Grace Poe vs COMELEC

GR 221697, GR 221698-700
March 8, 2016

Perez, J.:

Facts:

In her COC for presidency for the May 2016 elections, Grace Poe declared that she is a natural-
born citizen and that her residence in the Philippines up to the day before 9 May 2016 would be
10 years and 11 months counted from 24 May 2005.

May 24, 2005 was the day she came to the Philippines after deciding to stay in the PH for good.
Before that however, and even afterwards, she has been going to and fro between US and
Philippines. She was born in 1968, found as newborn infant in Iloilo, and was legally adopted.
She immigrated to the US in 1991 and was naturalized as American citizen in 2001. On May
2005, without delay, she secured a Tax Identification Number from the Bureau of Internal
Revenue. Her three (3) children immediately followed her to the Philippines. Then, the children
of school age began attending Philippine private schools.The petitioner and her children briefly
stayed at her mother's place until she and her husband purchased a condominium unit with a
parking slot at One Wilson Place Condominium in San Juan City in the second half of 2005. In
early 2006, petitioner and her husband acquired a 509-square meter lot in Corinthian Hills,
Quezon City where they built their family home.

On July 18, 2006, the BI granted her petition declaring that she had reacquired her Filipino
citizenship under RA 9225. She registered as a voter and obtained a new Philippine passport.
In 2010, before assuming her post as an appointed chairperson of the MTRCB, she renounced
her American citizenship to satisfy the RA 9225 requirement. From then on, she stopped using
her American passport. On 12 July 2011, the petitioner executed before the Vice Consul of the
U.S. Embassy in Manila an "Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of the United
States."

Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or cancel her candidacy on the ground
particularly, among others, that she cannot be considered a natural-born Filipino citizen since
she cannot prove that her biological parents or either of them were Filipinos. It was claimed
that international law does not confer naturalborn status and Filipino citizenship on foundlings.
There was also an argument that she fell short of the ten-year residency requirement of the
Constitution as her residence could only be counted at the earliest from July 2006.
The COMELEC en banc cancelled her candidacy on the ground that she is in want of citizenship
and residence requirements, and that she committed material misrepresentations in her COC.

On certiorari, the SC reversed the ruling and held (9-6 votes) that Poe is qualified as a candidate
for Presidency. Three justices, however, abstained to vote on the natural-born citizenship
issue.
Issue 1: W/N the COMELEC has jurisdiction to rule on the issue of qualifications of candidates
Issue 2: W/N Grace Poe-Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino citizen
Issue 3: W/N Grace Poe satisfies the 10-year residency requirement
Issue 4: W/N the Grace Poes candidacy should be denied or cancelled for committing
material misrepresentations in her COC when she stated in her COC that she has before and
until 9 May 2016 been a resident of the Philippines for ten (10) years and eleven (11) months.

Issue 1

No. Article IX-C, Sec 2 of the Constitution provides for the powers and functions of the
COMELEC, and deciding on the qualifications or lack thereof of a candidate is not one among
them.

In contrast, the Constitution provides that only the SET and HRET tribunals have sole
jurisdiction over the election contests, returns, and qualifications of their respective members,
whereas over the President and Vice President, only the SC en banc has sole jurisdiction. As for
the qualifications of candidates for such positions, the Constitution is silent. There is simply no
authorized proceeding in determining the ineligibility of candidates before elections. Such lack
of provision cannot be supplied by a mere rule, and for the COMELEC to assimilate grounds for
ineligibility into grounds for disqualification in Rule 25 in its rules of procedures would be
contrary to the intent of the Constitution.

Hence, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it decided on the qualification
issue of Grace as a candidate in the same case for cancellation of her COC.

Issue 2

Held:

Yes, Grace Poe might be and is considerably a natural-born Filipino. For that, she satisfies one
of the constitutional requirements that only natural-born Filipinos may run for presidency.

The fact is that the petitioner's blood relationship with a Filipino citizen is demonstrable.

First, there is a high probability that Grace Poes parents are Filipinos. Her physical features are
typical of Filipinos. The fact that she was abandoned as an infant in a municipality where the
population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be more than
99% chance that a child born in such province is a Filipino is also a circumstantial evidence of
her parents nationality. From 1965 to 1975, the total number of foreigners born in the
Philippines is 15,986 while the total number of Filipinos born in the Philippines is 15,558,278.
For this period, the ratio of non-Filipino children is 1:66. To assume otherwise is to accept the
absurd, if not the virtually impossible, as the norm. To deny full Filipino citizenship to all
foundlings and thereby rendering them stateless is downright discriminatory, irrational and
unjust considering the very low probability that the child is a foreigner.

Second, by votes of 7-5, the SC pronounced that foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens.
This is based on the finding that the deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention show
that the framers intended foundlings to be covered by the enumeration.

While the 1935 Constitutions 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, the SC felt the need to examine the intent of the
framers. The framers intent is that there is no more need to expressly declare foundlings as
Filipinos because they are already impliedly so recognized by the existing international law and
that they are too few to warrant inclusion in the Constitution.

Third, Domestic laws on adoption also support the principle that foundlings are Filipinos. The
most basic of such laws is Article 15 of the Civil Codewhich provides that "[l]aws relating to
family rights, duties, status, conditions, legal capacity of persons are binding on citizens of the
Philippines even though living abroad." Adoption deals with status, and a Philippine adoption
court will have jurisdiction only if the adoptee is a Filipino.

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. However, the court answered that the issuance of a certificate of foundling is not
analogous to a naturalization proceeding to acquire Philippine Citizenship, or the election of
such citizenship.

Fourth, that foundlings are automatically conferred with natural-born citizenship is supported
by treaties and the general principles of international law. Although the Philippines is not a
signatory to some of these treaties, it adheres to the customary rule to presume foundlings as
having born of the country in which the foundling is found.

The Philippines ratified the UN Convetion on the Right of the Child (UNCRC), Article 7 and 1966
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which imposes an obligation to the
countries to preserve the right of every child to acquire a nationality. The common thread of
the UDHR, UNCRC and ICCPR is to obligate the Philippines to grant nationality from birth and
ensure that no child is stateless.

The principles found in two conventions, while yet unratified by the Philippines, are generally
accepted principles of international law. The first is Article 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention on
Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws under which a foundling is
presumed to have the nationality of the country of birth. The second is the principle that a
foundling is presumed born of citizens of the country where he is found, contained in Article 2
of the 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

Having established that Poe-Llamanzares is a natural-born citizen, the Court then states that
under R.A. No 9225, the repatriation process undergone by the petitioner results in the
recovery of the original antionality. In Bengson III v HRET, the Court held that a natural born
citizen who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a natural-born Filipino. The
COMELEC's position that natural-born status must be continuous was already rejected in
Bengson Ill v. HRET145 where the phrase "from birth" was clarified to mean at the time of birth,
a person who is a citizen of a particular country, is a natural born citizen thereof.

Issue 3

Held:

Yes. Grace Poe satisfied the requirements of animus manendi coupled with animus revertendi
in acquiring a new domicile. Tere 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.

Grace Poes domicile had been timely changed as of May 24, 2005, and not on July 18, 2006
when her application under RA 9225 was approved by the BI. COMELECs reliance on cases
which decree that an aliens stay in the country cannot be counted unless she acquires a
permanent resident visa or reacquires her Filipino citizenship is without merit. Such cases are
different from the circumstances in this case. The evidence of petitioner is overwhelming and
taken together leads to no other conclusion that she decided to permanently abandon her U.S.
Residence (selling the house, taking the children from U.S. schools, getting quotes from the
freight company, notifying the U.S. Post Office of the abandonment of their address in the U.S.,
donating excess items to the Salvation Army, her husband resigning from U.S. employment
right after selling the U.S. House) and permanently relocate to the Philippines and actually re-
established her residence here on 24 May 2005 (securing T.I.N, enrolling her children in
Philippine schools, buying property here, constructing a residence here, returning to the
Philippines after all trips abroad, her husband getting employed here).

Issue 4

Held:

No. The COMELEC cannot cancel her COC on the ground that she misrepresented facts as to
her citizenship and residency because such facts refer to grounds for ineligibility in which the
COMELEC has no jurisdiction to decide upon. Only when there is a prior authority finding that a
candidate is suffering from a disqualification provided by law or the Constitution that the
COMELEC may deny due course or cancel her candidacy on ground of false representations
regarding her qualifications.
In Her Verified Answer to the SET case, she admitted that she made a mistake in the 2012 COC
whenshe put in six (6) years and six (6) months as she misunderstood the question and could
have truthfully indicated a longer period. Her answer in the SET case was a matter of public
record. Therefore, when petitioner accomplished her COC for President on 15 October 2015, she
could not be said to have been attempting to hide her erroneous statement in her 2012 COC
There is no intent on the part of the petitioner to misrepresent. When she claimed to have
been a resident for ten (10) years and eleven (11) months, she did so in good faith.

In this case, by authority of the Supreme Court Grace Poe is now pronounced qualified as a
candidate for the presidency. Hence, there cannot be any false representations in her COC
regarding her citizenship and residency.