Christian Don P.

Cabarle X-Photon

A Case Digest on Grace Poe vs Commission on

Elections

Topic:

The petition is composed of two consolidated petitions under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65

of the Rules of Court with extremely urgent application for an ex parte issuance of temporary

restraining order/status quo ante order and/or writ of preliminary injunction assailing the

following:

1. DECEMBER 1, 2015 RESOLUTION OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS SECOND

DIVISION (Cancelled petitioner’s certificate of candidacy);

2. DECEMBER 23, 2015 RESOLUTION OF THE COMELEC EN BANC

(Denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration); and

3. DECEMBER 11, 2015 RESOLUTION OF THE COMELEC FIRST DIVISION

(Declared that petitioner is not a natural-born citizen, that she failed to complete the

ten (10) year residency requirement, and that she committed material

misrepresentation in her COC when she declared therein that she has been a resident

of the Philippines for a period of ten 10 years and 11 months as of the day of the

elections on 9 May 2016).

Date Event

Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares

(petitioner) was found abandoned as a

newborn infant in the Parish Church of Jaro,

September 3, 1968 Iloilo by a certain Edgardo Militar. Custody

over petitioner was passed on by Edgardo

to his relatives, Emiliano Militar and his

wife.

Emiliano Militar reported and registered

September 6, 1968 petitioner as a foundling with the Office of

the Civil Registrar of Iloilo City (OCR-Iloilo).

When petitioner was five (5) years old,

celebrity spouses Ronald Allan Kelley Poe

(a.k.a. Fenando Poe, Jr.) and Jesusa Sonora

1973 Poe (Susan Roces) filed a petition for her

adoption with the Municipal Trial Court

(MTC) of San Juan City.

granted by the trial court and ordered that

May 13, 1974 petitioner's name be changed from "Mary

Grace Natividad Contreras Militar" to "Mary

Grace Natividad Sonora Poe."

Having reached the age of 18, petitioner

December 13, 1986 registered as a voter with the local

COMELEC Office in San Juan City.

Petitioner applied for and was issued

Philippine Passport No. F9272876 by the

April 4, 1988 Department of Foreign Affairs

Initially, the petitioner enrolled and

pursued a degree in Development Studies at

the University of the Philippines but opted

to continue her studies abroad and left for

1988-1991 the U.S. in 1988.

Petitioner graduated in 1991 from Boston

College in Chestnuts Hill

Llamanzares, a citizen of both the

July 27, 1991 Philippines and the U.S., at Sanctuario de

San Jose Parish in San Juan City.

Desirous of being with her husband who

July 29, 1991 was then based in the U.S., the couple flew

back to the U.S.

Petitioner gave birth to her eldest child

April16, 1992 Brian Daniel

Renewed her Philippines passport.

April 5, 1993

Renewed her Philippines passport.

May 19, 1998

Petitioner gave birth to daughter Hanna

July 10, 1998 MacKenzie.

Petitioner became a naturalized American

October 18, 2001 citizen

together with Hanna to support her father's

April 8, 2004 – July 8, 2004 candidacy for President in the May 2004

elections. It was during this time that she

gave birth to her youngest daughter Anika.

Petitioner rushed back to the Philippines

December 13, 2004 – February 3, 2005 upon learning of her father's deteriorating

medical condition who died shortly.

Petitioner and husband began preparing for

their resettlement including notification of

2005 their children's schools that they will be

transferring to Philippine schools

Petitioner came home to the Philippines

and without delay, secured a Tax

May 24, 2005 Identification Number from the Bureau of

Internal Revenue.

The petitioner's husband officially informed

March 2006 the U.S. Postal Service of the family's change

U.S. petitioner and her husband acquired a

509-square meter lot in Corinthian Hills,

Quezon City where they built their family

home.

Petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the

Republic of the Philippines pursuant to

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the

July 7, 2006 Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition

Act of 2003.

The Bureau of Immigration acted favorably

on petitioner's petitions and declared that

July 18, 2006 she is deemed to have reacquired her

Philippine citizenship.

Again, petitioner registered as a voter of

Barangay Santa Lucia, San Juan City. She

August 31, 2006 also secured from the DFA a new Philippine

Passport bearing the No. XX4731999.

petitioner as Chairperson of the Movie and

October 6, 2010 Television Review and Classification Board

(MTRCB).

Before assuming her post, petitioner

executed an "Affidavit of Renunciation of

Allegiance to the United States of America

October 20, 2010 and Renunciation of American Citizenship"

before a notary public in Pasig City.

Petitioner submitted the said affidavit to the

Bureau of Immigration and took her oath of

office as Chairperson of the MTRCB. From

October 21, 2010 then on, petitioner stopped using her

American passport.

The petitioner executed before the Vice

Consul of the U.S. Embassy in Manila an

July 12, 2011 "Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of

Nationality of the United States" and stated

that she in the Philippines, from 3

May 2005 to present.

The U.S. Vice Consul issued to petitioner a

December 9, 2011 "Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the

United States" effective 21 October 2010.

The petitioner filed with the COMELEC her

Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Senator

for the 2013 Elections wherein she

October 2, 2012 answered "6 years and 6 months" to the

question "Period of residence in the

Philippines before May 13, 2013."

Petitioner filed her COC for the Presidency

for the May 2016 Elections.

In her COC, the petitioner declared that she

October 15, 2015 is a natural-born citizen and that her

residence in the Philippines up to the day

before 9 May 2016 would be ten (10) years

and eleven (11) months counted from 24

May 2005.
 ISSUES:

1. With regard to:

a) being a foundling and

b) her repatriation

is the petitioner a natural-born citizen of the Philippines?

2. Did the petitioner meet the 10-year residency requirement for running as president?

3. Did the petitioner commit material misrepresentation in her Certificate of Candidacy?

Decision:

1. Is petitioner a natural-born citizen of the Philippines?

ON BEING A FOUNDLING

As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens.

The Family Code of the Philippines has a whole chapter on Paternity and Filiation. That said, there is

more than sufficient evidence that petitioner has Filipino parents and is therefore a natural-born

Filipino.

The factual issue is not who the parents of petitioner are, as their identities are unknown, but

whether such parents are Filipinos. Under Section 4, Rule 128:

Sec. 4. Relevancy, collateral matters - Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to

induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,

except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability of improbability of the fact

in issue.
 Parenthetically, the burden of proof was on private respondents to show that petitioner is not a

Filipino citizen. The private respondents should have shown that both of petitioner's parents were

aliens. Her admission that she is a foundling did not shift the burden to her because such status did

not exclude the possibility that her parents were Filipinos, especially as in this case where there is a

high probability, if not certainty, that her parents are Filipinos.

The Solicitor General offered official statistics from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) that from

1965 to 1975, the total number of foreigners born in the Philippines was 15,986 while the total

number of Filipinos born in the country was 10,558,278. The statistical probability that any child

born in the Philippines in that decade is natural-born Filipino was 99.83%.

Domestic laws on adoption also support the principle that foundlings are Filipinos. These laws do not

provide that adoption confers citizenship upon the adoptee. Rather, the adoptee must be a Filipino

in the first place to be adopted.

Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of petitioner's parents are the fact that she was

abandoned as an infant in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo City. She also has typical Filipino features:

height, flat nasal bridge, straight black hair, almond-shaped eyes and an oval face.

Foundlings are likewise citizens under international law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("UDHR") has been interpreted by this Court as part of

the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 15:

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the

right to change his nationality.

In 1986, the country also ratified the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR). Article 24 thereof provide for the right of every child "to acquire a nationality:"
To deny full Filipino citizenship to all foundlings and render them stateless just because there may

be a theoretical chance that one among the thousands of these foundlings might be the child of not

just one, but two, foreigners is downright discriminatory, irrational, and unjust. It just doesn't make

any sense. Given the statistical certainty - 99.9% - that any child born in the Philippines would be a

natural born citizen, a decision denying foundlings such status is effectively a denial of their

birthright. There is no reason to sacrifice the fundamental political rights of an entire class of human

beings.

While the 1935 Constitution's enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language

which would definitely exclude foundlings either.

ON PETITIONER’S REPATRIATION

The COMELEC ruled that petitioner's repatriation in July 2006 under the provisions of R.A. No. 9225

did not result in the reacquisition of natural-born citizenship. The COMELEC reasoned that since the

applicant must perform an act, what is reacquired is not "natural-born" citizenship but only plain

"Philippine citizenship."

According to the Supreme Court, the COMELEC's ruling disregarded consistent jurisprudence on the

matter of repatriation.

In the seminal case of Bengson Ill v. HRET, repatriation was explained as follows:

…Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized

Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen.

On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship,

he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.

in Bengson vs. HRET where the phrase "from birth" was clarified to mean at the time of birth: "A

person who at the time of his birth, is a citizen of a particular country, is a natural-born citizen

thereof."

2. Did the petitioner meet the 10-year residency requirement for running as president?

ON RESIDENCE

The Constitution requires presidential candidates to have 10 years’ residence in the Philippines

before the day of the elections.

Petitioner presented voluminous evidence showing that she and her family abandoned their U.S.

domicile and relocated to the Philippines for good. These evidence include petitioner's former U.S.

passport showing her arrival on 24 May 2005 and her return to the Philippines every time she

travelled abroad; e-mail correspondences starting in March 2005 to September 2006 with a freight

company to arrange for the shipment of their household items weighing about 28,000 pounds to the

Philippines; e-mail with the Philippine Bureau of Animal Industry inquiring how to ship their dog to

the Philippines; school records of her children showing enrollment in Philippine schools starting June

2005 and for succeeding years; tax identification card for petitioner issued on July 2005; titles for

condominium and parking slot issued in February 2006 and their corresponding tax declarations

issued in April 2006; receipts dated 23 February 2005 from the Salvation Army in the U.S.

acknowledging donation of items from petitioner's family; March 2006 e-mail to the U.S. Postal

Service confirming request for change of address; final statement from the First American Title

Insurance Company showing sale of their U.S. home on 27 April 2006; 12 July 2011 filled-up

questionnaire submitted to the U.S. Embassy where petitioner indicated that she had been a

Philippine resident since May 2005; affidavit from Jesusa Sonora Poe (attesting to the return of
petitioner on 24 May 2005 and that she and her family stayed with affiant until the condominium

was purchased); and Affidavit from petitioner's husband (confirming that the spouses jointly decided

to relocate to the Philippines in

2005 and that he stayed behind in the U.S. only to finish some work and to

sell the family home).

The evidence of petitioner is overwhelming and coupled with her eventual application to reacquire

Philippine citizenship and her family's actual continuous stay taken together, lead to no other

conclusion that when she came here on May 24 2005, her intention was to permanently abandon the

United States. Petitioner also actually re-established her residence here on 24 May 2005.

3. Did the petitioner commit material misrepresentation in her Certificate of Candidacy?

ON MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION

The COMELEC ruled that petitioner's claim of residence of ten (10) years and eleven (11) months by

9 May 2016 in her 2015 COC was false because she put six (6) years and six (6) months as "period of

residence before May 13, 2013" in her 2012 COC for Senator. Thus, according to the COMELEC, she

started being a Philippine resident only in November 2006. In doing so, the COMELEC automatically

assumed as true the statement in the 2012 COC and the 2015 COC as false.

As explained by petitioner in her verified pleadings, she misunderstood the date required in the 2013

COC as the period of residence as of the day she submitted that COC in 2012.

Her explanation that she misunderstood the query in 2012 (period of residence before 13 May 2013)

as inquiring about residence as of the time she submitted the COC, is strengthened by the change

which the COMELEC itself introduced in the 2015 COC which is now "period of residence in the
Philippines up to the day before May 09, 2016." The COMELEC would not have revised the query if it

did not acknowledge that the first version was vague.

Thus, it was grave abuse of discretion for the COMELEC to treat the 2012 COC as a binding and

conclusive admission against petitioner.

CONCLUSION:

The procedure and the conclusions from which the questioned Resolutions emanated are

tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner is a

qualified candidate for President in the 9th May of 2016 National Elections.

Reference:

http://juristprudent.blogspot.com/2018/02/poe-llamanzares-vs-comelec-case-digest.html