In the case of Senator Grace Poe, she was born under the 1935

Constitution, and the provisions of this Constitution will

determine her citizenship.

In the 1935 Constitution, one would be considered a citizen of the

Philippines if one’s father were a Filipino at the time of one’s
birth. If one was born of a non-Filipino father but of a Filipino
mother, one had to elect or make an affirmative act choosing
Filipino citizenship soon after reaching the age of majority. This
means that if one was born when the 1935 Constitution was in
effect, one is not automatically a Filipino if only one’s mother is a
Filipino.

While Senator Poe’s citizenship would be governed by the 1935

Constitution, it is the definition of a "natural-born citizen" under
the 1987 Constitution that would be used in deciding the
disqualification cases against her, since the qualifications of a
President under the 1987 Constitution are what she must satisfy.
This manner of determining one’s citizenship based on the
citizenship of one’s parents is referred to as the "jus sanguinis"
principle, or "rule of blood relationship." The alternative
principle, which prevails in other countries like the United States,
is the "jus soli" principle or “citizenship by place of birth”, wherein
one is considered a citizen of such countries when they are born
within their territory regardless of the citizenship of one’s
parents.

The problem Senator Poe is facing on the issue of citizenship

stems from the lack of information about the identities and
citizenships of her father and mother. Thus, by the rules of
citizenship governing those born under the 1935 Constitution
that were anchored upon the citizenship of one’s parents,
Senator Poe cannot stake a claim to Philippine citizenship, much
less natural-born Philippine citizenship. As reported in the news,
Senator Poe is considered a “foundling”, or one who was
deserted or abandoned as an infant and whose parents and
circumstances of birth are unknown.
Residency
The other issue confronting Senator Poe is her possession of the
ten-year residence qualification for President. The sense that the
term "residence" is used here is "permanent residence" or
"domicile." One's domicile is one's place of habitual residence, or
that place that one has established as his or her permanent home
and to which one intends to return when, for one reason or
another, one has to stay for some time in another place.

In this regard, the point that Senator Poe has been having
difficulty dealing with, among others, is the rule that a foreigner
who has not obtained the appropriate visa from Philippine
immigration authorities cannot be allowed to establish
permanent residence or domicile in the Philippines. Counting
back from the May 2016 elections, the required ten-year period
of residence would include months during which Senator Poe was
still an American citizen who had not obtained a visa allowing her
to be a permanent resident of the Philippines.
During those months at the beginning of the required ten-year
period, Senator Poe was not even a dual citizen, that is – one who
is a Filipino and an American citizen at the same time. The
argument against her is that she cannot satisfy the required ten-
year residence in the Philippines if she could not have been
allowed to establish permanent residence here as a foreigner
during the earliest months or stages of the required period.

THE Supreme Court has, in previous instances, has already ruled

that foundlings are presumed natural born-Filipinos.
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno during part 3 of the Oral
argument on the petitions of Senator Grace Poe, mentioned the
1976 Duncan case and the 1963 Ellis case involving foundlings
where the Supreme Court ruled that the child in the two cases
are presumed to be Filipino citizens even in the absence of
evidence that their parents were Filipino citizens.
In the case of Ellis v. Republic of the Philippines, the high court
presumed that Baby Rose is a Filipino citizen despite unknown
parents.
The child was abandoned at a
hospital. A couple wanted to adopt
the child. Their request was granted
by the lower court. The government
took the case to the Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the high court adopted
the domiciliary principle to determine
the citizenship of the child.
 WHAT'S A 'STATE OF LAWLESSNESS'?

The 1987 Constitution allows the President to call on the

armed forces "to prevent or suppress lawless violence."
Section 18, Article VII of the Philippine Constitution states:
"The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.“
WHAT'S A 'STATE OF LAWLESSNESS'?
President Rodrigo Duterte's
declaration of a state of
lawless violence or
lawlessness is the first in
recent Philippine history
given its coverage.
A state of lawless violence
was once declared in 2003
by then President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, but this
was limited to Davao City.
 WHAT'S A 'STATE OF LAWLESSNESS'?

The last time a Philippine president declared a state of lawless violence was in
2003, ironically in Davao City, a response of then President Arroyo to bombings
outside 3 mosques that had occurred hours before she was set to visit the city.
Arroyo's declaration, however, was limited to the city.
Arroyo also declared a nationwide state of emergency 3 years later, in February
2006 – for a limited period of 7 days. Arroyo lifted it on March 3, 2006.
This was an offshoot of a failed coup attempt against her. The state of
emergency had led, among others, to the revocation of all permits to hold
demonstrations and protests.
 WHAT'S A 'STATE OF LAWLESSNESS'?

Earlier in May 2001, Arroyo declared a "state of rebellion" in Metro Manila following the attack of supporters
of former president Joseph Estrada, who was recently ousted at the time, on Malacañang, according to a
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism report.
After the December 1989 coup that came close to toppling her, the late president Corazon Aquino also
declared a national emergency, the PCIJ added.
The September 2, 2016 explosion at the Roxas night market in Davao City followed a series of gun battles in
Sulu that have claimed the lives of 15 Army troops.
The President has pledged to wipe out the Abu Sayyaf, which is behind the spate of kidnappings in Western
Mindanao and which has claimed responsibility for the Davao explosion.
The military has already deployed about 8,000 troops in Sulu alone, the biggest provincial armed
deployment by the state in years