Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest (Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC - Main Decision)
Case Digest (Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC - Main Decision)
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 6, 2010, she was appointed as Chairperson of the MTRCB. Before assuming her post,
she executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the US before a notary public in Pasig
City on October 20, 2010. The following day, she submitted the Affidavit to the Bureau of
Immigration and took her oath as MTRCB Chairperson. According to Poe, she stopped using her
American passport from then on.
On July 12, 2011, Poe executed an Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of the US
before the Vice Consul of the US Embassy in Manila. On December 9, 2011, the US Vice Consul
issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the US effective October 21, 2010.
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.
In addition, one of the petitioners, Francisco Tatad, theorized that:
1. Philippines adhere to the principle of jus sanguinis and hence persons of unknown
parentage, particularly foundlings, are not natural born Filipino citizens.
2. Using statutory construction, considering that foundlings were not expressly included in
the categories of citizens in the 1935 Constitution, the framers are said to have the
intention to exclude them
3. International conventions are not self-executory hence, local legislations are necessary to
give effect to obligations assumed by the Philippines.
4. There is no standard practice that automatically confers natural born status to foundlings.
Petitioner Valdez alleged that Poes repatriation under R.A 9225 did not bestow upon her the
status of a natural born citizen as those who repatriates only acquires Philippine citizenship and
not their original status as natural born citizens.
Poe countered these petitions by alleging that:
1. The grounds invoked by the petitioners were not proper grounds for a disqualification case
as enumerated under Section 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.
2. What the petitioners filed focus on establishing her ineligibility, hence, they fall within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, not the COMELEC.
3. The July 18, 2006 Order of the Bureau of Immigration declaring her as natural born, her
appointment as MTRCB Chair and the issuance of the decree of adoption reinforced her
position as a natural born citizen
4. As early as first quarter of 2005, she started to reestablish her domicile in the Philippines
and that she can reestablish her domicile of choice even before she renounced her
American citizenship.
5. The period of residency as stated in her COC for senator was a mistake in good faith.
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.
ISSUES AND RATIO:
1) Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to disqualify POE
The procedure and the conclusions from which the Resolutions of the COMELEC emanated are
tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
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.
3
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.
2) Whether it can be concluded that Poes parents are Filipinos.
Presumption regarding paternity is neither unknown nor unacceptable in Philippine Law. There is
more than sufficient evidence that Poe has Filipino parents and is therefore a natural-born Filipino.
Hence, the burden of proof was on private respondents to show that petitioner is not a Filipino
citizen.
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
There are disputable presumptions that things have happened according to the ordinary course
of nature. On this basis, it is safer to assume that Poes parents are Filipinos. To assume otherwise
is to accept the absurd.
3) Whether as a foundling, Poe is a natural born Citizen
Foundlings are as a class, natural born citizens. While the 1935 Constitution is silent as to
foundlings, there is no restrictive language that would exclude them either. Because of silence
and ambiguity in the enumeration, there is a need to examine the intent of the framers.
The amendment to the Constitution proposed by constitutionalist Rafols to include foundlings as
natural born citizens was not carried out, not because there was any objection to the notion that
persons of unknown parentage are not citizens, but only because their number was not enough
to merit specific mention. There was no intent or language that would permit discrimination
against foundlings. On the contrary, all three Constitutions guarantee the basic right to equal
protection of the laws. Likewise, domestic laws on adoption support the principle that foundlings
are Filipinos. These laws do not provide that adoption confers citizenship upon the adoptee,
4
rather, the adoptee must be Filipino in the first place to be adopted. Recent legislation all expressly
refer to Filipino children and include foundlings as among Filipino children who may be adopted.
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.
Under international law, foundlings are citizens. Generally accepted principles of international law
which include international customs form part of the laws of the land. The common thread of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the
International Convent on Civil and Political Rights obligates the Philippines to grant nationality
from birth and to ensure that no child is stateless. The principles stated in the:
1. Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relation to the Conflict of Nationality laws (that a
foundling is presumed to have the nationality of the country of birth)
2. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (foundling is presumed born of citizens of
the country where he is found)
bind the Philippines although we are not signatory to these conventions.
Although we are not a signatory to the Hague Convention, we are a signatory to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which affirms Article 14 of the Hague Convention. Likewise,
the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness affirms Article 15 of the UDHR. By analogy,
although the Philippines has not signed the International Convention for the Protection of Persons
from Enforced Disappearance, we (the Supreme Court) ruled that the proscription against
enforced disappearance was nonetheless binding as a generally accepted principle of international
law.
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.
Hence, as a foundling, Poe is a natural born Filipino citizen.
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.