Apes, Gian Franco G.

HUMSS 12 – E
Political Science 01

Case Digest: Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares vs COMELEC

et al G.R. NO. 221697 221698-700
Facts
Poe registered to vote in San Juan when she was 18 years old. She received a Philippine
passport in 1988. Poe married Teodoro Llamanzares in 1991 and immediately flew to the United
States. She then returned to the United States to give birth to her oldest child. Poe was
naturalized as an American citizen in 2001 and received a US passport the same year.
Poe took her oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on July 7, 2006, in accordance
with Republic Act 9225. She filed a sworn petition to reclaim Philippine citizenship, as well as
derivative citizenship petitions for her three children, on July 10, 2006. On July 18, 2006, the
Bureau of Immigration granted the petition. Her children and she were considered dual citizens
at the time. In August 2006, Poe registered as a voter and obtained a Philippine passport.
She was appointed Chairperson of the MTRCB on October 6, 2010. On October 20, 2010, she
signed an Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States before a notary public in
Pasig City. She sent the Affidavit to the Bureau of Immigration the next day and took her oath as
MTRCB Chairperson the next day. Poe claims that she hasn't used her American passport
since then.
Poe took an oath/affirmation of renunciation of US nationality before the Vice Consul of the US
Embassy in Manila on July 12, 2011. The US Vice Consul received a Certificate of Loss of US
Nationality effective October 21, 2010 on December 9, 2011.
Poe filed her Certificate of Candidacy for Senator with COMELEC on October 2, 2012, claiming
that she had lived in the Philippines for six years and six months prior to May 13, 2013. On May
16, 2013, she was elected to the Senate.
Poe filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the Presidency for the May 2016 elections on October
15, 2015. She claimed that she is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, and that her
residence in the country from May 24, 2005 to the day before the election will be 10 years and
11 months.
Several petitions were filed against Poe, alleging that (1) she made a material misrepresentation
in her COC when she claimed that she had lived in the Philippines for at least 10 years and 11
months up until the day before the May 9, 2016 elections, and she lied in her COC when she
stated that she had lived in the Philippines for at least 10 years and 11 months. (2) She is not a
natural born citizen, as Poe is a ward of the state. It was argued that because foundlings are not
granted natural born status or Filipino citizenship under international law, she is ineligible to
apply for reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under R.A.9225 because she is not a natural
citizen. Assuming that Poe was a natural born citizen, she lost it when she became a US
Citizen.
The applicant was found not to be a natural born citizen and to have failed to meet the 10-year
residency criteria by COMELEC. As a result, a petition for certiorari has been filed with the
Supreme Court.

Issue and Ratio:

1.) Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to disqualify POE

The process and findings that led to the COMELEC Resolutions have been corrupted by grave
abuse of discretion, amounting to a violation of jurisdiction.
The COMELEC must decide whether the COC should be refused due process "on the sole
basis" that she made a false material representation in her certificate. COMELEC should refrain
from delving into the question of the candidate's qualifications. It cannot decide on a candidate's
qualifications or lack thereof in the same cancellation situation. None of the COMELEC's
enumerated powers, as specified in Article IX C, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, give the commission
the authority to decide a candidate's qualifications. The Electoral Tribunal is given such powers
under Article VI Section 17 of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is given such powers
under Article VII Section 4 of the Constitution.
In terms of determining a candidate's qualification, Rule 25 and Rule 23 of the COMELEC rules
do not encourage, do not authorize, and do not vest authority in the COMELEC to do so. The
facts of competence must be identified first in a prior proceeding before a competent authority.
A law, an executive order, or a decision of a competent court or tribunal can be used to
determine prior qualification. Unless there are self-evident evidence of unquestioned or
unquestionable veracity and judicial admissions, the certificate of candidacy cannot be revoked
or refused due course on the basis of false statements regarding a candidate's qualifications
without this prior decision.

2.) Whether it can be concluded that Poe’s parents are Filipinos.

In Philippine law, paternity presumption is neither unknown nor undesirable. Poe has Filipino
parents and is therefore a natural-born Filipino, according to enough data. As a result, private
respondents bear the burden of proving that the applicant is not a Filipino resident.
According to the Solicitor General's official statistics from the Philippine Statistics Office, there
were 15,985 foreigners born in the Philippines between 1965 and 1975. There were more than
10 million Filipinos born in the world. On this basis, there is a 99 percent likelihood that a child
born in the Philippines would be a Filipino, implying that Poe's parents are Filipinos.

3.) Whether Poe’s repatriation resulted to reacquisition of natural born citizenship.

The COMELEC arrogantly ignored repatriation jurisprudence, which states that repatriation
results in the restoration of the original nationality. After repatriation, a natural born citizen who
lost his Philippine nationality will be returned to his former status as a natural born Filipino
(Benson v. HRET, Pareno v. Commission on Audit etc). Congress saw fit to declare in R.A.
9225 that natural born citizenship can be reclaimed even though it has been lost. The
COMELEC has no authority to overturn the Congress' decision.
Repatriation is not an act of ‘acquiring or perfecting' citizenship. In the case of Bengson, the
Court stated that the 1987 constitution recognizes only two categories of citizens: natural born
and naturalized. For repatriated nationals, there is no third group. A judicial precedent cannot be
overturned by the COMELEC. As a result, COMELEC's decision is tainted by serious misuse of
discretion.

4.) Whether Poe is a resident of the Philippine for 10 years

Poe claimed that her citizenship should begin on May 24, 2005, when she returned to the
United States permanently. There are three requirements for obtaining a new address. 1.
Physical appearance or residence in a new location 2. Intention to stay (animus manendi) and
3. Intention to leave the previous residence (animus non-revertendi). The intention to live in or at
the chosen domicile for an unspecified period of time must be expressed, the change of
residence must be voluntary, and the residence at the new domicile must be real.
Poe was able to demonstrate that her comment in her 2012 COC was merely an honest error.
While such an error could be used as evidence against her, it was far from definitive given Poe's
overwhelming evidence. The COMELEC's decision is tainted with grave abuse of discretion
because it failed to take into account this overwhelming evidence.The COMELEC's decision is
hereby overturned and annulled. Poe is thus considered eligible to run for President in the May
9, 2016 National and Local Election.

5.) Whether as a foundling, Poe is a natural born Citizen

Foundlings are natural born people as a group. Although the 1935 Constitution is silent on the
subject of foundlings, there is no wording in the document that would preclude them. Because of
the enumeration's silence and uncertainty, it's necessary to look into the framers' intentions.
The argument that determining whether or not a child is a foundling and issuing a foundling
certificate are actions to achieve or perfect Philippine citizenship is unfounded. As a result, the
argument that Poe undertook a procedure to obtain or perfect her Philippine citizenship as a
foundling is untenable.
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 in the:
1. 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)
2. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (foundling is presumed born of citizens of the
country where he is found).
bind the Philippines although we are not signatory to these conventions.
Poe’s evidence shows that at least 60 countries in Asia, North and South America and Europe
have passed legislation recognizing foundlings as its citizens. 166 out of 189 countries accept
that foundlings are recognized as citizens. Hence, 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.
Hence, as a foundling, Poe is a natural born Filipino citizen.