MAIN DECISION

MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and

ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS and
AMADO D. VALDEZ, respondents.

Ponente: J.Perez , JTP

Poe v COMELEC, 2016

SUBJECT MATTER:

CASE SUMMARY:

Grace Poe was disqualified by COMELEC to run for president because of questions on her residency and
citizenship so she filed a petition before the SC. SC held that (1) COMELEC can only disqualify candidates if
there is judicial proceeding or admission on her ineligibility or if it is a known fact which are absent in this
case. COMELEC argued that they can disqualify Poe because she was A KNOWN FOUNDLING and
foundlings are neither natural born nor citizens.

SC held that based on intent of the framers of the 1935 Constitution and generally accepted principles of
international law, foundlings are natural born citizens on countries where they are found. Moreover, the law on
reacquisition of citizenship declares that citizens reacquire their original type of citizenship. Hence, even if
Poe once became a US citizen, she still regained her natural born citizenship when it was approved by PH
authorities.

On the residency, SC held that by May 2005, it was clear that Poe already decided to stay here for good
thus satisfying the requisites for change in residency. SC debunked COMELEC theory that it can only be
completed once one reacquires citizenship because if this was followed, Poe would fall short of the
requirement because she only reacquired her citizenship in July 2006.

On the inconsistency of residency on her 2012 CoC (note that if this is followed, she would fall short of
requirement), SC held that what matters is the actual facts of her residency. Hence, SC cleared her of this
honest mistake on her part.

Thus, SC annulled COMELEC decisions cancelling Poe’s Certificate of Candidacy. She is thus qualified to run
for President.

DOCTRINES:

FACTS:

Date Key events Details

Sep 3, 1968 Discovery as foundling Grace Poe was found abandoned by Edgardo Militar as newborn
infant in the Parish church of Jaro, Iloilo.

Later on, parental care and custody over Grace was passed on to
Edgardo’s relatives, Emiliano Militar and wife.
Sep 6, 1968 Registration as Emiliano reported and registered Grace as a foundling with the
foundling Office of the Civil Registrar Iloilo city (OCR-Iloilo).

She was given the name of MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD

CONTRERAS MILITAR in her Foundling Certificate and Certificate of
Live Birth.
May 13 1974 Adoption by FPJ When petition was five years old, Ronald allan Kelly Poe aka FPJ
and Jesusa Sonora Poe (a.k.a. Susan Roces) filed a petition for her
adoption with MTC San Juan.
 On May 13, 1974, trial court granted the petition and her name was
changed to Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe. 1
1986 Registration as voter in Upon reaching 18, Grace registered as voter in COMELEC San Juan
PH Office. She received her Voter’s Identification Card with address at
Greenhills.
April 4, 1988 Securing a Passport. Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) issued a passport to Grace.
Includes renewal
She renewed the same on April 5, 1993 and May 1998
1988 College life She initially pursued Development Studies degree in UP Manila but
she left for the US in 1988 to continue her studies in Boston College
where she graduated BA Political Studies
July 27, Marriage She married Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares who was a dual
1991 citizen (PH and US) at San Jose Parish in Juan. They flew back to
the US two days after their wedding.
1992 First and second Child She gave birth to Biran in the US (April 16, 1992). She gave birth to
Hanna in the PH on July 10, 1998.
October 18, BECAME US CITIZEN She became a Naturalized US Citizen. She obtained her US
2001 Passport on December 19 of the same year.
2004 FPJ’s bid for the She came back to the PH to support FPJ’s presidency. She gave
presidency. Also birth birth to Anika on June 5, 2004. She returned to the US on July 2004.
of third child.
2004 FPJ’s death In December, FPJ slipped into a coma and died eventually. Grace
stayed in the PH for FPJ’s funeral arrangements and estate
settlement.

2005 Desire to return to the To be with her grieving mother, Grace and her husband decided to
PH permanently move and reside in the PH permanently. They planned the moving of
their furniture, household goods and pet dog. They also notified their
children’s schools of the impending transfer She also quit her job in
the US by 2004.
May 24, Coming home She came home and secured a Tax Identification number from the
2005 BIR. Her children followed while her husband stayed in the US to
finish some projects and arrange the sale of their house.

Months after, she bought a condominium unit in San Juan and her
children began attending PH private schools.
February Trip to the US then She returned briefly to the US to arrange disposal of their remaining
2006 return to PH belongings. She returned to the PH in March.
March 2006 Notification to US Grace and husband informed US Postal Service of the abandonment
Government. of their US address. Their US hpome was sold in April 2006. In April,
Husband’s return to PH her husband resigned from his work in the US and arrived in May in
the PH to work for a PH company.

They purchased a house and lot in Corinthian Hills which is their

current residence.
July 7, 2006 OATH OF Grace took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the PH pursuant
ALLEGIANCE TO PH to RA 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act. She
then filed with the Bureau of Immigration (BI) a sworn petition to
REACQUIRE PH CITIZENSHP together with petitions for derivative
citizenship on behalf of her minor children.
July 18, Bureau of Immigration BI declared that Grace is deemed to have reacquired her PH
2006 approval citizenship while her children are considered PH citizens as well.
They also issued Identification Certificates for her and her
children.
August 31, VOTER She registered as voter of San Juan.
2006

1Notations were made to her OCR but in 2005, it was discovered that the adoption lawyer failed to secure a new
Certificate of Live Birth indicating her name and her adoptive parents. This was corrected in 2006.
 REGISTRATION AND She got her NEW PASSPORT and renewed it on March 2014.
PH PASSPORT
October 6, Appointment as PNoy appointed her as chairperson of MTRCB. Before that, she
2010 MTRCB Chair. executed an AFFIDAVIT OF RENUNCIATION OF ALLEGIANCE
Renunciation of US TO THE US AND US CITIZENSHIP to satisfy the legal requisites of
Citizenship RA 9225. She submitted those to the BI. She then took her oath as
Chair. She also stopped using her American Passport
July 12, Oath/ Affirmation of She executed before a US Vice Consul said document and
2011 Renunciation of US accomplished a sworn questionnaire wherein she stated that she
Nationality took the MTRB chairmanship with an intent to relinquish US
citizenship.

The Vice Consul issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality by

December 2011 but is deemed effective starting October 21, 2010.
October 2, SENATORIAL She filed with the COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for
2012 CANDIDACY the 2013 Election wherein she answered 6 years and 6 months to
the question Period of Residence in the PH before May 13, 2013.

Shegained the highest number of votes and was proclaimed as

Senator. She later on obtained her PH Diplomatic Passport.
October 15, HER RUN FOR THE On this date, she filed her COC for the Presidency and therein she
2015 PRESIDENCY declared that she is a Natural born citizen and her residence in the
PH before May 9, 2016 would be ten years and eleven months
counted from May 24, 2005. She attached her Affidavit of Affirming
her Renunciation of US citizenship. This triggered the filing of
several cases against her.
Petition to deny due course or cancel said CoC for Presidency. Raffled to COMELEC 2nd division
Petitioner’s arguments
Grace committed Material Misrepresentation when she
stated in her CoC that she is a natural born PH citizen
and that she is a resident of PH for at least 10 years and
11 months before May 9, 2016 elections.
Explanations:
▪ Why is she not natural born?
o International law does not confer natural
born status and Filipino Citizenship on
foundlings
o Moreover, she is not qualified to apply for
reacquisition of PH citizenship under RA
9225.
o What if she was natural born assuming
arguendo?
o She lost in when she became a naturalized
US citizen. Natural born-citizenship is
continuous from birth.
▪ What is the issue on residency?
o Grace should be bound by her sworn
declaration in her 2012 CoC for Senator
wherein she stated that she resided for only
six years and six months as of May 2013
elections (Nov 2006 reckoning date??).
Hence, falling short of ten year residency
requirement.
o Her residency should be counted starting
July 2006 when she reacquired PH
citizenship.
o She failed to establish her domicile in the PH.
COMELEC DECISION (2 nd division) on this Petition:
• CoC contained material representations which are false. Hence, Elamparo’s Petition to deny due
course or cancel the CoC is hereby granted.
• MR was filed which COMELEC En Banc resolved in December 23, 2015. It DENIED THE SAME.
Poe’s counter arguments
(I deleted non-relevant ones)
• COMELEC does not have jurisdiction
because it is a petition for quo warranto
which could only be filed if she wins
• No Cause of action. No allegation there
was willful or deliberate intent to
misrepresent in her part
No Material representation because:
1. 1934 Constitutional convention shows
foundlings were considered citizens
(remember that 1935 Consti is the one
effective during Grace’s birth)
2. Under International law, foundlings are
presumed citizens of the place where
they are found
3. She acquired her natural born status
under RA 9225. The burden is on
Elamparo to prove otherwise
4. Residence is a matter of evidence and
she establisher her domicle in PH as
early as May 24, 2005. She could
reestablish PH residence even before
reacquisition of PH citizenship.
5. 2012 Coc was honest mistake, non
binding and what matters is her true
date of reacquisition of domicile
Consolidation of three separate petitions (refer to the three names) filed against Grace Poe and which were
raffled to the First Division.
Tatad allegations Poe’s counter arguments:

Grace lacks requisite residency and citizenship to qualify her for 1. On TATAD, it failed to state
presidency. cause of action, no grounds for
disqualification cited.
1. On citizenship: 2. Lack of residency and natural
a. PH adheres to jus sanguinis, hence persons of born-status are not among the
unknown parentage i.e. foundlings cannot be recognized grounds for
considered natural born because blood disqualification (hindi ko gets ito)
relationship is determinative of natural-born 3. These are petitions for quo
status. warranto which focuses on
b. Invokes rule of StatCon, what is not included is establishing her ineligibility for
excluded. Foundlings were not included in 1935 the Presidency. Such petition
Constitution hence it is framer’s intent to include falls within the exclusive
them. Burden lies on Grace Poe to prove jurisdiction of Presidential
c. Cannot rely on international treaties. They are not electoral Tribunal (PET) and
self-executory. There is no standard state not the COMELEC
practice to automatically confer natural-born 4. Burden to prove is on the
status to foundlings. Petitioners. She has presumption
d. Cannot reacquire PH citizenship under RA 9225 in her favor
because it only applies to former natural born 5. Under Customary International
citizens. Law, foundlings are entitled to
2. On Residency nationality and are presumed to
a. She only acquired her domicile in QC when she be citizens of countries where
renounced her US citizenship in 2010 or 2011. they are found. Hence, she is
natural born.
6. As a natural-born citizen she has
Valdez allegations
a right to reacquire under RA
9225 her natural born status.
1. On citizenship: 7. There is presumption of
a. Even if you are natural-born, once lost (e.g. regularity in Government acts
becoming US citizen), you can never reclaim it. In which declared her natural born.
cases of reacquisition of PH citizenship, only PH These are the BI Order in 2006,
citizenship is reacquired, not natural born MTRCB appointment, and
status. decree of adoption.
2. On residency: 8. She reestablished her domicile in
a. Her admission in her CoC for Senator operates PH as early as 1stquarter of
against her. 2005 when her children enrolled
b. She cannot establish her domicile if she has not in PH schools, purchase a condo
yet reacquired her PH citizenship and house and lot.
9. She can reestablish domicile
Contreras Petition even if she has not yet
renounced PH citizenship. This is
She made a false entry in her CoC. Reckoning period must be not a prerequisite.
July 2006 when her reacquisition of PH citizenship was approved 10. Period indicated in her Senatorial
by BI. She cannot acquire PH domicile if she was still an CoC was mistake made in
American Citizen. good faith.

COMELEC Decision (December 11, 2015) First Division

She is not a natural-born citizen, she failed to complete 10 year residency requirement and she committed
material misrepresentation in her CoC. Thus, she is not qualified to run for the Presidency.

Comelec en Banc denied Grace’s motion for reconsideration.

WHAT’S NEXT???

Grace’s camp instituted before the SC the present petitions for certiorari with urgent prayer for issuance of
TRO/ writ of preliminary injunction. On December 28, 2015, SC issued the TRO to enjoin COMELEC from
implementing the assailed Resolutions

ISSUE/S:

1. WON COMELEC has authority to disqualify candidates for President before election? NONE but
refer to exception used by COMELEC

Exception:

a. if there is already court finding that makes a candidate ineligible (e.g. if court decreed
candidate not natural born)
b. there is self-evident facts of unquestioned veracity
c. judicial confessions

In this case, COMELEC argued that since there is no question that Grace Poe is a foundling, she is
disqualified because foundlings are not enumerated as citizens in the 1935 constitution.

ISSUES involving CITIZENSHIP

2. WON foundlings are considered citizens? YES

This issue was used to disprove COMELEC’s ground to disqualify Poe

3. WON foundling certificates are considered as ACTS TO PERFECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP hence
making foundlings naturalized and not natural-born? NO

4. WON the PH adheres to generally accepted principles on international law regarding status of
foundlings? YES

5. Assuming Poe is natural-born, what kind of nationality did she reacquire? Natural-born

ISSUES on RESIDENCY

6. WON Poe satisfied the Residency Requirement? YES

7. What is the effect of her 2012 CoC as it is inconsistent with her 2015 CoC? It is non-binding and
conclusive. It is the actual facts which prevail over her response to the 2012 CoC.

HOLDING:

1st ISSUE

Let us first discuss the relevant constitutional provisions (I did not cite the entire provisions):
Article IX, C, Section 2

(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective
regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by
trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions, final
orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory,
and not appealable

Article VI, Section 17

The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members.

Article VII, Section 4

The Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or Vice President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose
Who is the rightful judge?

In looking at these provisions, the Constitution made clear who has jurisdiction depending on the rank of
official (e.g. SC en banc for Pres or VP). But it is confusing whether it also applies for those who are just
CANDIDATES FOR THESE POSITIONS (not yet elected). So let us refer to jurisprudence below:

Jurispudence in Fermin v COMELEC:

Apparently, COMELEC realized in 1993 that they have no authority to declare the ineligibility of CANDIDATES so
they amended their rules and inserted Rule 25 1 which empowers them to disqualify a candidate if such does not
satisfy all the qualifications provided for. However, this cannot be supplied by a mere rule.

IMPORTANT: The Constitution withholds this kind of power from the COMELEC (so parang inaamend nila ung
CONSTI which IS WRONG)

Moreover, disqualification and ineligibility are two different concepts. The former is to eliminate a candidate
from the race while the latter refers to removal of an incumbent.

So why is there no authorized proceeding for determining qualifications of candidates?

1. No necessity to determine eligibility unless that candidate wins.

2. Eligibility (e.g. domicile, citizenship, etc.) takes a long time and may extend even at the beginning of the
term in case the candidate wins. That is why receipt of CoC by COMELEC is a ministerial duty only.
The law is satisfied if candidates state they are eligible for office. The determination shall be made only
in case they are elected. But in cases where there is false representations made, COMELEC is given
jurisdiction
3. We must preserve the prerogatives of the HRET, SET and PET as sole judges of election, returns and
qualifications.

Because of the adverse ruling in Fermin, COMELEC revised its rules 2 . Now, it states that grounds for
disqualification requires a FINAL DECISION BY A COURT that a candidate is guilty or found to be suffering
from any disqualification. This is clearly an acceptance that there is an absence of authorized proceeding
before an election regarding qualifications of a candidate.

Hence, if a candidate cannot be disqualified without prior finding of disqualification, neither can the CoC be
cancelled. Only exception are self-evident facts of unquestioned veracity and judicial confessions.

So ANO ANG GROUND NG COMELEC to disqualify Grace Poe? Since Grace is admittedly a foundling
(proven already) and foundlings are not enumerated as citizens in the 1935 Constitution, Poe is ineligible to
run. Moreover, COMELEC placed the burden on Grace Poe to prove her natural filiation with a Filipino Parent.

According to SC, Grace Poe has DEMONSTRABLE blood relationship with a Filipino citizen. Her admission
that she is a foundling that she is a foundling does not pass the burden to her especially BECAUSE
THERE IS HIGH PROBABILITY her parents are Filipinos. The Solicitor General who is now defending Poe
offered statistics from the Philippine Statistics Authority that there is 99.83% probability that the child born in
the same decade as Grace Poe. This kind of evidence is admissible.

2Grounds.·Any candidate who, in action or protest in which he is a party, is declared by final decision of a competent
court, guilty of, or found by the Commission to be suffering from any disqualification provided by law or the Constitution. A
Petition to Disqualify a Candidate invoking grounds for a Petition to Deny to or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy or
Petition to Declare a Candidate as a Nuisance Candidate, or a combination thereof, shall be summarily dismissed.
 2nd ISSUE

Foundlings are as a class, NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS. While the 1935 Constitution is silent as to them,
there is no restrictive language either which excludes them. Since there is ambiguity, we can refer to intent of
the framers. The deliberations show that foundling are covered as natural born-citizens.

So bakit hindi ba nila inistate explicitly? According to Mr. Roxas: these cases (foundlings) are few and far in
between, that the constitution need [not] refer to them. By international law the principle that children or
people born in a country of unknown parents are citizens in this nation is recognized, and it is not
necessary to include a provision on the subject exhaustively.

Moreover, the framers worked to create a just and humane society” and it is inconsistent to impute upon
them a discriminatory intent against foundlings. All Constitutions guarantee basic right to equal protection of
the laws and exhort the State to render social justice. 3

Moreover, present adoption laws also support this theory wherein adoptees (e.g. Grace Poe) shall be
presumed as Filipinos and not aliens as what COMELEC suggests. The SC’s Rule on Adoption also states
that foundlings are included as FILIPINO CHILDREN.

3rd ISSUE

ART IV Sec 2 Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having
to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.

Does this mean that FOUNDLING CERTIFICATES which all foundlings have are considered an act to perfect
citizenship? NO because:

1. Acts referred to in that phrase are those which are personally done by the citizen. Foundling
certificates are done by authorities
2. The process is to determine whereabouts of parents not citizenship of child
3. This is simply not a naturalization proceeding

4th ISSUE

Another matter held by the SC is that generally accepted principles of international law by virtue of the
incorporation clause of the constitution form part of the land even without treaty obligations.

So under international law, what is the status of foundlings?

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (according to SC binding to the State)

Everyone has a right to a nationality

2. UN Convention on Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (PH already ratified this)

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name,
the right to acquire a nationality and as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or
her parents.

3 Embodied in 1987 constitution:

Article II, Section 11 State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.

Article XIII, Section 1 give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the
people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities
Article XV, Section 3 defend the „right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special
protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development
 3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (PH ratified in 1986)

A child has a right to acquire a nationality

4. 1930 Hague Convention (not yet ratified)

A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth.

5. UN convention on Reduction of Statelessness (not yet ratified)

A foundling is presumed born of citizens of the country where he is found

It is the common thread among these that PH has an obligation to grant nationality from birth and ensure
that no child is stateless. This must be at time of birth and not similar to naturalization. Even though some are
not yet ratified, jurisprudence dictates they are still binding as generally accepted principles of international
law.

5th ISSUE

COMELEC also argues that granting Poe was natural-born, she cannot reacquire natural born status
under RA 9225. COMELEC clearly misapplied existing jurisprudence because in Bengson III vs HRET, SC
already held that repatriation results in recovery of original nationality and natural-born status does not
require that it must have been uninterrupted. Congress also deemed it fit to decree that natural-born
citizenship may be reacquired under that law and this must be followed by COMELEC.

6th ISSUE

What is Constitutional Requirement? Must have been a resident of the Philippines prior to 9 May 2016 for ten
(10) years.

According to Poe, her residency must be counted from May 25, 2005 when she returned here for good.
However, COMELEC disagrees and according to them it must be counted from the date the BI approved
her reacquisition of citizenship which is July 2006.

First, let us discuss how domicile is changed. Requisites:

1. Residence or physical presence in the new place

2. Intention to Remain or animus manendi
3. Intention of abandoning former residence or animus non revertendi

COMELEC held that Poe failed to satisfy the third requisite because they reiterated it can only be
accomplished by the time her reacquisition of PH citizenship was approved. This is despite the various
evidence presented by Poe such as arrangement to ship her belongings from US to PH, transferring her
children to PH schools, bringing her pet dog, email exchanges expressing this intention, etc. This doctrine by
the COMELEC was based on previous cases but SC held that the facts of the case differ.

SC held that based on the evidence, it was clear that in May 2005, Poe already decided to stay here for good
thus satisfying the third requisite.

7th ISSUE

If one would recall, the residency indicated by Poe in her 2012 CoC would make her fall short of the residency
requirement for the Presidency by 2016. She admitted this was an honest mistake. She explained that in filling
in the 2012 CoC, she thought reckoning of residency is when her house in the US was sold and her
husband came here. But by 2015, her lawyers advised her that reckoning date is May 2005.
SC held it would be a grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC to treat the 2012 as binding and
conclusive. In the case of Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC, SC held that is the fact of residence, not a
statement in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual
has satisfied the constitutions residency qualification requirement.

Also, it can be proven that Poe never attempted to hide this inconsistency in answering the CoC nor had
deliberate intent to deceive the public. Clearly, COMELEC ignored the facts presented by Poe. For this issue
refer to the Marcos Doctrine.

DISPOSITIVE:

PETITION Granted. COMELEC ORDERS ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. POE is hereby qualified to run for
PRESIDENT.