took effect in 1950, 11 years after FPJ was born and a year before FPJ’s father died: That Article 2253 recognizes the retroactivity to the date of birth of FPJ in 1939 of all the benefits of legitimation, and that under Article 2260 voluntary recognition of a natural child shall take place according to the code even if the child was born before 1950. So much for the senator’s claim that the benefits of legitimation retroact only to the date of marriage of FPJ’s parents in 1940. The conspirators in the Treaty of Manapat, including the senator, obviously goofed here.

Nobody could have put it better than retired Justice Mendoza, who lectured on the distinction between the civil status of a child and his political status (citizenship). He said, so long as the child’s filiation is clearly established then his political status can easily be determined, regardless of his legitimate or legitimate status. How his performance brought back memories in law school of his dissection of Marbury vs Madison, that classic in judicial review that only VV can handle with precision.

Dean Magallona, every law student’s mentor on the practice of following the letter of the law, however much it will make you poorer on your pockets, put it most succinctly: All that is needed is faithful observance of the mechanism on the transmissibility of citizenship, arising as it does from the blood relationship of the father to his son, regardless of legitimacy or illegitimacy. The transmissive essence of citizenship is such that if the father were a Filipino, then so must his son be. FPJ’s father was a Filipino; ergo, FPJ himself must be a Filipino. Amen.

Father Bernas, the authority had no kind words for the Office of the Solicitor General. He deplored the obviously “large-scale intellectual bankruptcy” that attended the position taken by the OSG, in using the obiter (which are not decisions) in the case law they cited to support the Treaty of Manapat. Worse, there is an absolute lack of “textual foundation” to the OSG position. Indeed, why cite cases which do not even involve the resolution of the citizenship of a child born of a Filipino father and an alien mother? Like the rest of the amici curiae, Bernas said there is no compelling reason to make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate when it comes to the political status of a child.

The Supreme Court will decide for the country: it will junk the Treaty of Manapat. The overwhelming weight of the arguments for FPJ simply cannot be disregarded. FPJ and his committed 18 million supporters, who are the objects of sly operators out to destroy their equanimity and provoke them to violence, can rest easy. They can now go back to the hustings. And wait for victory, peacefully.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2004