Antonio Yang III November 25, 2017

1H

Legal Research
Dissent Paper
Topic: Poe v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 221698-700

In preparation for the May 2016 presidential elections, Mary

Grace Poe Llamanzares declared in her Certificate of Candidacy
(COC) that she was a natural-born Filipino, and that as of May 24,
2005, a permanent resident of the the Republic of the Philippines;
that by the 2016 elections, she would have been a resident of the
country for 10 years and 11 months1.

In compliance with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225, the petitioner

also took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
and submitted to the Bureau of Immigration (BI) a sworn petition to
reacquire Philippine citizenship. The BI declared her to have
reacquired citizenship on July 18, 2006.

A day after she filed her COC, petitions were filed against her
candidacy, on the grounds that the petitioner did not fulfill the 10-year
residency requirement of the Constitution. Comelec stated that during
her run for senator in 2013, Poe had entered six years and six
months as "period of residence before May 13, 2013" in her 2012
COC. Because this would mean she was only a Philippine Resident
as of November 2006, Comelec automatically assumed as true the
statement in the 2012 COC and the 2015 COC as false. The
petitioner's defense was that this was an honest mistake.

While COMELEC en banc cancelled her candidacy for lack of

citizenship and residence requirements, and for material
misrepresentations in her COC, the Supreme Court, on certiorari,
reversed Comelec's ruling and held that Poe was qualified to run for
president. The SC sided with the camp of Poe on the matter of her
taking residency in May 24, 2005, while Comelec reiterated that
domicile could be established only from petitioner's repatriation under
R.A. No. 9225 in July 2006.

It is on the matter of the issue of Poe's assertion that there was

an honest mistake to her residency that I focus my dissent. According
to Section 2, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines 2,
one of the requirements of a candidate for president is local residency
for at least ten years immediately preceding the election:

1
 No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and
write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and
a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately
preceding such election.

I believe that Comelec was correct in ruling that the start of

residency in the Philippines began on July 2006, as this was when
she officially reacquired her citizenship according to the BI.

Citing Risosi-Vidal vs. Comelec3, "It is well-entrenched in this

jurisdiction that where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free
from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied
without attempted interpretation. Verba legis non est recedendum."

In this instance, the words of the Constitution are explicitly clear

on who may be presidential candidates. And since the Bureau of
Immigrations officially recognized Poe's candidacy on July 2006, and
not in May 2005, I believe this is the correct date to follow.

As for the matter of Poe's COC filing from 2012 stating her
residency started in November 2006, and the defense of an "honest
mistake" and that she misunderstood the date required in the 2013
COC, I have to disagree as well.

It is well-practiced jurisprudence that people cannot simply

make themselves exempt from liability upon violation of the law due
to errors in judgement, as per the doctrine of Dura Lex Sed Lex, and
as applied in prior cases such as Revaldo v. People 4; The law may be
harsh, but it is the law. Moreso when the laws in question dictate the
requirements for those who may become the future leaders of the
Republic of the Philippines. And more importantly, our Civil Code
explicitly denies ignorance as defence from liability, under Article 3
which reads "Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith."5 In conclusion, the SC should not have lifted the Comelec
disqualification on the petitioner, as her residency fails to fulfill the
clearly established requirements in the Constitution.

Footnotes:
1
Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines. (2016, March 8)
Grace Poe v. Comelec, G.R. No. 221697. Retrieved from
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/mar2016/
gr_221697_2016.html
2
1987 Constitution of the Philippines. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html

2
3
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2015, January 21). Risos-Vidal
v. Comelec, G.R. No. 206666. Retrieved from
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html
4
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2009, April 16). Revaldo v.
People, G.R. No. 170589. Retrieved from
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/170589.htm
5
Civil Code of the Philippines. (n.d.). Retrieved from.
http://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippines1.htm