My three previous columns on Sen.

Grace Poe-Llamanzares have drawn a lot of reaction from

various sources around the world, but not a line from Ms. Poe herself on her constitutional right to
remain in the Senate, and to aspire for higher office in 2016. This is a purely constitutional issue, not
the least personal nor political, but even the normally acute and active constitutional analysts seem to
have grown cold feet.

In this highly corrupt and morally indifferent environment, the more cynical do not mind saying, “let
her run,” as though the Constitution did not count at all, and as though Smartmatic’s precinct count
optical scan (PCOS) machine no longer existed, and there were enough intelligent voters to bar the
unqualified from getting elected. Some opportunistic politicians who would like to benefit from FPJ’s
cinematic following, even suggest Poe “would make a good president,” despite her constitutional
impediment.
To repeat what I said at the outset, I do not know Ms. Poe, and have nothing against her. I
campaigned vigorously for her late adoptive father (Fernando Poe Jr.) when he ran for president in
2004, and I sought to be returned to the Senate after serving two consecutive terms. But she was a
US citizen living in the US then, and I never saw her on the campaign trail. She came home after FPJ
died in December 2004, but gave no intimation of her interest in the affairs of the nation. Since then I
have been impressed by some of her political sound bites, but none of these give her the right to sit in
the Senate or to aspire for the highest or second highest national office, under the Constitution.
Although nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be shown wrong in my thesis, no one has
come forward to refute my position. To the contrary, a naturalized American citizen of Filipino
parentage living in Virginia, where Ms. Poe reportedly used to live, has written to provide data in
support of my position. This is the reason for writing yet another piece on Ms. Poe at a time when
more people are more anxious about other things. We shall consider this reader’s input in a while.
Under the Constitution, no person shall be elected president or vice president or senator or member
of the House of Representatives unless he/she be a “natural-born” Filipino citizen, among other
things. This means that if Grace Poe is a natural-born Filipino, she is qualified to remain in the Senate
and to set her eyes on the presidency or vice presidency, whatever are her other qualifications. But if
she is not, then she has no right to sit there or to entertain any higher ambitions.
What are natural-born citizens? Natural-born citizens, according to Article IV, Sec. 2 of the
Constitution, are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act
to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority are deemed natural –born
citizens.
The 1935 Constitution, which was in force when Ms. Poe was born on Sept. 3, 1968, does not define
“natural born” in its article on citizenship. But it provides that Filipino citizens are those whose fathers
are citizens of the Philippines, and those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines, and, upon
reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
Contrary to her claim, on the basis of which she ran and won as PNoy’s senatorial candidate in 2013,
Grace Poe is not a natural-born Filipino, either under the 1935 Constitution or the present
Constitution. Not by a thousand miles. As a foundling who was admittedly abandoned upon birth by
her biological mother inside the Jaro Metropolitan Cathedral in Iloilo City, nobody knew her parents or
the nationality of the same. No one could say her father was Filipino so that she could be a Filipino
under the 1935 Constitution, or that her mother was a Filipino so that she would be qualified under
the 1987 Constitution.
But whether, in fact, she could be presumed to be Filipino, she is certainly not natural-born. Assuming
the court allowed her to adopt the citizenship of her adoptive parents, she had “to perform a legal act
to acquire her original Philippine citizenship or to perfect it”, and this precisely destroyed her claim to
being natural-born. Assuming, arguendo, that she was, in fact, natural born, she threw all that status
and distinction away when she took her oath of allegiance to the United States and renounced and
abjured absolutely and entirely all fidelity and allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, or to any
foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which she had heretofore been a subject

1|Page
or citizen.
There was no dual Filipino-American citizenship at the time. The dual citizenship law came into effect
only in 2003, with the passage of RA 9225. This allows “natural-born citizens of the Philippines” to
retain their Filipino citizenship while becoming citizens of a foreign country simply by taking the
following oath: “I_____________ solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the Republic of the Phlippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the
duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the
supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that I impose
this obligation upon myself voluntarily without reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.”
This oath, however, was immediately reduced to a mere scrap of paper as soon as the Filipino citizen
renounced and abjured absolutely and totally his fidelity and allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines in order to become an American citizen. Thus the dual citizenship is at best legal fiction.
Yet neither under the provisions of the 1935 Constitution nor under those of the 1987 Constitution
could Ms. Poe seek refuge in that legal fiction. She was never a natural born Filipino nor a dual
Filipino American citizen. She was American only when she was American, and she is Filipino only
now, after she has renounced her US citizenship.
She came home in 2005, according to her latest statement—in 2006, according to an earlier sworn
statement. She obviously came as an American citizen using her American passport, which she used
once again on December 27, 2009. She got a Philippine passport on May 16, 2014, one year after
she was electronically elected as senator.
In 2010, Aquino named her chair of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board while
she was still an American citizen. This appointment was in clear derogation of the sovereignty of the
Philippines and a clear violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Now, according to the Quarterly Publication of Individuals who have chosen to Expatriate, as required
by Section 6039G of the US Internal Revenue Code, during the quarter ending June 30, 2012, as
reported in the Federal Register, the Daily Journal of the United States Government, Mary Grace Poe
Llamanzares renounced her US citizenship only during that quarter. The exact date is still unknown,
but it happened during that quarter.
This was two years after she had accepted an appointment and starting getting paid as MTRCB chair,
and one year before she ran for the Senate. Our laws prohibit naming a foreigner to a position
reserved only for a Filipino citizen. And the Constitution requires that no person shall be a senator
unless he/she is, among other things, “a natural-born Filipino citizen,” and “a resident of the
Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.”
On both counts, Ms. Poe is in grave violation of the Constitution and the law. She is not a
natural-born Filipino, and she did not have the two-year residency to be qualified to run for
senator. Although she claims to have arrived in 2005 or 2006, she remained an American citizen until
she renounced her US citizenship during the first quarter of 2012. And while still an American citizen
she accepted a government job as MTRCB chair and got paid for it, contrary to law, which reserves
such position only to Filipino citizens.

No matter how you feel about it, Sen. Grace Poe has a lot to answer for. If she does not voluntarily
renounce her present position, the Senate has a duty to demand it of her.

MANILA, Philippines – Two of the country's leading experts on family law took the position that
foundlings like potential 2016 presidential candidate Senator Grace Poe are presumed natural-born
Filipino citizens and thus eligible to run for high posts in government.

Rappler sought the legal opinion of University of the Philippines College of Law professorsKatrina
Legarda and Elizabeth Pangalangan to shed light on the legal battle that looms for Poe, a foundling in
Iloilo who was adopted by the late actor Fernando Poe Jr (FPJ) and his wife, actress Susan Roces.

2|Page
"A long-standing presumption and principle of customary international law is that a foundling takes the
nationality of the place where she was found," said Legarda.

The presumption prevails, said Pangalangan, unless proof to the contrary is presented. She cited
Rule 31 of the Rules of Court. "Whoever alleges must prove," she said.

'In Senator Grace Poe's situation, she was found as an infant in the Philippines. There was a
presumption that she was born to Filipino parents in the absence of proof to the contrary. The
right of every child to a name and a nationality immediately from birth is a fundamental human
right.'

– Professor Elizabeth Pangalangan, UP College of Law and Director of the Law Center Institute for
Human Rights
The 1987 Constitution limits high government posts to natural-born citizens, among a few other
qualifications.

Whether or not she meets the 10-year residency rule is a separate issue resulting from her
acquisition of American citizenship later in her life. She renounced it in 2010.

Presumption of natural born

The Philippines follows jus sanguinis, Latin for right of blood, in determining the citizenship of a
person, said Pangalangan. This cannot be established in the case of Poe, however, because the
identity of her biological parents is not known.

The camp of Vice President Jejomar Binay, who now lags behind Poe in the latest Pulse Asia survey,
has argued that foundlings cannot be natural-born Filipino citizens on the ground that they are initially
"stateless" and that a process is required to grant them Filipino citizenship. This is supposedly not a
violation of international laws because the child still acquires a citizenship; he or she is just not
considered natural-born.

Pangalangan and Legarda disagreed. Poe is presumed a natural-born Filipino citizen, they said,
based on international and domestic laws on human rights, rights of a child, and adoption, among
others.

They highlighted the 1954 United Nations Convention on Statelessness, the 1948 Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The first two declare the right of a person to a nationality; the third highlights the right of a child to
acquire it immediately after birth.

The 1987 Constitution states that the "generally accepted international principles" are adopted as part
of the law of the land, said Legarda.

Landmark case?

Lawyers concede that there is no known precedent. Legarda welcomed the possibility that the issue
will be elevated to the Supreme Court to, once and for all, define the rights of abandoned children.

'This will be an extremely important decision that will affect thousands of abandoned children
in our country! If a foundling is not presumed natural-born then no abandoned child can ever
aspire for national office. It's terribly discriminatory, don't you agree?'

3|Page
– Professor Katrina Legarda, UP College of Law
While the senator's father, FPJ, also had to defend his citizenship during the 2004 presidential
elections, the SC tackled the rights of illegitimate children with alien parents and not of foundlings.
(READ: FPJ's citizenship woes a glimpse of Grace Poe's battle ahead)

To say that foundlings are statelesss persons is a violation of the CRC, said Legarda. "The CRC
affirms that every child has the right to be born, to have a name and nationality, to have a family who
will love and care for her," she said.

Pangalangan said the adoption of Poe supports the presumption of her being a natural-born Filipino
citizen.

"Philippine law on adoption is applicable only to Filipino children – the Philippines cannot have
foreigner children adopted since the status of a child is determined by the child's (or her parents', if
known) personal law. It is that personal law which determines whether a child is legally free to be
adopted. Senator Poe's adoption under Philippine law proceeded on an assumption that she was a
Filipino at birth," Pangalangan said.

Poe has seen an exponential rise in the presidential surveys, which show her neck and neck with
Binay. She has overtaken Binay in Pulse Asia's latest May 30-June 5 survey, obtaining a 30%
preference rating compared to Binay's 22%. She's also been in talks with President Benigno Aquino
III about a possible 2016 run. – Rappler.com

Not just Grace Poe, but about us

To say that a foundling cannot be considered a Philippine citizen is a violation of a child’s and a
human being’s basic and inalienable human right to bear a nationality from birth

Dean Tony La Viña

Published 1:00 PM, June 15, 2015

Updated 3:40 PM, June 15, 2015

10

1K

28

Reddit

Email

1K

4|Page
I am not ready to publicly endorse Senator Grace Poe for the presidency. I prefer to wait a few more
months, in fact if possible until March next year (if at all) before I disclose my preference. Things are
so much in flux politically and it is best to wait and weigh things carefully. It would be interesting for
example to see if the candidacy of Davao Mayor Rudy Duterte would gain traction. A credible
campaign by a Mindanawon candidate would be exciting for many of us from our island.
Although not endorsing her now, the recent controversy regarding citizenship and residence issues
about Senator Poe has become very personal for me. These issues go beyond Senator Poe and the
2016 elections; how they will be resolved will say a lot about our country. That is why in spite of a
busy three weeks in Europe, working in the climate change negotiations and teaching international
law, I made sure I took the time to research and write on these issues.

Personally, I consider the questions regarding the citizenship of the senator as an attack against all
foundlings, adopted children, and families. That is repugnant to me because of my own direct
experience of foundlings, adopted children, and adoptive parents here and abroad. On a similar vein,
I see the danger the criticisms about her residence bring to all overseas Filipinos, migrant workers
and dual citizens alike.

If these issues are not resolved properly, the consequences to millions of Filipinos could be serious
and inimical. As a former OFW myself and as one who counts many overseas Filipinos as relatives,
friends, and students, that is totally unacceptable.

Grace Poe definitely a natural-born citizen

By now, it is well known what the line of attacks is: that Senator Poe is not a natural born citizen, a
requirement for one to become President, because she is a foundling.

Because of the circumstances of her birth, we do not know who her parents are and therefore we do
not know whether she is a Filipino citizen. At the time of her birth in 1968, the 1935 Constitution
considered all persons born of a Filipino father a citizen of the Philippines. If only the mother was
Filipino, a person would have to elect Filipino citizenship at the age of 21. Because we do not know
who her father or mother is, her detractors now claim that Senator Poe cannot be presumed to be a
citizen of the Philippines. There is actually no distinction made in this regard between a natural-born
and one that is not natural-born citizen, because no such distinction can be logically made.

This argument falls by the wayside quickly. The Philippines has always treated foundlings in our
territory as citizens of the country. There are legal opinions out there in government to this effect and I
am sure that will come out in time. Every day, we do it this way when infants are found in churches,
streets, and garbage dumps. To do otherwise is to turn our backs on the many children that are
abandoned in our country.

When Senator Grace Poe was found, she was registered properly in the civil registrar of Iloilo City.
When she was adopted by Fernando Poe and Susan Roces, the right steps were taken to find her
parents. All of that assumed Filipino citizenship, and anyone impugning that would have to show
5|Page
conclusive proof that in fact she is a child of a foreign father and mother (both parents have to be
foreigners). Without such proof, her status as a natural-born Filipino cannot be taken away from her.
She does not have to prove filiation; the one questioning her status must prove that both her parents
were foreign citizens.

An international law argument

The 1987 Constitution, international law, and our domestic laws all favor protecting foundlings like
Grace Poe. Constitutional provisions and statutes on due process and human rights can only be
interpreted to mandate the government, including courts, to always interpret the law from the best
interest of a child.

Philippine Daily Inquirer columnists retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the brilliant lawyer
Oscar Franklin Tan have argued convincingly in favor of the Senator based on constitutional grounds.
In essence, these two eminent minds conclude that due process and human rights require us to
acknowledge the citizenship of Grace Poe and that it is natural born citizenship, reacquired through
the dual citizenship law, because she did not have to take any additional step when she became a
citizen upon her birth in Iloilo City.

I adopt in toto all the arguments of Chief Justice Panganiban and Attorney Tan but would add an
international dimension to their arguments.

From an international law perspective, the Philippine law on citizenship must be interpreted as to
avoid statelessness, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, and the Convention on the Rights of children (CRC).
The latter in particular specifically provides that the right to a nationality shall be implemented in
accordance with national laws, in particular where the person would otherwise be stateless.

Indeed, nationality is a basic human right. Like the right to life, liberty, and security of person, the right
to a nationality, or to be the citizen of a nation, is an internationally recognized natural right inherent to
every human being. It is both a universal and inalienable human right. Being inalienable to a human
being, it attaches and exists at the moment of birth. Thus in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, Article 15 specifically provides that (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality; and (2) No one
shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights likewise states: (1) Every child
shall have, without any discrimination as to race, color, sex, language, religion, national or social
origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a
minor, on the part of his family, society and the State; (2) Every child shall be registered immediately
after birth and shall have a name. (3) Every child has the right to acquire a nationality.

Finally, Article 7 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provided that (1) 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; (2) States
Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their
obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would
otherwise be stateless. Article 8 of the same convention provides that: “States Parties undertake to
respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family
relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.”

Convention on the reduction of statelessness

In the case of foundlings whose parents are unknown, the specific provision of international law which
deals with the same is Article 2 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (CRS), which
provides: “A foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the

6|Page
contrary, be considered to have been born within that territory of parents possessing the nationality of
that State.”

Unlike the ICCPR and the CCR, the Philippines has not ratified the CRS although, from what I know,
we are taking steps toward that end.

Nevertheless, while the Philippines is not a signatory to the CRS, and while there is no Philippine law
adopting Article 2 of this Convention which considers foundlings as Filipino citizens, there is also no
Philippine law stating that foundlings are not Filipino citizens or are not considered Filipino citizens.

In disposing of the issue of whether or not foundlings in the Philippines are considered Filipinos, we
cannot conclude that just because the Philippines is not a signatory to the CRS it ipso facto does not
recognize foundlings as Filipino citizens, or that it ipso facto rejects the presumption laid down in
Article 2 of the CRS. More than being a non-signatory to the CRS, we must remember that the
Philippines abides by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as generally accepted principles of
international law on the inalienable rights of human beings, and that it is a signatory to the ICCPR and
the CRC.

As a signatory to the CRC, the Philippines must comply with its provisions that state that a State
Party shall ensure the implementation of the inalienable right to a nationality in accordance with its
national law and its obligations under other international instruments (such as the ICCPR), in
particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

International law and the 1987 Constitution

The Philippine law on citizenship must thus be read in incorporation of this provision of the CRC and
the recognized international principle on the right to a nationality of every human being, especially of
a child. It must be read against engendering statelessness of the child or of any human being found in
the Philippines who possesses no proof of nationality other than the fact that he or she was found in
the Philippines.

Philippine law does not state that foundlings are not Filipino citizens. Why should we therefore
postulate the contrary, in violation of our commitment under the CRC to implement our laws in a
manner that would avoid statelessness of a child?

This is especially sound and reasonable under the incorporation doctrine of the 1987 Constitution –
where we adopt the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land
(Article 2, Section 2) – since the fundamental law itself has no provision that categorically states the
contrary, that foundlings are not considered Philippine citizens.

To therefore say that a foundling cannot be considered a Philippine citizen is a violation of a child’s
and a human being’s basic and inalienable human right to bear a nationality from birth. To say that a
foundling cannot be considered a Philippine citizen just because his or her parents are not known is
to arbitrarily deprive a human being of his or her inalienable right to a nationality from birth.

It is no different from violating or arbitrarily depriving him of his right to life, liberty, and security of
person. Taking away the natural-born citizenship status of a foundling is akin to the salvaging of a
child.

Following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (part already of our law of the land), as well as
the ICCPR and the CRC, which we have ratified, the 1987 Constitution, including its provisions on
citizenship and qualifications for president and other high officials, and cannot be interpreted in such
a manner as to violate a person’s human right, or to arbitrarily deprive a human being of his
inalienable right to a nationality.

7|Page
Every year, many Filipino children lose their parents and all their relatives as a result of natural
disasters in the Philippines. As Atty. Tan asked poignantly and powerfully in his column, do we now
have to consider children of Super Typhoon Yolanda casualties as stateless orphans? Are they now
to be considered not natural-born Filipinos?

Indeed, the law on citizenship cannot be interpreted in such a manner as to produce such an absurd
conclusion of law. More so can it not be interpreted as such in light of the international principle on
the right of every human being to a nationality and the Philippines’ commitment under the CRC to
implement the right of every person, especially a child, to a nationality under its laws, in particular
where the child would otherwise be stateless.

What this controversy is all about

Let me end by speaking truth to power.

The controversy about Grace Poe’s citizenship and residence is not about law or who is qualified or
not qualified to run for president. This was a preemptive attack on her, as she is expected to overtake
the earlier frontrunner in surveys in the months to come. The purpose also is to discourage would-be
donors from giving support to what otherwise might be perceived to be a runaway winner in the
presidential 2016 elections.

But, fortunately, the attack against Senator Poe has backfired and has united many to support and
"adopt" the senator. Financial and other support is probably escalating because of what many
consider mindless, even heartless, claims. People have seen through the basic unfairness of the
attack and know the consequences it will bring to all foundlings, adopted children, and families. I
strongly suggest that children, family, and human rights activists and organizations remain vigilant on
this issue and make sure that those who raise it pay the price at the polls.

In my view, the residence issue should be responded to in a similar manner.

What is being attacked with these questions is the right of overseas Filipinos, migrant workers, dual
citizens, and especially returning citizens, to participate in our national life.

I take the view that animus revertendi, the intent to return which determines residence, is never lost
as long as one has retained links to one’s original place of residence in the Philippines. Becoming a
citizen of another country or living for decades in another country is irrelevant to determine that. It is
when you have totally cut yourself from your residence in the Philippines, from your ties here, that you
lose your status as resident. In this context, it does not matter when she renounced her American
citizenship as she never ceased to be a resident of the Philippines for purposes of election law.

Similar to the need for unity by children, family and human rights activists on the citizenship issue,
advocates of OFW and other overseas Filipinos must also step up and make the politicians who raise
the residence issue pay a political price for their actions. We all have a stake and must make sure
that this residence issue is decided properly.

From one point of view, the person most tested and challenged in this controversy is Senator Grace
Poe. Voters now must ask how honest and truthful she has been in addressing this issue. Among
others, did she panic and crumble before the viciousness of her critics? What steps will she now take
to counter the attacks? Will this derail her plans and make her decide not to run? What kind of Grace
Poe will we see emerging from this controversy?

But the stakes here are beyond Grace Poe and definitely way beyond the 2016 elections. Let's
remember that, and act accordingly. – Rappler.com

8|Page
MANILA, Philippines – History may repeat itself in the Philippines should Senator Grace Poe decide
to seek the presidency in 2016. The circumstances of her birth may become the subject of legal
questions in the run-up to the elections – reminiscent of the court battle that her father Fernando Poe
Jr (FPJ) faced in the 2004 presidential polls.

Is a foundling like her a natural-born Filipino citizen and thus eligible to seek the post?She
was stateless, said the camp of 2016 front runner Vice President Jejomar Binay, because the
citizenship of her real parents are not known.

FPJ, on the other hand, was born out of wedlock. The petitioner said he acquired the citizenship of
his American mother at birth because his father – a Spanish-turned-Filipino citizen – did not
acknowledge him in his birth certificate. The Supreme Court (SC) favored FPJ's candidacy, but the
decision did not come until March 2004 or two months before the polls.

Will the issue also distract Grace Poe’s campaign? Will the gods of Padre Faura favor her candidacy?

“Legally speaking, it could go either way from a technical point of view,” a lawyer who has publicly
supported arguments in favor of Poe's natural-born Filipino citizenship told Rappler.

“If Binay has the votes in the SC, he could swing a disqualification. But the court will also think twice if
political consequences are damning.”

Lawyer Harry Roque, a known supporter of Binay, told Rappler he can also argue the case either way
– the protection of the interest of the child versus the constitutional intention to limit certain
government posts to natural-born citizens because “they are bound to be loyal to this country.”

That she acquired American citizenship later in her life further complicated the issue because of
claims she will not meet another qualification: the 10-year residency requirement.

Binay may distance himself from the issues hurled by his men against Poe, but it will only take one
petitioner to prompt what is expected to be a legal callisthenics.

Legal process: Comelec, SC, Senate

9|Page
TOP SENATOR. Senator Grace Poe topped the 2013 senatorial elections. It's the first time she ran
for public office

Ateneo School of Government dean Antonio La Viña said it should be a straight forward case:
“Procedurally, the Comelec could decide by December and the [High] Court by March. Beyond that, I
think the court might hesitate and treat this as a political question as it would be too disruptive to our
political process.”

Whatever the outcome, legal challenges follow a process. Petitions against FPJ were filed before the
Commission on Elections after he filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) and later elevated to the
SC.

Former Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr, FPJ's former lawyer, said Poe will go through the same
process. “It will be the same case filed against FPJ – material misrepresentation in the COC when he
claimed to be a natural-born Filipino citizen.”

Comelec Chairman Andres Bautista refused to comment because it's premature until she files her
COC – due in October – and a formal petition is filed.

But Roque said it can be raised now before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) because lawmakers
also have to be natural-born Filipino.

This scenario may get the issue out of the way sooner. But the chairman of the SET is SC Associate
Justice Antonio Carpio, who in 2004 voted against FPJ's qualification.

Carpio said the burden of proof belongs to the candidate. “Any person who claims to be qualified to
run for president because he is, among others, a natural-born Philippine citizen, has the burden of
proving he is a natural-born citizen,” he wrote in his dissenting opinion.

Carpio argued that FPJ was also unable to prove that his known Filipino father was his real father,
which he said is important to verify in case of an alien mother.

10 | P a g e
Rights of illegitimate children, foundlings

Legal challenges against FPJ and Grace Poe are emotional issues – both involved the rights of
illegitimate children and foundlings.

FPJ was born in 1939, and his case required scrutiny of laws spanning the Spanish Occupation to the
American Colonial Rule. The court voted 8-5 to alllow FPJ's candidacy, but the ruling was not
conclusive. Documents that could have shown, among others, if his father acquired Filipino
citizenship before or after he was born were missing. Many government documents were destroyed
during the World War II.

"While the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to
hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material representation in his certificate of
candidacy," read the majority ruling.

It quoted constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas, who argued that the illegitimacy is irrelevant to public
office.

'What is the relevance of legitimacy or illegitimacy to elective office? What possible state
interest can there be for disqualifying an illegitimate child from becoming a public officer? It
was not the fault of the child that his parents had illicit liaison. Why deprive the child of the
fullness of political rights for no fault of his own? To disqualify an illegitimate child from
holding an important public office is to punish him for the indiscretion of his parents. There is
neither justice nor rationality in that. And if there is neither justice or rationality in the
distinction, then the distinction transgresses the equal protection clause and must be
reprobated.'

– Joaquin Bernas on FPJ's citizenship

He was one of the Amicus Curiae (friends of court) consulted by the justices.

UN convention

Grace Poe's case is much easier to resolve, argued Brillantes, because the court will not have to
scrutinize as many laws. It only has to decide the rights of foundlings.

“This is easier. There is no question that she was found here, di ba? Because she was born here in
the Philippines, the presumption is her real parents are Filipinos,” Brillantes told Rappler.

La Viña raised the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons to argue in favor of
this presumption. “What are the rights of foundlings and children under our law? I say very strong –
their best interest is always promoted in the Constitution and in many laws,” he argued. (READ: In
Iloilo, Grace Poe finds new clues to real parents)

“The Comelec would have to do the fact finding and establish the facts of how she was found. This is
crucial because if it is true that she was left in the cathedral on the day she was born, that proves that
mother was in Iloilo that day. One can conclude many things from that fact alone," La Viña added.

Roque disagreed. He said there is no question foundlings are granted Philippine citizenship. But a
process need to be performed to perfect the citizenship, meaning they are not citizens at birth unless
they can show that their real parents are Filipinos.

US citizenship and residency

11 | P a g e
COUNTER-ATTACK. United Nationalist Alliance interim president Tobias Tiangco presents a copy of
the certificate of candidacy of Senator Grace Poe during the 2013 elections. Photo by Rappler

What United Nationalist Alliance interim president Tobias Tiangco raised about Poe’s residency is
another matter. He said she can't run for president or vice president in 2016 because she will not
meet the minimum 10-year residency requirement.

For Brillantes, Poe's residency is immaterial because being a natural-born citizen means she has
been residing in the Philippines since birth.

Roque, however, said this is what makes Poe's legal hurdles “at least twice more difficult to hurdle”
compared to FPJ’s. “We know that FPJ’s father was Filipino and he (FPJ) was never a foreign
national. In her case, we don’t know who her natural parents are and she really became a foreign
national,” Roque said.

Poe wrote in her COC in the 2013 elections that she had been a Philippine resident for 6 years and 6
months. It should mean – Tiangco argued – that in 2016 she shall have been a resident for only 9
years and 6 months.

Poe said she "err[ed] on the side of prudence" when she wrote the date in her COC, but that the
count should start from February 2005 when she decided to stay in the Philippines for good.

Poe got support from legal experts, who cited a case involving Imelda Marcos, which they said settled
the issue through the animus revertendi doctrine – "with intention to return."The intention to return to
your place of origin is the basis of residence, and not actual, physical residence," said La Viña.

Roque said the doctrine doesn't apply because, unlike Marcos, Poe was a US citizen. The count
should begin from the date she renounced her US citizenship, which Poe said was "sometime
October 2010."

12 | P a g e
Poe's political rise

In 2004, FPJ would lose the tight race to Gloria Arroyo, amid allegations of systematic cheating. He
died later in the same year, prompting Grace to come home from the United States.

Poe's politial rise has been exponential since she first entered government as chairman of the Movie
and Television Review and Classification Board. Surveys show she may be the only one who can
offer Binay a real challenge.

Should she respond to the surveys, will the Supreme Court stop her in her tracks? Unless her real
parents suddenly show up, she'll have to first secure the vote of the gods at Padre
Faura. – Rappler.com

13 | P a g e