Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION

8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION

1/49

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

M A N I L A

En Banc

Kilosbayan Foundation & Bantay Katarungan Foundation,Petitioner,

- versus - G.R. No. 177721

Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita

& Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory S. Ong,

Respondents.

X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Petitioner-in-Intervention.

X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION

With Urgent Prayers ForORAL 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, IntervenorFLORO, JR., states, that:

1. He is a Filipino Citizen, a taxpayer, and a registered voter of123 Dahlia,

Alido, Malolos, Bulacan, his home and postal address, where he may beserved 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

1

ORIGINAL


2/49

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 IntervenorFLORO, 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 toconfirm 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


3/49

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 non-

enforcement 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 prestigiousvacant 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


4/49

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 THERULE OFLAW. THE INTERNATIONAL

COMMUNITY WATCHES OVER THE PHILIPPINE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL

DEPARTMENTS ACTUATIONS ON THE

PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT OFJUSTICE ONGWHICH WAS EXTENSIVELYPUBLISHED IN THE FRONT PAGES OF ALL NEWSPAPERS AND BECAME HEADLINESIN 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 interestagainst 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

4


5/49

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-in-

intervention 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 non-

enforcement 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 privaterespondent 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


6/49

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, non-

partisan, 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


7/49

Counsel for Petitioner,

Bantay Katarungan Foundation,

Kilosbayan House, 7 First Street,Acacia Lane, Mandaluyong City, Tel. Nos. 534-5868 and 534-5889,

Public respondentExecutive 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 respondentSandiganbayan 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.

7


8/49

To begin with, Justice Ongs claim to natural-born citizenship is

not without foundation. Hereunder, is a brief narration of his AMONG ED-

GRACE 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 great-

grandmother, Maria Santos ofBulacan, where intervenor was born / lives.

Maria Santos was a Filipina through and through. In 1904, she

bore a sonby 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

8


9/49

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 befair 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


10/49

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


11/49

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 Tribunalwhich 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 electedPhilippine 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


12/49

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 wrongfulaccusations 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
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=68241http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=68241


13/49

GREGORY S. ONG IS TRULY DESTINED BY GOD TO BE THE 15TH

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 violatethe 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 ofDy 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 ofchildren. 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 Nationshave ratified it, either partly or completely. The Philippines became

13


14/49

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 November20, 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, unlessan earlier age of majority is recognized by a country's law.

The Convention acknowledges that every child has certainbasic 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 withboth 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 requiresthat 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 presentConvention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination ofany kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian'srace, 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 thebasis 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 orprivate social welfare institutions, courts of law

, administrativeauthorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the childshall be a primary consideration.

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall havethe right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationalityand. asfar as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

14


15/49

2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights inaccordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevantinternational instruments in this field, in particular where the child wouldotherwise be stateless.

Article 81. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preservehis or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations asrecognized 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



Chief Justice PUNO tersely summarized the importance of the CRC:

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the GeneralAssembly of the United Nations on November 20, 1989. The Philippines was the31st 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, itabolished all discriminations against children including discriminations onaccount 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 presentConvention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of anykind, irrespective of the childs or his or her parents or legal guardians racecolour, sex, language religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or socialorigin, 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. Itadopted the principle of interdependence and indivisibility of childrens rights. Aviolation of one right is considered a violation of the other rights. It also embracedthe rule that all actions of a State concerning the child should consider the bestinterests of the child.

Pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution, this Convention onthe Rights of the child became valid and effective on us in July 1990 uponconcurrence by the Senate. We shall be violating the Convention if we disqualifyrespondent Poe just because he happened to be an illegitimate child. It is ourbounden 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:

x x x

For a treaty or convention is not a mere moral obligation to be enforced or not atthe whims of an incumbent head of a Ministry. It creates a legally bindingobligation on the parties founded on the generally accepted principle ofinternational law ofpacta sunct servanda which has been adopted as part of thelaw of our land. (Constitution, Article II, Section 3)

15


16/49

Indeed there is no reason to refuse compliance with the Convention for it is inperfect accord with our Constitution and with our laws.

Moreover to disqualify respondent Poe due to his illegitimacy is against thetrend in civil law towards equalizing the civil rights of an illegitimate child with thatof 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 lessthan our Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., then a Commissioner of theConstitutional Commission, proposed the adoption of the following radical

provision in the 1987 Constitution, viz: All children regardless of filiations shallenjoy the same social protection. In an exchange with Commissioner Nolledo,he explained its rationale as follows:

x x x

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 areframing a Constitution to provide for a directive policy or directive principles ofstate policy, there is no harm in making it as a directive principle or a state policyespecially if it would affect the lives of citizens who, I would like to stateagain, are not responsible for a misfortune in life.

Following the undeniable injustice committed to illegitimate children due aloneto the accident of their birth, the universal trend of laws today is to abolish allinvidious discriminations against their rights. Slowly, they were granted morerights until their civil rights are now equal to the rights of legitimate children. The

Philippines has joined the civilized treatment of illegitimate children. Hence, underArticle 178 of our New Family Code, a child born out of wedlock of parents withoutany 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 thesame civil rights as a legitimate child. In Ilano vs. Court of Appeals, this Courtexpressed the enlightened policy that illegitimate children were born with a socialhandicap and the law should help them to surmount the disadvantages facingthem through the misdeeds of their parents. The march towards equality of rightsbetween legitimate and illegitimate children is irreversible. We will be medieval inour 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, FORA 20-MINUTE LIVE INTERVIEW ABOUT THE CRC AND POE.

16


17/49

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



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 anX-men game who WINS? Will we,

with bated breath as Justice Vitug said witness again another 8-5-1 vote?

Why bastard? WhereforeWhen my dimensions are well compact,My mind as generous, and my shape as true

As honest madams issue?Why brand they usWith base? With baseness

Bastardy? Base, base?Who, in the lusty stealth of nature takeMore composition and fierce qualityThan 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 baseShall 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 - MariaJeanette 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


18/49

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; Erapappointee 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 itsnomination. "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 JBCowes 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


19/49

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 tothe high court and has asked him to show proof of his citizenship.

A separate source from the JBC secretariat said thatOng 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 thecitizenship, 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.

Thefrontrunners for the lone vacancy in the Supreme Court wereSandiganbayan 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 thatOng 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'sprofessor. 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 theSandiganbayan'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


20/49

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 somemembers 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 todiscuss 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 involvingOng's citizenship.

In a statement, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said the Palace expects Ongto 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


21/49

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 ofAppeals 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


22/49

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 shallbe 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


23/49

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 citizenshipBy Juliet Labog-Javellana, Leila SalaverriaInquirer - 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 thehigh 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 GloriaMacapagal-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 twosources who declined to be named because they had no authority to speak on

the record. They alsosaid 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


24/49

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 thatOng 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


25/49

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 CourtJustice 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 theArroyo administration.

7. C. J. Artemio Panganiban, opined:

WITH DUE RESPECT

Hot seat in the Supreme Court

By Artemio V. PanganibanInquirer - 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


26/49

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 constitutionallymandated 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, wasnamed a Court of Tax Appeals member on March 22, 1991. On the other

hand, Ong, 54, reached the Sandiganbayan on Oct. 5, 1998. To myrecollection, 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 theConstitution, (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 aChinese 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


27/49

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 barexamination, on condition that he shall not take the lawyers oath until

he submits a certification from the Office of the Solicitor General that thecourt 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 ConchitaCarpio 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 ofImmigration (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


28/49

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 ofRepresentatives, 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 JusticeSecretary 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 theappointment 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


29/49

Apparently (Executive) Secretary Ermita has issued a statement saying that

they will ask the JBC to restudy the papers of Justice Ong. So they arewaiting 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 acopy 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 chancefor 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 stillnominated, 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 therepercussions 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


30/49

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 toparagraph 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 thatit may be concluded that Maria Santos automaticallyreverted 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 JusticeOng was born Chinese with his father Eugenio Ong Han Seng being called

Chinese born in Manila while her mother Dy Guiok Santos is also calledChinese born in Amoy, China.

Justice Ong was born on May 25, 1953, in Blumentritt, San Juan. Butcontrary 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 citizensince 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


31/49

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 theJBC, 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.TVon Tuesday that Ongs nomination should

have not been a source of headache" had the JBC been more efficient in itsjudicial 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 appointedSandiganbayan 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


32/49

"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 onMonday 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 SecretaryTeofisto 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 great-

grandfather 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


33/49

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 Article410 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


34/49

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 securedthe 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 byDepartment 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


35/49

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 amendones nationality in his or her birth certificate. This power is exclusively vested incourts 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 Justicewhen 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


36/49

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 betreated rudely by Malacanang. That is not the way to treat a lady

justice who belongs to a rare breed of judiciary officials who camefrom 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, TheDaily 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


37/49

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 Benipayo-

Nazario 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 SupremeCourt 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


38/49

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 exec

Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION

Documents

Transcript of Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION