THE STORY has been going the rounds since last month that Supreme Court justices are agonizing over a proposed “win-win” decision – or two separate rulings — on the disqualification of Sen. Grace Poe Llamanzares as candidate for president in the May 9 elections.

The supposed ruling reportedly would have Poe declared (1) a natural-born Filipino satisfying the constitutional citizenship qualification for president, but (2) still not meeting the 10-year residency requirement for the top elective position in the land.

The story-tellers could not say if the two distinct issues of citizenship and residency would be resolved in one SC decision or treated separately in two different rulings.

In sum, the effects of such a duo-decision, if true, are that Poe (1) would be declared not yet qualified to run for president this year, but (2) would be able to keep her Senate seat until her term expires in 2019, and (3) would have satisfied by 2022 the 10-year residency requirement and be able to run for president without constitutional hitches.

The rumored adverse ruling on residency happens to address the misgivings of some quarters that although they admired Poe, they considered her still “hilaw” (“green” at age 47) for the May presidential contest but could be “ripe enough” by 2022. Keeping her Senate seat would be a “concession” to Poe.

The supposed decision(s) reportedly would keep the candidate’s financiers and lobbyists happy. Additionally, the Solomonic solution would spare the senator’s family, as well as blood relatives, the attendant scrutiny resulting from DNA testing to prove her biological parentage.

President Noynoy Aquino and his anointed presidential candidate Mar Roxas should also be happy since that would mean the elimination of Poe, who despite questions on her being a natural-born citizen has managed to stay in Nos. 1 or 2 in the surveys and push down Roxas.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is just the scuttlebutt. We will know in a few days if the rumor is true or false, or partly true and partly false.

■ Don’t stop Pacquiao-Bradley bout

THOSE complaining that boxer Manny Pacquiao will enjoy “undue advantage” as a candidate for senator if his fight with American Timothy Bradley pushes through in April are unwittingly helping him promote both his ring bout and his campaign for the Senate.

The complaints filed with the Commission on Elections actually add publicity mileage to his Las Vegas fight and his election bid. The Pacman should thank complainants Neri Colmenares and Rene Saguisag and give them complimentary ringside tickets.

As Comelec Chairman Andres Bautista confesses, however, the poll body is powerless to stop that bout contracted out there in Nevada.

As for the publicity or advertising benefits that candidate Pacquiao would reap, while the Comelec may regulate the fight’s airing by Philippine networks, it has no legal means of blocking live streaming via the Internet and similar means.

Fumbling with the broadcast switches on fight day would only complicate matters for the Comelec, whose officials still have to demonstrate competence in their duty of checking the Hocus-PCOS magic of the voting-counting machines already within their jurisdiction.

The poll commissioners discussed Pacquiao’s case in an en banc meeting Tuesday and decided to give him five days to comment on two letters that they received concerning the match.

The debate is still on. We have not heard from Pacquiao fans, sports aficionados and the Freedom of Information advocates on the bid to stop the fight packaged for April 9, exactly a month before the election.

Beating Bradley will not prove or enhance Pacquiao’s being qualified for a Senate seat, but a convincing win will immediately push him up in the popularity and election charts. It so happens that in this country, elections are largely popularity contests.

■ Elections built around undue advantage

WE AGREE that victory – or even defeat in the ring – would give Pacquiao an “advantage” over other senatorial candidates. But unfair advantage is par for the course in Philippine elections.

In the Pacquiao-Bradley fight, although the big bout will give the senatorial candidate an edge in publicity, it is difficult proving that his motive in signing the contract in Nevada was to gain an undue advantage in the Philippine elections.

My guess is that the ginsan Bible-toting warrior simply wanted to earn more millions before retiring from the ring, so he can have more funds for his family, his projects and his charities.

If we are that finicky about fairness and ensuring an even playing field in politics, we can let Pacquiao pursue his legitimate profession so we can pay more attention to other possible actions, such as these:

• Pass soonest a law carrying out the constitutional mandate for putting an end to political dynasties. That idea enshrined in the charter has been pending almost 30 years now, but the political clans dominating the Congress have been blocking it.

• Enact a law stopping the undue advantage of incumbents who are running for public office and (mis)using government funds, resources and personnel to advance their personal and political interests.

• Strengthen the Comelec and the Commission on Audit, both constitutional bodies, and shield them from pressure to enable them to monitor and disallow misuse of public funds and equipment for election campaigns.