POE-LLAMANZARES VS.

COMELEC
G.R. Nos. 221697 & 221698-700; March 8, 2016

FACTS: Petitioner was found abandoned as a newborn infant in the parish church of Jaro, Iloilo
by Edgardo Militar. Parental care and custody over her was passed on to Emiliano Militar and his
wife, three days after she was found. Emiliano reported and registered petitioner as a foundling
with the Office of the Civil Registrar- Iloilo. In her Foundling Certificate, petitioner was given the
name “Mary Grace Natividad Contreras Militar.” Five years later, petitioner was adopted by
celebrity spouses Ronald Allan Kelley Poe and Jesusa Sonora Poe. A petition for her adoption was
filed with the MTC of San Juan City, which was granted on May 13, 1974. Consequently,
petitoner’s name was changed to “Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe.”

Petitioner enrolled and pursued a degree in Development Studies at the University of

the Philippines but she opted to continue her studies abroad and left for the United States of
America in 1988. Petitioner graduated in 1991 from Boston College. She came home to the
Philippines to marry her husband, a citizen of both the Philippines and the United States of
America. Desirous of being with her husband who was then based in the US, she and her
husband flew back to the US two days after their wedding. On October 18, 2001, she became a
naturalized American citizen.

On April 8, 2004, petitioner came back to the Philippines to support her father’s
candidacy for President in the May 2004 elections. She returned to the US three months later.
On December 13, 2004, petitioner rushed back to the Philippines upon learning of her father’s
deteriorating medical condition. Unfortunately, petitioner’s father’s condition deteriorated
which eventually led to his untimely demise. Petitioner stayed until February 3, 2005 to take care
of her father’s funeral arrangements, as well as, to assist in the settlement of his estate.

In her earnest desire to be with her grieving mother, petitioner and her husband decided
to move and reside permanently in the Philippines, sometime in the first quarter of 2005. Finally,
petitioner came home to the Philippines on May 24, 2005 and without delay, secured a Tax
identification Number from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Her three children immediately
followed while her husband was forced to stay in the US to complete pending projects, as well
as, to arrange the sale of their family home there. The petitioner and her children briefly stayed
at her mother’s place until she and her husband purchased a condominium unit in San Juan City
in the second half of 2005.

On February 14, 2006, petitioner made a quick trip to the US to supervise the disposal of
some of the family’s remaining household belongings. She travelled back to the Philippines on
March 11, 2006. The US family home was sold on April 27, 2006 and petitioner’s husband arrived
in the country on May 4, 2006. In early 2006, petitioner’s husband acquired a lot in Quezon City
where they built their family home, where up to this day, they have been residing in.

On July 7, 2006, petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
pursuant to the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 (RA 9225). Under the same
act, she filed with the Bureau of Immigration a sworn petition to reacquire Philippine Citizenship
together with petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her three minor children. The
petition was granted thus the issuance by the Bureau of Immigration of identification Certificates
in petitioner’s name and in the names of her three children.

Petitioner registered as a voter of barangay Santa Lucia, San Juan City on August 31,
2006. She also secured from the Department of Foreign Affairs a new Philippine passport, which
was renewed on March 18, 2014.

Petitioner was appointed Chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and
Classification Board on October 6, 2010. Before assuming her post, petitioner executed an
Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States of America and Renunciation of
American Citizenship on October 20, 2010. The following day, petitioner submitted the said
Affidavit to the Bureau of Immigration and took her oath of office as Chairperson. From then on,
 petitioner stopped using her American passport. On July 12, 2011 petitioner executed before the
Vice Consul of the US Embassy in Manila an “Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of
the United States.” On December 9, 2011, the US Vice Consul issued to the petitioner a
“Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States”, effective October 21, 2010.

On October 2, 2012, petitioner filed with the COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy for
Senator for the 2013 Elections wherein she answered “ six (6) years and six (6) months” to the
question “Period of residence in the Philippines before May 13, 2013.” Petitioner was proclaimed
Senator on May 16, 2013.

On October 15, 2015, petitioner filed her COC for the Presidency for the May 2016
Elections. In her COC, petitioner declared that she is a natural-born citizen and that her
residence in the Philippines up to the day before May 9, 2016 would be ten (10) years and
eleven (11) months, counted from May 24, 2005.

Estrella Elamparo filed a Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel said COC which was
raffled to the COMELEC Second Division, contending that petitioner committed material
representation when she stated in her COC that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and that she
is a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years and eleven months up to the day before the
May 2016 Elections.

Aside from the petition filed by Elamparo, three separate petitions filed by Francisco
Tatad, Antonio Contreras and Amado Valdez were consolidated and raffled to COMELEC First
Division. Tatad alleges that petitioner lacks the requisite residency and citizenship to qualify her
for the Presidency. He further theorized that since the Philippines adheres to the principle of jus
sanguinis, persons of unknown parentage, particularly foundlings, cannot be considered natural
—born citizens since blood relationship is determinative of natural-born status. Valdez alleges
that petitioner’s repatriation under RA 9225 did not bestow upon her the status of a natural-
born citizen, and further argues that petitioner’s own admission in her COC for Senator that she
had only been a resident of the Philippines for at least six years and six months prior to the May
2013 Elections operates against her. Contreras’ petition limited the attack to the residency issue,
claiming that petitioner’s 2015 COC for President should be cancelled on the ground that she did
not possess the ten-year period of residency required for said candidacy, and that she made
false entry in her COC when she stated that she is a legal resident of the Philippines for ten years
and eleven months for, as Contreras contends, the reckoning period for computing petitioner’s
residency in the Philippines should be the date when her petition to reacquire Philippine
Citizenship was approved by the Bureau of Immigration, that is, July 18, 2006.

COMELEC Second Division ruled in favor of the cancellation of the COC. COMELEC First
Division ruled that petitioner is not a natural-born citizen, that she failed to complete the 10-
year residency requirement and that she committed material misrepresentation in her COC, thus
she is not qualified for the elective position of President. Petitioner filed two separate Motions
for Reconsideration, which were denied. Thus, the Petition for Certiorari with urgent prayer for
the issuance of an Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining Order/Status Quo Ante-Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction.

ISSUES: Can the COMELEC as a judge in disqualifying petitioner for the position of President
Is petitioner, being a foundling, a natural-born citizen?
Did petitioner satisfy the residency requirement making her eligible to run for the
position of President?
Did petitioner commit material misrepresentation when she filled out her COC?

RULING:

1) COMELEC IS NOT VESTED WITH JURISDICTION

TO RULE ON THE DISQUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATES
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
 The issue before the COMELEC is whether or not the COC of petitioner should be denied
due course or cancelled "on the exclusive ground" that she made in the certificate a false
material representation. The exclusivity of the ground should hedge in the discretion of the
COMELEC and restrain it from going into the issue of the qualifications of the candidate for the
position, if, as in this case, such issue is yet undecided or undetermined by the proper authority.
The COMELEC cannot itself, in the same cancellation case, decide the qualification or lack
thereof of the candidate.

The tribunals which have jurisdiction over the question of the qualifications of the
President, the Vice-President, Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives was
made clear by the Constitution.

As presently required, to disqualify a candidate there must be a declaration by a final

judgment of a competent court that the candidate sought to be disqualified is “guilty of or found
by the Commission to be suffering from any disqualification provided by law or the Constitution.”
Insofar as the qualification of a candidate is concerned, Rule 25 1 and Rule 23 of the COMELEC
Rules are flipsides of one to the other. Both do not allow, are not authorizations, are not
vestment of jurisdiction, for the COMELEC to determine the qualification of a candidate. The
facts of qualification must beforehand be established in a prior proceeding before an authority
properly vested with jurisdiction. The prior determination of qualification may be by statutes, be
executive order, or by a judgment of a competent court or tribunal.
2) FOUNDLINGS ARE CONSIDERED BY THE 1987
CONSTITUTION AND BY INTERNATIONAL AS
NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY
WHERE THEY ARE FOUND.

As a matter of law, foundlings are, as a class, natural-born citizens. While the 1935
Constitution’s enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language which
would definitely exclude foundlings either. Because of silence and ambiguity in the enumeration
with respect to foundlings, there is a need to examine the intent of the framers.

The deliberations of the 1935 Constitutional Convention show that the framers intended
foundlings to be covered by the enumeration. The Court finds no such intent or language
permitting discrimination against foundlings. On the contrary, all three Constitutions guarantee
the basic right to equal protection of the laws. All exhort the State to render social justice.

It has been argued that the process to determine that the child is a foundling leading to
the issuance of a foundling certificate under these laws and the issuance of said certificate are
acts to acquire or perfect Philippine citizenship which make the foundling a naturalized Filipino
at best. THIS IS ERRONEOUS. In the first place, “having to perform an act” means that the act
must be personally done by the citizen. In this instance, the determination of foundling status is
done not by the child but by the authorities. Secondly, the object of the process is the
determination of the whereabouts of the parents not the citizenship of the child, Lastly, the
process is certainly not analogous to naturalization proceeding to acquire Philippine citizenship,
or the election of such citizenship by one born of an alien father and a Filipino mother under the
1935 Constitution, which is an act to perfect it.

Foundlings are likewise citizens under international law. The common thread of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 1966
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is to obligate the Philippines to grant
nationality from birth and ensure that no child is stateless.

1 Grounds. - Any candidate who, in action or protest in which he is a party, is declared by final decision of a
competent court, guilty of, or found by the Commission to be suffering from any disqualification provided by law or
the Constitution. A Petition to Disqualify a Candidate invoking grounds for a Petition to Deny to or Cancel a
Certificate of Candidacy or Petition to Declare a Candidate as a Nuisance Candidate, or a combination thereof, shall
be summarily dismissed.
 Article 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of
Nationality Laws embodies the principle that “a foundling is presumed to have the nationality of
the country of birth.” Article 2 of the 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness provides for the principle that a foundling is presumed born of citizens of the
country where he is found. These principles in these two conventions while yet unratified by the
Philippines, are generally accepted principles of International Law. That the Philippines is not a
party to the 1930 Hague Convention nor to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness, does not mean that their principles are not binding. While the Philippines is not a
party to the 1930 Hague Convention, it is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights, Article 15(1) ofwhich131 effectively affirms Article 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention.
Article 2 of the 1961 "United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness" merely
"gives effect" to Article 15(1) of the UDHR.

Adopting these legal principles from the 1930 Hague Convention and the 1961
Convention on Statelessness is rational and reasonable and consistent with the jus sanguinis
regime in our Constitution. The presumption of natural-born citizenship of foundlings stems
from the presumption that their parents are nationals of the Philippines.

3) PETITIONER’S REPATRIATION RESULTED

TO THE ACQUISITION OF NATURAL-BORN
CITIZENSHIP

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

The COMELEC construed the phrase “from birth” in the definition of natural citizen as
implying “that natural-born citizenship must begin at birth and remain uninterrupted and
continuous from birth.” RA No. 9225 was obviously passed in line with Congress’ sole prerogative
to determine how citizenship may be lost or reacquired. Congress saw it fit to decree that
natural-born citizenship may be reacquired even if it had been once lost. It is not for the
COMELEC to disagree with the Congress’ determination. More importantly, COMELEC’s position
that natural-born status must be continuous was already rejected where the phrase “from birth”
was clarified to mean “at the time of birth.” Neither is “repatriation” an act to “acquire or
perfect” one’s citizenship. There are only two types of citizens under the 1987 Constitution:
natural-born and naturalized. There is no third category for repatriated citizens.

4) PETITIONER DID NOT COMMIT

FALSE REPRESENTATION WHEN SHE
FILLED OUT HER COC

When petitioner immigrated to the US in 1991, she lost her original domicile, which is
the Philippines. There are three requisites to acquire a new domicile (1) Residence or bodily
presence in a new locality; (2) An intention to remain there; and (3) An intention to abandon the
old domicile. To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate an actual
removal or an actual change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place
of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose. In
other words, there must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi.
 Petitioner presented voluminous evidence 2 showing that she and her family abandoned
their US domiciles and relocated to the Philippines for good. However, the COMELEC refused to
consider that petitioner’s domicile had been timely changed as of May 24, 2005. The COMELEC
disregarded the import of all the evidence presented by the petitioner on the basis of the
position that the earliest date that the petitioner could have started residence in the Philippines
was in July 2006.

COMELEC also took it against petitioner that she had entered the Philippines visa-free as
a balikbayan. A closer look of RA No. 6768, as amended 3 shows that there is no overriding intent
to treat balikbayans as temporary visitors who must leave after one year. Included in the law is a
former Filipino who has been naturalized abroad and “comes or returns to the Philippines.”
Given the law’s express policy to facilitate the return of a balikbayan and help him reintegrate
into society, it would be an unduly harsh conclusion to say in absolute terms that the balikbayan
must leave after one year. That visa-free period is obviously granted him to allow him to re-
establish his life and reintegrate himself into the community before he attends to the necessary
formal and legal requirements of repatriation.

It was grave abuse of discretion for the COMELEC to treat the 2012 COC as binding and
conclusive admission against the petitioner. It could be given in evidence against her, yes, but it
was by no means conclusive. There is precedent after all where a candidate ‘s mistake as to
period of residence made in a COC was overcome by evidence. It is the fact of residence, not a
statement in a certificate of candidacy, which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not
an individual has satisfied the Constitution’s residency qualification requirement.

When petitioner claimed to have been a resident for ten years and eleven months, she
could do so in good faith. For another, it could not be said that petitioner was attempting to hide
anything. As already stated, a petition for quo warranto had been filed against her with the SET
as early as August 2015 and the matter was first brought up in the media on June 2, 2015. From
the time therefore when the matter was discussed in the media, the stated period of residence
in the 2012 COC and the circumstances that surrounded the statement were already matters of
public record and were not hidden.

In the matter of the citizenship and residence of petitioner for her candidacy as
President of the Republic, the questioned Resolutions of the COMELEC in Division and En Banc
are, one and all, deadly diseased with grave abuse of discretion from root to fruits. The Petition
is GRANTED.

2 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).
3 “An Act Instituting a Balikbayan Program”