G.R. No.

221697

MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioners, vs. COMELEC AND

ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO Respondents.

FACTS :
On Sept. 3, 1968, petitioner Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares was abandoned as a
newborn in Jaro Parish Church, Iloilo. After Edgardo Militar gave petitioner to Emiliano and his
wife, she was reported as a foundling and given the name Mary Grace Natividad Contreras
Militar.
At five, celebrity spouses Ronal Allan Kelley (aka Fernando Poe, Jr.) and Jesusa Sonora Poe
(aka Susan Roces) petitioned for her adoption. The trial court granted their petition and changed
her name to Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe. Petitioner registered to vote in San Juan City at
18 in 1986, applied for and received a Philippine passport from the DFA in 1988, and renewed it
in 1993 and 1998.
She moved to the U.S. in 1988 and graduated from Boston College with a BA in Political Studies
in 1991. She married in the Philippines and the U.S. and flew back. She became American in
2001. She returned to the Philippines to support her father's 2004 presidential campaign. After a
few months, she returned to the Philippines to care for her father. After her father's death in
2005, the petitioner and her husband moved permanently to the Philippines and obtained a TIN.
Her children followed suit and bought property where they lived.
She took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines in 2006 under RA No. 9225,
the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, and filed a sworn petition for
Philippine citizenship and derivative citizenship for her three children, which was granted. She
registered to vote, obtained a Philippine passport, was appointed and swore in as Chairperson of
the MTRCB after executing an affidavit of renunciation of American citizenship before the US
Vice Consul, and received a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in 2011.
She answered “6 years and 6 months” to the question “Period of residence in the Philippines
before May 13, 2013” in her 2012 Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Senator for the 2013
Elections. On 16 May 2013, petitioner became Senator with the most votes.
Petitioner filed her May 2016 Presidency COC on October 15, 2015. The petitioner stated in her
COC that she is a natural-born citizen and that she lived in the Philippines from 24 May 2005 to
9 May 2016. On October 14, 2015, the petitioner attached a "Affidavit Affirming Renunciation
of U.S.A. Citizenship" to her COC.
The COMELEC received petitions to deny or cancel her candidacy on the grounds that she
cannot prove her biological parents were Filipinos, making her ineligible for citizenship. The
COMELEC en banc disqualified her for failing citizenship and residence requirements and
making material misrepresentations in her COC. On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the
ruling and found Poe qualified for the presidency (9-6). Three justices abstained on natural-born
citizenship.
ISSUE :
Whether or not foundlings are considered natural-born citizens.
RULING :
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. All three Constitutions guarantee
the basic right to equal protection of the laws, Certainly, these provisions contradict an intent to
discriminate against foundlings on account of their unfortunate status.
Foundlings are likewise citizens under international law. Under the 1987 Constitution, an
international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or
incorporation.
General principles of law recognized by civilized nations" are principles "established by a process
of reasoning" or judicial logic, based on principles which are "basic to legal systems
generally,"127 such as "general principles of equity, i.e., the general principles of fairness and
justice," and the "general principle against discrimination" which is embodied in the "Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
the Convention Against Discrimination in Education, the Convention (No. 111) Concerning
Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation." 128 These are the same core principles
which underlie the Philippine Constitution itself, as embodied in the due process and equal
protection clauses of the Bill of Rights

Current legislation reveals the adherence of the Philippines to this generally accepted principle of
international law. In particular, R.A. No. 8552, R.A. No. 8042 and this Court's Rules on Adoption,
expressly refer to "Filipino children." In all of them, foundlings are among the Filipino children
who could be adopted. Likewise, it has been pointed that the DFA issues passports to foundlings.
Passports are by law, issued only to citizens. This shows that even the executive department, acting
through the DFA, considers foundlings as Philippine citizens.

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. As the empirical data provided by
the PSA show, that presumption is at more than 99% and is a virtual certainty.

In sum, all of the international law conventions and instruments on the matter of nationality of
foundlings were designed to address the plight of a defenseless class which suffers from a
misfortune not of their own making. We cannot be restrictive as to their application if we are a
country which calls itself civilized and a member of the community of nations. The Solicitor
General's warning in his opening statement is relevant:
The total effect of those documents is to signify to this Honorable Court that those treaties and
conventions were drafted because the world community is concerned that the situation of
foundlings renders them legally invisible. It would be tragically ironic if this Honorable Court
ended up using the international instruments which seek to protect and uplift foundlings a tool to
deny them political status or to accord them second-class citizenship.