SEEING
THROUGH THE CLOAK OF DECEPTION
(A privilege speech of Cong. Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco on
citizenship, national security concerns, and allegiance to the country of those
seeking elective public office. House of Representatives, February 4, 2013)
Honorable Speaker, my dear Colleagues, I rise
on a matter of personal and collective privilege.
In a few weeks from now, the winds of a new
season will come to pass, and I must come forward, Mr. Speaker, to address very
serious concerns relating to citizenship, national security concerns and
allegiance to the country by those seeking elective office.
Specifically may I draw your attention to R.A.
9225 that allows our countrymen who have acquired foreign citizenship to re-acquire
Philippine citizenship, and eventually seek public office and elective positions
in our government.
This submission is being made in light of
inadvertent discoveries this representation has made recently, and the sad and
stark realization how certain individuals boldly tamper with, and manufacture
fraudulent public documents to change their identity and citizenship with
relative ease.
Ang pakay po ng ating batas para sa mga dual
citizens na nagnanais tumakbo para sa pampublikong posisyon na isagawa ang
panunumpa sa ating watawat at pagwawaksi sa banyagang bansa na dating kinilala
nila, ay para tiyakin na ang interes ng ating bansa ang pangunahin sa kanilang
kaisipan at hindi ang interes ng ibang bansa.
Isa pong kagilagilalas na ehemplo, at dapat maging
eye-opener para sa lahat, Mr. Speaker, ay kung paano ang ilang ordinaryong mga kababayan
natin pala ay nagagawang, magmay-ari ng higit sa dalawang pasaporte, gumamit ng
iba-t-ibang kapanganakan, nationality, at sa ganoong estado ay magawang umupo
sa pampamahalaang posisyon, bumoto, humangad sa halalan ng hindi naayon sa
ating kinikilalang batas.
Tingnan po natin ang ehemplo ng isang
nag-ngangalang Regina Ongsiako Reyes na nag-file bilang kandidato para sa
Kongreso sa 2013. Si Ms. Reyes ay may U.S. passport bilang 306278853 na valid pa hanggang sa
kasalukuyan. Sa Amerika
siya nanirahan ng higit sa dalawampung taon, nakapagpakasal ng dalawang ulit sa
panahong yun, at nagkapamilya. Ang kopya ng naturang U.S. Passport ay hango
mula sa Nganimandin.blogspot.com.
Naayon naman ang detalyeng ito tungkol sa
U.S. passport ni Ms. Reyes sa embarkation and disembarkation records ng Bureau
of Immigration and Deportation (BID). Makikita natin na ang naturang pasaporte
ay ginamit niya ng makailang ulit sa paglabas-masok ng bansa mula December 10,
2005 hangang June 30, 2012.
Ayon din sa tala ng BID si Ms. Reyes, ay
mayroon ding Philippine passport bilang SS0154849 at bilang
EB2003107, magkakaiba
ang taon ng kapanganakan. Halinhinan niyang gamit ang mga pasaporteng ito sa
panahong 2005-2013.
 |
| Embarkation and disembarkation records. |
As you can see from the screen she used the Philippine
passport, bearing the # SS0154849, which lists July 3, 1959 as her birth date, from January 2007 to July 2010.
Let’s now move on to her U.S. Passport bearing the # 306278853, which lists July 3, 1959
as her birth date (same with the previous passport) that she used from December 2005 to June 2012.
Now, to her third passport bearing # EB2003107, notice this passport
lists a birth date of July 3, 1964 which is surprisingly different from that
listed on the two previous passports mentioned. She used it from March 2011 to
January 2013. The
overlapping use of these three passports coupled with the inconsistent
birthdates listed on them shows a clear case of grand manipulation and
elaborate scheme of deception.
 |
| COC: "I am a natural-born Filipino citizen; I am not a permanent resident of, or an immigrant to, a foreign country" |
Sa kanyang COC ay deklarado ni Ms. Reyes na siya
ay natural-born citizen, siya ay hindi raw naging permanenteng residente o
naging migrante kaya sa isang bansang labas sa Pilipinas. Subalit ito po ay
taliwas sa katotohanan dahil paulit-ulit naman niyang gamit ang kanyang U.S.
passport.
 |
| DOB: July 3, 1958 |
 |
| DOB: July 3, 1964 |
Sa usapin ng pasaporteng Pilipino, bakit naman
kaya ganito kadali na magproduce ng dalawang pasaporteng may magkaibang petsa
ng kapanganakan?
Magpokus tayo sa birth certificate... The
same person, Ms. Reyes, knowingly presented the latter birth certificate, a Fake
Birth Certificate as evidence to give credence to her date of birth, as
stated in her COC, in a proceeding before the Commission on Elections
pertaining to “A petition to deny due course or to cancel certificate of
candidacy.”…
 |
| Service Record of 'Regina Victoria Reyes Mandanas' |
Service Record… blatant violation of RA
9225. Ms. Reyes got appointed as Provincial Administrator by her mother, the
Governor of Marinduque without renouncing her U.S. citizenship.
 |
| Voters List with the name Regina Ongsiako Reyes with another date of birth: July 8, 1959 |
Voter’s List... Her name remains in the Voter’s List but, again, with a different
date of birth, proving that she has not been delisted, proving that she has voted
in the Philippines all this time without renouncing her U.S. citizenship.
 |
| Velasco at the Batasan |
So, it may be safe to say that there are
individuals who are willing to go lengths in order to conceal material and
substantial facts about themselves in order to take advantage of our laws and
system.
This
includes concealment of the possession of a foreign passport and citizenship;
misrepresentation on one’s COC; falsification of public document, consisting of
birth certificate; and assuming public office despite the fact that one doesn’t
satisfy the requirements of law under R.A. 9225.
It is undeniable that having dual citizenship
has its perks and advantages of its own so we might ascertain the motive for
such concealment.
I don’t know if this elaborate sequence of continued
deception has been inspired by an espionage movie or whether it just shows how
simple it is to circumvent and make a mockery of our laws.
Implications
of such actions to national security
The implication is a cause for legitimate and
serious concern. This becomes a question of implementation/enforcement, and the
adequacy of our laws in connection with our Citizenship Requirement for those
seeking elective public office. It boils down to the principles, policies
regarding the eligibility of public officers and an issue on national security
and sovereignty enshrined in our Constitution. It is the intent and spirit of
the citizenship requirement of the Constitution that those who would eventually
be elected to public office through popular vote are those that have the
interest of the nation at heart and have complete allegiance thereto.
Paano naman kaya kung ang isang citizen ng
isang rogue state, halimbawa po lamang, ay maka-re-acquire ng Philippine
citizenship? Magawang mapasok ang ating pamahalaan dahil sa mga loopholes sa ating
sistema? Paano kung ang interes ng isang rogue country naman pala ang
pangunahin niyang pinoprotektahan? Ito
po ay isang napaka-mapanganib na sitwasyon.
This exactly is the evil we are trying to
avoid, the fact that this kind of scenario has a possibility to happen is a
cause for concern for all of us. If a person could actually get away with such
schemes with relative ease, it would be much easier for a dangerous person to
replicate such actions.
Napapanahon na po siguro na ating silipin ang
mga paraan upang mapagtibay ang pagpapatupad ng batas sa citizenship at marapat
na pag-aralan ang pagrepaso sa batas, upang mapagbuti ang pagsasabuhay ng
layunin ng batas para sa citizenship requirement, para sa mga pampublikong
opisyales. Lalo na para sa kanila na mga naghahangad ng halal na posisyon.
Suggestions
in aid of legislation
In light of this, it is this representation’s
humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, that we consider a suggestion to institutionalize
an additional requirement under R.A. 9225, aside from that incorporated in
Section 5 Paragraph 2 for those seeking public office in the Philippines. It is
of my humble suggestion that they be asked to do a counterpart positive act of
renunciation of citizenship which the foreign country of their second
citizenship requires of them to effect a valid renunciation which would make it
binding on the foreign country. This way, such renunciation would have its full
effect as Sec. 5 Par. 2 of R.A. 9225 merely extinguishes the citizenship of the
concerned individual on the point of view of our country. Also, since the oath
of allegiance required under R.A. 9225 shall only form part of the Bureau of
Immigration’s records and no notice or submission of the oath of allegiance is
required to be given to the foreign state of second citizenship.
To demonstrate, in the renunciation of U.S. Citizenship under Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481 (a)(5) of the U.S., the citizen must appear in person before a U.S.
consular or diplomatic officer in a foreign country and sign an oath of
renunciation. It further says that renunciations that do not meet the
conditions described above have no legal effect.
Thus, it is safe to say that renunciation, on the other
hand, under our R.A. 9225 has no effect, not binding to the citizenship of a person
with respect to the United States of America in this case. In effect, the person concerned is still a citizen
of the foreign state despite such renunciation.
Moreover, to address implementing inadequacies, it is high
time that we explore the possibility of giving more responsibility to the
COMELEC in terms of verifying the authenticity of documents submitted to them
and institute a credible, effective system for said purpose and not relying
merely on the representation of the submitting parties. After all, the screening of would be
candidates, who could possibly form part of the leadership of our government in
the future is very much impressed with public interest. Such policy appears to
be sound, as of this juncture, owing to the nature of its importance to us as
citizens and to our national interest and security.
Hindi po natin dapat payagan kailanman na magpatuloy ang
mapanlinlang na layunin ng ilan sa atin na ginagawang katatawanan ang ating mga
batas at mga institusyon.
Closing/Final Thoughts
This is not in any way to prejudge the case
pending before the COMELEC or intrude into its powers but this speech is
intended to bring to the fore the adverse effects of the substantial provisions
or lack thereof in our present laws and the perceived flaws in present
procedure of verification.
In
closing, I enjoin everyone to take a serious look into this matter. I call on
the DFA, NSO, COMELEC, and the BID to do something about this. I think this is
another battle beckoning on us to launch a crusade against the threat it
currently posts. This battle should start now.
Thank you, Colleagues, Mr. Speaker.
