ORIGINAL

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT MANILA En Banc Kilosbayan Foundation & Bantay Katarungan Foundation, Petitioner, - versus Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita & Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory S. Ong, Respondents. X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

G.R. No. 177721

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,

Petitioner-in-Intervention. X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION With Urgent Prayers For ORAL ARGUMENT & Early Resolution

COMES NOW, the Intervenor, Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., respectfully begs leave to intervene as petitioner-in-intervention in this case. In support of this motion / petition, Intervenor FLORO, JR., states, that:
1. He is a Filipino Citizen, a taxpayer, and a registered voter of 123 Dahlia,

Alido, Malolos, Bulacan, his home and postal address, where he may be served with court processes, orders and judgments. 2. As a citizen, taxpayer and registered voter, Intervenor FLORO, JR. has LOCUS STANDI or legal standing to intervene, is an interested / real party-in-interest and has direct, special and extra-ordinary interest in the subject matters of this petition, and in the outcome of this case (Sec. 2, Rule 3, Sec. 2, Rule 2, and Secs. 1 & 3, Rule 19, Rules of Court): Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain

direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.[IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000)]. Petitioners Kilosbayan Foundation & Bantay Katarungan Foundation and Intervenor FLORO, JR. have standing since this Court had, in the past, accorded standing to taxpayers, voters, and concerned citizens, in cases involving paramount public interest and transcendental importance, and that procedural matters are subordinate to the need to determine whether or not the other branches of the government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws, and that they have not abused the discretion given to them (and the well-entrenched rule exception that, when the real party in interest is unable to vindicate his rights by seeking the same remedies, as in the case of the respondent Justice Gregory S. Ong, who, for ethical reasons, cannot himself invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, the courts will grant petitioners / intervenor standing). Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because in some cases suits are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or by official action taken, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest. Hence the question in standing is whether such parties have alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.

As citizens, the interests of the petitioners & intervenor, in assailing the legality and constitutionality on the one hand, and in asking the Court to confirm and rule with finality in favor of the validity of the nomination and appointment of respondent Justice Ong, respectively, are direct and personal. Intervenor showed not only that the government / presidential appointment or act is valid, but also he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some
2

direct injury as a result of its non-enforcement. In fine, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he is a citizen and taxpayer satisfies the requirement of personal interest [SCRA 744 (1998), Chavez v. PCGG]. As taxpayer, intervenor JUDGE FLORO, JR. is allowed to sue where and since he alleges - that there is a claim and accusation that public funds are illegally disbursed, that public money is being deflected to an improper purpose, and that there is a wastage of public funds through the nonenforcement of a valid act and appointment for Justice Ong unlawfully continues with his Office in the Sandiganbayan, thereby receiving moneys and salaries thereat, in violation of the law. Invoking the power of judicial review, intervenor specifically proved that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money for Justice Ong in the Sandiganbayan, raised by taxation and that he would sustain a direct injury as a result of the non-enforcement of the questioned act or appointment [Del Mar v. PAGCOR 346 SCRA 485, 501 (2000)]. At all events, courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer's suit should be entertained. Intervenor therefore begs this Court to grant standing to the petitioners and intervenor, given his allegation that any impending and continuous assumption to office of Justice Ong in the Sandiganbayan will necessarily involve the expenditure of public funds. [G.R. No. 160261. 11-10, 2003, E. B. FRANCISCO, JR., petitioner, NAGMAMALASAKIT, INC.]. TRANSCENDENTAL VALUE OF THE PETITION / INTERVENTION The matter is a delicate one, quite obviously, and must thus be dealt with utmost circumspection, to avoid any question regarding the constitutionality, legality and validity of an appointment to the prestigious vacant CALLEJO post by the President. The motion, petition and intervention at bar seek a) the DISMISSAL of petitioners baseless suit, and the final declaration of constitutional validity of respondent Justice Ongs appointment, b) the QUALIFICATION of respondent Justice Ong, and c) a
3

permanent INJUNCTION against Justice ONG from continuing to sit as Sandiganbayan Justice, involving a constitutional issue, but its political tone is no less dominant. The issues posed by the petition and this intervention transcend the person of Justice ONG. These issues affect some of our most deeply held values in democracy --- the protection of political, civil and judicial rights, the disapprobation of political interference and political loyalty or political payment of debt in our temples of justice, and elimination of all invidious discriminations in the JBC and Presidential nomination / appointment processes, respectively. The petition and intervention at bar concern all these democratic values. It is the people on the line. It is we.

AT STAKE IS NOT ONLY THE RULE OF LAW. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WATCHES OVER THE PHILIPPINE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS ACTUATIONS ON THE PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICE ONG WHICH WAS EXTENSIVELY PUBLISHED IN THE FRONT PAGES OF ALL NEWSPAPERS AND BECAME HEADLINES IN ALL TELEVISION / RADIO NETWORKS.
The provision of the Constitution material to the inquiry at bars reads as follows: xxx. Art VIII, Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers xxx and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, xxx. With respect to the instant motion for intervention, Rule 19, Section 2 of the Rules of Court requires an intervenor to possess a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. While intervention is not a matter of right, it may be permitted by the

courts when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing intervention. [Gibson vs. Revilla, 92 SCRA 219]. RULE 19 INTERVENTION Revised Rules of Court
Section 1. Who may intervene. A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. Sec. 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. The intervenor shall file a complaint-in-intervention if he asserts a claim against either or all of the original parties, or an answer-inintervention if he unites with the defending party in resisting a claim against the latter.

Their tax money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional provisions, statutes, laws, by virtue of the valid appointment, or that there is and will continuously be a misapplication of such funds, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. Intervenor seeks to restrain respondents from wasting public funds through the nonenforcement of a valid, legal and constitutional appointment. [Dumlao v.
COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)].
3. Intervenor FLORO, JR. tenders payment of all docket / legal fees (if

required), upon admission of this motion / Petition.

4.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION: As a citizen, taxpayer and registered voter, intervenor has a constitutional right to information on all matters of public concern, not the least of which are the qualifications and disqualifications of any person seeking public office, like private respondent Justice ONG. (Art. III, Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution), and the illegality of his continuous sitting as Justice of the Sandiganbayan. The motion and petition / intervention directly raise in issue the infirmity and nullity of petitioners baseless suit vis--vis the constitutionality and
5

legality of Justice Ongs nomination and appointment by the JBC / President, respectively. EARLY RESOLUTION DEMANDED BY PUBLIC GOOD

5. Until this petition is finally resolved, the citizens remain in the dark about his true, palpable, absolute and legal qualification and the validity / constitutionality of the appointment. It is a state policy to promote equal access to opportunities for public service (Art. II, Sec. 26, 1987 Constitution). The expedient resolution of the doubts about the qualifications of respondent for public office and the legality of his nomination and appointment promotes this policy.

PARTIES Intervenor Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. is a Filipino Citizen, a taxpayer, and a registered voter of 123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, Bulacan, his home and postal address, where he may be served with court processes, orders and judgments. Petitioners Kilosbayan Foundation & Bantay Katarungan are the rough equivalents of "people action" / sentinels of justice, are non-profit, nonpartisan, independent, ethics-oriented people's organizations and foundations to enable persons from various religious backgrounds to "pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means."; they are governed by Board of Trustees composed of persons of known integrity and commitment, as alleged by these foundations in their charter or articles;

they may sue and be sued, with the following addresses and counsels, where they may be served with court orders and processes --Atty. Jovito R. Salonga, Counsel (and President of) Petitioner, Kilosbayan Foundation, Kilosbayan House, 7 First Street, Acacia Lane, Mandaluyong City, Tel. Nos. 534-5868 and 534-5889, and Atty. Emilio C. Capulong, 6

Counsel for Petitioner, Bantay Katarungan Foundation, Kilosbayan House, 7 First Street, Acacia Lane, Mandaluyong City, Tel. Nos. 534-5868 and 534-5889,

Public respondent Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, is the alter ego of the President, an indispensable and necessary party in this case, and his office and postal addresses, where he may be served with court processes, orders and judgments is at -Malacanang Palace, Manila, M.M. Private respondent Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory S. Ong, is a natural born Filipino Citizen - the former Sandiganbayan Justice, SANDIGANBAYAN, Centennial Building, Commonwealth Ave., Batasan Road, Quezon City, M. M., his office address, where he may be served with court processes, orders and judgments. GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION With Argument and Authorities --- The ISSUES, and DISCUSSION [With Brief Statement of Facts and Relevant Antecedents] The proceedings / appointment of public respondent and private respondent Justice Ong, respectively, are absolutely legal, constitutional, and within the bounds of law / their jurisdictions, without any grave abuse of discretion; intervenor is thereby aggrieved by the baseless suit of petitioners and the continuous / unlawful continuance in office at the Sandiganbayan by respondent Justice Ong; based on the facts / law alleged hereunder, intervenor prays to this Court that judgment be rendered dismissing for utter lack of merit the instant suit by petitioners, and to declare Justice Ong as the 15th Supreme Court Associate Justice who was validly and constitutionally appointed as successor of Justice Callejo, Sr., otherwise / thereby granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. I. Respondent Justice Ong is a natural born Filipino Citizen.

To begin with, Justice Ongs claim to natural-born citizenship is not without foundation. Hereunder, is a brief narration of his AMONG EDGRACE PADACA-like SAGA: David vs. Goliaths --THE CRITICAL / UNDISPUTED FACTS From the authentic documents (based on the submitted pleadings attached to the ROLLO, plus dozens of news reports, supported by authorities), from Philippine jurisprudence, and Treaties / CRC, inter alia, Ongs Filipino citizenship can be traced way back to his greatgrandmother, Maria Santos of Bulacan, where intervenor was born / lives. Maria Santos was a Filipina through and through. In 1904, she bore a son by a Chinese national, Chan Kin. The child came to be known as Juan Santos, taking the family name of the mother. Since Chan Kin was Chinese, Juan was not born a Filipino (unless the parents were not married). But in 1906, when Juan was 2 years old, the father died. By Philippine jurisprudence (Talaroc vs Uy) Maria Santos regained her Filipino citizenship (on the assumption that she had married Chan Kin and thereby lost her Filipino citizenship by marrying an alien). Her minor son, Juan, followed her citizenship. But Juan did not seem to have known that he had become a Filipino citizen and was therefore registered as an alien. Uy teaches, that: Laureta A. Talaroc vs. Alejandro D. Uy, 92 Phil. 52 Sept. 26, 1952), G.R. No. L- 5397 xxx Talaroc v. Uy decision which in the language of the lower court held "that Alejandro D. Uy became a Filipino citizen at least upon his father's death." Here the mother reacquired Filipino citizenship upon the death of her husband. The reliance on Talaroc v. Uy by the lower court is more than justified. In this case, the election of respondent Uy to the office of municipal mayor of Manticao, Misamis Oriental, was challenged in a quo warranto

petition on the ground of lack of eligibility, he being a Chinese national. The lower court found the petition well-founded but the Supreme Court reversed. Justice Tuason, speaking for the Court, first noted that the facts were undisputed. Respondent Uy was the son of a Chinese national, Uy Piangco, and a Filipino mother. He was born in Iligan, Province of Lanao, in 1912. He had never been to China; had voted in previous elections and had held such offices as inspector of the Bureau of Plant Industry, a public school teacher, a filing clerk, and acting municipal treasurer. Moreover, as noted by Justice Tuason in his opinion: "These facts also appear uncontroverted in evidence: One of the respondent's brothers, Pedro D. Uy, before the war and up to this time has been occupying the position of income tax examiner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. His other brother, Jose D. Uy, is a practicing certified public accountant, and before the war was the accountant of the National Abaca and Fiber Corporation (NAFCO). His other brother, Dr. Victorio D. Uy, is a practising physician, and, before the war, was charity physician in Initao and later a physician in the provincial hospital. During the war, Dr. Uy was a captain in the Philippine Army. His younger brother was a lieutenant in the 120th Infantry Regiment of the guerrillas." It would appear, therefore, that the lower court was more than justified in holding that the mother, Consolatrix Kho Sy, who was born in 1921, thereafter employed as a public school teacher before and after World War II, with her claim for backpay duly approved, was a registered voter and whose brothers and sisters are recognized as Filipino citizens, is entitled to the same ruling. Hence upon the death of her husband, her right to repatriation cannot be doubted. This portion of the opinion of Justice Tuason is likewise relevant: "Certainly, it would neither be fair nor good policy to hold the respondent an alien after he had exercised the privileges of citizenship and the Government had confirmed his Philippine citizenship on the faith of legal principles that had the force of law. On several occasions the Secretary of
9

Justice had declared as Filipino citizens persons similarly circumstanced as the herein respondent." Similarly, again as held in Talaroc v. Uy, Edgardo Sy Tiongsa, her son, who was a minor having born in 1952 and the father having died in 1957, is entitled to Philippine citizenship. [Republic vs. Tandayag - G.R. No. L-32999 October 15, 1982]. Juan later married Sy Siok Hian. The couple bore several children, one of whom was Dy Giok Santos, born 1933, the mother of Gregory Ong. But on the belief that he was Chinese, Juan mistakenly registered his children as Chinese. In 1958, however, Juan filed a petition for cancellation of his and his childrens registration as aliens. The petition was granted in the same year. However, the petition of Juan did not include the eldest daughter, Dy Giok Santos, Gregorys mother, because she was then already married to Eugenio Onghanseng, a Chinese national. However, being a legitimate daughter of a Filipino, Dy Giok Santos, like her sisters, was a Filipino when she married Eugenio in 1950 even if she was then still incorrectly registered as Chinese. But by her marriage to Eugenio she lost her Philippine citizenship. Thus Gregory Ong was born in 1953 to an alien father and to a woman who had lost her Philippine citizenship by marriage. Under such circumstance can he nevertheless be a natural-born Filipino now? In all fairness and under our Constitution, without going into the other qualifications of Gregory Ong, he is deemed a natural-born Filipino citizen. REASONS, LAW and PROOF --The 1935 Constitution under which Gregory was born provides that Filipino citizens include those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. Does this provision mean that the child must be born while the mother is still Filipino, or is it enough that the mother was Filipino at the time of marriage? If we read this provision as meaning that the child must be born at the time when the mother is still Filipino, the constitutional provision would have no meaning because under our citizenship law, then in effect, a woman lost her
10

Filipino citizenship upon marriage to an alien if she thereby acquired the citizenship of her husband. For the provision to have a meaning, it must be read as referring to children born of mothers who were Filipinos at the time of marriage. This, in fact, is the meaning followed in Co vs House Electoral Tribunal. Thus, Gregory Ong had the right to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority because his mother was Filipino at the time of marriage. Did Gregory avail of the right to elect Filipino citizenship? Gregory did not elect and could not have elected Philippine citizenship when he reached majority because by then he was already a Filipino citizen. How so? In 1964, when Gregory was 11 years old, his father was naturalized and, as a minor, he automatically followed the citizenship of his father. The situation thus placed him on all fours with the case of Co vs House Electoral Tribunal which said: To expect the respondent to have formally or in writing elected citizenship when he came of age is to ask for the unnatural and unnecessary. The reason is obvious. He was already a citizen. Or, as the House Electoral Tribunal said in Co vs House Electoral Tribunal, since the Revised Naturalization Act made him a Filipino citizen when his father was naturalized, it was the law itself that had already elected Philippine citizenship for protestee by declaring him as such. Thus, not only was Gregory a citizen by virtue of the a) naturalization of his father but also by b) the perfection, upon reaching the age of majority, of the inchoate citizenship he had received from his mother through the provision of the 1935 Constitution. But did that thereby make him a natural-born citizen of the Philippines? The answer to this last question is found in the 1987 Constitution which says: Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with [the 1935 Constitutional provision] shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
11

The purpose of this provision, as shown in the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, was to equalize the situation of all those descended from a Filipino mother. What is important is that the child descended from a Filipino mother. For sure, can we go back and examine the citizenship of the forebears of Gregory all the way to Maria Santos? Again I quote Co vs House Electoral Tribunal: The Court cannot go into the collateral procedure of stripping [forebears] of citizenship after [their] death and at this very late date just so we can go after the [descendant]. Source: SOUNDING BOARD - Gregory Ong - By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. Inquirer - Last updated 08:38am (Mla time) 05/28/2007
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=68241

It is not only unfair or unjust, but to sustain petitioners thesis, allegations and desperate attempts to DESTROY a magistrate who is KNOWN for his INTEGRITY, would be tantamount to putting of the pedestal or on the SUPREME COURT GOLDEN THRONE the GOD OF HYPOCRISY instead of the ONG of FAURA. Put differently, it pains our judicial MINDS and it pierces our legal hearts to put ONG to shame, to annihilate his DREAM to become a Supreme Court Justice (which is the illusion of many lawyers), just because of petitioners TARDY and wrongful accusations of stigma on ONGs qualification. If DOJ Secretaries GUINGONA and GONZALES or the 2 G Gs had already spoken, if the Narvasa JBC nominated him without any opposition on this issue, and after serving the judiciary as Sandiganbayan Justice, without the petitioners having filed any suit to contest the illegality of his appointment, there is one GREAT reason why - petitioners undying quest to unseat the GOD OF FAURA (duly crowned by LUCK, or otherwise) must FINALLY be thrown into HADE - and I, with these presents declare with FULL AUTHORITY, that

12

GREGORY S. ONG IS TRULY DESTINED BY GOD TO BE THE 15 TH SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ::: This portion of the opinion of Justice Tuason is likewise relevant: "Certainly, it would neither be fair nor good policy to hold the respondent an alien after he had exercised the privileges of citizenship and the Government had confirmed his Philippine citizenship on the faith of legal principles that had the force of law. On several occasions the Secretary of Justice had declared as Filipino citizens persons similarly circumstanced as the herein respondent.
[Republic vs. Tandayag - G.R. No. L-32999 October 15, 1982].

II. To Hold Justice Ong an alien / not a natural born Filipino would violate the letter and the spirit of The Convention on the Rights of the Child. It breathes life / immortally seals ONGS throne versus all legal attacks. It requires that states / Courts act in the best interests of the child. TO DISQUALIFY RESPONDENT JUSTICE ONG BECAUSE OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND ALLEGED MISTAKES OR DECLARATIONS WILL VIOLATE OUR TREATY OBLIGATION. On top of the above-submitted outline of the ONG saga, CRC confers upon the child of Dy Giok Santos rights which were never granted to children prior to the ratification of said document: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, often referred to as "CRC", is an international convention setting out the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of children. It is monitored by the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child which is composed of members from countries around the world. Most member nation states (countries) of the United Nations have ratified it, either partly or completely. The Philippines became
13

the thirty-first State to ratify the CRC in July 1990 by virtue of Senate Resolution 109. The United Nations General Assembly agreed to adopt the Convention into international law on November 20, 1989; it came into force on September 2, 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations. The Convention generally defines a child as any person under the age of 18, unless an earlier age of majority is recognized by a country's law. The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name, NATIONALITY and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping and have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference. [Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child]. The Convention is child-centric and deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child. CRC provides:

Article 2
1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. 2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

Article 3
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

14

2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Article 8
1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

III. To Hold Justice Ong an alien / not a natural born Filipino would violate the letter and the spirit of The Convention on the Rights of the Child. It breathes life / immortally seals ONGS throne versus all legal attacks. It requires that states / Courts act in the best interests of the child. Chief Justice PUNO tersely summarized the importance of the CRC:
The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 20, 1989. The Philippines was the 31st state to ratify the Convention in July 1990 by virtue of Senate Resolution 109. The Convention entered into force on September 2, 1990. A milestone treaty, it abolished all discriminations against children including discriminations on account of birth or other status. Part 1, Article 2 (1) of the Convention explicitly provides: Article 2 1. State Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the childs or his or her parents or legal guardians race colour, sex, language religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. The Convention protects in the most comprehensive way all rights of children: political rights, civil rights, social rights, economic rights and cultural rights. It adopted the principle of interdependence and indivisibility of childrens rights. A violation of one right is considered a violation of the other rights. It also embraced the rule that all actions of a State concerning the child should consider the best interests of the child. Pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution, this Convention on the Rights of the child became valid and effective on us in July 1990 upon concurrence by the Senate. We shall be violating the Convention if we disqualify respondent Poe just because he happened to be an illegitimate child. It is our bounden duty to comply with our treaty obligation pursuant to the principle of pacta sunct servanda. As we held in La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. vs. Fernandez, viz: xxx For a treaty or convention is not a mere moral obligation to be enforced or not at the whims of an incumbent head of a Ministry. It creates a legally binding obligation on the parties founded on the generally accepted principle of international law of pacta sunct servanda which has been adopted as part of the law of our land. (Constitution, Article II, Section 3)

15

Indeed there is no reason to refuse compliance with the Convention for it is in perfect accord with our Constitution and with our laws. Moreover to disqualify respondent Poe due to his illegitimacy is against the trend in civil law towards equalizing the civil rights of an illegitimate child with that of a legitimate child. Called originally as nullius filius or no ones child, an illegitimate child started without any birthright of significance. The passage of time, however, brought about the enlightenment that an illegitimate should not be punished for the illicit liaison of his parents of which he played no part. No less than our Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., then a Commissioner of the Constitutional Commission, proposed the adoption of the following radical provision in the 1987 Constitution, viz: All children regardless of filiations shall enjoy the same social protection. In an exchange with Commissioner Nolledo, he explained its rationale as follows: xxx Mr. Nolledo. Would it be appropriate to say that social protection is earned and should not be imposed by legal mandate? Mr. Davide: Mr. Presiding Officer, it is not, it may not be imposed but we are framing a Constitution to provide for a directive policy or directive principles of state policy, there is no harm in making it as a directive principle or a state policy especially if it would affect the lives of citizens who, I would like to state again, are not responsible for a misfortune in life. Following the undeniable injustice committed to illegitimate children due alone to the accident of their birth, the universal trend of laws today is to abolish all invidious discriminations against their rights. Slowly, they were granted more rights until their civil rights are now equal to the rights of legitimate children. The Philippines has joined the civilized treatment of illegitimate children. Hence, under Article 178 of our New Family Code, a child born out of wedlock of parents without any impediment to marry (like the parents of respondent Poe) can be legitimated. If legitimated, Article 179 of the same Code provides that the child shall enjoy the same civil rights as a legitimate child. In Ilano vs. Court of Appeals, this Court expressed the enlightened policy that illegitimate children were born with a social handicap and the law should help them to surmount the disadvantages facing them through the misdeeds of their parents. The march towards equality of rights between legitimate and illegitimate children is irreversible. We will be medieval in our outlook if we refuse to be in cadence with this world wide movement. [ G.R. No. 161434. March 3, 2004, Separate opinion of C.J. Puno - Maria Jeanette C. Tecson, et. al. Vs. The Commission on Elections, et. al.].

As Intervenor in the cited FPJ DISQUALIFICATION CASE, undersigned was present at the memorable and historic longest oral argument which started at 11:00 am and ended at 2:00 am, next day. I vividly witnessed the --BRAZEN TRUTH that FR. JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J. MISERABLY FAILED TO ANSWER C.J. PUNOS QUERY ON THE CRC. BERNAS FAILED TO DO HIS HOMEWORK. MORE IMPORTANTLY,
JUDGE FLORO SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THE CRC ARGUMENT ON THE MATTER, AND EVEN APPEARED BEFORE PINKY WEB ON ANC, FOR A 20-MINUTE LIVE INTERVIEW ABOUT THE CRC AND POE.

16

If 8-5-1 FPJ WIN used CRC to QUALIFY him, why should JUSTICE ONG be deprived of of his rights under the CRC? This is my challenge to petitioners. Am I citing the wrong case and the wrong Treaty? Is the FPJ case and CRC not applicable to ONG? Oh my GOD! III. To Hold Justice Ong an alien / not a natural born Filipino would violate the letter and the spirit of The Convention on the Rights of the Child. It breathes life / immortally seals ONGS throne versus all legal attacks. It requires that states / Courts act in the best interests of the child. Judge Floro aptly describes this case as a BASTARD SUIT. Who is the phoney? Is Ong a bogus appointee. The answer to this is: BERNAS vs. SALONGA, it is like an X-men game who WINS? Will we, with bated breath as Justice Vitug said witness again another 8-5-1 vote?
Why bastard? Wherefore When my dimensions are well compact, My mind as generous, and my shape as true As honest madams issue? Why brand they us With base? With baseness Bastardy? Base, base? Who, in the lusty stealth of nature take More composition and fierce quality Than doth, within a dull stale, tired bed, Got tween sleep and wake? well then, Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land: Our fathers love is to the bastard Edmund. As to the legitimate: fine word legitimate! Well my legitimate, if this letter speed, And my invention thrive, Edmund the base Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper Now, gods, stand up for bastards! (Edmund, Bastard Son to Gloster, King Lear, Act I, Scene II)

. [ G.R. No. 161434. March 3, 2004, Separate opinion of C.J. Puno - Maria Jeanette C. Tecson, et. al. Vs. The Commission on Elections, et. al.].

THE CRITICAL FACTS FROM NEWS REPORTS: May 16, 2007 --1. A former judge of Pasig, Justice Ong was appointed to the
17

Sandiganbayan by former President Joseph Estrada sometime between1998 and 1999. Im surprised that he was appointed," Estrada said when reached for comment. There are justices more senior than him." Asked if Ong is close to his son, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, he said that it must have been a recent friendship. A lawyer helping the prosecution panel in the former presidents trial said that Ong is a friend of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada. Why would they name him to the Supreme Court if they want Erap convicted," the lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Newsbreak. The Sandiganbayan is expected to hand down its verdict on the Estrada case within the next three months. Ong is said to be closely associated with businessman Lucio Tan and lawyer Estelito Mendoza. Asked if it was Tan who had recommended Ong to the Sandiganbayan post, Estrada said noI appointed him because hes a career official." 2. Ong did not get the top votes in the selection process, and lawyers we interviewed were surprised at his appointment. Newsbreak learned from a source privy to the selection process that Ong didn't get a single vote in the Supreme Court, not even from two Bedan justices, one of whom was his professor." Newsbreak [http://www.gmanews.tv/story/42668/Newsbreak-Erap-Appointee-is-New-SC-Justice; Erap
appointee is new Supreme Court Justice 05/16/2007 | 12:51 PM]

May 17, 2007 --3. The appointment of Ong was not cancelled, it was never withdrawn. In fact Ong was given a chance to air his side: By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez INQUIRER.net - Last updated 03:29pm (Mla time) 05/17/2007 MANILA, Philippines -- The appointment of Gregory Ong as the new Supreme Court justice has been held in abeyance following questions on his citizenship, Malacaang said Thursday. Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said Ong would be required to give proof of his citizenship, following reports that he is a Chinese citizen. Bunye also said the Judicial and Bar Council, which had recommended Ong's appointment, had been asked to explain its nomination. "The question will have to be cleared first, but we believe that the decision was based on the recommendation of the JBC and I believe JBC owes to itself to clarify the qualifications of the nominees submitted to the President [Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo]," he told reporters. 4. Petitioner Jovito Salonga at the earliest opportunity signaled to the
18

media his intention to file a case against Ong: Here is the summary report on same day May 17, 2007 by GMA News TV: If Ong fails to produce proof of his being a natural-born Filipino, he will be forced to leave the anti-graft court as well. Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye himself announced today that the Palace has withheld Ong's appointment to the high court and has asked him to show proof of his citizenship. A separate source from the JBC secretariat said that Ong indicated in his application for Supreme Court justice that he is a natural-born citizen. This is Ong's second time to apply with the Supreme Court. "We assume that what the candidates indicate is true and correct. As for the citizenship, it is not for us to determine," a source in the JBC said. Former Senator Jovito Salonga, Newsbreak learned, was considering filing a case to stop Ong from assuming his post at the Supreme Court. Ong is said to be close to President Arroyo's brother, Diosdado "Buboy" Macapagal Jr. The frontrunners for the lone vacancy in the Supreme Court were Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Teresita de Castro and Court of Appeals Associate Justice Martin Villarama Jr. who each garnered seven votes from the eight-person JBC. CA Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes ranked second with six votes while Ong, along with four other candidates, came in third with five votes. A source in the judiciary privy to the selection process told Newsbreak that Ong did not get any vote from the Supreme Court, not even from the two justices who are graduates of San Beda College, one of whom was Ong's professor. Ong graduated from San Beda College in 1979. Those who voted for Ong in the JBC were Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, Rep. Simeon Datumanong, Regino Hermosisima Jr., Dean Amado Dimayuga, and Justice Raoul Victorino. In May last year, the Supreme Court directed Ong, chairman of the Sandiganbayan's fourth division, to inhibit himself from participating in the criminal cases against former First Lady Imelda Marcos because of doubts on his impartiality. In an 11-page decision penned by Justice Adolfo Azcuna, the Court said that allegations against Ong "cast doubt on his impartiality to decide these very critical cases." -Newsbreak The anti-graft court judge met with SC Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing and told reporters that he meets that requirement dictated by
19

the Constitution. "I will submit documents to prove that I am a natural-born citizen. My papers are all complete... How can I be a Sandiganbayan justice if I am not natural-born? I have been there for nine years and I became the chair of the first division. That is impossible," Ong told reporters. He added that he was surprised his nationality is being questioned only after his appointment was announced. Meeting with SC justice Ong met Quisumbing in the SC justice's chambers on Thursday late afternoon, hours after some SC justices reportedly conferred with some members of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the body that recommends candidates to the SC, to protest the Sandiganbayan justices appointment. Quisumbing is acting SC head until Chief Justice Reynato Puno returns from Sydney, Australia in the weekend from official leave. JBC members Conrado Castro and Dean Amado Dimayuga, who both did not vote for Ongs inclusion in the short-list, also met with Quisumbing to discuss the current controversy surrounding Ong's appointment. A court source said one SC justice even remarked that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's appointment of Ong was a "big blunder." Palace seeks clarification Malacaang has asked the JBCs help in clearing up the issue involving Ong's citizenship. In a statement, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said the Palace expects Ong to get a "fair opportunity" to present his side. Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez has also ordered the Department of Justice's chief legal counsel Ricardo Paras to check Ong's records to determine if he is a natural-born citizen. The source said that Gonzalez had known early on that the President would pick Ong among the contenders as he was reportedly told to nominate just two contenders for the post, Ong and Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes. Newsbreak reported that Ong is said to be close to Mrs Arroyo's brother, Diosdado "Buboy" Macapagal Jr. 8 candidates in short-list

20

The JBC submitted on May 7 to Mrs Arroyo a short-list of eight candidates for the vacant Supreme Court seat. Apart from Ong, the nominees included Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Teresita de Castro and Court of Appeals Associate Justice Martin Villarama Jr., who each garnered seven votes from the eight-man JBC. Reyes, a five-time JBC nominee for SC post, ranked second with six votes. The other nominees who each got five votes are Ong, who handles cases involving ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family; Court of Tax Appeals Presiding Justice Ernesto Acosta; Labor Secretary Arturo Brion; Court of Appeals Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz; and Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Francisco Villaruz Jr. -GMANews.TV May 18, 2007 Ongs Birth Certificate ---

A copy of Gregory Ongs birth certificate shows that both his father and mother were Chinese, and his nationality was Chinese. He insists, however, that he is a natural-born Filipino. Hereunder is the REPORT by The MANILA TIMES: A copy of Ongs birth certificate obtained by The Times listed Ongs citizenship as Chinese. The document showed that his father Eugenio Ong Han Seng was a Chinese born in Manila while his mother Dy Guiok Santos, was a Chinese born in Amoy, China. Bunye said Malacaang has not withdrawn Ongs appointment but merely held it in abeyance. Ong was chairman of the Sandiganbayans 4th Division and at 54 years old

21

would have been the youngest member of the Supreme Court. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita on Wednesday announced Ongs appointment after getting clearance from Chief Justice Reynato Puno who is in Sydney, Australia. Before he left, Puno was said to have rushed to Malacaang Wednesday night to question the constitutionality of Ongs appointment. Justice Antonio Carpio also reportedly dropped by at the Office of the President and pointed out to Palace officials the citizenship issue against Ong. Reached by The Times, Ong said he could not understand why the Supreme Court justices were questioning his appointment. They just wanted to put my good name down, Ong said. He said he is a natural-born Filipino citizen as attested by a certification from the Bureau of Immigration. There was also a finding made by the Department of Justice that my mother is a Filipino citizen because my grandmother Maria Santos was a Filipina. Therefore, I am a natural-born Filipino, Ong said. He said he became a lawyer, prosecutor, judge and Sandiganbayan justice without anyone questioning his nationality. Ongs birth certificate noted that he was born May 25, 1953, in Blumentritt, San Juan. His Personal Data Sheet lists him a natural-born Filipino. Acting Chief Justice Leonardo Quisimbing then called up Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and expressed his colleagues concern over Ongs appointment. Maria Luisa Villarama, clerk of Court of the SC en banc, wrote to Ermita to say that Ermitas transmittal letter appointing Ong to Chief Justice Reynato Puno had been sent back because of questions over Ongs nationality. Puno was reportedly angry that the Judicial and Bar Council had overlooked the issue. Puno is chairman of the JBC. Ong had applied to the Supreme Court six times before. Under Article VIII, Section 7 (1) of the 1987 Constitution, No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. The Supreme Court voted for its nominees to the council. The SC gave Cruz 13 votes, Villarama got 12, De Castro, 11, Brion, CA Mindanao

22

Executive Justice Teresita Dy Liacco Flores, 10. Not a single SC member voted for Ong. 5. The INQUIRER reported on that :

Ongs SC appointment recalled over citizenship By Juliet Labog-Javellana, Leila Salaverria Inquirer - Last updated 05:11am (Mla time) 05/18/2007 MANILA, Philippines -- Supreme Court justices have threatened to boycott the oath-taking of their newest member, Associate Justice Gregory Santos Ong, and law groups are poised to challenge his appointment before the high court because of questions on his citizenship, two judicial officials told the Philippine Daily Inquirer Thursday. The high court sent Associate Justice Renato Corona to Malacaang Wednesday night after Ermita announced to the media that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had appointed Ong to the high court, a source said. It will not only be Malacaang facing embarrassment but also Ong because he will have to resign from the Sandiganbayan, according to the two sources who declined to be named because they had no authority to speak on the record. They also said all of Ongs decisions during his nine-year stint in the anti-graft court, including his acquittal of officials charged with corruption, could be questioned. The tribunal has returned Ongs appointment papers to Malacaang in compliance with Ermitas request. The effect of this is that his appointment has been suspended, a source said. Burden of proof Reached on the phone Thursday afternoon, Ong said he would submit on Friday proof that Im a natural-born Filipino. He said it would be in the form of a position paper where everything is documented. But when pressed by reporters, Ermita phoned Puno, who was in Sydney, Australia, to get his permission to make the announcement. Damage control The Supreme Court sent Justice Corona to PGMA (the President) to inform her of the problem, said the source, adding: Law groups are ready to file a case regarding the appointment in the high court which will embarrass PGMA. The Supreme Court justices said they
23

will not attend the oath-taking because of the possibility of such a case being filed before them. I suspect the Supreme Court has the birth certificate of Ong. Thats why they have taken such a keen interest in the appointment. The source also said that upon Coronas representation, Ermita retrieved Ongs appointment papers from Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing the same night. In abeyance Powerful backers The source said it appeared that Ong had powerful backers in Malacaang -- reportedly including Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno, a close ally and political strategist of the President, and one of her own relatives. The tribunal insider said it was the fifth time Ongs name came up in the JBC deliberations, and wondered why it was only now that the latters citizenship became an issue. If proven to be a naturalized citizen, Ong will have to step down from the Sandiganbayan. He will have to be removed, but I think he will opt to resign, the insider said. Sandigan decisions The other source said the citizenship issue could put Ongs decisions in the anti-graft court under question. He said Ong had acquitted a Cabinet official of a graft case involving a huge contract with the Department of Interior and Local Government. His mother, Rita Dy Guiok Santos was from Amoy, China, and his father, Eugenio Onghangsen, from Tondo, Manila. Inquiry Justice Secretary Gonzalez said he had ordered an investigation into Ongs citizenship and designated chief legal counsel Ricardo Paras to head the probe. Gonzalez said the JBC members did not look into Ongs citizenship when they chose the nominees because they believed that the issue was passed upon when the latter was appointed to the Sandiganbayan. With a report from Volt Contreras

24

May 19, 2007 ---6. The MANILA TIMES reported:

Narvasa JBC OKed Ong, says Gonzalez By JOMAR CANLAS, Reporter THE old Judicial and Bar Council under Chief Justice Andres Narvasa is to blame for allowing Justice Gregory Ong to sit in the Sandiganbayan in 1998 without thoroughly checking his citizenship, Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez said Friday. The council that recommended Ong to Malacaang was made up of Narvasa, then Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas, then Senator Rene Cayetano, then Congressman Alfredo Abueg, retired Supreme Court Justice Regino Hermosisima, Academic representative Alfredo Marigomen, Integrated Bar of the Philippines representative Amado Dimayuga and Private Sector representative Teresita Cruz-Sison. There is already a presumption on the part of the present JBC that he is qualified, he said. Ong was the first appointee of then-President Joseph Estrada to the Sandiganbayan, being a close friend of his son, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada. Ong and Estrada reportedly parted ways after Ong switched his loyalty to the Arroyo administration. 7. C. J. Artemio Panganiban, opined:

WITH DUE RESPECT Hot seat in the Supreme Court By Artemio V. Panganiban Inquirer - Last updated 06:30am (Mla time) 05/20/2007 MANILA, Philippines -- Malacaangs letter announcing the appointment of Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory S. Ong to the Supreme Court was received last May 16, while the high tribunal was holding a special session. Presided over by Acting Chief Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, in the absence of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno who was on official business in Sydney, the justices were flustered by the presidential choice. Zero vote in the Supreme Court. Their disconcerting reaction was predictable. The Palace should have expected it. None of the high court members voted for Ong when they were asked to express their preferences to fill the seat vacated by Justice Romeo J. Callejo Sr. By waving a zero vote, the justices clearly telegraphed that Ong was not ready for
25

promotion. Instead, they selected Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro, and Justices Martin S. Villarama Jr. and Edgardo P. Cruz, both of the Court of Appeals. However, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) the agency constitutionally mandated to recommend judicial appointeeschose eight nominees; namely, De Castro and Villarama who both merited the unanimous vote of the eight JBC members; Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes who got six votes; and five others who each got five votes, namely: Court of Tax Appeals Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, Labor Secretary Arturo D. Brion, Cruz, Ong and Sandiganbayan Justice Francisco H. Villaruz Jr. In the past, the JBC recommended only five names for every Supreme Court vacancy. But this time, it included eight names. Ignoring rank, age and precedence. In choosing Ong, President Macapagal-Arroyo bypassed the three heads of the three appellate courts: Reyes of the Court of Appeals, De Castro of the Sandiganbayan, and Acosta of the Court of Tax Appeals. These three presiding justices are superior in rank, age and precedence of appointment to their respective courts than the appointee. Reyes, 68, was named a member of the Court of Appeals on Feb. 19, 1994, while De Castro, 58, was appointed to the Sandiganbayan on Sep. 8, 1997, and Acosta, 64, was named a Court of Tax Appeals member on March 22, 1991. On the other hand, Ong, 54, reached the Sandiganbayan on Oct. 5, 1998. To my
recollection, President Arroyo, in obvious deference to the high court, has in the past appointed only from those who had been chosen by the Court and who had topped the JBC balloting. Why the sudden change in presidential standards?

Serious question on citizenship. More damning than the zero vote of Ong and his inferior rank, age and judicial precedence is his alleged lack of qualification to sit in the highest court of the land. Under Sec. 7 (1) of the Constitution, (n)o person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. Further, Sec. 2 of Art. IV defines natural-born citizens as those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. In the sworn Personal Data Sheet he submitted to the JBC, Ong claims to be a natural-born citizen. However, his birth certificate states that he was born on May 25, 1953 of a Chinese father, Eugenio Ong Han Seng, and a Chinese mother, Dy Guiok Santos. On Jan. 13, 1961, his father filed a Petition for Naturalization. In a decision dated Jan. 10, 1962, Judge Andres Reyes of the Court of First Instance of Rizal granted the petition. On May 26, 1964, Eugenio
26

took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino. On July 13, 1966, the Bureau of Immigration recognized Gregory Ong as a citizen of the Philippines, being the legitimate son of Eugenio Ong Han Seng, a naturalized Filipino citizen.

On Oct. 18, 1979, the Supreme Court allowed Ong to take the bar examination, on condition that he shall not take the lawyers oath until he submits a certification from the Office of the Solicitor General that the
court order naturalizing his father has not been appealed. He complied, passed the bar test with a grade of 76.45, and then took his oath as an attorney.

On May 22, 1997, the secretary of justice granted, on reconsideration, Ongs petition to be issued a new Identification Certificate indicating that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen, on the ground that his mother was allegedly a Filipina. Based on all these facts, is Gregory S. Ong qualified to be a member of the highest court of the land? This question will take time to settle. In the meantime, until his entitlement thereto is definitively resolved, I believe that he should not sit as a Supreme Court member, as a matter of delicadeza and to save the hallowed institution he aspires to join from unnecessary controversy. *** Of the five incumbent lady-members of the Court, only Justice Conchita Carpio Morales does not use a hyphen in her married surname. That is why my original manuscript last Sunday intentionally omitted it between the names Carpio and Morales. Unfortunately, our Inquirer proofreader placed one. I make this public correction, because I know the sensitivities in the high court about how the names of the justices are to be spelled and punctuated. * * * Comments are welcome at [email protected] May 22, 2007 --- Philippine Star Online --DOJ: Justice Ong can sit in SC Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - Page: 1 Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory Ong can assume his post as associate justice of the Supreme Court after the government has declared him to be a natural-born Filipino. In his memorandum to President Arroyo dated May 18, 2007, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said documents show that the Bureau of Immigration (BI) had granted Ongs May 31, 1996 petition to have his old identification certificate canceled and to have a new one issued stating that he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the BI on July 13, 1996,
27

issued certificate no. 24468 signed by Vicente Espina, Alien Registration Supervisor, and certified that Ong has been naturalized as a Filipino citizen through judicial process. Based on documents, Ong was born to a Chinese father, Eugenio Ong Han Seng on May 25, 1953. An order issued by the Court of First Instance of Rizal Branch No. VI naturalized Ongs father as a Filipino citizen. The order also naturalized Ong, his mother Dy Guiok Santos, a sister, and his two brothers, being dependents of Eugenio Ong Han Seng. In his request with the Bureau of Immigration to have his identification certificate changed to natural-born, Ong quoted portions from the Supreme Court ruling in Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of
Representatives, 199 SCRA 692, which expounded on the meaning and extent of the application of the term natural-born citizens as defined in Section 2 and applied in Section 1(3), both of Article 4 (Citizenship) of the 1987 Constitution.

With documents attached, he also explained and asserted that his mother was a natural-born citizen both at the time of his mothers marriage and at the time of Ongs birth, said the DOJ. In his petition, Ong said his mother is the daughter of Juan Santos, a Filipino citizen. When the BI order was elevated to the DOJ for affirmation, then Justice Secretary Teofisto Guingona disapproved the order, saying the Co ruling was inapplicable to Ongs case. The DOJ, however, on May 22, 1997, reconsidered Ongs case with the submission of additional supporting documents. The foregoing additional documents, together with the original records, sufficiently establish that herein petitioner Gregory Ong is the legitimate issue of Dy Guiok Santos, a natural-born Filipino citizen, being the legitimate daughter of Juan Santos, also a natural-born Filipino citizen, who derived his citizenship from his mother, Maria Santos, also a Filipino citizen at birth, the DOJ said in its first endorsement dated May 22, 1997. According to the DOJ, the departments first endorsement dated Nov. 27, 1996 was already superseded and Ong was issued identification certificate no. 113878 indicating that he was recognized as a natural-born citizen. With the foregoing considered, we find no reason to doubt Justice Gregory Ongs status as a natural-born Filipino citizen, said Gonzalez in his memorandum. The appointment of Justice Ong was received on May 16. It was received by the Office of the Executive Secretary on May 17. So technically the appointment is with them (Malacaang). Now the JBC is waiting for an endorsement from the Office of the President regarding the appointment of Justice Ong before they can act on the case, said Marquez.

28

Apparently (Executive) Secretary Ermita has issued a statement saying that they will ask the JBC to restudy the papers of Justice Ong. So they are waiting for the papers of Justice Ong to be returned to the JBC. An issue has been raised regarding his citizenship so the JBC will study that particular issue, Marquez added. Marquez said the SC has already been furnished a
copy of Ongs birth certificate, which was filed by Ong with the Office of the Bar Confidant when he took the Bar in 1979. The JBC will meet on June 1 to review Ongs case.

According to Marquez, should the JBC find that Ong is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, his nomination to the SC will be withdrawn with the chance for appointment still open for the other nominees included in the shortlist given by the JBC to Malacaang. We are only talking about the nomination of Justice Ong. The others are not in issue. So technically the others are still nominated, said Marquez. For his part, Gonzalez said his memo to the President is a reiteration of the opinion of then Justice Secretary Teofisto Guingona. My memo to the President was actually a reiteration of the Guingona opinion which says that he (Ong) is natural-born. That is the Guingona opinion, therefore on the basis of that he is qualified but in the course of the discussion today there are things which have been overlooked by many, almost everybody contributed to the discussion. The main point is the repercussions of declaring him natural-born. Well, it will not end once this has started, somebody may go to the SC later. It may affect the whole process, it may affect even all the ponencias of Justice Ong in the Sandiganbyan. We have to look at this very carefully, he said. The Guingona position states that he is natural-born because of his great grandfather who was a Filipino citizen by birth. If that is accurate then he is a Filipino citizen, Gonzalez added. Mike Frialde 8. The MANILA TIMES reported, on

May 22. 2007 --Ong defense shows he is a nat-born Fil By Jomar Canlas, Reporter JUSTICE Gregory Ong on Monday submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) his defense, showing that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen. In a 22-page memorandum submitted by Ong, he narrated the antecedents to show his Filipino roots, particularly on his mother side, proving that he is Filipino. Ong stated that his mother, Dy Guiok Santos was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and was such at the time of her marriage and at the time of birth of the undersigned.
29

He used as a legal basis Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1987 Constitution which states that [T]hose born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect their citizenship upon reaching the age of majority [are citizens of the Philippines]. Ong said that since he was born of a Filipino mother, then he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. Dy Guiok Santos was born of a Filipino father. As a result, pursuant to paragraph 3, Section1, Article IV of the 1935 Constitution, she was born a Filipino. Thus, pursuant to Section 2, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, Dy Guiok was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, Ongs pleading says. Justice Ong pointed out that while it is true that his birth certificate states that his mothers citizenship is Chinese this is wrong and she was in fact a Filipino citizen. Even prior to her marriage to Eugenio [Ong Han Seng] on March 16, 1950, she was already a Filipino citizen on account of the Filipino citizenship of her father, Juan Santos, and under the then general principle that those whose fathers are Filipinos are likewise Filipinos, he asserts. His grandfather Juan Santos was born in Amoy, China to Chan Kin, a Chinese and Maria Santos, a Filipino. Chan Kin died in China in 1906. Although born of a Filipino mother, Juan Santos was initially registered as Chinese and was the holder of ACR No. A-156305 issued on August 11, 1950. He said that it may be concluded that Maria Santos automatically reverted to her original citizenship when her husband died in 1906, and that Juan Santos, being a minor, followed his mothers status. The birth certificate of Ong obtained by The Manila Times states that Justice Ong was born Chinese with his father Eugenio Ong Han Seng being called Chinese born in Manila while her mother Dy Guiok Santos is also called Chinese born in Amoy, China. Justice Ong was born on May 25, 1953, in Blumentritt, San Juan. But contrary to his birth certificate with the entry of Chinese as his nationality, his Personal Data Sheet states that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen. The magistrate said that he has exercised the right of suffrage, entering into a profession open only to Filipinos, and service in public office citizenship is a qualification, among other things, constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship. The beleaguered justice said that he can prove that he is a Filipino citizen since he became a lawyer, prosecutor, judge and justice of the Sandiganbayan without any issue as to his nationality. 9. The INQUIRER on May 22, 2007 reported:

30

Gonzalez warned however of "repercussions" of revoking Ong's appointment if it would be proven that he was not a Filipino citizen, saying this can have an effect on the past decisions he had made when he was in the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court. A member of the JBC, Gonzalez said they planned to meet on June 1 to discuss Ong's case, hoping that by that time, the President would have returned the appointment to them. He said tracing Ong's roots was a "convoluted" process since one has to go back to his great grandfather. 10. GMA NEWS TV reported this on May 22, 2007 ---

Lawyer Marlon Manuel of the Supreme Court Appointments Watch (SCAW), told GMANews.TV on Tuesday that Ongs nomination should have not been a source of headache" had the JBC been more efficient in its judicial appointment process." Manuel said the controversy about Ong's citizenship should have been raised nine years ago when he had vied for the post of Sandiganbayan justice in 1998. "Why are these questions about Justice Ongs citizenship only being raised belatedly? This basic issue is nine years overdue," said Manuel, convenor of the Alternative Law Groups, a member of the SCAW. The JBC has deferred ruling on Ong's citizenship until June 1, pending the return of the magistrate's appointment papers and pertaining documents from Malacanang. He said Ong should not have been appointed Sandiganbayan justice in 1998 if indeed he was not qualified because of this citizenship requirement. We cannot help but doubt if the citizenship issue is the real reason for the recall of Justice Ong's appointment," he said. - GMANews.TV 11. The INQUIRER reported on petitioners SUIT:

Supreme Court asked to stop Ongs appointment By Tetch Torres INQUIRER.net - updated 08:11pm (Mla time) 05/23/2007 MANILA, Philippines -- The Kilosbayan Movement, a group led by former Senate president Jovito Salonga, has asked the Supreme Court to stop the appointment of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory Ong to the high tribunal. In its 15-page petition for certiorari, the group said Ong's appointment to the high tribunal is a violation of the Constitution, which states that a member of the judiciary should be a natural-born Filipino citizen.

31

"Respondent Gregory Ong is a Chinese citizen, said Kilosbayan, adding his own birth certificate indicates Chinese as his citizenship. Malacaang recalled Ongs appointment after the high tribunal pointed out the problem with Ongs citizenship to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The 54-year-old Ong, for his part, defended himself and submitted on Monday a memorandum to the Judicial and Bar Council presenting arguments to support his being a natural-born Filipino. Ong said in his memorandum that since he was born of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, he qualified under the Constitution as a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. With reports from Philippine Daily Inquirer. Gonzalez, an ex-officio member of the JBC, said he had submitted his recommendations to the President on the question of Ongs appointment but he declined to say what they were. He hinted, though, that he was for Ongs appointment because to rule that Ong was not a Filipino citizen would cause repercussions in his decisions as a Sandiganbayan antigraft court justice. You will have to consider also the repercussions of that. What about all the cases that Justice Ong had decided? Supposing you were convicted by Justice Ong, youll certainly demand (a retrial) And how many cases are those? Gonzalez said in an interview at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport where he saw the President off to Japan. Gonzalez said that going by the ruling of former Justice Secretary Teofisto Guingona Jr. in 1987, Ong should be considered a natural-born citizen. He said Guingona had originally declared that Ong was not a Filipino but reversed his ruling when he was presented with documents proving otherwise. There is evidence that seems to indicate he is a natural-born citizen but it is very convoluted because you have to go back to his greatgrandfather who was a Filipino citizen. If the great-grandfather was a Filipino then his mother is a Filipino citizen, Gonzalez said. Despite the assertions of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye that Ongs papers had been returned to the JBC, Gonzalez said this wasnt so. She has not returned it, Gonzalez said. Anyway, he said, the President has 90 days to make the appointment. Gonzalez said a Supreme Court justice had raised the issue of Ongs citizenship. They said a justice of the Supreme Court raised [the issue] because this justice wanted someone else [appointed]. But it opened a hornets nest, Gonzalez said. He confirmed that Ong was not nominated by the Supreme Court justices to the JBC. He said Ongs name came up only when the JBC
32

drew up its short list. 12.The TRIBUNE reported this: May 24, 2007 --Groups ask SC not to allow Ongs appointment By Benjamin B. Pulta and Sherwin C. Olaes 05/24/2007 Two groups have joined the fray in calling on the Supreme Court (SC) to turn down the appointment of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory Ong to the high tribunal. In a 15-page petition, Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan, headed by former Senate President Jovito Salonga and Emilio Capulong Jr. asked the high court to issue a writ of certiorari annulling Ongs appointment issued by Malacaang. Salonga and Capulong stressed Ongs appointment is unconstitutional, arbitrary, whimsical and issued with grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners pointed out the appointment violates Article VIII, Section 7 (1) of the Constitution which states that only natural-born citizens of the Philippines are qualified to be appointed to the SC and other collegiate courts such as the Sandiganbayan, Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals. The group said under Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, natural-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. But the documents submitted by Ong to the Office of the Bar Confidant when he applied to take the Bar exams, indicate that he is the son of Eugenio Ong Han Seng and Rita Dy Guiok Santos, who were both Chinese citizens, they added. Ongs birth certificate issued in San Juan, Rizal, also shows his nationality as Chinese at birth. The petitioners noted based on Article 410 of the Civil Code, the entry in Ongs birth certificate indicating his nationality as Chinese is a prima facie evidence of the fact that Ongs citizenship at birth is Chinese. Besides, they said Ongs birth certificate prevails over the identification certificate issued by the Bureau of Immigration on Oct. 16, 1996, indicating he is a natural-born Filipino. Even if the identification certificate was affirmed by the Department of Justice (DoJ) in a legal opinion issued by then Secretary Teofisto Guingona on May 22, 1997, the petitioners insisted that this cannot validly amend the entry in Ongs certificate.

33

The petitioners noted the entry to Ongs birth certificate can only be corrected by a judicial order. They also argued that the DoJ has no power to amend the entry in ones birth certificate and that its legal opinion is without legal basis. The petitioners explained that Ongs father is a naturalized Filipino by virtue of a Jan. 10, 1962 decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The verified petition for naturalization filed by Ongs father stated that he, his wife and children were duly registered with the Bureau of Immigration as Chinese. In view of the trial courts final judgment, the petitioners said Ong secured the old identification certificate from the BI recognizing him as citizen of the Philippines, being the legitimate son of Eugenio Ong Han Seng, a naturalized Filipino citizen. Clearly, Ong was born a Chinese and became a naturalized Filipino only after his father was finally naturalized in 1964, 11 years after his birth. Thus, despite the DoJ opinion and the new identification certificate, Ong is not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, they said. He added he has no information to confirm reports that Ong was endorsed by Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno. Ong was earlier described as a close friend of opposition Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and was appointed at the Sandiganbayan by deposed President Joseph Estrada in 1998. Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye confirmed the decision to withhold Ongs appointment but refused to identify those who lodged the complaint.

The petitioners stressed that Ongs birth certificate prevails over the identification certificate presented by the Department of Justice because the DOJs opinion is not binding in court. The identification certificate cannot validly amend the entry in Ongs birth certificate pertaining to his nationality because nationality is a substantial entry which can only be changed or corrected by a judicial order, the petitioners said. They also pointed out that there is no law granting the DOJwhether in the case of Secretary Teofisto Guingona or Secretary Raul M. Gonzalezthe power or authority to amend ones nationality in his or her birth certificate. This power is exclusively vested in courts of

34

competent jurisdiction. The petitioners cited Article VIII, Section 7 (1) of the 1987 Constitution limiting appointments to the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court to natural-born citizens. (The MANILA TIMES, May 24, 2007).

The petitioners stressed that Ongs birth certificate prevails over the identification certificate presented by the Department of Justice because the DOJs opinion is not binding in court. The identification certificate cannot validly amend the entry in Ongs birth certificate pertaining to his nationality because nationality is a substantial entry which can only be changed or corrected by a judicial order, the petitioners said. They also pointed out that there is no law granting the DOJwhether in the case of Secretary Teofisto Guingona or Secretary Raul M. Gonzalezthe power or authority to amend
ones nationality in his or her birth certificate. This power is exclusively vested in courts of competent jurisdiction. (May 26, 2007, The MANILA TIMES).

IV. The JBC Nomination and the Presidential Appointment of Justice Ong cannot be constitutionally / legally recalled, returned, withheld, revoked and /or suspended by the Council and the President / public respondent, respectively. Justice became the 15th Supreme Court Associated Justice when a) the appointment was signed and issued, coupled with b)_the his acceptance and submission thereof to the Supreme Court through Acting Chief Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing on May 16, 2007. 13.The JBC and the President / public respondent lost their twin jurisdictions upon the SACRED paper duly signed and issued by both (which twin acts were announced to both print and local /
international media), when Justice Ong accepted the same, and performed all acts required by law to be enthroned Supreme Court Associate Justice.

Upon transmittal of the nomination of Ong, inter alia, to the President, and upon acceptance of the appointment paper of Ong coupled with his official transmittal and personal delivery thereof to the Supreme Court per Acting C. J. Quisumbing, and BEFORE it was withheld or held in abeyance by the President / public respondent, both the JBC and the Office of the President / public respondent were ousted of jurisdiction. Considering that, at that very moment Ong personally had it received officially by the Office of the Acting Chief Justice, the only REMEDY to oust Ong is by
35

IMPEACHMENT, death, incapacity or resignation. More importantly, the President NEVER WITHDREW nor can she legally withdraw her signature affixed on the appointment paper. The 1987 Constitution categorically provides that the Judicial and Bar Council is under the Supervision of the Supreme Court, and it may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it. The Council is not subject anymore (after submission of the list of nominees which included Ong, to Malacanang), to the Presidents control / jurisdiction. This Honorable Supreme Court, not only as the last guardian of democracy, has the constitutional duty to protect --a) a duly appointed Supreme Court Associate Justice and b) the institution of the judiciary, itself lest he and the judicial institution itself suffer AGAIN what Justice NAZARIO did suffer last March, 2004: xxx. The Sandiganbayan presiding justice does not deserve to be treated rudely by Malacanang. That is not the way to treat a lady justice who belongs to a rare breed of judiciary officials who came from the ranks and was promoted to judge and later justice of the Sandiganbayan because of her brilliance and sheer hard work. What Mrs. Arroyo did was not only (a show of) lack of respect to Justice Nazario who is now reeling from the embarrassment caused by the apparent withdrawal of her appointment. Worse, what the President did was a gross disrespect to the judiciary as an institution. [Pp. 1, 6, The Daily TRIBUNE, March 12, 2004].

The case of J. NAZARIO is worst that Ongs: she merely received a FAXED paper which she brought to Mr. Davide, Jr. But the latter humiliated her, since he asked for the original. In this case Justice Ong brought the original duly signed by Mrs. Arroyo and A. C.J. Quisumbing not only received it but welcomed and did not humiliate Ong. What else should Ong do to fully assume Office? NONE, NONE, NONE. Intervenor Judge Floro sued J. NAZARIO and the

36

rest of the NAZARIO story, like AMONG ED / GRACE PADACA SAGAS ended in a SAD FAIRY TALE ending. 3-pages of the NAZARIO TALE are INTERSPERSED NEXT PAGES for EMPHASIS. V. Justice ONG, under the LAW OF PUBLIC OFFICERS was duly nominated and appointed, already qualified, expressly accepted his office / appointment, officially and personally submitted it to the Judicial Department / Court thru A.C.J. L. A. Quisumbing. The taking of oath is not mandatory but merely directory. 14.Unabated, the interesting times marches on, although the ring tone is somewhat repetitive or echoes the grim tale of the BenipayoNazario battle of the bands. No sooner had the dusts of battles settled in the impeachment, cha-cha cases, and the most dirty Mindanao / Lanao del Sur elections, where the High Tribunal and of course the Small Filipino noted the unfurling saga of profound events that dominated the countrys recent past, the cavalcade of occurrences of the last 2 months reached a crescendo with the filing of the SALONGA/CAPULONG baseless suit before this Court of Last Resort. Whether the Chinese customary with of interesting times will turn out for the Filipino lot, whether as a CURSE / IMPRECATION or a blessing, still remains to be seen. But definitely, more than much depends on the Courts disposal of the present controversy. It is the dream of all lawyers to ascend the Supreme Court Golden Throne; for Justice GREGORY S. ONG, the dream no longer exists, it is now a reality; for petitioners and all those who challenged Ongs Divine Destiny to be the 15th GOD of FAURA, they daydream and /or their brazen attack upon his Divinity is a SUPREME ILLUSION.

37

15.Mechem scholarly discussed this matter of law: COMMENCEMENT OF OFFICIAL RELATION

(1) By appointment;

Appointment, defined: appointment is the act of designation by the executive officer, board or body, to whom that power has been delegated,

38

appointing power has once exercised its function. (22 R.C.L., 423). The discretion of the executive is to be exercised until the appointment has been made. But having once made the appointment, his power over the office is terminated in all cases, where by law the officer is not removable by him. The title of the office is then in the person appointed and he has the absolute unconditional power of accepting or rejecting it. (Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 2 L. ed. 61, 69). [Cf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW OF PUBLIC OFFICERS and ELECTION LAW, by RUPERTO MARTIN, 1977, p. 122-132]. The foregoing undisputed facts, the cited law / jurisprudence, the newspaper reports, the actuations / announcements of the President / public respondent undoubtedly prove J. ONGs appointment, acceptance and full assumption to office. Ergo, given the Presidents indecisiveness which caused the ONG appointment snafu, the better policy is to let the Supreme Court decide in favor of J. ONG as the TRULY DESTINED 15th Supreme Associate Court Justice. For on political questions (as this political appointment), the High Tribunal may err (since several dissenting opinions IN TIME became the settled jurisprudence of the future), but destiny and judicial fiat will not. To be sure, the Constitution did not grant Mrs. Arroyo the right to have a final say on this issue of profound importance to the nation. And surer still, the only remedy left to the petitioners is to file an IMPEACHMENT case against ONG with the 14th Congress this July.
39

Our people, the Council, the international community and more importantly (J. ONG and his family, including UNDERSIGNED) are waiting for the judgment of destiny with bated breath. BUT WE ARE KEEPING OUR FINGERS CROSSED against the spiritual EVIL agenda of petitioners.

V. The reliance of petitioners on Articles 410-412, inter alia, of The New Civil Code is highly misplaced and absurd. Since Justice ONG, under the LAW OF CITIZENSHIP is a natural born Filipino, ergo, any judicial or administrative correction whatsoever of his birth certificate is superfluous. Besides, RES JUDICATA puts to finis any DESPERATE ATTEMPT to overturn / nullify the NARVASA JBC NOMINATION and Ongs SANDIGANBAYAN VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT. THIS PUNO 22nd COURT IS JUST A CONTINUATION OF THE PANGANIBAN, DAVIDE & NARVASA TEMPLES OF JUSTICE. TO UNSEAT ONG, IT IS FIRST REQUIRED TO NULLIFY THE JBC / NARVASA NOMINATION AND HIS SANDIGANBAYAN APPOINTMENT, IT CANNOT BE LEGALLY OTHERWISE.

Title XVI. - CIVIL REGISTER Art. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register. (325a) Art. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register: (1) Births; (2) marriages; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; ( (14) judicial determination of filiation; and (16) changes of name. (326a) Art. 409. In cases of legal separation, adoption, naturalization and other judicial orders mentioned in the preceding article, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court which issued the decree to ascertain whether the same has been registered, and if this has not been done, to send a copy of said decree to the civil registry of the city or municipality where the court is functioning. (n)

40

Art. 410. The books making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained. (n) Art. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without a judicial order. (n) Art. 413. All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be governed by special laws. (n) 16. Jovito Salonga / petitioners miserably failed to comprehend the legal meaning of their cited article 410, NCC, inter alia. I say miserable, since their LOGIC started with wrong premises. They closed their eyes at the title / chapter from where the article came from. Their cited law is about Civil Register. Art. 410 must be read with other pertinent laws to decide ONGs case: constitutional law provisions on citizenship, Rule 108, Rules of Court as amended by the New Law on the matter, and of course, the above-discussed laws on public officers, settled jurisprudence on citizenship, the opinions of the DOJs, the opinions of C. J. Panganiban and constitutionalist / Commissioner of the 1987 ConCon, Fr. J. G. Bernas, S.J. Grossly ignorant of the teachings of Fr. Bernas, C.J. Panganiban and the above-cited settled jurisprudence, Salonga dwells on a piece of paper called ONG birth certificate. Such certificate is only a PRIMA FACIE evidence of the facts stated therein. I hate to lecture upon a former Senate President. But I dare say that I am more familiar than Salonga when it comes to birth certificate. Why? Because, I am a PROPHET. I was born on November 5, I was appointed youngest judge of NCR on my natal day (Nov. 4/5, 1998, at the age of 45), and I applied with the JBC on my b-day on Nov. 5, 1997. The birth certificate of Justice Nazario states her natal day as December 5, while my mother was born and died on December 5 (1925, 1995); and when she signed my separation from service due to consulting dwarves that I claim to be angels, I was voted JUDGE OF THE YEAR on her b-day December 5, 2006, defeating all the Chief Justices of the world and best high profile barristers and lawyers.

41

In other words, birth certificates are needed only to get a passport, to apply for visa, indirectly, to apply for drivers license, and to get an NBI clearance. But the JBC does not require birth certificate as one of the documents required by law to be submitted in the Personal Data Sheet (why? Since all applicants are lawyers, all of legal age). THE LEGAL FACT ABOVE-DISCUSSED / ESTABLISHED that ONG is a natural born Filipino will not be altered by the mere fact of a birth certificate stating otherwise. The rationale is when babies are born, only the municipal clerks type the same based on informations supplied by the comadrona or hospital, and of course, if acknowledged, the signature of the father is required. CITIZENSHIP deals more and more and more than that. The chapter on civil register is inferior to the above-cited settled jurisprudence and laws, constitutional provisions etc. on citizenship. I cite this ruling of my decease ATENEO professor DE LEON, JR. who died of aneurysm on June 16, 2002:
The flaw in Ty Kong Tin lies in its theory that Article 412 contemplates a summary procedure. First of all, Article 412 is a substantive law that provides as follows: No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without a judicial order. It does not provide for a specific procedure of law to be followed except to say that the corrections or changes must be effected by judicial order. As such, it cannot be gleaned therefrom that the procedure contemplated for obtaining such judicial order is summary in nature. Secondly, it is important to note that Article 412 uses both the terms corrected and changed. In its ordinary sense, to correct means to make or set right; to remove the faults or errors from while to change means to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute. The provision neither qualifies as to the kind of entry to be changed or corrected nor does it distinguish on the basis of the effect that the correction or change may have. Hence, it is proper to conclude that all entries in the civil register may be changed or corrected under Article 412. What are the entries in the civil register? We need not go further than Articles 407 and 408 of the same title to find the answer. Art. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register. Art. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register: (1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name. It is beyond doubt that the specific matters covered by the preceding provisions include not only status but also nationality. Therefore, the Ty Kong Tin pronouncement that Article 412 does not contemplate matters that may affect civil status, nationality or 42

citizenship is erroneous. This interpretation has the effect of isolating Article 412 from the rest of the articles in Title XVI, Book I of the New Civil Code, in clear contravention of the rule of statutory construction that a statute must always be construed as a whole such that the particular meaning to be attached to any word or phrase is ascertained from the context and the nature of the subject treated. Thirdly, Republic Act No. 9048 which was passed by Congress on February 8, 2001 substantially amended Article 412 of the New Civil Code, to wit: SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname.- No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations. The above law speaks clearly. Clerical or typographical errors in entries of the civil register are now to be corrected and changed without need of a judicial order and by the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general. The obvious effect is to remove from the ambit of Rule 108 the correction or changing of such errors in entries of the civil register. Hence, what is left for the scope of operation of Rule 108 are substantial changes and corrections in entries of the civil register. This is precisely the opposite of what Ty Kong Tin and other cases of its genre had said, perhaps another indication that it was not sound doctrine after all. It may be very well said that Republic Act No. 9048 is Congress response to the confusion wrought by the failure to delineate as to what exactly is that so-called summary procedure for changes or corrections of a harmless or innocuous nature as distinguished from that appropriate adversary proceeding for changes or corrections of a substantial kind. For we must admit that though we have constantly referred to an appropriate adversary proceeding, we have failed to categorically state just what that procedure is. Republic Act No. 9048 now embodies that summary procedure while Rule 108 is that appropriate adversary proceeding. Be that as it may, the case at bar cannot be decided on the basis of Republic Act No. 9048 which has prospective application. Hence, the necessity for the preceding treatise.

VI. BADGES OF FRAUD, CRAFT AND DECEIT. What is the REAL AGENDA of JOVITO SALONGA? In the name of TECHNICALITY, he titled this baseless suit as CERTIORARI against ONG. Who is his choice to replace Ong? Is he the President? This case is another desperate attempt of Salonga to OUST GMA, to embarrass her Office, to humiliate the JBC (headed by the C. Justice), and her Malacanang Legal staff, inter alia. In short, it is his 2004 part II to topple this administration by HYPOCRISY leading to anarchy in the High Tribunal, JBC, Sandiganbayan, etc.

17.I will not reproduce in this long pleading truckloads of news

43

reports and writings of Jovito Salonga on the GMA ouster agenda. Let me just quote this article or blog, to prove WHO this man named SALONGA, in the light of his accusations that he failed to prove: Thursday, 19 January 2006 http://gerryalbertcorpuz.motime.com/post/536058
Pamalakaya believes plunder complaint it filed vs. GMA, Bolante and Lorenzo over the P 728 million fertilizer fund was one of cases lobbied by FG Arroyo for dismissal? Leftist group asks ex-Ombudsman Marcelo to break silence on Mike Arroyos lobby that forced him to quit Leaders of the militant fisherfolk alliance Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya ng Pilipinas (Pamalakaya) on Thursday urged former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo to break his silence on the alleged move of First Gentleman Atty. Jose Miguel Arroyo pressuring the former ombudsman to drop certain cases filed against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and close associates. Invoking the principles of national interest, public trust and aboveboard governance, Pamalakaya national chair Fernando Hicap said, It is time for former Ombudsman Marcelo to break his silence and tell the nation the truth about the alleged pressure politics and bullying tactics applied by the presidential husband. Ex-Ombudsman Marcelo cannot escape his political, moral and legal obligation to the Filipino people. He must tell the public what Mr. Arroyo did last 2004 and what are the pending cases the Big Brother Mike lobbied for dismissal that forced him to vacate his post. Once and for all, he must address this issue face-to-face with the public, Hicap stressed.

Former Senate President and Kilos Bayan and Bantyay Katarungan chair Jovito Salonga in an electoral forum sponsored by an anti-GMA civil society group said the pressure applied by Atty. Arroyo contributed to the untimely resignation of Ombudsman Marcelo last year. Salonga said Atty. Arroyo approached Marcelo last year about the pending cases against his wife and a number of government officials identified with President Arroyo filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Marcelo resigned last year citing health reasons, but rumors about Malacaang exerting pressure on him circulated after he was asked to resign September last year. He was supposed to serve as Ombudsman until 2009, but Marcelo resigned citing ulcers and hypertensions as main reasons for his untimely resignation. The veteran lawmaker said he confronted Marcelo and the latter did not deny it adding that we wanted to resign as head of the Ombudsmans office and was just waiting for the final verdict on the plunder case filed against deposed President Joseph Estrada. Did Atty. Arroyo also lobby for the dropping or junking of charges against President Arroyo, former DA undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante and former DA secretary Cito Lorenzo? We deserve a honest-to-goodness response from Ombudsman Marcelo, Hicap said. Pamalakaya, the peasant group Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) and Amihan-National Federation of Peasant Women on June 2004 filed a plunder compliant against Ms Arroyo, Bolante and Lorenzo 44

for releasing the P 728-million fertilizer fund to beef up the presidents election campaign kitty in May 2004 national elections. Groups of fishermen, peasant women and small farmers which were invited in the Senate hearings last year over the controversial fertilizer fund chorused that they did not receive any single centavo from the controversial P 728-million fertilizer fund released on February 2004, three months before the May 10, 2004 national elections.

posted by: GerryCorpuz at 02:27 - Gerry Albert Corpuz presents. I watched IYO ANG KATARUNGAN, Ch. 13, regularly. One of the features related to the opposition of Atty. Steve Salonga / his father Jovito against the nomination of J. P. Velasco, Jr. to the Supreme Court. I will not dwell on the details. What is important is when Salonga fought against GMA, Justice Velasco, Jr. was duly appointed. My point, is this is another brazen TRUTH of Salongas undying wish to oust GMA for his own personal and political whims, caprices or fantasies. But sad to say, even his maid LILIA whom I had a chance to have been her phone pal for months, advised Salonga to quit GMA politics, for he has nowhere to go. Arrogant, Salonga attacked FG, and now ONG. This is pure vendetta but Ong is not an enemy of Salonga. I pity this Sandiganbayan Justice, who suffered because of petitioners craft and HYPOCRISY. The LAW OF KARMA is universal, since it is mathematically accurate and precise with regards to time and place. For Jovito Salonga, taking a cue for LILIA her maid, I dare state that --IN TIME, (Spiderman, the Movie) God will prepare the way in his OWN SWEET TIME to end the sufferings of many SMALL FILIPINOS like me and ONG.

VII. Judge FLOROs special interest in this suit

I knocked at the door of Kilosbayan and Bantay Katarungan on October, 1999. I asked Jovito Salonga to help me. He only gave me the 4 audiences after so many years of waiting I talked to him and Lilia before and after my case was decided on April 6, 2006.

45

He asked me to personally apply to his mentor C. J. Panganiban as janitor and /or clerk. He humiliated me by telling me that he sympathized with me, but at the same time, the TRUTH I am insisting on is NOT THE TRUTH that this Honorable Court understands. If this man / his twin FOUNDATIONS failed to give me justice, if continuously attacked GMA, if he painfully humiliated ONG, the JBC, and the Sandiganbayan institution, there is nothing left for the High Tribunal to perform Dismiss this baseless and persecutory suit. Let Justice Ong take the Oath and fully assume his office, as DESTINED BY GOD. This is my fighting FAITH. We will vanquish evil since GOD is on our side, with the most powerful intercession of my 3 Angels of God. AMEN. RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Intervenor, Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., respectfully begs leave to intervene as petitioner-in-intervention in this case, and prays that the instant Petition-inintervention be duly noted, admitted, given due course, and GRANTED. Intervenor FLORO, JR. tenders payment of all docket / legal fees (if required), upon admission of this motion / Petition. Further, Intervenor Judge Floro respectfully prays that --1.

Immediately upon the filing of this motion and pleading, a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER be issued --- enjoining respondent Justice ONG, from performing acts and assuming jurisdiction / conducting proceedings in the Sandiganbayan, and enjoining the Judicial and Bar Council from further proceeding in any manner against the nomination of Justice Ong; commanding respondent Justice Ong, immediately or at some other time to be specified with certainty by this Honorable Court, to take his DIRECTORY OATH of OFFICE, to assume jurisdiction as the 15th
46

Supreme Court Associate Justice duly, legally and constitutionally appointed, and to perform all his duties / obligations, thus fully possessing the sacred office, forthwith; and 2. After considering the merits of this intervention and the pleadings of respondent Justice Ong, to render judgment: a) declaring respondent Justice Ong as the validly, legally and constitutionally appointed Supreme Court Associate Justice - successor of Justice Callejo, Sr., commanding him to take the directory Oath of Office and fully assume office and jurisdiction, forthwith. Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. Malolos City, Bulacan, for Manila, May 30, 2007. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Movant/Petitioner-in-intervention,
123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN,
Tel/#(044) 662-82-03; (Presiding Judge, Branch 73, RTC, MALABON, NCJR, M.M.) [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV (Note: Motion For Leave to Admit 4th Appeal to be reinstated is pending.] PTR No. 503411, dated 1-11-07, Malolos, Bulacan.

NOTICE TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa D. Villarama, Clerk of Court, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, MANILA

Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof, in view of the urgency of the matter. THANKS. UPON ADMISSION OF THIS PLEADING, PLEASE NOTIFY UNDERSIGNED, SO THAT HE WILL BE ABLE TO FORTHWITH PAY ALL THE REQUIRED DOCKET / LEGAL FEES. All RIGHTS reserved, none waived. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner-in-Intervention VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION of Non-Forum-Shopping & Affidavit of Service
Republic of the Philippines) Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S. I, JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., under oath, depose and say, that: I am the Intervenor/movant in the above-entitled case and I read, caused the preparation of, and signed the foregoing pleading. And all the allegations/contents thereof/therein are true 47

and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records. I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of our knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. I CERTIFY that on May 30, 2007, I served copies of this motion with the attached petition-in-intervention and annexes in this case G.R. No. 177721, Kilosbayan Foundation & Bantay Katarungan Foundation v. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, Office of the President & Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory S. Ong, upon all petitioners and respondents via registered mail with return card at their offices / addresses as hereunder indicated, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of
Rule 13, Rules of Court, by depositing said copies at the Malolos Post Office, as evidenced by reg. receipts hereto attached, and pasted after their names, and indicated after the names of the addressees, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mails to the sender after 10 days if undelivered.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this affidavit, this 30 th day of May, 2007, at Malolos City, BULACAN.

JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., affiant.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 30th day of May, 2007, hereat Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12006 # 10333105, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 1-11, 2007.
DOC. NO. ______, PAGE NO. ____, BOOK NO. ____, SERIES OF 2007. BERNAR D. FAJARDO Notary Public, Until Jan.15, 2008, PTR NO. 2417109, 1- 3,07, Atty.s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 687744,n 1-5,07 Malolos City, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED: Atty. Jovito R. Salonga, Counsel (and President of) Petitioner, Kilosbayan Foundation, Kilosbayan House, 7 First Street, Acacia Lane, Mandaluyong City, Tel. Nos. 534-5868 and 534-5889, Atty. Emilio C. Capulong, , Counsel for Petitioner, Bantay Katarungan Foundation, Kilosbayan House, 7 First Street, Acacia Lane, Mandaluyong City, Tel. Nos. 534-5868 and 534-5889, Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita Public respondent, Office of the President, Malacanang Palace, Manila, M.M. Public Respondent, Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory S. Ong, 48

Respondent, SANDIGANBAYAN, Centennial Building, Commonwealth Ave., Batasan Road, Quezon City, M. M., Tel. # 951-4521, and The Office of the Solicitor General, 124 Amorsolo st., Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila, Counsel for Public Respondents. Explanation on Service by Registered Mail: Intervenor, in compliance with Secs. 7, 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, states that due to lack of time and messenger and impracticality, he served copies of these motion and attached petition and annexes to all petitioners and respondents by registered mail with return card with attached receipts, pasted after the names of respondents and petitioners.

JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.

49