gregory s. ong petition-in-intervention
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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 -
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
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 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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
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 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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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
-
8/3/2019 Gregory S. Ong PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION
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