FOUNDLING NEMO:

THE PHILIPPINE LEGAL LANDSCAPE POST SC VERDICT ON POE

By: Juan Paolo Ramos Datinguinoo

For several months, the entire nation waited in limbo as Mary Grace Llamanzares,
profoundly known by many as Grace Poe, received blows from opposition assailing her
qualifications to hold public offices who are reserved by the Constitution itself only to the purest of
Filipinos—the natural-borns1.

From merely being a legal question of citizenship2, tinted with queries of residency
requirement3 set forth by the Charter, the issue surrounding Poe stretched as far as the debate on the
rights of foundlings4 and the corresponding obligation of the State to protect the welfare of its
citizens, making Poe’s case one of the most colorful election case to ever grace Philippine history.

March 11, 2016 – the Filipino electorate held its breath as the Supreme Court released its
verdict: Poe is a natural born and is eligible to participate in the 2016 May polls.5 While Poe’s camp
may have passed champagne and rejoiced over the virtual victory, not all people agreed with the
decision, even if it came from the highest tribunal no less.

Review of precedents

The slew of cases filed against Poe take root on David vs Poe6, a petition filed before the
Senate Electoral Tribunal, where petitioner Rizalito David insists that Poe be dislodged as a senator
owing to her failure to satisfy the requirement of natural-born Filipino citizenship under the context
of the 1987 Constitution7. Later on, the SET decided in favor of Poe and declared that she is a
natural-born8.

Later on, two cases of similar import were filed in the COMELEC9. Estrella Elamparo vs
Poe and Francisco Tatad vs Poe11 both raised the same issue of citizenship plus failure of Poe to
10

1 Article VII, Section II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

2 Ibid
3 Ibid
4 Anjo Alimario, “CHR backs Poe in SC: Foundlings have the right to nationality.” CNN Philippines.com. N.P.

February 24, 2016. Accessed April 4, 2016. Available from http://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/02/24/chr-

grace-poe-comelec-supreme-court-foundlings.html
5 Jee Geronimo, “Grace Poe a natural-born Filipino – Supreme Court.” Rappler.com. March 12, 2016. Last updated

March 12, 2016. Accessed April 4, 2016. Available from

http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/125492-supreme-court-main-decision-grace-poe
6 Senate Electoral Tribunal. “David vs Llmanzares.” November 17, 2015. N.D. Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available

from http://www.set.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SET-Decision-SET-CASE-001-15-David-v-Poe-
Lamanzares.pdf
7 Edu Punay, "Carpio cites flaws in SET ruling on Poe disqualification case". Philstar.com. November 23, 2015. N.D.

Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available from http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/11/23/1524951/carpio-cites-

flaws-set-ruling-poe-disqualification-case.
8 Jee Geronimo, "Why did SC justices vote to disqualify Grace Poe?". Rappler.com November 24, 2015. N.D. Accessed

on April 4, 2016. Available from http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/113668-main-arguments-set-

decision-grace-poe
9 Ashzel Hachero, "OSG favors SET ruling on Poe". Malaya.com.ph. January 5, 2016. N.D. Accessed on January

5, 2016. Available from http://malaya.com.ph/business-news/news/osg-favors-set-ruling-poe.

satisfy the 10-year residency requirement for candidates seeking election to the highest office in the
land. COMELEC, under the Second and First Divisions respectively, ruled in favor of the
petitioners and ruled that Poe is not qualified to run for president12 and ordered that Poe be
sketched out of the ballots for the May 2016 polls13.

Aggrieved parties on both SET and COMELEC cases appealed the cases to the Supreme
Court for a final verdict14.

The Justices wear slippers: A case of flip-flopping?

Naysayers are quick to throw mud at the Supreme Court when it ruled 9-615 in favor of Poe,
effectively reinstating her as a bona fide candidate for the presidential race.

The heaviest among criticisms hurled at the High Tribunal is the wanton flip-flopping
decision when the Poe case is compared starkly to that of Marinduque solon and disqualified
representative, Regina Reyes.

It can be recalled that the SC ordered the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal to
oust Reyes after upholding its 2013 ruling in Reyes vs COMELEC and Joseph Socorro Tan16, decreeing
that the latter failed to prove her Filipino citizenship and compliance with the one-year residency
requirement constitutionally imposed on candidates vying for congressional seats.17

Invoking the Poe decision, Reyes questioned the SC why it allowed Poe who is a foundling
and former US citizen who reacquired Philippine citizenship to run for presidency while she who is
running for a lower position, having known parents and a birth certificate to prove her natural-born
citizenship is excluded from exercising her political right to be voted to public office.18

10 Marites Vitug, “The Scrum: Elamparo vs Poe”. December 9, 2015. Last updated February 26, 2016. Accessed on April
4, 2016. Available from http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/115390-scrum-elamparo-grace-poe.
11 Camille Elemia, “Ex-senator Tatad files disqualification case vs Poe”. October 19, 2015. Last updated October 19,

2015. Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available from http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/109850-

tatad-disqualification-case-grace-poe-comelec
12 "Comelec en banc bars Grace Poe from running in 2016". Rappler.com. December 23, 2015. Last updated December

31, 2015. Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available from http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/116912-

comelec-en-banc-bars-grace-poe-from-running.
13 Trefor Moss, “Philippines Election Faces Turmoil as Favorite Grace Poe Disqualified”. WSJ.com. December 23,

2015. N.D. Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available from http://www.wsj.com/articles/philippines-election-faces-turmoil-

as-favorite-grace-poe-disqualified-1450864915.
14 Supra
15 Rosette Adel and Camille Diola, “Grace Poe’s detractors: SC decision not strong”. Philstar.com. N.P. March 8, 2016.

Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available from http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/03/08/1560814/grace-poes-

detractors-sc-decision-not-strong
16 G.R. No. 207264, October 22, 2013
17 Jerome Aning, “Ousted solon compares case to Poe’s, hits SC ruling”. Inquirer.net. March 28, 2016. N.D. Accessed

on April 4, 2016. Available from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/776413/ousted-solon-compares-case-to-poes-hits-sc-

ruling
18 Ibid
 Notable also is the fact that Reyes, like Poe, twice executed an affidavit renouncing her
foreign citizenship, which the former argues should have the effect of restoring her status as a
natural-born Filipino.19

As two fresh election cases are currently lodged anew in the COMELEC by her adversary
Lord Allan Jay Velasco who is seeking to have Reyes disqualified for running for the same seat on
May 2016, Reyes submits that as per the Poe ruling, where the Supreme Court made use of Article
VI, Section 720 and Article VII, Section 421 of the 1987 Constitution in allowing Poe to run, the two
cases against her in the COMELEC should now be dismissed.22

The imminent potential to cause a constitutional crisis of the flip-flopping decision on the
Reyes and Poe cases can be inferred from SC Justice Mariano del Castillo when he warned in his
dissenting opinion in the Poe case that the favorable decision to Poe may open the “floodgates”23 to
a strong current of election protests from past candidates whose eligibility was rendered unfounded
by the SC in relation to citizenship and residency rules24. As his dissenting opinion expressed:

“I do not want to wake up someday and see my

beloved country teeming with foreigners and aliens
posing as natural-born Filipinos, while the real natives
are thrown into oblivion or relegated to second or
third class citizens who have become strangers in
their own homeland…”25 26

19 Ibid
20The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Member of the House
of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length
of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was
elected.
21 The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall
begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date,
six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President
and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.
22 Tetch Torres-Tupas, “Disqualified Marinduque solon questions SC ruling on Poe case”. Inquirer.net. March 27, 2016.

N.D. Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/776378/disqualified-marinduque-solon-

questions-sc-ruling-on-poe-case
23 Jerome Aning, “Ousted solon compares case to Poe’s, hits SC ruling”. Inquirer.net. March 28, 2016. N.D. Accessed

on April 4, 2016. Available from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/776413/ousted-solon-compares-case-to-poes-hits-sc-

ruling
24 Camille Elemia, “Grace Poe lacks 10-year residency – SC del Castillo”. Rappler.com. March 12, 2016. Last updated

March 12, 2016. Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available from

http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/125515-sc-justice-del-castillo-dissent-grace-poe-residency
25 “FULL TEXT: Supreme Court dissenting opinions on Poe vs COMELEC”. Philstar.com. N.P. March 13, 2016.

Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available from http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/03/13/1562524/full-text-

supreme-court-dissenting-opinions-poe-vs-comelec
26 “FULL TEXT: Dissenting opinion of Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo”. Scribd.com. March 8, 2016. Last updated

March 12, 2016. Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available from https://www.scribd.com/doc/304055693/Dissenting-

Opinion-of-Justice-Mariano-C-Del-Castillo
Silver lining

The Poe decision did not just bring violent ripples from naysayers but also triggered pleasant
tides from those who see the silver lining in the decision.

For one, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), thru its office in
the Philippines, lauded the Supreme Court for its brave and radical decision on the case of Poe who
admitted to be a foundling. UNHCR went as far as hailing the decision as a “shining example of
humanitarianism”27, highlighting that stateless persons, foundlings included, is now considered as a
vulnerable sector of the international community as they are frequently deprived of the privilege to
exercise even the most basic human rights including political rights28. UNHCR Representative
Bernard Kerblat regarded the SC decision as a strong support to the growing humanitarian tradition
of supporting foundlings and stateless children.29

The UNHCR’s jubilant reaction to the Poe verdict is not misplaced. In fact, it may be argued
that the Poe decision was so wonderfully crafted and thought of that it may very well be the
Philippines’ trailblazing jurisprudence regarding the recognition of the natural-born status of
foundlings. This notion was cemented by Antonio La Vina, lawyer and policy expert and Dean of
the Ateneo School of Government, who dubbed the Poe decision as “clear” and “decisive”30.

To start, the decision exposed two main grounds that streamlined the rights of foundlings
under Philippine soil. First, it highlighted that the omission of any concrete provision in the
Philippine Charters way back 1935 reveals that the drafters deemed it unnecessary due to the
supposition that foundlings are already deemed citizens of the country of their birth under
international law31. Second, the already established mechanisms under Philippine jurisdiction
regarding adoption of foundlings stems from the well-recognized context that foundlings are
Filipinos as manifested in clear cut examples like issuance of Philippine passports to foundlings and
not merely issuance of travel documents to foundlings as stateless persons32.

Also, Justice Francis Jardeleza proves that the Poe decision is innately pro-foundling when
he explained in his concurring opinion33 that the application of strict scrutiny standard34 should be
employed in interpreting actions of any government branch or entity owing to the fact that
foundlings are “discrete and insular minority entitled to utmost protection against unreasonable

27 Ranel C, “UN agency welcomes SC decision on Grace Poe’s case that favored foundlings”. Kickerdaily.com. March
19, 2016. N.D. Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available from http://kickerdaily.com/un-agency-welcomes-sc-decision-on-
grace-poes-case-that-favored-foundlings/
28 Ibid
29 Ibid
30 Antonio La Vina, “Poe decision: Clear and Decisive”. March 20, 2016. Last updated, March 20, 2016. Accessed on

April 4, 2016. Available from http://www.rappler.com/views/imho/126336-poe-sc-decision-clear-decisive

31 Ibid
32 Ibid
33 “Justice Hardeleza’s concurring opinion on Poe vs COMELEC, et al.”. ABSCBNnews.com. March 14, 2016. N.D.

Accessed on April 4, 2016. Available from http://news.abs-cbn.com/halalan2016/nation/03/14/16/read-justice-

jardelezas-concurring-opinion-on-poe-vs-comelec-et-al
34 Strict Scrutiny Standard is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by courts. It is part of the hierarchy of

standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser
standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and
government action at all levels of government within the Philippines.
discrimination”35 and who should be “protected instead of being subjected to impermissible
majoritarian prejudice perpetrated even by the State itself”36.

Zooming in to May 2016 Polls

Weeks after the SC has decreed its decision on Poe’s favor, the nation has been stirred into a
wide array of public opinions. But as the days pass, we should slap ourselves awake with two truths:
One, the SC has already spoken and it will never reverse the Poe decision absent any pressing
reason; and two, the bigger event is about to unfold, the May 2016 Elections.

Whether the SC indeed flip-flopped from the Reyes case to that of Poe is a matter of sound
debate where people could argue all day and not find an answer. But for one thing we are sure: The
Philippine legal landscape will never be the same with the advent of the Poe case. Our jurisprudence
is now one level higher, one step wiser, and one degree richer.

The Poe decision has reshaped legal landscape, but we must vote wisely come May and
create Philippine history.

After all, as that popular animated movie once said, when all is said and done, we should all
“just keep swimming”.

35 Supra
36 Supra