POE LLAMANZARES VS COMELEC

G.R. No. 221697 March 8, 2016

Facts:
The case is all about the issuance of temporary restraining order and a
writ of preliminary injunction upon the decision laid by the COMELEC against
the disqualification cases against Grace Poe-Llamanzares in her COC having
been issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Prior to the elections, Grace was found in Iloilo and was legally
adopted. Grace took up her primary and secondary education here in the
Philippines but continued her College in U.S. Grace eventually lived there
with her family. However, in December 2004, she hurriedly came back to the
Philippines due to the ailing situation of her father and who consequently
died. By then, because of the untimely demise of her father that was a
severe blow to her entire family, and to be with her grieving mother, she and
her husband decided to return in the Philippines for good in 2005. Upon
residing in the Philippines, they processed all their transactions and
documents pertaining to their permanent stay in the Philippines and not to
return in US. Grace took her allegiance in 2006 and had renounced her
American citizenship during October 2010.
On October 2012, she filed a COC for Senator for the 2013 Elections,
wherein she stipulated in her answer that she is residing in the Philippines for
6 years and 6 months. Then she consequently won with the highest number
of votes. And in the recent 2016 Elections, she filed to run for the position of
President. However, this has brought dispute since many questioned her
citizenship and residence and alleged that she should be disqualified.
On the other hand, the respondents herein, namely, Emiliano Militar,
Estrella Elamparo, Francisco Tatad with the other three respondents, all
questioned the citizenship and in relation, the misrepresentation of the
petitioner on her COC about her residency here in the Philippines which
should disqualify her.
Petitions were filed in the COMELEC and resulted to denying or
cancelling the petitioners candidacy because of the same ground of her
being a foundling cannot determine whether shes a natural-born Filipino or
not and that based on her COC, she committed misrepresentations about her
residency.
Petitioner filed motions for reconsideration but was subsequently
denied by the COMELEC. Hence, the present petition.
Issues:
(1) WON Grace Poe-Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino citizen.

(2) WON Grace Poe-Llamanzares satisfies the ten-year requirement.

(3) WON Grace Poe-Llamanzares committed material misrepresentation to
prompt COMELEC to
cancel her COC.
Ruling: The Court favored the petitioner. Grace Poe-Llamanzares was held
qualified for running in the position of President in the May 2016 Elections.
Ratio:
(1)YES.
Her admission that she is a foundling did not shift the burden to her
because such status did not exclude the possibility that her parents were
Filipinos, especially as in the case where there is a high probability or
certainty that her parents are Filipinos.
The Court furthermore adduced that given the statistical certainty99.9% -that any child born in the Philippines would be a natural born citizen.
As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens. The intent
of the framers of the constitution is very clear that the constitutional silence
is fully explained in terms of linguistic efficiency and the avoidance of
redundancy. Thus, the policy is clear to recognize foundlings, as a class, as
Filipinos under Art IV, Section 1 (3) of the 1935 Constitution. This inclusive
policy is carried over into the 1973 and 1987 Constitution.
Furthermore, the court opined that foundlings are likewise citizens
under the international law. Under the 1987 Constitution, because of the
doctrine of incorporation, international laws form part of the laws of the land
or the domestic law. Since the Philippines have been a signatory to treaties,
even though not all, such as in UN Convention, eventually conforms to its
customary rules or principles. And in pursuant to its rules, the following
provisions under UNCRC states that:
Article 14
A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the
country of birth. If the child's parentage is established, its nationality shall be
determined by the rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known.
A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born
on the territory of the State in which it was found. (Underlining supplied)
The second is the principle that a foundling is presumed born of citizens
of the country where he is found, contained in Article 2 of the 1961 United
Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness:
Article 2
A foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the
absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born within the
territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State.

These circumstances, including the practice of jus sanguinis countries, show

that it is a generally accepted principle of international law to presume

foundlings as having been born of nationals of the country in which the

foundling is found.
(2)YES.
With regards to the next issue, the residence, the Court held that
the contention of the petitioner for her residency for 10 years and 11 months
on the day before the election is true. In answer to the requested information
of "Period of Residence in the Philippines up to the day before May 09, 2016,"
she put in "10 years 11 months" which according to her pleadings in these
cases corresponds to a beginning date of 25 May 2005 when she returned for
good from the U.S.
Petitioner presented voluminous evidence showing that she and her
family abandoned their US domicile and relocated to the Philippines for good.
These evidence includes her past US passport showing her return whenever
she travelled abroad; their shipment for household items to the Philippines;
school records of her children having been enrolled in the Philippine schools
starting June 2005 and for the succeeding years; tax identification card
issued on July 2005; titles of the condominium and parking space; as well as
the final statement from the insurance company from US showing the sale of
their US home on April 2006.
The court averred that the residence could be counted only from the
acquisition of a permanent residence could be counted only from acquisition
of a permanent resident or from reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
However, in this case, the evidence of petitioner is overwhelming and taken
together leads to no other conclusion that she decided to permanently
abandon her U.S. residence and permanently relocate to the Philippines and
actually re-established her residence here on 24 May 2005. Indeed, coupled
with her eventual application to reacquire Philippine citizenship and her
family's actual continuous stay in the Philippines over the years, it is clear
that when petitioner returned on 24 May 2005 it was for good.
(3)NO.
The court stipulated that the petitioner was not attempting to hide
anything. Her statement of residence of six years and six months in the 2012
COC because it was first brought up to media on June 2, 2015 by Rep. Tobias
Tiangco of UNA. The petitioner also proved that 2012 COC was also brought
up to the SET and admitted in her verified answer that she made a mistake
in the 2012 COC as she misunderstood the question and could have instead
stated longer period. The Court conceded with the petitioner and opined that
a candidate's disqualification to run for public office does not necessarily
constitute material misrepresentation which is the sole ground for denying
due course to, and for the cancellation of, a COC. Further, the candidate's
misrepresentation in his COC must not only refer to a material fact, but
should demonstrate a deliberate intent to mislead, misinform or hide a fact
which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. It must be made with an

intention to deceive the electorate as to one's qualifications to run for public

office.

PRINCESS FAITH S. LAMSIN