Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMELEC
(Main Decision)
Vena V. Verga
Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares vs
COMELEC et al G.R. NO. 221697
221698-700
J. Perez
FACTS:
Grace Poe (Poe) was found abandoned in a church in Jaro Iloilo sometime
1968. Parental care was passed to the relatives of Edgardo Militar, the person
who found the child. The relatives then reported and registered the child as a
founding with the Civil Registrar of Iloilo. The child was then named Mary
Grace Militar. The child was subsequently adopted by Fernando Poe, Jr and
Susan Roces sometime in 1974. Necessary annotations were placed in the
childs foundling certificate but it was only in 2005 that Susan Roces
discovered that their lawyer failed to secure a new Certificate of Live Birth
indicating Poes new name as well as the name of the adoptive parents.
Roces then submitted an affidavit and in 2006, a Certificate of Live Birth in
the name of Mary Grace Poe was released by the Civil Registry of Iloilo.
At the age of 18, Poe was registered as a voter of San Juan. In 1988, she was
issued a Philippine passport. In 1991, Poe married Teodoro Llamanzares and
flew to the US right after the wedding. She then gave birth to her eldest child
in the US. In 2001, Poe became a naturalized American Citizen and she
obtained a US Passport that same year.
In April 2004, Poe came back to the Philippines in order to support her
fathers candidacy. It was at this time that she gave birth to her youngest
daughter. She then returned to the US in July 2004 with her two daughters.
Poe returned in December 2004 after learning of her fathers deteriorating
condition. The latter died and Poe stayed until February 2005 to take care of
the funeral arrangements.
Poe stated that she wanted to be with her grieving mother hence, she and
her husband decided to move and reside permanently in the Philippines
sometime first quarter of 2005. They prepared for resettlement including
notification of their childrens schools, coordination with property movers and
inquiry with Philippine authorities as to how they can bring their pet dog.
According to Poe, as early as 2004, she already quit her job in the US.
Poe came home on May 24, 2005 and immediately secured a TIN while her
husband stayed in the US. She and her family stayed with her mother until
she and husband was able to purchase a condominium in San Juan sometime
February 2006. On February 14, 2006, Poe returned to the US to dispose the
1
Case Digest of Llamzares v. COMELEC
(Main Decision)
Vena V.
other Verga
family belongings. She travelled back in March 2006. In early 2006, Poe
and husband acquired a property in Corinthian Hills in Quezon City where
they built their family home.
On July 7, 2006, Poe took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines pursuant to R.A. 9225. On July 10, 2006, she filed a sworn petition
to reacquire Philippine citizenship together with
2
petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her three children. The Bureau
of Immigration acted in favor of the petition on July 18, 2006. She and her
children were then considered dual citizens. Poe then registered as voter in
August 2006 and secured a Philippine passport thereafter.
On October 2, 2012, Poe filed with COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy for
Senator stating that she was a resident of the Philippines for a period of 6
years and 6 months before May 13, 2013. She was then proclaimed a
Senator on May 16, 2013.
On October 15, 2015, Poe filed her COC for the Presidency for the May 2016
elections. She declared that she is a natural born and her residence in the
Philippine up to the day before election would be 10 years and 11 months
counted from May 24, 2005.
Several petitions were filed against Poe alleging that (1) she committed
material misrepresentation in her COC when she stated that she is a resident
of the Philippines for at least 10 years 11 months up to the day before May 9,
2016 Elections, (2) she is not natural born considering that Poe is a
foundling. It was argued that international law does not confer natural born
status and Filipino citizenship to foundlings hence, she is not qualified to
apply for reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under R.A.9225 as she is not a
natural citizen to begin with. Assuming that Poe was a natural born citizen,
she lost it when she became a US Citizen.
COMELEC ruled against the petitioner resolving that she is not a natural born
citizen and that she failed to complete the 10 year residency requirement.
Hence, the present petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The issue before the COMELEC is whether the COC should be denied due
course on the exclusive ground that she made in the certificate a false
material representation. COMELEC should restrain itself from going into the
issue of qualifications of the candidate. It cannot, in the same cancellation
case, decide the qualification or lack thereof of a candidate. Not one of the
enumerated powers of the COMELEC as stated in Article IX C, Sec. 2 of the
Constitution grants the commission the power to determine the qualifications
of a candidate. Such powers are granted to the Electoral Tribunal as stated in
Article VI Section 17 and the Supreme Court under Article VII, Section 4 of
the Constitution.
Insofar as the qualification of a candidate is concerned, Rule 25 and Rule 23
of the COMELEC rules do not allow, are not authorization and are not
vestment of jurisdiction for the COMELEC to determine the qualification of a
candidate. The facts of qualification must first be established in a prior
proceeding before an authority vested with jurisdiction. Prior determination
of qualification may be by statute, by an executive order or by a
judgment of a competent court or tribunal.
Lacking this prior determination, the certificate of candidacy cannot be
cancelled or denied due course on ground of false representations regarding
a candidates qualifications except if there exists self-evident facts of
unquestioned or unquestionable veracity and judicial confessions. In this
light the COMELEC cannot cancel Poes certificate of candidacy lacking prior
determination of her qualifications by a competent body.
Private respondents should show that Poes 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. In
fact, there is a high probability that her parents are Filipinos. The Solicitor
General offered official Statistics from the Philippine Statistics office that
from 1965 to 1975, the total number of foreigners born in the Philippines was
15,985. While the Filipinos born in the country were more than 10 Million. On
this basis, there is a 99% chance that the child born in the Philippines would
be a Filipino which in turn, would indicate more than ample probability that
Poes parents are Filipinos.
Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of Poes parents are the fact
that:
1. She was abandoned in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo
2. She has typical Filipino features
The argument that the process to determine that the child is a foundling
leading to the issuance of a foundling certificate are acts to acquire or
perfect Philippine citizenship is without merit. Hence, the argument that as a
foundling, Poe underwent a process in order to acquire or perfect her
Philippine citizenship, is untenable.
Having to perform an act means that the act must be personally done by
the citizen. In this case, the determination of foundling status was done by
authorities, not by Poe. Second, the object of the process is to determine the
whereabouts of the parents, not the citizenship of the child and lastly, the
process is not analogous to naturalization proceedings.
Poes evidence shows that at least 60 countries in Asia, North and South
America and Europe have passed legislation recognizing foundlings as its
citizens. 166 out of 189 countries accept that foundlings are recognized as
citizens. Hence, there is a generally accepted principle of international law to
presume foundlings as having been born and a national of the country in
which it is found.
Poe presented voluminous evidence showing that she and her family
abandoned their US domicile and relocated to the Philippines for good. These
evidence include former US passport showing her arrival on May 24, 2005
and her return to the Philippines every time she travelled abroad, email
correspondences with freight company to arrange for the shipment of
household items as well as with the pet Bureau; school records of her
children showing enrolment in the Philippine to the Philippine schools starting
on June 2005 etc.
SC held that the other cases previously decided by the court wherein
residence was counted only from the acquisition of permanent residence
were decided as such because there is sparse evidence on establishment of
residence. These cases cannot be applied in the present case. In the case at
bar, there is overwhelming evidence that leads to no to other conclusion that
Poe decided to permanently abandon her US residence and reside in the
Philippines as early as May 24, 2005.
These evidence, coupled with her eventual application to reacquire Philippine
citizenship is clear that when she returned in May 2005, it was for good.
The stamp in her passport as a balikbayan does not make Poe an ordinary
transient.
Poe was able to prove that her statement in her 2012 COC was only a
mistake in good faith. Such a mistake could be given in evidence against her
but it was by no means conclusive considering the overwhelming evidence
submitted by Poe. Considering that the COMELEC failed to take into
consideration these overwhelming evidence, its decision is tainted with
grave abuse of discretion. The decision of the COMELEC is hereby annulled
and set aside. Poe is thus declared qualified to be a candidate for President
in the National and Local Election on May 9, 2016.
Case Digest of Llamzares v. COMELEC (J. Carpio
Dissenting Opinion)
Vena V. Verga
Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares vs
COMELEC et al G.R. NO. 221697
221698-700
J. Carpio Dissenting Opinion
PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS:
A presidential candidate who is deemed a natural born citizen by less than
a majority and deemed not a natural-born Filipino citizen by five Justices
and with no opinion from three Justices is now allowed to run for
President of the Philippines. J. Carpio dissents.
He notes that the ruling of the majority will lead to absurd results by
allowing a presidential candidate with uncertain citizenship status to be
potentially elected. The majority wants to resolve the citizenship status
only after the election, and if the petitioner wins.
Poe failed to prove that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and a resident
of the Philippines for the last ten years hence, she is not eligible to run as
President of the Republic of the Philippines.
ON COMELEC JURISDICTION:
Section 2(1), Article IX-C vests in the COMELEC the power, among others, to
enforce and administer all laws... relative to the conduct of the election.
Screening initially the qualifications of the candidates lies within this specific
power. Pursuant to this constitutional mandate, the COMELEC can initially
disqualify those lacking any of the qualifications before the conduct of the
election.
The Supreme Court in the case of Timbol upheld the COMELECs power to
disqualify a nuisance candidate. It cannot be disputed that a person not a
natural-born Filipino citizen and therefore, ineligible, who files a certificate of
candidacy for President, puts the election process in mockery. Such person
is therefore a nuisance candidate. Under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election
Code, the COMELEC is empowered, motu propio, to cancel a COC if it has
been filed to put the election process in mockery. The electorate is
needlessly misled to cast their votes if an ineligible candidate is allowed to
run. COMELEC cannot be a party to such a mockery; otherwise, it will be
committing a grave abuse of discretion
ON CITIZENSHIP:
The 1935 Constitution, which is applicable in Poes case, allows only two
methods of acquiring Philippine citizenship:
1
Case Digest of Llamzares v. COMELEC (J. Carpio
Dissenting Opinion)
Vena
1. V.
ByVerga
blood relation to the father or mother who must be a Filipino citizen
2. By naturalization according to law
The Philippines adheres to the jus sanguinis principle or the law of the
blood to determine citizenship at birth. An individual acquires Filipino
citizenship at birth solely by virtue of biological
2
descent from a Filipino mother or father. This view is made evident by the
suppression from the Constitution of the jus soli principle.
Poe argues that the reason why the provision on foundlings was not included
in the 1935 Constitution was because there is already a clear principle
existing in domestic and international law on foundlings. Carpio comments
that there is no such domestic law as well as international law existing during
the proceedings of the 1935 Constitutional Convention explicitly governing
citizenship of foundlings and thus there could not have been any redundancy
to speak of. The Spanish Civil Code which has a provision on foundlings
ceased to have any effect in our land upon the cession by Spain of the
Philippines to the US.
Clearly, it was the intent of the framers of the 1935 Constitution to refer to
natural-born citizens as only those who were Filipino citizens by the mere fact
of being born to fathers who were Filipino citizens nothing more nothing
less. As a matter of course, those whose parents are neither Filipino citizens
or are both unknown, as the case of foundlings, cannot be considered natural
born Filipino citizens.
FOUNDLINGS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW:
It is a fundamental principle that every independent state has the right and
prerogative to determine who its citizens are. This principle is applied in the
Philippines as early as 1912 in the case of Roa. The 1930 Hague Convention
explicitly recognizes this principle. Hence, it is the municipal law, both
constitutional and statutory, which determines and regulates the conditions
on acquiring citizenship.
On Statistics
The statistics shown speak of foreign and Filipino births in the Philippines
with known parents, either Filipino or foreigner. It does not show the number
of foundlings born in the Philippines. This data also do not show the number
of foundlings who were later determined to have Filipino parentage. If there
is 99% probability that a child born in the Philippines is a natural born citizen,
it does not automatically follow that there is 99% probability that a foundling
born in the Philippines is a natural-born Filipino citizen. The data on
foundlings, if any, may show a different statistical data. For the Solicitor
General to assert that a foundling with a blond hair, blue eyes and milky
white Caucasian skin is a natural born citizen is the height of absurdity.
Philippine laws and jurisprudence on adoption is not determinative of natural
born citizenship
The term natural born Filipino citizen does not appear in the domestic or
inter-country adoption act. In fact, while the term Filipino is mentioned, it is
only in the title of these laws. The text of the adoption laws do not contain
the term Filipino. There is no specific provision in these adoption laws
requiring that adoptees must be Filipinos, much less natural born Filipinos.
These adoption laws do not distinguish between a Filipino child and an alien
child found in the Philippines. Hence they apply to both Filipino and alien
child found in the Philippines over which the government exercises
jurisdiction. The case of Ellis and Duncan does not apply in the case at bar
because: 1) the case do not involve foundlings 2) the issues raised therein do
not involve citizenship.
On burden of proof
Any person who claims to be a citizen of the Philippines has the burden of
proving his or her Philippine citizenship. A person who claims to be qualified
to run for the position of President, because he or she, is a natural born
citizen, has the burden of proving that he/she is indeed a natural born
citizen. Any doubt should be resolved against him/her. In this case, there is
no dispute that petitioner is a foundling with unknown biological parents.
Hence, her certificate of live birth does not show on its face that she is a
natural born Filipino citizen. This shifted the burden of evidence to the
petitioner that she is eligible to run and she could have used evidence such
as DNA.