Media took their accustomed paths in Poe citizenship coverage

Sen. Grace Poe. PHOTO BY LITO OCAMBO.

SENATOR AND presidential candidate Grace Poe’s citizenship has been under scrutiny for more than a month since 2013 senatorial candidate Rizalito David filed a disqualification case against her before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) on August 6 and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on August 17.

David argued that Poe, a foundling, is not a natural-born citizen and failed to meet the residency requirements prior to the May 2013 senatorial elections, which she topped. The SET recently dropped the question of residency in Poe’s case because the time limit for contesting it has lapsed (See 2013 Rules of the SET). But the battle is not yet over because SET still has to answer the core question: Is she a natural-born or naturalized Filipino? The SET is expected to decide on the case by November.

CMFR reviewed the reporting of the three broadsheets with the biggest circulations — the Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and The Philippine Star — from August 6 to September 28.

He said, she said

The reports by the three broadsheet dailies on the Poe citizenship issue were mostly based on statements by key sources such as Poe herself, complainant David, and their respective counsel. David’s claims were initially countered by Poe’s camp and vice-versa. It did not take long before others joined the fray.

The opinions of politicians were abundantly quoted by the media days after David filed the petition, further intensifying the “he-said-she-said” character of the coverage. No longer was it between what Poe and David camps had to say — it also became a matter for many politicians eager to take advantage of the controversy for their own purposes, this year being the eve of the 2016 elections.

When Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who also serves as SET chairman, said that Poe may be considered a Filipino under international law but as a naturalized rather than natural born citizen (“Carpio: Poe must prove she’s natural-born Filipino,” Inquirer, Sept. 22, 2015), it provoked more counter-claims, with former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban weighing in on the issue (“Ex-CJ rebuts Carpio on Poe citizenship,” The Star, Sept. 28, 2015). Panganiban, in his column in the Inquirer, has also declared that Poe was a natural born Filipino. He also said that in the end, this was a political question. (“Grace Poe’s citizenship,” Inquirer, June 14, 2015)

Lack of context

With so many other opinions on the question aired, the coverage by the three dailies failed to focus on the laws — and perhaps on the vagueness of some of these — cited by both camps. They could have thrown more light on the merits of both Carpio’s and Panganiban’s positions by consulting other legal experts who had not yet weighed in on the question.

It would have helped for the papers to draw into the discussion more sources who also see the question of Poe’s citizenship as more a political and moral concern, rather than a legal one. For example, what are the implications on Poe’s leadership capacity of her opting for US citizenship and her renunciation of Philippine citizenship, and her reacquiring the latter when she returned to the Philippines? These may be irrelevant to the legal question, but the quick changing of citizenship lead to questions about her attitude about citizenship as a matter of convenience — which would have more significance in evaluating the qualities of a presidential aspirant. Do these imply that Poe’s loyalties would be divided once she’s in power? These are not idle questions, the United States being the country’s closest political, economic and cultural partner. As Poe, her supporters, and competitors await the SET decision, more voices should be heard on the issue.

But no such luck. It’s a shame that the media took their accustomed paths in their coverage of the Poe citizenship issue, despite the fact that come 2016 she could end up as the country’s 16th head of state.