I must say she was a decent opponent.

And her supporters were not as blinded by

political color.

To you Madam Senator, I wish you luck. Please understand that it was nothing
personal. Like what I said to one of your staff during the SC oral arguments, I
would have easily voted for you if only you fulfilled the residence requirement.

And I would also like to thank you for running. In a strange way, you prevented
Mar Roxas from getting too close to Digong. Without you running, we would
have been in a deep mess right now. With that, the country owes you one.

My objection still remains. She is not qualified. But her disqualification is legal
and constitutional.

The academic way. The view that policy analysts are without biases is long gone
with the onset of engaged and partisan scholarship. Policy and political advocacy
is no longer independent of analysis, and in fact is enriched by it. My advocacy
against Poe is firmly grounded on political analysis.

The realist way. Give me an analyst who do not have a bias for or against a
political personality or issue and I will rest my case.

The authentic Tonton Contreras way. Frankly my dear, I do not simply give a
damn. I do not volunteer to be interviewed and I am not getting paid for it. So go
suck yourself!

And it would be a mortal sin, if not ridiculous, to hand it over to Grace Poewhose
narrative is the same as that of the incompetent incumbent -- a lackluster record of
inexperience riding like a messiah on the strength of necropolitics.

THE LIES ABOUT TEODORO MISAEL LLAMANZARES

It seems that the lies that Grace Poe tells and that tell her have widened their web
and have entrapped her husband, Teodoro Misael Llamanzares (aka Niel).

For a long time, Grace Poe, in official documents and in public pronouncements,
made us believe that her husband Niel is a dual citizen, and even a natural-born
one, considering that he was born to Filipino parents in the US before the latter
were naturalized.
But with recent developments, Grace Poe was forced to admit that her husband
served with the US Air Force from 1988 - 1992, and in fact is a reserved officer.

It is a given fact that under Philippine Laws, serving in the US military

automatically causes the loss of Filipino citizenship, more so if such was done
without the consent of the Philippine Government.

So when Niel served with the US military, whatever claim he has to dual
citizenship by virtue of him being born to Filipino parents in the US was
extinguished.

He is now solely an American citizen, not a dual citizen as Grace Poe has
claimed.

He could also not claim that he became dual again by virtue of RA 9225, when
Grace Poe reacquired her citizenship since only their three children were included
in her application.

It also behooves one to ask if Niel acquired the necessary papers that would
certify him as a natural born citizen at any time before he became solely an
American citizen in 1988. My eldest son was born in Hawaii. Before he can claim
his natural born citizenship, we have to obtain a certificate of recognition from the
BID. It is now valid to ask if Niel in fact has this certificate issued by BID or by
the Philippine authorities in the US.

Grace Poe said that her husband is willing to renounce his US citizenship if she
wins. Let us forget for a moment that this reeks of opportunism, and just focus on
the legal implications of this. Niel is solely a US citizen now. He could not even
vote for Grace Poe. For him to be employed by Ramon Ang, he has to secure a
permanent resident visa. So, what is actually his visa status? And how can he
renounce his US citizenship when that would amount to him becoming stateless,
for he already lost his Filipino citizenship in 1988 when he joined the US
military? He has to first become a Filipino citizen again. And if so, what will
apply -- is it RA 9225, or the previous law on Filipinos who served the US
military which was used in Bengson? Is he even qualified to do this when at the
time he joined the US military he was also a US citizen?

This is the problem when you live a life full of lies and deception.

Sooner or later they will come back to haunt you.

What makes this tragic is that the whole Republic, the institution of law, the
Constitution itself and its guardian, the Supreme Court, were all trapped in the
web of lies that was spun by and for this privileged foundling.

There is one way out.

Repudiate this woman on May 9.

Let her straighten her documents as a private citizen, and spare the country from
the burden, the confusion and uncertainty and the lies.

A Q AND A PRIMER ON GRACE POES RESIDENCY ISSUE

Prepared by Antonio P. Contreras

Q1. What is the issue?

A1. The main issue is the fact that Senator Grace Poe is contemplating to run for
the Presidency, when in fact she is not qualified to run.

Q2. Why is she not qualified to run?

A2. She is not qualified to run for President for the simple reason that she lacks
the 10 year residency requirement prescribed in Article VII, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, which states:

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.

Q3. What are the facts?

A3. The following are irrefutable facts based from documents submitted by Grace
Poe to the BID, as well as to the Senate Electoral Tribunal.

1. She migrated to the US in 1991.

2. According to US immigration laws, someone should be a permanent resident of
the US for at least 5 years before being granted naturalization. Based on this, it is
safe to assume that she became permanent resident sometime in 1996.
3. She became a naturalized American Citizen in October 18, 2001. On this date,
she also lost her Filipino citizenship
4. She came back to the Philippine when her adoptive father. Fernando Poe Jr.,
died in December 14, 2004.
5. On July 7, 2006, she filed an application to reacquire her Filipino citizenship by
virtue of RA 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act of 2003.
6. Such application was approved on July 18, 2006. On such date, Grace Poe
became a citizen of both the United States and the Philippines.
7. On October 6, 2010, she was appointed Chair of the MTRCB.
8. On July 12, 2011, Grace Poe notified the US Government that she has already
performed acts that are in fact manifestations of her intent to relinquish her US
citizenship.
9. On December 9, 2011, the US Government, through Vice Consul Jason Gallian,
certified that Grace Poe lost her US nationality, and attested that she took an oath
of public office which constituted as a voluntary act of repatriation on October 21,
2010.

Q4. Why would Grace Poe lack the 10 year residency requirement?

A4. The following are indisputable facts that point to the argument that Grace
Poes residence in relation to her anticipated candidacy for the Presidency of the
Republic of the Philippines does not meet the minimum 10-year requirement
stated in the Constitution.

1. The Presidential election is scheduled on May 9, 2016.

2. In order to comply with the Constitutional requirement of a minimum of 10
years of residency, Grace Poe should have been a Filipino with residence in the
Philippines by May 9, 2006.
3. While indeed she travelled to the Philippines in 2004 to attend the wake and
burial of her adoptive father, and while she may have been physically in the
Philippines for a longer duration after that, it was as a foreign visitor, considering
that she was already carrying a US passport, and that she lost her Filipino
citizenship in October 18, 2001.
4. In May 9, 2006, she was still an American citizen staying in the country.
5. It was only in July 18, 2006 and after that she stayed in the country as a
Filipino citizen, who is also an American citizen.
6. Hence, in May 9, 2016, she will only have a period of residence equivalent to at
most nine (9) years and ten (10) months, which is two (2) months short of the 10
years required by the Constitution.

Q5. Why at most?

A5. In GR 180088 (Japzon versus COMELEC and TY) promulgated January 19,
2009, the Supreme Court ruled that reacquiring Filipino citizenship under RA
9225 does not automatically lead to the reacquisition of residency for election
purposes, which is interpreted to be equivalent to a domicile. The Court said:

It bears to point out that Republic Act No. 9225 governs the manner in which a
natural-born Filipino may reacquire or retain his Philippine citizenship despite
acquiring a foreign citizenship, and provides for his rights and liabilities under
such circumstances. A close scrutiny of said statute would reveal that it does not
at all touch on the matter of residence of the natural-born Filipino taking
advantage of its provisions. Republic Act No. 9225 imposes no residency
requirement for the reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it
mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship on
the current residence of the concerned natural-born Filipino. Clearly, Republic Act
No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of residence. This is only logical and
consistent with the general intent of the law to allow for dual citizenship. Since a
natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, both Philippine and foreign
citizenships, he may establish residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign
country of which he is also a citizen.

As has already been previously discussed by this Court herein, Tys reacquisition
of his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 had no automatic
impact or effect on his residence/domicile. He could still retain his domicile in the
USA, and he did not necessarily regain his domicile in the Municipality of
General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines. Ty merely had the option to again
establish his domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar,
Philippines, said place becoming his new domicile of choice. The length of his
residence therein shall be determined from the time he made it his domicile of
choice, and it shall not retroact to the time of his birth.
Thus, it is clear that even as Grace Poe has reacquired her Philippine citizenship,
albeit as a dual citizen, it does not automatically imply that she has also
reacquired the Philippines as her domicile. Thus, it is even possible that her actual
legal residence in the country for election purposes is further shorter than the 9
years and 10 months, which is already short by two months, thereby compounding
her lack of qualification to run for the Presidency in 2016.

Q6. But wait, Grace Poe already was staying in the country since 2004? Wouldnt
that count?

A6. In GR 151914 (Coquilla versus COMELEC and Alvarez) promulgated in July

31, 2002, the court ruled that when a person who is not a national stays in the
country, it will only be according to the rules allowed by Immigration Laws. Here
is what the court said:

In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a
U.S. citizen after enlisting in the U.S. Navy in 1965. From then on and until
November 10, 2000, when he reacquired Philippine citizenship, petitioner was an
alien without any right to reside in the Philippines save as our immigration laws
may have allowed him to stay as a visitor or as a resident alien.

It is a fact that Grace Poe only became Filipino citizen again in July 18, 2006. So
her stay in the country from December 2004 to July 17, 2006 was only as a visitor
or as a resident alien. It is also clear that at such period, she has not regained her
domicile status.

It is also important to point out that in her application for reacquiring her Filipino
citizenship, she indicated N/A in the spaces provided for her to declare whether
she had an Immigrant Certificate of Residency (ICR), Alien Certificate of
Residency (ACR) or Certificate of Residency for Temporary Visitors (CRTV).
This suggests that Grace Poe was not even a resident alien during the period from
December 2004 to July 17, 2006.

Q7. What about her being a Filipino citizen prior to immigration to the US in
1991 and succeeding naturalization in 2001, and the fact that she considered the
Philippines as her domicile prior to her immigration to the US, wouldnt this
count?
A7. In GR 88831 (Caasi versus Court of Appeals) promulgated in November 8,
1990, the Court ruled that:

immigration to the United States by virtue of a green card, which entitles one
to reside permanently in that country, constitutes abandonment of domicile in the
Philippines. With more reason then does naturalization in a foreign country result
in an abandonment of domicile in the Philippines.

Furthermore, in GR 180088 (Japzon versus COMELEC and Ty), the court ruled
that:

A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the place

where the childs parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by
acquisition of new domicile (domicile of choice). In Coquilla, the Court already
acknowledged that for an individual to acquire American citizenship, he must
establish residence in the USA. Since Ty himself admitted that he became a
naturalized American citizen, then he must have necessarily abandoned the
Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, as his domicile of
origin; and transferred to the USA, as his domicile of choice."

Thus, considering the two rulings, Grace Poe has effectively abandoned her
domicile in the Philippines when she became a US green card holder, which is
estimated to be in 1996, which is five years prior to her naturalization in 2001.
And as indicated further above, the reacquisition of domicile in the Philippines is
not retroactive, but is only reckoned at the time when she re-established her
resident status in the Philippines, but only after she would have reacquired her
Filipino citizenship in July 18, 2006.

Q8. So, is Grace Poe qualified to run for President?

A8. No. She is not qualified to run for President in May 9, 2016. The constitution
requires that she has to be a resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years. She in
fact only have at most 9 years and 10 months, and this is assuming that she
immediately reacquired her domicile status on the same date that she reacquired
her Filipino citizenship.
Q9. What would be the effect if Grace Poe runs and wins in the 2016 elections,
and is disqualified after for not meeting the Constitutional requirement of 10 years
of residence?

A9. In GR 195649 (Maquiling versus COMELEC, Arnado and Balua)

promulgated on April 16, 2013, the court ruled that a candidate, even if already
proclaimed, but is found to be ineligible on the basis of Constitutional or legal
parameters required of the position, is considered to be not a candidate at all, and
the next in rank in terms of votes will be proclaimed the winner. As the Court
said:

To hold that such proclamation is valid is to negate the prohibitory character of

the disqualification which Arnado possessed even prior to the filing of the
certificate of candidacy. The affirmation of Arnados disqualification, although
made long after the elections, reaches back to the filing of the certificate of
candidacy. Arnado is declared to be not a candidate at all in the May 2010
election.

Arnado being a non-candidate, the votes cast in his favor should not have been
counted. This leaves Maquiling as the qualified candidate who obtained the
highest number of votes. Therefore, the rule on succession under the Local
Government Code will not apply.

Thus, it is clear from this ruling that in the event that Grace Poe insists in running,
and she wins, but is eventually disqualified on the basis of a Constitutional
ground, she would be treated as a non-candidate, and whoever comes second from
among the other Presidential candidates will be declared the winner, and not the
Vice President elect.

Q10. But what about those who voted for her in case she wins but is disqualified?
Can they argue that the will of the electorate should be respected, and not
thwarted?

A10. In GR 195649, the Court ruled that:

The ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutory requirements for
qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. When the law requires certain
qualifications to be possessed or that certain disqualifications be not possessed by
persons desiring to serve as elective public officials, those qualifications must be
met before one even becomes a candidate. When a person who is not qualified is
voted for and eventually garners the highest number of votes, even the will of the
electorate expressed through the ballot cannot cure the defect in the qualifications
of the candidate. To rule otherwise is to trample upon and rent asunder the very
law that sets forth the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. We might
as well write off our election laws if the voice of the electorate is the sole
determinant of who should be proclaimed worthy to occupy elective positions in
our republic.

It is imperative to safeguard the expression of the sovereign voice through the

ballot by ensuring that its exercise respects the rule of law. To allow the sovereign
voice spoken through the ballot to trump constitutional and statutory provisions
on qualifications and disqualifications of candidates is not democracy or
republicanism. It is electoral anarchy. When set rules are disregarded and only the
electorates voice spoken through the ballot is made to matter in the end, it
precisely serves as an open invitation for electoral anarchy to set in.

Thus, it is clear from the ruling of the court that the will of the people in an
electorate who will vote for Grace Poe, could not thwart the intent of the
Constitution which required 10 years of residency for any candidate who would
run for the position of President,

Q11. What is the connection of her being a foundling to this issue?

A11. None. Her being a foundling is totally irrelevant to the issue of her
residency. It does not in any way affect the status of her losing her domicile in the
Philippines in 1996 and her reacquisition of it in July 18, 2006 (or even later)
which was 2 months late for her to have met the minimum of 10 years residence.
Although in the event that her being a foundling will also be the basis to declare
her as not natural born, it will have serious implication on whether she can
reacquire her Filipino citizenship by virtue of RA 9225 considering that this only
applies to natural born citizens. Nevertheless, the issue is still not one of
residence.
Now it began to dawn on me.

Could it be that the Court simply ruled that the COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion in that it cancelled the COC of Poe even if she has not
committed material misrepresentation for having no intent to deceive or mislead,
without saying that she is a natural born citizen or havinvg complied with the
residency requirement?

Well. This is a safe ruling. They do not set a precedent on citizenship and they do
not disturb precedents on residence (except perhaps Tagolino).

Maybe this is the reason why Te used the word "allowed" to run instead of
"qualified" to run.

If this is the case, then Poe is not off the hook. If she wins, then there is still the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal to where a quo warranto petition can still be filed.

And in such a case, the position of a VP becomes material since shouldGrace

Poe win but is disqualified by the PET, the VP takes her place.

And since Maquiling remains in place, the vox populi obiter dictum remains
buried and being elected could not be used to negate her disqualifications

The heart of CHR bled for Grace Poe to a point that it submitted an unsolicited
memorandum defending her rights as a privileged foundling to a presumed
nationality.

Even as it showed no compassion and instead even doubted the victimization by

raising the possibility that the PNP may just have been provoked by the farmers.
Instead of condemning the violence, the CHR pointed out that both sides suffered
casualties as if such is enough to justify firing live bullets at unarmed and starving
farmers.

Is Grace Poe more deserving of her human rights than these farmers?
The legal community has spoken not only through the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) and the Philippine Bar Association (PBA), but through the
overwhelming dismay that every lawyer feels (except perhaps for those who are
totally blinded by their adulation of Grace Poe), on the Supreme Court's decision
in Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC, Elamparo, Tatad, Contreras and Valdez (G.R.
221697-700).
In moments that divide us, it is the law that should reign Supreme.

I know this when we lost at the SC on the Grace Poe case.

Also we are speaking of Philipoine Laws. Under CA 63 which was in operation

when Niel served, a Filipino citizen loses citizenship by mere service in the
military of a forein country and such service was without the consent of the
Philippine government.
CA 63 says that mere service to US Armed forces causes loss of ciizenship
except when such has the consent of Philippine Government. So the question is
this: did Niel seek the consent of the Govt? Frankly I do not know. But most
probably he did not since he was also an American citizen. So there was no
compelling need for him to do so since he can enlist as a US citizen

for a better view ,here's the whole CA 63, Section 1 (4), A Filipino citizen may
lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events: (4) 4) By
rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a foreign
country:

Provided, that the rendering of service to, or the acceptance of such commission
in, the armed forces of a foreign country, and the taking of an oath of allegiance
incident thereto, with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, shall not
divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of the following
circumstances is present:

(a) The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of
alliance with the said foreign country; or

(b) The said foreign country maintains armed forces on Philippine territory with
the consent of the Republic of the Philippines: Provided, that the Filipino citizen
concerned, at the time of rendering said service, or acceptance of said
commission, and taking the oath of allegiance incident thereto, states that he does
so only in connection with his service to said foreign Country: And provided,
finally, that any Filipino citizen who is rendering service to, or is commissioned
in, the armed forces of a foreign country under any of the circumstances
mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), shall not be permitted to participate nor vote in
any election of the Republic of the Philippines during the period of his service to,
or commission in, the armed forces of the said foreign country.Upon his discharge
from the service of the said foreign country, he shall be automatically entitled to
the full enjoyment of his civil and political rights as a Filipino citizen

Nickor Sevring this law has already been tested in Bengson vs HRET. And the
Court ruled there that a Filipino citizen who renders service to a foreign army,
without consent by the GRP, loses citizenship. This law has not been amended
yet. NIel Llamanzares rendered service to the US airforce without consent of
GRP. He lost his citizenship. Of course he can repatriate. But he has not done so.

Actually, there is no question that he can repatriate by merely taking an oath

again. But the fact remains that as of today he has not executied an oath. I am not
even sure what is his passport, and if he has a philippine passport.
The other kink is that we are not even sure if he had himself recognized as a
natural born Filipino, which he still has to undergo through BID.

From Antonio P. Contreras

We did not lose. The rule of law did.
In moments that divide us, it is the law that should reign Supreme.

Thank you Grace Poe for being the reason and the cause for the erosion of the rule
of law, the neutering of the Constitution and the diminution of the Supreme Court.

Somebody told me that it is plain common sense to assume that Grace Poe is
natural born since she was found in Iloilo.
Okay fine.
But it is also common sense that a foreigner who does not have an immigrant or
permanent resident visa is a non-resident alien. And a non-resident alien is not a
resident.
Grace Poe was an American citizen from May 24, 2005 until July 2006. She was a
temporary visitor as a Balikbayan and had no permanent resident visa.
So when she claimed this period as part of her residence in the country she lied.
That is common sense.
The basic issue is the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. Nothing
more. Nothing less. Nothing personal.