Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares vs COMELEC et al

G.R. NO. 221697 221698-700

FACTS:
Grace Poe (Poe) was found abandoned in a church in Jaro Iloilo sometime 1968. Parental care was
passed to the relatives of Edgardo Militar, the person who found the child. The relatives then
reported and registered the child as a founding with the Civil Registrar of Iloilo. The child was
then named Mary Grace Militar. The child was subsequently adopted by Fernando Poe, Jr and
Susan Roces sometime in 1974. Necessary annotations were placed in the child’s foundling
certificate but it was only in 2005 that Susan Roces discovered that their lawyer failed to
secure a new Certificate of Live Birth indicating Poe’s new name as well as the name of the
adoptive parents. Roces then submitted an affidavit and in 2006, a Certificate of Live Birth in the
name of Mary Grace Poe was released by the Civil Registry of Iloilo.

At the age of 18, Poe was registered as a voter of San Juan. In 1988, she was issued a
Philippine passport. In 1991, Poe married Teodoro Llamanzares and flew to the US right after
the wedding. She then gave birth to her eldest child in the US. In 2001, Poe became a
naturalized American Citizen and she obtained a US Passport that same year.

In April 2004, Poe came back to the Philippines in order to support her father’s candidacy. It
was at this time that she gave birth to her youngest daughter. She then returned to the US in July
2004 with her two daughters. Poe returned in December 2004 after learning of her
father’s deteriorating condition. The latter died and Poe stayed until February 2005 to take
care of the funeral arrangements.

Poe stated that she wanted to be with her grieving mother hence, she and her husband decided to
move and reside permanently in the Philippines sometime first quarter of 2005. They prepared for
resettlement including notification of their children’s schools, coordination with property
movers and inquiry with Philippine authorities as to how they can bring their pet dog.
According to Poe, as early as 2004, she already quit her job in the US.

Poe came home on May 24, 2005 and immediately secured a TIN while her husband stayed in the
US. She and her family stayed with her mother until she and husband was able to purchase a
condominium in San Juan sometime February 2006. On February 14, 2006, Poe returned to the
US to dispose the other family belongings. She travelled back in March 2006. In early 2006,
Poe and husband acquired a property in Corinthian Hills in Quezon City where they built their
family home.

On July 7, 2006, Poe took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to
R.A. 9225. On July 10, 2006, she filed a sworn petition to reacquire Philippine citizenship
together with petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her three children. The Bureau
of Immigration acted in favor of the petition on July 18, 2006. She and her children were then
considered dual citizens. Poe then registered as voter in August 2006 and secured a Philippine
passport thereafter.
On October 6, 2010, she was appointed as Chairperson of the MTRCB. Before assuming her
post, she executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the US before a notary public
in Pasig City on October 20, 2010. The following day, she submitted the Affidavit to the
Bureau of Immigration and took her oath as MTRCB Chairperson. According to Poe, she
stopped using her American passport from then on.

On July 12, 2011, Poe executed an Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of the

US before the Vice Consul of the US Embassy in Manila. On December 9, 2011, the US Vice
Consul issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the US effective October 21, 2010.

On October 2, 2012, Poe filed with COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy for Senator stating
that she was a resident of the Philippines for a period of 6 years and 6 months before May 13,
2013. She was then proclaimed a Senator on May 16, 2013.

On October 15, 2015, Poe filed her COC for the Presidency for the May 2016 elections.
She declared that she is a natural born and her residence in the Philippine up to the day before
election would be 10 years and 11 months counted from May 24, 2005.

Several petitions were filed against Poe alleging that (1) she committed material
misrepresentation in her COC when she stated that she is a resident of the Philippines for at least
10 years 11 months up to the day before May 9, 2016 Elections, (2) she is not natural born
considering that Poe is a foundling. It was argued that international law does not confer natural
born status and Filipino citizenship to foundlings hence, she is not qualified to apply
for reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under R.A.9225 as she is not a natural citizen to begin
with. Assuming that Poe was a natural born citizen, she lost it when she became a US Citizen.

In addition, one of the petitioners, Francisco Tatad, theorized that:

1. Philippines adhere to the principle of jus sanguinis and hence persons of unknown
parentage, particularly foundlings, are not natural born Filipino citizens.
2. Using statutory construction, considering that foundlings were not expressly included in
the categories of citizens in the 1935 Constitution, the framers are said to have the
intention to exclude them
3. International conventions are not self-executory hence, local legislations are necessary to
give effect to obligations assumed by the Philippines.
4. There is no standard practice that automatically confers natural born status to foundlings.

Petitioner Valdez alleged that Poe’s repatriation under RA 9225 did not bestow upon her the natural
born citizen status as those who repatriates only acquires their Philippine citizenship and not their
original status as natural born.

Poe states that in her petition that:

1. The petitioners’ contentions were not proper grounds for a disqualification case as enumerated
under Section 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.
2. The petitioners’ focus was her ineligibility hence they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, not the COMELEC.
 3. The July 18, 2006 Order of the Bureau of Immigration declared her as natural born and her
appointment as MTRC Chair and the issuance of the decree of adoption enforced her position as
natural born citizen.
4. In the 1st quarter of 2005, she reestablished her domicile and with that, she can reestablish her
domicile of choice even before she renounced her American citizenship.
5. The period of residency stated in her COC when she ran in Senate was a mistake made in good
faith.

COMELEC ruled against the petitioner and averred that she is not a natural born citizen and that she
failed to complete the 10 year residence requirement. Consequently, the petitioner filed a petition for
certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction to disqualify Poe

2. Whether or not it can be concluded that Poe’s parents are Filipinos
3. Whether or not as a foundling, Poe is a natural born citizen
4. Whether or not Poe’s repatriation resulted to reacquisition of natural born status

RATIO:

1. No. COMELEC’s procedure and conclusions on Resolutions mentioned are tainted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It should restrain itself from going to the
issue of qualifications of a candidate as it cannot, in the same cancellation case, decide on the
qualification or lack thereof of a candidate mainly because it is not one of the enumerated
powers of the COMELEC as stated in Art. IX C, Sec. 2 of the Constitution. The power to
determine the qualifications of a candidate is vested upon the Electoral Tribunal as laid out in
Art. VI Sec. 17 and the Supreme Court under Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution.

Insofar as the qualification of a candidate is concerned, Rule 25 and Rule23 of the COMELEC
rules state that it is not vested with authority and jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of a
candidate. It is a settled rule that facts of a qualification must be established first in prior
proceeding before an authority vested with jurisdiction. Prior determination of qualification
may be by statute, an executive order, or by a judgment of a competent court or tribunal.
Considering the fact that the above case lacks prior determination, the certificate of candidacy
cannot be cancelled or denied due course on the ground of false representations regarding a
candidate’s qualifications except if there exists self-evident facts of unquestionable veracity and
judicial confessions. In this light, COMELEC cannot cancel Poe’s certificate of candidacy as it
lacks prior determination of her qualifications by a competent body.

1. Yes. There is more than sufficient evidence that Poe has Filipino parents hence it can be
surmised that she is a natural born Filipino. On that note, the burden of proof is laden on private
respondents to prove that the petitioner is not a Filipino citizen. Additionally, private
respondents should present evidence that Poe’s parents were aliens. Despite Poe’s admission
that she is a foundling, this did not shift the burden to her because such status did not exclude
the possibility that her parents were Filipinos. In fact, there is a great chance that her parents
were in fact, Filipinos. The Solicitor General offered official statistics from the Philippine
Statistics Office that from 1965 to 1975, the total number of foreigners born in the Philippines
was 15,985 while there were more than 10 million Filipinos born in the country. On that note,
there is a 99% chance that the child born in the Philippines would be a Filipino indicating that
there is an ample probability that Poe’s parents are Filipinos. Moreover, circumstantial
 evidences presented are the fact that Poe was abandoned in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo
and she has typical Filipino features. On these bases, it is safer to assume that Poe’s parents are
Filipinos and to assume otherwise is to accept the absurd.

2. Yes. Foundlings are as a class can be considered natural born citizens. While the 1935
Constitution is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language that excludes them either.
Considering the fact that there is silence and ambiguity in the enumeration, the court recognizes
that there is a need to examine the legislative intent of the framers.

The amendment to the Constitution proposed by constitutionalist Rafols to include foundlings

as natural born citizens was not carried out despite an absence of objection because there was
not enough number to merit specific mention. On the contrary, all three Constitutions guarantee
the basic legal right of foundlings to equal protection of laws. Likewise, domestic laws support
the principle that foundlings are Filipinos. These laws do not provide adoption confers
citizenship upon the adoptee, rather, the adoptee must be Filipino in the first place to be
adopted. Recent legislations all expressly refer to “Filipino children” and include foundlings as
among Filipino children who may be adopted.

The argument that the process to determine that the child is a foundling which led to the
issuance of a foundling certificate are acts to acquire or perfect Philippine citizenship is without
merit. Thus, the argument that as a foundling, Poe underwent a process in order to acquire or
perfect her Philippine citizenship is untenable.

“Having to perform an act” means that the act must be personally done by the citizen. In this
case, the determination of foundling status was done by authorities, not by Poe. Second, the
object of the process is to determine the whereabouts of the parents, not the citizenship of the
child and lastly, the process is not analogous to naturalization proceedings.

Under international law, foundlings are citizens. Generally accepted principles of international
law which include international customs form part of the laws of the land. The common thread
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and
the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights obligates the Philippines to grant
nationality from birth and to ensure that no child is stateless. The principles stated are laid out
in:
a. Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relation to the Conflict of Nationality laws(that a
foundling is presumed to have the nationality of the country of birth)
b. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (foundling is presumed born citizens of the
country where it is found)

Despite the fact that we are not signatory to the Hague Convention, we are signatory to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which affirms Art. 14 of the Hague Convention. In the
same vein, the Convention on the Reduction of State of Lawlessness affirms Art. 15 of the
UDHR. The court ruled that despite being not signatory in the International Convention for the
Protection of Persons from Enforced Disappearance the proscription against enforced
disappearance was nonetheless binding as a generally accepted principle of international law.

The petitioner presented that at least 60 countries in Asia, North and South America, and
Europe have passed legislation which recognizes foundlings as its citizens. 166 out of 189
countries accept that foundlings are recognized as citizens. With that there is a generally
accepted principle of international law to presume foundlings as having been born and a
 national of the country in which it is found. Considering the facts presented, the Court ruled that
petitioner is a natural born Filipino citizen.

Yes, Grace Poe might be and is considerably a natural-born Filipino. For that, she satisfies one of the
constitutional requirements that only natural-born Filipinos may run for presidency.

First, there is a high probability that Grace Poe’s parents are Filipinos. Her physical features are typical of
Filipinos. The fact that she was abandoned as an infant in a municipality where the population of the
Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be more than 99% chance that a child born in
such province is a Filipino is also a circumstantial evidence of her parents’ nationality. That probability and
the evidence on which it is based are admissible under Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence. To assume otherwise is to accept the absurd, if not the virtually impossible, as the norm.

Second, by votes of 7-5, the SC pronounced that foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens. This is based
on the finding that the deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention show that the framers intended
foundlings to be covered by the enumeration. While the 1935 Constitution’s enumeration is silent as to
foundlings, there is no restrictive language which would definitely exclude foundlings either. Because of silence
and ambiguity in the enumeration with respect to foundlings, the SC felt the need to examine the intent of the
framers.
Third, that foundlings are automatically conferred with natural-born citizenship is supported by treaties and
the general principles of international law. Although the Philippines is not a signatory to some of these
treaties, it adheres to the customary rule to presume foundlings as having born of the country in which the
foundling is found.

3. Yes. The Court ruled that there are only two types of citizen under the 1987 Constitution and
these are natural born or naturalized. Nothing indicates a third category for repatriated citizens.
The COMELEC disregarded jurisprudence on the matter of repatriation where repatriation
results in the recovery of the original nationality. According to the court, a natural born citizen
who lost his/her Philippine nationality will be restored to his/her former status as natural born
Filipino after repatriation (Benson v. HRET, Pareno v. Commission on Audit et. al.). In passing
RA 9225, the Congress saw it fit to declare that natural born citizenship may be reacquired even
if it has been lost. It is not the COMELEC’s position to disagree with the Congress’ legislative
intent and determination. In addition, it cannot reverse a judicial precedent. With that said,
COMELEC has committed a grave abuse of discretion.

4. Yes. The Court claimed that there are three requisites to acquire domicile and these are the
following: a. residence or bodily presence in a new locality, b. intention to remain (animus
manendi), c. intention to abandon the old domicile (animus non-revertendi). The intention to
remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time, the change of
residence must be voluntary, and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be
actual. The petitioner presented voluminous evidence that she and her family had abandoned
their U.S. domicile and has relocated in the Philippines for good. One of the evidences
presented was the petitioner’s passport which shows her arrival on May 24, 2005 and her return
to the Philippines every time she travelled abroad, additional evidences were also presented
such as email correspondences with freight company to arrange the shipment of household
items as well as the family’s pet, her children’s proof of enrolment in the Philippines starting
June 2005.

Despite that, COMELEC still refused to consider the petitioner’s domicile has been changed as
of May 24, 2005 and maintained that although there is physical presence and animus manendi,
there is no animus revertendi. Respondents contend that the stay of an alien, who is a former
Filipino, cannot be counted until he/she obtains a permanent resident visa or reacquired
Philippine citizenship since she the petitioner is still an American until July 7, 2006 based on
the previous cases ruled by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court averred that the previous cases decided by court, cited by the respondents
where residence was counted only from the acquisition of permanent residence were decided as
such because of the sparse evidence on establishment of residence. These cases cannot be
applied in the case at bar. In the present case, there is overwhelming evidence that led the Court
to conclude that the petitioner decided to permanently abandon her US residence and reside in
the Philippines as early as May 24, 2005. The evidences presented, along with her eventual
application to reacquire her Filipino citizenship is clear and unambiguous when she returned in
May 2005, it was for good. The stamp in her passport as a balikbayan does not make Poe an
ordinary transient either.

The petitioner was able to prove that her statement in her COC in the year 2012 was a mistake
done in good faith. Such a mistake could be used as evidence against her but it was by no
means conclusive considering the overwhelming evidence submitted by the petitioner. With
that, the court moved to annul and set aside the decision of the COMELEC. Poe is declared
qualified to be a candidate for president in the national and local election on May 9, 2016.