Velasco's Press Statement

Press Statement

of Cong. Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco, Representative, Lone District of Marinduque, Batasang Pambansa, Quezon City.

The aim of my privilege speech yesterday, February 4, 2013, before the House of Representatives is to submit my humble opinion that the formal process and requirements being imposed by our laws and government relative to the satisfaction of the citizenship requirement of our Constitution for those seeking elective public office in the Philippines, are inadequate and there exist a problem of monitoring and verification of citizenship records of specially those seeking elective public office.

The Philippine Constitution Article III Sec. 5 states that “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. Also, in Article VI Sec. 6 thereof it stated that “No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines . . . .”

The same requirement is being echoed in the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code.

As a requirement for those candidates who aspire for public office who acquire foreign citizenship to be eligible for election it is stated in R.A. 9225 that they should “at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.

R.A. 9225 merely requires the candidates to renounce their foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath but neither provides for a requirement of a positive act of renunciation of citizenship which the foreign country of their second citizenship requires of them to effect a valid renunciation which would make it binding on the foreign country nor provides for a process of giving notice or submission of the oath of allegiance and renunciation to the foreign state of second citizenship.

The foregoing leaves us on a peculiar situation wherein the renunciation of citizenship being required by our laws is rendered not binding on the country/state of second citizenship. Thus, defeating the intended purpose of the law and leaves a lot of room for individuals who are eager to take advantage of the loopholes in our system.

As an example and a convincing eye-opener is the incredible example made in the case of Ms. Regina Ongsiako Reyes who:

1. Possessed three different passports Philippine passport # SS0154849 which she used from January 2007 to July 2010; Philippine passport # EB2003107 which she used from March 2011 to January 2013; and her US Passport # 306278853 which she used from December 2005 to June 2012. As you can observe she made overlapping use of these passports in departing and entering the country.
2. She had an anomalous birth date on her Philippine passport EB2003107 which lists it July 3, 1964 as opposed to July 3, 1959 which is on her two other Philippine and U.S. passports, respectively.
3. She declared on her Certificate of Candidacy that she is a natural born Philippine citizen and haven’t been a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign state despite that fact that she possesses and made use of her U.S. Passport on multiple occasions in leaving and entering the country, based on Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) records. Moreover, she resided in the United States of America for more than two decades, married twice, and had a family. The copy of said U.S. Passport was lifted from Nganimandin.blogspot.com
4. Ms. Reyes, knowingly presented a fake birth certificate as evidence to give credence to her false date of birth, as stated in her COC, in a proceeding before the Commission on Elections pertaining to “A petition to deny due course or to cancel certificate of candidacy.” Upon closer examination of the original birth certificate obtained from the City Registrar of Manila and the fake birth certificate she presented, it is the same document except for the tampering of the date of birth entry.

5. As evidenced by her service record, Ms. Reyes was appointed as Provincial Administrator by her mother, the governor of Marinduque, without renouncing her U.S. citizenship first in blatant violation of RA 9225.
6. Her name remains in the Voter’s List but, again, with a different date of birth, proving that she has not been delisted, proving that she has voted in the Philippines all this time without renouncing her U.S. citizenship.

So, it may be safe to say that there are individuals who are willing to go lengths in order to conceal material and substantial facts about themselves in order to take advantage of our laws and system.

It is alarming how easy those acts may be perpetuated. This is a sad and stark realization how certain individuals boldly tamper with, manufacture fraudulent public documents to change their identity and citizenship with relative ease. This only means that there is much to be desired on the monitoring and verification systems of our government. In light of this, it is logical to conclude that the BID, NSO, COMELEC and DFA should do something about this.

The implication is a cause for legitimate and serious concern. This becomes a question of implementation/enforcement, and the adequacy of our laws in connection with our citizenship requirement for those seeking elective public office. It boils down to the principles, policies regarding the eligibility of public officers and an issue on national security and sovereignty enshrined in our Constitution. It is the intent and spirit of the citizenship requirement of the Constitution that those who would eventually be elected to public office through popular vote are those that have the interest of the nation at heart and have complete allegiance thereto.

Thus, in aid of legislation in order to address these important and pressing issues at hand, I humbly propose that we consider the following measures:

1. Set an additional requirement for those seeking elective public who wants to re-acquire their Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 which merely requires making a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. I suggest that they be also required to do a counterpart positive act of renunciation of citizenship which the foreign country of their second citizenship requires of them to effect a valid renunciation which would make it binding on the foreign country.
2. To address implementing inadequacies, it is high time that we explore the possibility of giving more responsibility to the COMELEC in terms of verifying the authenticity of documents submitted to them and institute a credible, effective system for said purpose and not relying merely on the representation of the submitting parties.  After all, the screening of would be candidates, who could possibly form part of the leadership of our government in the future is very much impressed with public interest. Such policy appears to be sound, as of this juncture, owing to the nature of its importance to us as citizens and to our national interest and security.
3. Also NSO, BID and DFA should review their processes of monitoring and verification of documents, passports, travel history, and citizenship records of the public in order to avoid the proliferation of similar schemes of deception described herein.

This speech is not intended to advance any personal motive but to bring to the fore the adverse effects of the substantial provisions or lack thereof in our present laws and the perceived flaws in present procedure of monitoring and verification.

In closing, I enjoin everyone to take a serious look into this matter. I firmly believe that the present scheme of things is an evil adversary beckoning on us to launch a crusade against the threat it currently posts.

We should act now.