Why Grace Poe is a natural-born Philippine

citizen and eligible to be president

BY Resolution issued on December 1, 2015, the Second Division of the Philippine Commission
on Elections (Comelec) ruled that Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-Llamanzares is not a resident
of the Philippines for at least ten (10) years immediately preceding the May 9, 2016 elections, as
required by Article VII, Section 2 of the Philippines 1987 Constitution to be elected President.

Thus, it denied due course and canceled her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for President due to
false material representations therein. It found that Grace Poe deliberately attempted to mislead
or misinform the electorate or hide a fact from them when she supplied the answer “10 years and
11 months” to the question on her period of residence in her COC for President.

This is so because she had stated in her COC for Senator in 2012 that she had been a resident for
“6 years and 6 months,” so that her residency period is only 9 years and 6 months by the May 5,
2016 elections.

Moreover, according to Comelec’s Second Division (Commissioners Al Parreno, Arthur Lim, and
Sheriff Abas), Grace Poe became a resident only in July 2006, when she applied for dual
citizenship, and short of the 10-year residency mandate.

Legal principles of prior admission against interest and estoppel are invoked against Grace Poe,
who had reportedly admitted error in her 2012 COC for Senator, based on estimates when her
husband resigned from his job in the United States, as stated in her Affidavit submitted to the
Senate Electoral Tribunal, that dismissed the disqualification complaint against her by a 5-4 vote.
Issue on residency is decided by a preponderance of the evidence:

The issue on Grace Poe’s residence is a factual issue to be decided by a preponderance of the
evidence on an appeal to the Comelec en banc, consisting of its Chairman and six (6)
Commissioners of both its First and Second Divisions, and ultimately to the Philippine Supreme
Court.

A distinction between domicile and residence is in order. Article 50 of the Philippine Civil Code
defines “domicile” as the place of habitual residence of natural persons. Domicile denotes a fixed
permanent residence to which an absent person has the intention of returning (animus revertendi).
It is broader than residence which merely denotes a place of abode, whether permanent or
temporary.

If the 10-year residence requirement is deemed “domicile,” it is favorable to Grace Poe, who can
argue that she may have a residence in California, but her domicile is in the Philippines.

But can she claim domicile in the Philippines before her application for dual citizenship reportedly
in July 2006? Yes, because a U.S. citizen can establish domicile abroad. U.S. citizenship, unlike
lawful permanent residence status, does not require domicile or residence in the United States.

Factual evidence on intent of returning to the Philippines as domicile should be considered. On the
other hand, if the 10-year residence requirement is deemed as the place of abode, did Grace Poe
have a residence in the Philippines when she returned in the first half of 2005? Did she have the
intention of returning to that residence to establish domicile?

The case of Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, 64 SCAD 358, 248 SCRA 300 (1995),
would be instructive on this issue because it considered domicile, not residence, as dispositive of
election issues on residence, citing the 1928 case of Nuval vs. Guray, 52 Phil. 645, among others.

Issue of natural-born citizen:

Article IV, Section 2 of the Philippine 1987 Constitution states that: “Natural-born citizens are
those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire
or perfect their Philippines citizenship.”
This definition of natural-born is not found in the Constitution of the United States, whose Article
11, Section 1 requires the following qualifications to be elected President: natural born citizen, at
least 35 years of age and 14 years a resident of the United States. Indeed, the United States is a
jus soli (right of the soil) country, not a jus sanguinis (right of the blood) as the Philippines.

There seems to be no dispute that Grace Poe was born in the Philippines of unknown parents, later
on adopted by Susan Roces and Fernando Poe, Jr., and that as a Philippine citizen, she obtained
U.S. citizenship by naturalization, and that she re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, under Section 3 of Republic Act 9225
(approved on August 29, 2003).

If there is still an issue on her Philippine citizenship, under Article IV, Section 1(2) of the
Philippine 1987 Constitution, she acquired Philippine citizenship, if her father or mother is a
citizen of the Philippines.

But her parents are unknown, and so is she a Philippine citizen? But why was she allowed to
reacquire Philippine citizenship in the first place? Under aforesaid Section 3 of Republic Act
9225, “natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason
of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired
Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic.”

Once a natural-born, always a natural-born, under aforesaid Republic Act 9225. So, the Philippine
Government has admitted that Grace Poe is a natural-born Philippine citizen by granting her dual
U.S and Philippine citizenships. It is estopped from questioning her natural-born status.

Issue on foundling: conventions against statelessness:

The 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws
states in Article 14 thereof that: “A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality
of the country of birth…. A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born
on the territory of the state in which it was found.”
And Article 15 thereof states that: “where the nationality of a state is not acquired automatically
by reason of birth on its territory, a child born on the territory, of that state of parents having no
nationality, or of unknown nationality, may obtain the nationality of the said state.

Moreover, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, in its Article 1 states that: “A
Contracting State shall grant its nationality to a person born in its territory who would otherwise
be stateless. Such nationality shall be granted: (a) a birth by opposition of law, or (b) upon on
application… by or on behalf of the person concerned, in the manner prescribed by national law.”

Since the Philippines is not a signatory to these two conventions and is not bound as a non-
contracting state, and has no foundling statute, is Grace Poe a “stateless” person? No, because the
Philippines and the United States have considered her as citizens of both countries. Moreover, it
can be argued that the rule against statelessness in the aforesaid Conventions, the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ASEAN Human Rights
Declaration, and foundling statutes of other states has become customary international law. An
ancestry DNA test may resolve any lingering issue on her country’s citizenship.

The framers of the Philippine 1987 Constitution in Article IV, Section 1 (2) and (3) took pains in
avoiding statelessness by declaring as citizens those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines,
a carry-over from the 1973 Constitution, and those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

Ex- Chief Justice Rebuts Carpio on Poe’s Citizenship

In his newspaper column over the weekend, the former Supreme Court (SC) chief said the senator
running for president next year is a natural-born Filipino.

He cited the generally accepted principle of international law, which forms part of the law of the
land.

“Under Article 2 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, she — a foundling
who was found in Iloilo, Philippines — is deemed to have Filipino parents. Perforce, she is natural-
born since her presumed parents, specifically her father, are accorded Philippine citizenship,”
Panganiban explained.

Although the Philippines is not a signatory to the 1961 Convention, Panganiban said the country
is still bound by its provisions that have become “generally accepted principles of international
law… as binding as statutes passed by Congress.”

He said the 1935 Constitution, the country’s basic law in 1968 when Poe was born, provides that
the “Philippines adopt the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the nation.”

“Thus, by this doctrine of incorporation, customary international laws are given the same force
and effect as statutes passed by Congress,” Panganiban explained.

Apart from the 1961 Convention, he said foundlings are also protected by the 1930 Hague
Convention on the Conflict of Nationality Laws and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which states that the right to a nationality is one of the most fundamental human rights.

Nationality is synonymous to citizenship in international law, he said.

Contrary to the opinion espoused by Carpio in oral arguments in the Senate Electoral Tribunal
disqualification case against Poe last September 21, Panganiban said Poe could not be considered
naturalized in accordance with international law.

He explained that it was actually Poe’s parents who acquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to
international law.

“But she derived her citizenship from her presumed Filipino father; thus, she is a citizen from birth
without having to do anything to acquire or perfect her Philippine citizenship,” Panganiban
stressed.

The 1935 Constitution provides, among others, those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines
are considered Filipino citizens.
Panganiban said Poe’s biological father may be proven to be actually a foreigner, but the burden
of proof belongs to those who challenge her natural-born status.

“Unless such proof is presented, her parents continue to be presumed Filipinos. Thus, she retains
her natural-born citizenship,” he added. Poe, the topnotcher in the 2013 senatorial race and a
frontrunner in various presidential preference surveys, recently declared her intention to run for
president in next year’s elections.

Under the 1987 Constitution, only natural-born Filipino citizens are qualified to run for president,
vice-president, senator and congressman.

The present Constitution 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.”

Carpio has said that Poe, being a foundling, is not a natural-born citizen qualified for electoral post
unless she proves that her biological parents are Filipinos.

Meanwhile, election lawyer Romulo Macalintal said Carpio cannot be forced to inhibit from the
case of Poe.

Macalintal noted that Carpio, as chairman of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET), merely cited the
customary international law (CIL) when he stated that Poe is a “naturalized Filipino citizen” and
not a natural-born citizen.

“It not a strong ground for his inhibition from case,” Macalintal said while noting that the justice
cited his legal opinion – not the decision of the SET.

Macalintal stressed that Poe has been given until Oct. 6 to submit memoranda after which the SET
will deliberate on the issues and assign the writing of the court’s opinion to a member.

“Looking at the positive side of Carpio’s comment, it was to the advantage of Poe that Carpio
disclosed what was in his mind, if ever that would be his final position on this issue. It is now a
challenge to Poe’s lawyers to prove otherwise,” Macalintal pointed out.
If given an argument better than his, Macalintal said Carpio might later be convinced that Poe is a
natural-born Filipino under CIL that recognizes the parents of a foundling as citizens of the country
where the foundling was found.

Macalintal noted that there were cases in collegiate courts where some members who previously
voted with the majority would join the dissenting opinion and eventually became the majority
opinion.

Every member of the tribunal may refrain from participating in the resolution of a case where he
sincerely feels that his personal interests or biases would stand in the way of an objective and
impartial judgment.

But Macalintal said, no one could force Carpio to inhibit from Poe’s case and only his conscience
and sound discretion could make the final decision.

Conclusion:

Grace Poe is a natural-born Philippine citizen whose domicile in the Philippines complies with the
10-year residency requirement of the Philippine Constitution and customary international
law. Any legal doubt should be resolved in favor of the supremacy of the Filipino electorate to
decide their President. Vox populi, vox Dei.