Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. (Emiliano) and his wife.

Three days after, 6

221697 & 221698-700, March 8, 2016
♦ Decision, Perez [J] September 1968, Emiliano reported and registered
♦ Concurring Opinion, Sereno [CJ] Velasco Jr. [J] Leonen [J] Jardeleza [J] petitioner as a foundling with the Office of the Civil
♦ Separate Concurring Opinion, Caguioa [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Carpio [J] Brion [J] Del Castillo [J] Perlas-Bernabe
Registrar of Iloilo City (OCR-Iloilo). In her Foundling
[J] Certificate and Certificate of Live Birth, the petitioner
♦ Separate Dissenting Opinion, Leonardo-De Castro [J] was given the name "Mary Grace Natividad Contreras
Militar."  1

When petitioner was five (5) years old, celebrity

spouses Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (a.k.a. Fenando
Poe, Jr.) and Jesusa Sonora Poe (a.k.a. Susan
Roces) filed a petition for her adoption with the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Juan City. On 13
May 1974, the trial court granted their petition and
ordered that petitioner's name be changed from "Mary
Grace Natividad Contreras Militar" to "Mary Grace
Natividad Sonora Poe." Although necessary notations
EN BANC were made by OCR-Iloilo on petitioner's foundling
certificate reflecting the court decreed adoption,  the
2

March 8, 2016 petitioner's adoptive mother discovered only

sometime in the second half of 2005 that the lawyer
G.R. No. 221697 who handled petitioner's adoption failed to secure
from the OCR-Iloilo a new Certificate of Live Birth
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE- indicating petitioner's new name and the name of her
LLAMANZARES, Petitioners, adoptive parents.   Without delay, petitioner's mother
3

vs. executed an affidavit attesting to the lawyer's

COMELEC AND ESTRELLA C. omission which she submitted to the OCR-Iloilo. On 4
ELAMPARO Respondents. May 2006, OCR-Iloilo issued a new Certificate of Live
Birth in the name of Mary Grace Natividad Sonora
x-----------------------x Poe.4

G.R. No. 221698-700 Having reached the age of eighteen (18) years in
1986, petitioner registered as a voter with the local
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE- COMELEC Office in San Juan City. On 13 December
LLAMANZARES, Petitioners, 1986, she received her COMELEC Voter's
vs. Identification Card for Precinct No. 196 in Greenhills,
COMELEC, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. San Juan, Metro Manila. 5

CONTRERAS AND AMADO D.

VALDEZ Respondents. On 4 April 1988, petitioner applied for and was issued
Philippine Passport No. F927287  by the Department
6

DECISION of Foreign Affairs (DFA). Subsequently, on 5 April

1993 and 19 May 1998, she renewed her Philippine
passport and respectively secured Philippine Passport
PEREZ, J.:
Nos. L881511 and DD156616. 7

Before the Court are two consolidated petitions under

Initially, the petitioner enrolled and pursued a degree
Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
in Development Studies at the University of the
with extremely urgent application for an ex
Philippines  but she opted to continue her studies
8

parte issuance of temporary restraining order/status

abroad and left for the United States of America (U.S.)
quo ante order and/or writ of preliminary injunction
in 1988. Petitioner graduated in 1991 from Boston
assailing the following: (1) 1 December 2015
College in Chestnuts Hill, Massachusetts where she
Resolution of the Commission on Elections
earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in Political
(COMELEC) Second Division; (2) 23 December 2015
Studies. 9

Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc, in SPA No.

15-001 (DC); (3) 11 December 2015 Resolution of the
COMELEC First Division; and ( 4) 23 December 2015 On 27 July 1991, petitioner married Teodoro Misael
Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc, in SPA No. Daniel V. Llamanzares (Llamanzares), a citizen of
15-002 (DC), SPA No. 15-007 (DC) and SPA No. 15- both the Philippines and the U.S., at Sanctuario de
139 (DC) for having been issued without jurisdiction or San Jose Parish in San Juan City.   Desirous of being
10

with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or with her husband who was then based in the U.S., the
excess of jurisdiction. couple flew back to the U.S. two days after the
wedding ceremony or on 29 July 1991.  11

The Facts
While in the U.S., the petitioner gave birth to her
eldest child Brian Daniel (Brian) on 16 April
Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares
1992.  Her two daughters Hanna MacKenzie (Hanna)
12

(petitioner) was found abandoned as a newborn infant

and Jesusa Anika (Anika) were both born in the
in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo by a certain
Philippines on 10 July 1998 and 5 June 2004,
Edgardo Militar (Edgardo) on 3 September 1968.
respectively.  13

Parental care and custody over petitioner was passed

on by Edgardo to his relatives, Emiliano Militar
On 18 October 2001, petitioner became a naturalized In early 2006, petitioner and her husband acquired a
American citizen.   She obtained U.S. Passport No.
14
509-square meter lot in Corinthian Hills, Quezon City
017037793 on 19 December 2001.  15
where they built their family home  and to this day, is 34

where the couple and their children have been

On 8 April 2004, the petitioner came back to the residing.  A Transfer Certificate of Title covering said
35

Philippines together with Hanna to support her property was issued in the couple's name by the
father's candidacy for President in the May 2004 Register of Deeds of Quezon City on 1June 2006.
elections. It was during this time that she gave birth to
her youngest daughter Anika. She returned to the On 7 July 2006, petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance
U.S. with her two daughters on 8 July 2004.  16
to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and
After a few months, specifically on 13 December Re-acquisition Act of 2003.  Under the same Act, she
36

2004, petitioner rushed back to the Philippines upon filed with the Bureau of Immigration (BI) a sworn
learning of her father's deteriorating medical petition to reacquire Philippine citizenship together
condition.   Her father slipped into a coma and
17 with petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her
eventually expired. The petitioner stayed in the three minor children on 10 July 2006.  As can be 37

country until 3 February 2005 to take care of her gathered from its 18 July 2006 Order, the BI acted
father's funeral arrangements as well as to assist in favorably on petitioner's petitions and declared that
the settlement of his estate. 18 she is deemed to have reacquired her Philippine
citizenship while her children are considered as
According to the petitioner, the untimely demise of her citizens of the Philippines.  Consequently, the BI
38

father was a severe blow to her entire family. In her issued Identification Certificates (ICs) in petitioner's
earnest desire to be with her grieving mother, the name and in the names of her three (3) children.  39

petitioner and her husband decided to move and

reside permanently in the Philippines sometime in the Again, petitioner registered as a voter
first quarter of 2005.  The couple began preparing for
19 of Barangay Santa Lucia, San Juan City on 31 August
their resettlement including notification of their 2006.  She also secured from the DFA a new
40

children's schools that they will be transferring to Philippine Passport bearing the No.
Philippine schools for the next XX4731999.  This passport was renewed on 18
41

semester;  coordination with property movers for the

20 March 2014 and she was issued Philippine Passport
relocation of their household goods, furniture and cars No. EC0588861 by the DFA. 42

from the U.S. to the Philippines;  and inquiry with

21

Philippine authorities as to the proper procedure to be On 6 October 2010, President Benigno S. Aquino III
followed in bringing their pet dog into the country.  As 22
appointed petitioner as Chairperson of the Movie and
early as 2004, the petitioner already quit her job in the Television Review and Classification Board
U.S.23
(MTRCB).  Before assuming her post, petitioner
43

executed an "Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to

Finally, petitioner came home to the Philippines on 24 the United States of America and Renunciation of
May 2005  and without delay, secured a Tax
24 American Citizenship" before a notary public in Pasig
Identification Number from the Bureau of Internal City on 20 October 2010,  in satisfaction of the legal
44

Revenue. Her three (3) children immediately requisites stated in Section 5 of R.A. No. 9225.  The 45

followed  while her husband was forced to stay in the

25 following day, 21 October 2010 petitioner submitted
U.S. to complete pending projects as well as to the said affidavit to the BI  and took her oath of office
46

arrange the sale of their family home there. 26 as Chairperson of the MTRCB.  From then on, 47

petitioner stopped using her American passport. 48

The petitioner and her children briefly stayed at her

mother's place until she and her husband purchased On 12 July 2011, the petitioner executed before the
a condominium unit with a parking slot at One Wilson Vice Consul of the U.S. Embassy in Manila an
Place Condominium in San Juan City in the second "Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of the
half of 2005.  The corresponding Condominium
27 United States."  On that day, she accomplished a
49

Certificates of Title covering the unit and parking slot sworn questionnaire before the U.S. Vice Consul
were issued by the Register of Deeds of San Juan wherein she stated that she had taken her oath as
City to petitioner and her husband on 20 February MTRCB Chairperson on 21 October 2010 with the
2006.  Meanwhile, her children of school age began
28 intent, among others, of relinquishing her American
attending Philippine private schools. citizenship.  In the same questionnaire, the petitioner
50

stated that she had resided outside of the U.S.,

On 14 February 2006, the petitioner made a quick trip specifically in the Philippines, from 3 September 1968
to the U.S. to supervise the disposal of some of the to 29 July 1991 and from May 2005 to present. 51

family's remaining household belongings.  She 29

travelled back to the Philippines on 11 March 2006. 30 On 9 December 2011, the U.S. Vice Consul issued to
petitioner a "Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the
In late March 2006, petitioner's husband officially United States" effective 21 October 2010. 52

informed the U.S. Postal Service of the family's

change and abandonment of their address in the On 2 October 2012, the petitioner filed with the
U.S.  The family home was eventually sold on 27
31 COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for
April 2006.  Petitioner's husband resigned from his
32 Senator for the 2013 Elections wherein she answered
job in the U.S. in April 2006, arrived in the country on "6 years and 6 months" to the question "Period of
4 May 2006 and started working for a major Philippine residence in the Philippines before May 13,
company in July 2006. 33 2013."  Petitioner obtained the highest number of
53

votes and was proclaimed Senator on 16 May 2013.  54

On 19 December 2013, petitioner obtained Philippine (1) the COMELEC did not have jurisdiction
Diplomatic Passport No. DE0004530.  55
over Elamparo's petition as it was actually a
petition for quo warranto which could only be
On 15 October 2015, petitioner filed her COC for the filed if Grace Poe wins in the Presidential
Presidency for the May 2016 Elections.   In her COC,
56 elections, and that the Department of Justice
the petitioner declared that she is a natural-born (DOJ) has primary jurisdiction to revoke the
citizen and that her residence in the Philippines up to BI's July 18, 2006 Order;
the day before 9 May 2016 would be ten (10) years
and eleven (11) months counted from 24 May (2) the petition failed to state a cause of action
2005.  The petitioner attached to her COC an
57
because it did not contain allegations which, if
"Affidavit Affirming Renunciation of U.S.A. hypothetically admitted, would make false the
Citizenship" subscribed and sworn to before a notary statement in her COC that she is a natural-
public in Quezon City on 14 October 2015.  58
born Filipino citizen nor was there any
allegation that there was a willful or deliberate
Petitioner's filing of her COC for President in the intent to misrepresent on her part;
upcoming elections triggered the filing of several
COMELEC cases against her which were the subject (3) she did not make any material
of these consolidated cases. misrepresentation in the COC regarding her
citizenship and residency qualifications for:
Origin of Petition for Certiorari in G.R. No. 221697
a. the 1934 Constitutional Convention
A day after petitioner filed her COC for President, deliberations show that foundlings
Estrella Elamparo (Elamparo) filed a petition to deny were considered citizens;
due course or cancel said COC which was docketed
as SPA No. 15-001 (DC) and raffled to the COMELEC b. foundlings are presumed under
Second Division.  She is convinced that the
59
international law to have been born of
COMELEC has jurisdiction over her citizens of the place where they are
petition.  Essentially, Elamparo's contention is that
60
found;
petitioner committed material misrepresentation when
she stated in her COC that she is a natural-born c. she reacquired her natural-born
Filipino citizen and that she is a resident of the Philippine citizenship under the
Philippines for at least ten (10) years and eleven (11) provisions of R.A. No. 9225;
months up to the day before the 9 May 2016
Elections. 61
d. she executed a sworn renunciation
of her American citizenship prior to the
On the issue of citizenship, Elamparo argued that filing of her COC for President in the
petitioner cannot be considered as a natural-born May 9, 2016 Elections and that the
Filipino on account of the fact that she was a same is in full force and effect and has
foundling.  Elamparo claimed that international law
62
not been withdrawn or recanted;
does not confer natural-born status and Filipino
citizenship on foundlings.  Following this line of
63
e. the burden was on Elamparo in
reasoning, petitioner is not qualified to apply for proving that she did not possess
reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under R.A. No. natural-born status;
9225 for she is not a natural-born Filipino citizen to
begin with.  Even assuming arguendo that petitioner
64

f. residence is a matter of evidence

was a natural-born Filipino, she is deemed to have
and that she reestablished her
lost that status when she became a naturalized
domicile in the Philippines as early as
American citizen.  According to Elamparo, natural-
65

May 24, 2005;

born citizenship must be continuous from birth. 66

g. she could reestablish residence

On the matter of petitioner's residency, Elamparo
even before she reacquired natural-
pointed out that petitioner was bound by the sworn
born citizenship under R.A. No. 9225;
declaration she made in her 2012 COC for Senator
wherein she indicated that she had resided in the
country for only six ( 6) years and six ( 6) months as h. statement regarding the period of
of May 2013 Elections. Elamparo likewise insisted residence in her 2012 COC for
that assuming arguendo that petitioner is qualified to Senator was an honest mistake, not
regain her natural-born status under R.A. No. 9225, binding and should give way to
she still fell short of the ten-year residency evidence on her true date of
requirement of the Constitution as her residence could reacquisition of domicile;
only be counted at the earliest from July 2006, when
she reacquired Philippine citizenship under the said i. Elamparo's petition is merely an
Act. Also on the assumption that petitioner is qualified action to usurp the sovereign right of
to reacquire lost Philippine Citizenship, Elamparo is of the Filipino people to decide a purely
the belief that she failed to reestablish her domicile in political question, that is, should she
the Philippines. 67 serve as the country's next leader. 68

Petitioner seasonably filed her Answer wherein she After the parties submitted their respective
countered that: Memoranda, the petition was deemed submitted for
resolution.
On 1 December 2015, the COMELEC Second petitioner acquired her domicile in Quezon City only
Division promulgated a Resolution finding that from the time she renounced her American citizenship
petitioner's COC, filed for the purpose of running for which was sometime in 2010 or 2011.  Additionally,
81

the President of the Republic of the Philippines in the Tatad questioned petitioner's lack of intention to
9 May 2016 National and Local Elections, contained abandon her U.S. domicile as evinced by the fact that
material representations which are false. The fallo of her husband stayed thereat and her frequent trips to
the aforesaid Resolution reads: the U.S.82

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing In support of his petition to deny due course or cancel
considerations, the instant Petition to Deny Due the COC of petitioner, docketed as SPA No. 15-139
Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy is (DC), Valdez alleged that her repatriation under R.A.
hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Certificate of No. 9225 did not bestow upon her the status of a
Candidacy for President of the Republic of the natural-born citizen.  He advanced the view that
83

Philippines in the May 9, 2016 National and Local former natural-born citizens who are repatriated under
Elections filed by respondent Mary Grace Natividad the said Act reacquires only their Philippine
Sonora Poe Llamanzares is hereby CANCELLED. 69
citizenship and will not revert to their original status as
natural-born citizens. 84

Motion for Reconsideration of the 1 December 2015

Resolution was filed by petitioner which the He further argued that petitioner's own admission in
COMELEC En Banc resolved in its 23 December her COC for Senator that she had only been a
2015 Resolution by denying the same. 70
resident of the Philippines for at least six (6) years
and six (6) months prior to the 13 May 2013 Elections
Origin of Petition for Certiorari in G.R. Nos. operates against her. Valdez rejected petitioner's
221698-700 claim that she could have validly reestablished her
domicile in the Philippines prior to her reacquisition of
This case stemmed from three (3) separate petitions Philippine citizenship. In effect, his position was that
filed by Francisco S. Tatad (Tatad), Antonio P. petitioner did not meet the ten (10) year residency
Contreras (Contreras) and Amado D. Valdez (Valdez) requirement for President.
against petitioner before the COMELEC which were
consolidated and raffled to its First Division. Unlike the previous COMELEC cases filed against
petitioner, Contreras' petition,  docketed as SPA No.
85

In his petition to disqualify petitioner under Rule 25 of 15-007 (DC), limited the attack to the residency issue.
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure,  docketed as 71 He claimed that petitioner's 2015 COC for President
SPA No. 15-002 (DC), Tatad alleged that petitioner should be cancelled on the ground that she did not
lacks the requisite residency and citizenship to qualify possess the ten-year period of residency required for
her for the Presidency. 72 said candidacy and that she made false entry in her
COC when she stated that she is a legal resident of
the Philippines for ten (10) years and eleven (11)
Tatad theorized that since the Philippines adheres to
months by 9 May 2016.  Contreras contended that
86

the principle of jus sanguinis, persons of unknown

the reckoning period for computing petitioner's
parentage, particularly foundlings, cannot be
residency in the Philippines should be from 18 July
considered natural-born Filipino citizens since blood
2006, the date when her petition to reacquire
relationship is determinative of natural-born
Philippine citizenship was approved by the BI.  He 87

status.  Tatad invoked the rule of statutory

73

asserted that petitioner's physical presence in the

construction that what is not included is excluded. He
country before 18 July 2006 could not be valid
averred that the fact that foundlings were not
evidence of reacquisition of her Philippine domicile
expressly included in the categories of citizens in the
since she was then living here as an American citizen
193 5 Constitution is indicative of the framers' intent to
and as such, she was governed by the Philippine
exclude them.  Therefore, the burden lies on
74

immigration laws. 88

petitioner to prove that she is a natural-born citizen. 75

In her defense, petitioner raised the following

Neither can petitioner seek refuge under international
arguments:
conventions or treaties to support her claim that
foundlings have a nationality.  According to Tatad,
76

international conventions and treaties are not self- First, Tatad's petition should be dismissed outright for
executory and that local legislations are necessary in failure to state a cause of action. His petition did not
order to give effect to treaty obligations assumed by invoke grounds proper for a disqualification case as
the Philippines.  He also stressed that there is no
77 enumerated under Sections 12 and 68 of the
standard state practice that automatically confers Omnibus Election Code.  Instead, Tatad completely
89

natural-born status to foundlings. 78 relied on the alleged lack of residency and natural-
born status of petitioner which are not among the
recognized grounds for the disqualification of a
Similar to Elamparo's argument, Tatad claimed that
candidate to an elective office. 90

petitioner cannot avail of the option to reacquire

Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 because it
only applies to former natural-born citizens and Second, the petitions filed against her are basically
petitioner was not as she was a foundling. 79 petitions for quo warranto as they focus on
establishing her ineligibility for the Presidency.  A
91

petition for quo warranto falls within the exclusive

Referring to petitioner's COC for Senator, Tatad
jurisdiction of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)
concluded that she did not comply with the ten (10)
and not the COMELEC. 92

year residency requirement.  Tatad opined that

80
Third, the burden to prove that she is not a natural- Banc issued a Resolution denying petitioner's motion
born Filipino citizen is on the respondents.  Otherwise
93
for reconsideration.
stated, she has a presumption in her favor that she is
a natural-born citizen of this country. Alarmed by the adverse rulings of the COMELEC,
petitioner instituted the present petitions
Fourth, customary international law dictates that for certiorari with urgent prayer for the issuance of
foundlings are entitled to a nationality and are an ex parte temporary restraining order/status quo
presumed to be citizens of the country where they are ante order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. On 28
found.  Consequently, the petitioner is considered as
94
December 2015, temporary restraining orders were
a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. 95
issued by the Court enjoining the COMELEC and its
representatives from implementing the assailed
Fifth, she claimed that as a natural-born citizen, she COMELEC Resolutions until further orders from the
has every right to be repatriated under R.A. No. 9225 Court. The Court also ordered the consolidation of the
or the right to reacquire her natural-born two petitions filed by petitioner in its Resolution of 12
status.  Moreover, the official acts of the Philippine
96 January 2016. Thereafter, oral arguments were held
Government enjoy the presumption of regularity, to in these cases.
wit: the issuance of the 18 July 2006 Order of the BI
declaring her as natural-born citizen, her appointment The Court GRANTS the petition of Mary Grace
as MTRCB Chair and the issuance of the decree of Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares and to ANNUL and
adoption of San Juan RTC.  She believed that all
97
SET ASIDE the:
these acts reinforced her position that she is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
98
1. Resolution dated 1 December 2015
rendered through its Second Division, in SPA
Sixth, she maintained that as early as the first quarter No. 15-001 (DC),
of 2005, she started reestablishing her domicile of entitled Estrella C. Elamparo, petitioner, vs.
choice in the Philippines as demonstrated by her Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-
children's resettlement and schooling in the country, Llamanzares.
purchase of a condominium unit in San Juan City and
the construction of their family home in Corinthian 2. Resolution dated 11 December 2015,
Hills.
99
rendered through its First Division, in the
consolidated cases SPA No. 15-002 (DC)
Seventh, she insisted that she could legally entitled Francisco S. Tatad, petitioner, vs.
reestablish her domicile of choice in the Philippines Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-
even before she renounced her American citizenship Llamanzares, respondent; SPA No. 15-007
as long as the three determinants for a change of (DC) entitled Antonio P. Contreras, petitioner,
domicile are complied with.  She reasoned out that
100
vs. Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-
there was no requirement that renunciation of foreign Llamanzares, respondent; and SPA No. 15-
citizenship is a prerequisite for the acquisition of a 139 (DC) entitled Amado D. Valdez,
new domicile of choice. 101
petitioner, v. Mary Grace Natividad Sonora
Poe-Llamanzares, respondent.
Eighth, she reiterated that the period appearing in the
residency portion of her COC for Senator was a 3. Resolution dated 23 December 2015 of the
mistake made in good faith. 102
Commission En Banc, upholding the 1
December 2015 Resolution of the Second
In a Resolution  promulgated on 11 December 2015,
103 Division.
the COMELEC First Division ruled that petitioner is
not a natural-born citizen, that she failed to complete 4. Resolution dated 23 December 2015 of the
the ten (10) year residency requirement, and that she Commission En Banc, upholding the 11
committed material misrepresentation in her COC December 2015 Resolution of the First
when she declared therein that she has been a Division.
resident of the Philippines for a period of ten (10)
years and eleven (11) months as of the day of the The procedure and the conclusions from which the
elections on 9 May 2016. The COMELEC First questioned Resolutions emanated are tainted with
Division concluded that she is not qualified for the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
elective position of President of the Republic of the jurisdiction. The petitioner is a QUALIFIED
Philippines. The dispositive portion of said Resolution CANDIDATE for President in the 9 May 2016 National
reads: Elections.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the The issue before the COMELEC is whether or not the
Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, COC of petitioner should be denied due course or
to GRANT the Petitions and cancel the Certificate of cancelled "on the exclusive ground" that she made in
Candidacy of MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD SONORA the certificate a false material representation. The
POE-LLAMANZARES for the elective position of exclusivity of the ground should hedge in the
President of the Republic of the Philippines in discretion of the COMELEC and restrain it from going
connection with the 9 May 2016 Synchronized Local into the issue of the qualifications of the candidate for
and National Elections. the position, if, as in this case, such issue is yet
undecided or undetermined by the proper authority.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration seeking a The COMELEC cannot itself, in the same cancellation
reversal of the COMELEC First Division's Resolution. case, decide the qualification or lack thereof of the
On 23 December 2015, the COMELEC En candidate.
We rely, first of all, on the Constitution of our cancellation of their registration with
Republic, particularly its provisions in Article IX, C, the Commission, in addition to other
Section 2: penalties that may be prescribed by
law.
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall
exercise the following powers and functions: (6) File, upon a verified complaint, or
on its own initiative, petitions in court
(1) Enforce and administer all laws for inclusion or exclusion of voters;
and regulations relative to the conduct investigate and, where appropriate,
of an election, plebiscite, initiative, prosecute cases of violations of
referendum, and recall. election laws, including acts or
omissions constituting election frauds,
(2) Exercise exclusive original offenses, and malpractices.
jurisdiction over all contests relating to
the elections, returns, and (7) Recommend to the Congress
qualifications of all elective regional, effective measures to minimize
provincial, and city officials, and election spending, including limitation
appellate jurisdiction over all contests of places where propaganda materials
involving elective municipal officials shall be posted, and to prevent and
decided by trial courts of general penalize all forms of election frauds,
jurisdiction, or involving elective offenses, malpractices, and nuisance
barangay officials decided by trial candidacies.
courts of limited jurisdiction.
(8) Recommend to the President the
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of removal of any officer or employee it
the Commission on election contests has deputized, or the imposition of any
involving elective municipal and other disciplinary action, for violation
barangay offices shall be final, or disregard of, or disobedience to its
executory, and not appealable. directive, order, or decision.

(3) Decide, except those involving the (9) Submit to the President and the
right to vote, all questions affecting Congress a comprehensive report on
elections, including determination of the conduct of each election,
the number and location of polling plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or
places, appointment of election recall.
officials and inspectors, and
registration of voters. Not any one of the enumerated powers approximate
the exactitude of the provisions of Article VI, Section
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of 17 of the same basic law stating that:
the President, law enforcement
agencies and instrumentalities of the The Senate and the House of Representatives
Government, including the Armed shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which
Forces of the Philippines, for the shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
exclusive purpose of ensuring free, to the election, returns, and qualifications of
orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible their respective Members. Each Electoral
elections. Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members,
three of whom shall be Justices of the
(5) Register, after sufficient Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief
publication, political parties, Justice, and the remaining six shall be
organizations, or coalitions which, in Members of the Senate or the House of
addition to other requirements, must Representatives, as the case may be, who
present their platform or program of shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
government; and accredit citizens' representation from the political parties and
arms of the Commission on Elections. the parties or organizations registered under
Religious denominations and sects the party-list system represented therein. The
shall not be registered. Those which senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall
seek to achieve their goals through be its Chairman.
violence or unlawful means, or refuse
to uphold and adhere to this or of the last paragraph of Article VII, Section 4 which
Constitution, or which are supported provides that:
by any foreign government shall
likewise be refused registration. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be
the sole judge of all contests relating to the
Financial contributions from foreign election, returns, and qualifications of the
governments and their agencies to President or Vice-President, and may
political parties, organizations, promulgate its rules for the purpose.
coalitions, or candidates related to
elections constitute interference in The tribunals which have jurisdiction over the question
national affairs, and, when accepted, of the qualifications of the President, the Vice-
shall be an additional ground for the
President, Senators and the Members of the House of Before we get derailed by the distinction as to
Representatives was made clear by the Constitution. grounds and the consequences of the respective
There is no such provision for candidates for these proceedings, the importance of the opinion is in its
positions. statement that "the lack of provision for declaring the
ineligibility of candidates, however, cannot be
Can the COMELEC be such judge? supplied by a mere rule". Justice Mendoza lectured
in Romualdez-Marcos that:
The opinion of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza
in Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Three reasons may be cited to explain the absence of
Elections,  which was affirmatively cited in the En
104 an authorized proceeding for determining before
Banc decision in Fermin v. COMELEC  is our guide.
105 election the qualifications of a candidate.
The citation in Fermin reads:
First is the fact that unless a candidate wins and is
Apparently realizing the lack of an authorized proclaimed elected, there is no necessity for
proceeding for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, determining his eligibility for the office. In contrast,
the COMELEC amended its rules on February 15, whether an individual should be disqualified as a
1993 so as to provide in Rule 25 § 1, the following: candidate for acts constituting election
offenses (e.g., vote buying, over spending,
Grounds for disqualification. - Any commission of prohibited acts) is a prejudicial
candidate who does not possess all question which should be determined lest he wins
the qualifications of a candidate as because of the very acts for which his disqualification
provided for by the Constitution or by is being sought. That is why it is provided that if the
existing law or who commits any act grounds for disqualification are established, a
declared by law to be grounds for candidate will not be voted for; if he has been voted
disqualification may be disqualified for, the votes in his favor will not be counted; and if for
from continuing as a candidate. some reason he has been voted for and he has won,
either he will not be proclaimed or his proclamation
will be set aside.
The lack of provision for declaring the ineligibility of
candidates, however, cannot be supplied by a mere
rule. Such an act is equivalent to the creation of a Second is the fact that the determination of a
cause of action which is a substantive matter which candidates' eligibility, e.g., his citizenship or, as in this
the COMELEC, in the exercise of its rule-making case, his domicile, may take a long time to make,
power under Art. IX, A, §6 of the Constitution, cannot extending beyond the beginning of the term of the
do it. It is noteworthy that the Constitution withholds office. This is amply demonstrated in the companion
from the COMELEC even the power to decide cases case (G.R. No. 120265, Agapito A. Aquino v.
involving the right to vote, which essentially involves COMELEC) where the determination of Aquino's
an inquiry into qualifications based on age, residence was still pending in the COMELEC even
residence and citizenship of voters. [Art. IX, C, §2(3)] after the elections of May 8, 1995. This is contrary to
the summary character proceedings relating to
certificates of candidacy. That is why the law makes
The assimilation in Rule 25 of the COMELEC rules of
the receipt of certificates of candidacy a ministerial
grounds for ineligibility into grounds for disqualification
duty of the COMELEC and its officers. The law is
is contrary to the evident intention of the law. For not
satisfied if candidates state in their certificates of
only in their grounds but also in their consequences
candidacy that they are eligible for the position which
are proceedings for "disqualification" different from
they seek to fill, leaving the determination of their
those for a declaration of "ineligibility."
qualifications to be made after the election and only in
"Disqualification" proceedings, as already stated, are
the event they are elected. Only in cases involving
based on grounds specified in § 12 and §68 of the
charges of false representations made in certificates
Omnibus Election Code and in §40 of the Local
of candidacy is the COMELEC given jurisdiction.
Government Code and are for the purpose of barring
an individual from becoming a candidate or from
continuing as a candidate for public office. In a word, Third is the policy underlying the prohibition against
their purpose is to eliminate a candidate from the pre-proclamation cases in elections for President,
race either from the start or during its progress. Vice President, Senators and members of the House
"Ineligibility," on the other hand, refers to the lack of of Representatives. (R.A. No. 7166, § 15) The
the qualifications prescribed in the Constitution or the purpose is to preserve the prerogatives of the House
statutes for holding public office and the purpose of of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and the other
the proceedings for declaration of ineligibility is Tribunals as "sole judges" under the Constitution of
to remove the incumbent from office. the election, returns and qualifications of members of
Congress of the President and Vice President, as the
case may be. 106

Consequently, that an individual possesses the

qualifications for a public office does not imply that he
is not disqualified from becoming a candidate or To be sure, the authoritativeness of
continuing as a candidate for a public office and vice the Romualdez pronouncements as reiterated
versa. We have this sort of dichotomy in our in Fermin, led to the amendment through COMELEC
Naturalization Law. (C.A. No. 473) That an alien has Resolution No. 9523, on 25 September 2012 of its
the qualifications prescribed in §2 of the Law does not Rule 25. This, the 15 February1993 version of Rule
imply that he does not suffer from any of [the] 25, which states that:
disqualifications provided in §4.
Grounds for disqualification. -Any candidate who does
not possess all the qualifications of a candidate as
provided for by the Constitution or by existing law or citizen when "it is certain that such relationship is
who commits any act declared by law to be grounds indemonstrable," proceeded to say that "she now has
for disqualification may be disqualified from continuing the burden to present evidence to prove her natural
as a candidate. 107
filiation with a Filipino parent."

was in the 2012 rendition, drastically changed to: The fact is that petitioner's blood relationship with a
Filipino citizen is DEMONSTRABLE.
Grounds. - Any candidate who, in action or protest in
which he is a party, is declared by final decision of a At the outset, it must be noted that presumptions
competent court, guilty of, or found by the regarding paternity is neither unknown nor
Commission to be suffering from any disqualification unaccepted in Philippine Law. The Family Code of the
provided by law or the Constitution. Philippines has a whole chapter on Paternity and
Filiation.  That said, there is more than sufficient
110

A Petition to Disqualify a Candidate invoking grounds evider1ce that petitioner has Filipino parents and is
for a Petition to Deny to or Cancel a Certificate of therefore a natural-born Filipino. Parenthetically, the
Candidacy or Petition to Declare a Candidate as a burden of proof was on private respondents to show
Nuisance Candidate, or a combination thereof, shall that petitioner is not a Filipino citizen. The private
be summarily dismissed. respondents should have shown that both of
petitioner's parents were aliens. Her admission that
Clearly, the amendment done in 2012 is an she is a foundling did not shift the burden to her
acceptance of the reality of absence of an authorized because such status did not exclude the possibility
proceeding for determining before election the that her parents were Filipinos, especially as in this
qualifications of candidate. Such that, as presently case where there is a high probability, if not certainty,
required, to disqualify a candidate there must be a that her parents are Filipinos.
declaration by a final judgment of a competent court
that the candidate sought to be disqualified "is guilty The factual issue is not who the parents of petitioner
of or found by the Commission to be suffering from are, as their identities are unknown, but whether such
any disqualification provided by law or the parents are Filipinos. Under Section 4, Rule 128:
Constitution."
Sect. 4. Relevancy, collateral matters - Evidence
Insofar as the qualification of a candidate is must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to
concerned, Rule 25 and Rule 23 are flipsides of one induce belief in its existence or no-existence.
to the other. Both do not allow, are not authorizations, Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,
are not vestment of jurisdiction, for the COMELEC to except when it tends in any reasonable degree to
determine the qualification of a candidate. The facts of establish the probability of improbability of the fact in
qualification must beforehand be established in a prior issue.
proceeding before an authority properly vested with
jurisdiction. The prior determination of qualification The Solicitor General offered official statistics from the
may be by statute, by executive order or by a Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)  that from 1965
111

judgment of a competent court or tribunal. to 1975, the total number of foreigners born in the
Philippines was 15,986 while the total number of
If a candidate cannot be disqualified without a prior Filipinos born in the country was 10,558,278. The
finding that he or she is suffering from a statistical probability that any child born in the
disqualification "provided by law or the Constitution," Philippines in that decade is natural-born Filipino
neither can the certificate of candidacy be cancelled was 99.83%. For her part, petitioner presented
or denied due course on grounds of false census statistics for Iloilo Province for 1960 and 1970,
representations regarding his or her qualifications, also from the PSA. In 1960, there were 962,532
without a prior authoritative finding that he or she is Filipinos and 4,734 foreigners in the
not qualified, such prior authority being the necessary province; 99.62% of the population were Filipinos. In
measure by which the falsity of the representation can 1970, the figures were 1,162,669 Filipinos and 5,304
be found. The only exception that can be conceded foreigners, or 99.55%. Also presented were figures for
are self-evident facts of unquestioned or the child producing ages (15-49). In 1960, there were
unquestionable veracity and judicial confessions. 230,528 female Filipinos as against 730 female
Such are, anyway, bases equivalent to prior decisions foreigners or 99.68%. In the same year, there were
against which the falsity of representation can be 210,349 Filipino males and 886 male aliens,
determined. or 99.58%. In 1970, there were 270,299 Filipino
females versus 1, 190 female aliens, or 99.56%. That
The need for a predicate finding or final same year, there were 245,740 Filipino males as
pronouncement in a proceeding under Rule 23 that against only 1,165 male aliens or 99.53%. COMELEC
deals with, as in this case, alleged false did not dispute these figures. Notably, Commissioner
representations regarding the candidate's citizenship Arthur Lim admitted, during the oral arguments, that at
and residence, forced the COMELEC to rule the time petitioner was found in 1968, the majority of
essentially that since foundlings  are not mentioned
108 the population in Iloilo was Filipino.112

in the enumeration of citizens under the 1935

Constitution,  they then cannot be citizens. As the
109 Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of
COMELEC stated in oral arguments, when petitioner petitioner's parents are the fact that she was
admitted that she is a foundling, she said it all. This abandoned as an infant in a Roman Catholic Church
borders on bigotry. Oddly, in an effort at tolerance, the in Iloilo City.  She also has typical Filipino features:
1âwphi1

COMELEC, after saying that it cannot rule that herein height, flat nasal bridge, straight black hair, almond
petitioner possesses blood relationship with a Filipino shaped eyes and an oval face.
There is a disputable presumption that things have two, foreigners is downright discriminatory, irrational,
happened according to the ordinary course of nature and unjust. It just doesn't make any sense. Given the
and the ordinary habits of life.  All of the foregoing
113
statistical certainty - 99.9% - that any child born in the
evidence, that a person with typical Filipino features is Philippines would be a natural born citizen, a decision
abandoned in Catholic Church in a municipality where denying foundlings such status is effectively a denial
the population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly of their birthright. There is no reason why this
Filipinos such that there would be more than a 99% Honorable Court should use an improbable
chance that a child born in the province would be a hypothetical to sacrifice the fundamental political
Filipino, would indicate more than ample probability if rights of an entire class of human beings. Your Honor,
not statistical certainty, that petitioner's parents are constitutional interpretation and the use of common
Filipinos. That probability and the evidence on which it sense are not separate disciplines.
is based are admissible under Rule 128, Section 4 of
the Revised Rules on Evidence. As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-
born citizens. While the 1935 Constitution's
To assume otherwise is to accept the absurd, if not enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no
the virtually impossible, as the norm. In the words of restrictive language which would definitely exclude
the Solicitor General: foundlings either. Because of silence and ambiguity in
the enumeration with respect to foundlings, there is a
Second. It is contrary to common sense because need to examine the intent of the framers. In Nitafan
foreigners do not come to the Philippines so they can v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,  this Court
114

get pregnant and leave their newborn babies behind. held that:
We do not face a situation where the probability is
such that every foundling would have a 50% chance The ascertainment of that intent is but in
of being a Filipino and a 50% chance of being a keeping with the fundamental principle of
foreigner. We need to frame our questions properly. constitutional construction that the intent of
What are the chances that the parents of anyone born the framers of the organic law and of the
in the Philippines would be foreigners? Almost zero. people adopting it should be given effect. The
What are the chances that the parents of anyone born primary task in constitutional construction is to
in the Philippines would be Filipinos? 99.9%. ascertain and thereafter assure the realization
of the purpose of the framers and of the
According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, from people in the adoption of the Constitution. It
2010 to 2014, on a yearly average, there were may also be safely assumed that the people in
1,766,046 children born in the Philippines to Filipino ratifying the Constitution were guided mainly
parents, as opposed to 1,301 children in the by the explanation offered by the framers. 115

Philippines of foreign parents. Thus, for that sample

period, the ratio of non-Filipino children to natural born As pointed out by petitioner as well as the Solicitor
Filipino children is 1:1357. This means that the General, the deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional
statistical probability that any child born in the Convention show that the framers intended foundlings
Philippines would be a natural born Filipino is 99.93%. to be covered by the enumeration. The following
exchange is recorded:
From 1965 to 1975, the total number of foreigners
born in the Philippines is 15,986 while the total Sr. Rafols: For an amendment. I propose that after
number of Filipinos born in the Philippines is subsection 2, the following is inserted: "The natural
15,558,278. For this period, the ratio of non-Filipino children of a foreign father and a Filipino mother not
children is 1:661. This means that the statistical recognized by the father.
probability that any child born in the Philippines on
that decade would be a natural born Filipino is xxxx
99.83%.
President:
We can invite statisticians and social anthropologists [We] would like to request a clarification from the
to crunch the numbers for us, but I am confident that proponent of the amendment. The gentleman refers to
the statistical probability that a child born in the natural children or to any kind of illegitimate children?
Philippines would be a natural born Filipino will not be
affected by whether or not the parents are known. If at Sr. Rafols:
all, the likelihood that a foundling would have a To all kinds of illegitimate children. It also includes
Filipino parent might even be higher than 99.9%. natural children of unknown parentage, natural or
Filipinos abandon their children out of poverty or illegitimate children of unknown parents.
perhaps, shame. We do not imagine foreigners
abandoning their children here in the Philippines
Sr. Montinola:
thinking those infants would have better economic
For clarification. The gentleman said "of unknown
opportunities or believing that this country is a tropical
parents." Current codes consider them Filipino, that
paradise suitable for raising abandoned children. I
is, I refer to the Spanish Code wherein all children of
certainly doubt whether a foreign couple has ever
unknown parentage born in Spanish territory are
considered their child excess baggage that is best left
considered Spaniards, because the presumption is
behind.
that a child of unknown parentage is the son of a
Spaniard. This may be applied in the Philippines in
To deny full Filipino citizenship to all foundlings and that a child of unknown parentage born in the
render them stateless just because there may be a Philippines is deemed to be Filipino, and there is no
theoretical chance that one among the thousands of need ...
these foundlings might be the child of not just one, but
Sr. Rafols: should be governed by statutory legislation.
There is a need, because we are relating the Moreover, it was believed that the rules of
conditions that are [required] to be Filipino. international law were already clear to the
effect that illegitimate children followed the
Sr. Montinola: citizenship of the mother, and that foundlings
But that is the interpretation of the law, therefore, followed the nationality of the place where
there is no [more] need for amendment. they were found, thereby making unnecessary
the inclusion in the Constitution of the
Sr. Rafols: proposed amendment.
The amendment should read thus:
"Natural or illegitimate of a foreign father and a This explanation was likewise the position of the
Filipino mother recognized by one, or the children of Solicitor General during the 16 February 2016 Oral
unknown parentage." Arguments:

Sr. Briones: We all know that the Rafols proposal was rejected.
The amendment [should] mean children born in the But note that what was declined was the proposal for
Philippines of unknown parentage. a textual and explicit recognition of foundlings as
Filipinos. And so, the way to explain the constitutional
Sr. Rafols: silence is by saying that it was the view of Montinola
The son of a Filipina to a Foreigner, although this and Roxas which prevailed that there is no more need
[person] does not recognize the child, is not unknown. to expressly declare foundlings as Filipinos.

President: Obviously, it doesn't matter whether Montinola's or

Does the gentleman accept the amendment or not? Roxas' views were legally correct. Framers of a
constitution can constitutionalize rules based on
assumptions that are imperfect or even wrong. They
Sr. Rafols:
can even overturn existing rules. This is basic. What
I do not accept the amendment because the
matters here is that Montinola and Roxas were able to
amendment would exclude the children of a Filipina
convince their colleagues in the convention that there
with a foreigner who does not recognize the child.
is no more need to expressly declare foundlings as
Their parentage is not unknown and I think those of
Filipinos because they are already impliedly so
overseas Filipino mother and father [whom the latter]
recognized.
does not recognize, should also be considered as
Filipinos.
In other words, the constitutional silence is fully
explained in terms of linguistic efficiency and the
President:
avoidance of redundancy. The policy is clear: it is to
The question in order is the amendment to the
recognize foundlings, as a class, as Filipinos under
amendment from the Gentleman from Cebu, Mr.
Art. IV, Section 1 (3) of the 1935 Constitution. This
Briones.
inclusive policy is carried over into the 1973 and 1987
Constitution. It is appropriate to invoke a famous
Sr. Busion: scholar as he was paraphrased by Chief Justice
Mr. President, don't you think it would be better to Fernando: the constitution is not silently silent, it is
leave this matter in the hands of the Legislature? silently vocal. 
118

Sr. Roxas: The Solicitor General makes the further point that the
Mr. President, my humble opinion is that these cases framers "worked to create a just and humane society,"
are few and far in between, that the constitution need that "they were reasonable patriots and that it would
[not] refer to them. By international law the principle be unfair to impute upon them a discriminatory intent
that children or people born in a country of unknown against foundlings." He exhorts that, given the grave
parents are citizens in this nation is recognized, and it implications of the argument that foundlings are not
is not necessary to include a provision on the subject natural-born Filipinos, the Court must search the
exhaustively. 116
records of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions "for
an express intention to deny foundlings the status of
Though the Rafols amendment was not carried out, it Filipinos. The burden is on those who wish to use the
was not because there was any objection to the constitution to discriminate against foundlings to show
notion that persons of "unknown parentage" are not that the constitution really intended to take this path to
citizens but only because their number was not the dark side and inflict this across the board
enough to merit specific mention. Such was the marginalization."
account,  cited by petitioner, of delegate and
117

constitution law author Jose Aruego who said: We find no such intent or language permitting
discrimination against foundlings. On the contrary, all
During the debates on this provision, Delegate three Constitutions guarantee the basic right to equal
Rafols presented an amendment to include as protection of the laws. All exhort the State to render
Filipino citizens the illegitimate children with a social justice. Of special consideration are several
foreign father of a mother who was a citizen of provisions in the present charter: Article II, Section 11
the Philippines, and also foundlings; but this which provides that the "State values the dignity of
amendment was defeated primarily because every human person and guarantees full respect for
the Convention believed that the cases, human rights," Article XIII, Section 1 which mandates
being too few to warrant the inclusion of a Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of
provision in the Constitution to apply to them, measures that protect and enhance the right of all the
people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, naturalization proceedings to acquire Philippine
and political inequalities x x x" and Article XV, Section citizenship, or the election of such citizenship by one
3 which requires the State to defend the "right of born of an alien father and a Filipino mother under the
children to assistance, including proper care and 1935 Constitution, which is an act to perfect it.
nutrition, and special protection from all forms of
neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other In this instance, such issue is moot because there is
conditions prejudicial to their development." Certainly, no dispute that petitioner is a foundling, as evidenced
these provisions contradict an intent to discriminate by a Foundling Certificate issued in her favor.  The
122

against foundlings on account of their unfortunate Decree of Adoption issued on 13 May 1974, which
status. approved petitioner's adoption by Jesusa Sonora Poe
and Ronald Allan Kelley Poe, expressly refers to
Domestic laws on adoption also support the principle Emiliano and his wife, Rosario Militar, as her
that foundlings are Filipinos. These laws do not "foundling parents," hence effectively affirming
provide that adoption confers citizenship upon the petitioner's status as a foundling. 123

adoptee. Rather, the adoptee must be a Filipino in the

first place to be adopted. The most basic of such laws Foundlings are likewise citizens under international
is Article 15 of the Civil Code which provides that law. Under the 1987 Constitution, an international law
"[l]aws relating to family rights, duties, status, can become part of the sphere of domestic law either
conditions, legal capacity of persons are binding on by transformation or incorporation. The transformation
citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad." method requires that an international law be
Adoption deals with status, and a Philippine adoption transformed into a domestic law through a
court will have jurisdiction only if the adoptee is a constitutional mechanism such as local
Filipino. In Ellis and Ellis v. Republic,  a child left by
119
legislation.  On the other hand, generally accepted
124

an unidentified mother was sought to be adopted by principles of international law, by virtue of the
aliens. This Court said: incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of
the laws of the land even if they do not derive from
In this connection, it should be noted that this is a treaty obligations. Generally accepted principles of
proceedings in rem, which no court may entertain international law include international custom as
unless it has jurisdiction, not only over the subject evidence of a general practice accepted as law, and
matter of the case and over the parties, but also over general principles of law recognized by civilized
the res, which is the personal status of Baby Rose as nations.  International customary rules are accepted
125

well as that of petitioners herein. Our Civil Code (Art. as binding as a result from the combination of two
15) adheres to the theory that jurisdiction over the elements: the established, widespread, and consistent
status of a natural person is determined by the latter's practice on the part of States; and a psychological
nationality. Pursuant to this theory, we element known as the opinionjuris sive
have jurisdiction over the status of Baby Rose, she necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit
being a citizen of the Philippines, but not over the in the latter element is a belief that the practice in
status of the petitioners, who are question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a
foreigners.  (Underlining supplied)
120
rule of law requiring it.  "General principles of law
126

recognized by civilized nations" are principles

Recent legislation is more direct. R.A. No. 8043 "established by a process of reasoning" or judicial
entitled "An Act Establishing the Rules to Govern the logic, based on principles which are "basic to legal
Inter-Country Adoption of Filipino Children and For systems generally,"  such as "general principles of
127

Other Purposes" (otherwise known as the "Inter- equity, i.e., the general principles of fairness and
Country Adoption Act of 1995"), R.A. No. 8552, justice," and the "general principle against
entitled "An Act Establishing the Rules and Policies discrimination" which is embodied in the "Universal
on the Adoption of Filipino Children and For Other Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Purposes" (otherwise known as the Domestic Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
Adoption Act of 1998) and this Court's A.M. No. 02-6- the International Convention on the Elimination of All
02-SC or the "Rule on Adoption," all expressly refer to Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention
"Filipino children" and include foundlings as among Against Discrimination in Education, the Convention
Filipino children who may be adopted. (No. 111) Concerning Discrimination in Respect of
Employment and Occupation."  These are the same
128

It has been argued that the process to determine that core principles which underlie the Philippine
the child is a foundling leading to the issuance of a Constitution itself, as embodied in the due process
foundling certificate under these laws and the and equal protection clauses of the Bill of Rights. 129

issuance of said certificate are acts to acquire or

perfect Philippine citizenship which make the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("UDHR") has
foundling a naturalized Filipino at best. This is been interpreted by this Court as part of the generally
erroneous. Under Article IV, Section 2 "Natural-born accepted principles of international law and binding on
citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines the State.  Article 15 thereof states:
130

from birth without having to perform any act to acquire

or perfect their Philippine citizenship." In the first 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
place, "having to perform an act" means that the act
must be personally done by the citizen. In this 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
instance, the determination of foundling status is done nationality nor denied the right to change his
not by the child but by the authorities.  Secondly, the
121
nationality.
object of the process is the determination of the
whereabouts of the parents, not the citizenship of the The Philippines has also ratified the UN Convention
child. Lastly, the process is certainly not analogous to on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Article 7 of the
UNCRC imposes the following obligations on our Nations Convention on the Reduction of
country: Statelessness:

Article 7 Article 2

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth A foundling found in the territory of a Contracting
and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be
to acquire a nationality and as far as possible, the considered to have been born within the territory of
right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. parents possessing the nationality of that State.

2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of That the Philippines is not a party to the 1930 Hague
these rights in accordance with their national law and Convention nor to the 1961 Convention on the
their obligations under the relevant international Reduction of Statelessness does not mean that their
instruments in this field, in particular where the child principles are not binding. While the Philippines is not
would otherwise be stateless. a party to the 1930 Hague Convention, it is a
signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human
In 1986, the country also ratified the 1966 Rights, Article 15(1) ofwhich  effectively affirms
131

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention. Article 2 of
(ICCPR). Article 24 thereof provide for the right the 1961 "United Nations Convention on the
of every child "to acquire a nationality:" Reduction of Statelessness" merely "gives effect" to
Article 15(1) of the UDHR.  In Razon v. Tagitis,   this
132 133

Article 24 Court noted that the Philippines had not signed or

ratified the "International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced
1. Every child shall have, without any discrimination
Disappearance." Yet, we ruled that the proscription
as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or
against enforced disappearances in the said
social origin, property or birth, the right, to such
convention was nonetheless binding as a "generally
measures of protection as are required by his status
accepted principle of international law." Razon v.
as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the
Tagitis is likewise notable for declaring the ban as a
State.
generally accepted principle of international law
although the convention had been ratified by only
2. Every child shall be registered immediately after sixteen states and had not even come into force and
birth and shall have a name. which needed the ratification of a minimum of twenty
states. Additionally, as petitioner points out, the Court
3. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality. was content with the practice of international and
regional state organs, regional state practice in Latin
The common thread of the UDHR, UNCRC and America, and State Practice in the United States.
ICCPR is to obligate the Philippines to grant
nationality from birth and ensure that no child is Another case where the number of ratifying countries
stateless. This grant of nationality must be at the time was not determinative is Mijares v. Ranada,   where
134

of birth, and it cannot be accomplished by the only four countries had "either ratified or acceded
application of our present naturalization laws, to"  the 1966 "Convention on the Recognition and
135

Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended, and R.A. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and
No. 9139, both of which require the applicant to be at Commercial Matters" when the case was decided in
least eighteen (18) years old. 2005. The Court also pointed out that that nine
member countries of the European Common Market
The principles found in two conventions, while yet had acceded to the Judgments Convention. The Court
unratified by the Philippines, are generally accepted also cited U.S. laws and jurisprudence on recognition
principles of international law. The first is Article 14 of of foreign judgments. In all, only the practices of
the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions fourteen countries were considered and yet, there
Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws under was pronouncement that recognition of foreign
which a foundling is presumed to have the "nationality judgments was widespread practice.
of the country of birth," to wit:
Our approach in Razon and Mijares effectively takes
Article 14 into account the fact that "generally accepted
principles of international law" are based not only on
A child whose parents are both unknown shall have international custom, but also on "general principles of
the nationality of the country of birth. If the child's law recognized by civilized nations," as the phrase is
parentage is established, its nationality shall be understood in Article 38.1 paragraph (c) of the ICJ
determined by the rules applicable in cases where the Statute. Justice, fairness, equity and the policy
parentage is known. against discrimination, which are fundamental
principles underlying the Bill of Rights and which are
A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed "basic to legal systems generally,"  support the
136

to have been born on the territory of the State in notion that the right against enforced disappearances
which it was found. (Underlining supplied) and the recognition of foreign judgments, were
correctly considered as "generally accepted principles
The second is the principle that a foundling of international law" under the incorporation clause.
is presumed born of citizens of the country where he
is found, contained in Article 2 of the 1961 United Petitioner's evidence  shows that at least sixty
137

countries in Asia, North and South America, and

Europe have passed legislation recognizing In the seminal case of Bengson Ill v.
foundlings as its citizen. Forty-two (42) of those HRET,   repatriation was explained as follows:
140

countries follow the jus sanguinis regime. Of the sixty,

only thirty-three (33) are parties to the 1961 Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery of the
Convention on Statelessness; twenty-six (26) are not original nationality. This means that a naturalized
signatories to the Convention. Also, the Chief Justice, Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his
at the 2 February 2016 Oral Arguments pointed out prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the
that in 166 out of 189 countries surveyed (or 87.83%), other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen
foundlings are recognized as citizens. These before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be
circumstances, including the practice of jus restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.
sanguinis countries, show that it is a generally
accepted principle of international law to presume R.A. No. 9225 is a repatriation statute and has been
foundlings as having been born of nationals of the described as such in several cases. They
country in which the foundling is found. include Sobejana-Condon v. COMELEC  where we 141

described it as an "abbreviated repatriation process

Current legislation reveals the adherence of the that restores one's Filipino citizenship x x x." Also
Philippines to this generally accepted principle of included is Parreno v. Commission on Audit,  which 142

international law. In particular, R.A. No. 8552, R.A. cited Tabasa v. Court of Appeals,  where we said
143

No. 8042 and this Court's Rules on Adoption, that "[t]he repatriation of the former Filipino will allow
expressly refer to "Filipino children." In all of them, him to recover his natural-born citizenship. Parreno v.
foundlings are among the Filipino children who could Commission on Audit  is categorical that "if petitioner
144

be adopted. Likewise, it has been pointed that the reacquires his Filipino citizenship (under R.A. No.
DFA issues passports to foundlings. Passports are by 9225), he will ... recover his natural-born citizenship."
law, issued only to citizens. This shows that even the
executive department, acting through the DFA, The COMELEC construed the phrase "from birth" in
considers foundlings as Philippine citizens. the definition of natural citizens as implying "that
natural-born citizenship must begin at birth and
Adopting these legal principles from the 1930 Hague remain uninterrupted and continuous from birth." R.A.
Convention and the 1961 Convention on No. 9225 was obviously passed in line with Congress'
Statelessness is rational and reasonable and sole prerogative to determine how citizenship may be
consistent with the jus sanguinis regime in our lost or reacquired. Congress saw it fit to decree that
Constitution. The presumption of natural-born natural-born citizenship may be reacquired even if it
citizenship of foundlings stems from the presumption had been once lost. It is not for the COMELEC to
that their parents are nationals of the Philippines. As disagree with the Congress' determination.
the empirical data provided by the PSA show, that
presumption is at more than 99% and is a virtual More importantly, COMELEC's position that natural-
certainty. born status must be continuous was already rejected
in Bengson III v. HRET  where the phrase "from
145

In sum, all of the international law conventions and birth" was clarified to mean at the time of birth: "A
instruments on the matter of nationality of foundlings person who at the time of his birth, is a citizen of a
were designed to address the plight of a defenseless particular country, is a natural-born citizen thereof."
class which suffers from a misfortune not of their own Neither is "repatriation" an act to "acquire or perfect"
making. We cannot be restrictive as to their one's citizenship. In Bengson III v. HRET, this Court
application if we are a country which calls itself pointed out that there are only two types of citizens
civilized and a member of the community of nations. under the 1987 Constitution: natural-born citizen and
The Solicitor General's warning in his opening naturalized, and that there is no third category for
statement is relevant: repatriated citizens:

.... the total effect of those documents is to signify to It is apparent from the enumeration of who are
this Honorable Court that those treaties and citizens under the present Constitution that there are
conventions were drafted because the world only two classes of citizens: (1) those who are natural-
community is concerned that the situation of born and (2) those who are naturalized in accordance
foundlings renders them legally invisible. It would be with law. A citizen who is not a naturalized Filipino, ie.,
tragically ironic if this Honorable Court ended up using did not have to undergo the process of naturalization
the international instruments which seek to protect to obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is a
and uplift foundlings a tool to deny them political natural-born Filipino. Noteworthy is the absence in
status or to accord them second-class citizenship. 138
said enumeration of a separate category for persons
who, after losing Philippine citizenship, subsequently
The COMELEC also ruled  that petitioner's
139
reacquire it. The reason therefor is clear: as to such
repatriation in July 2006 under the provisions of R.A. persons, they would either be natural-born or
No. 9225 did not result in the reacquisition of natural- naturalized depending on the reasons for the loss of
born citizenship. The COMELEC reasoned that since their citizenship and the mode prescribed by the
the applicant must perform an act, what is reacquired applicable law for the reacquisition thereof. As
is not "natural-born" citizenship but only plain respondent Cruz was not required by law to go
"Philippine citizenship." through naturalization proceedings in order to
reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce a natural-born
The COMELEC's rule arrogantly disregards Filipino. As such, he possessed all the necessary
consistent jurisprudence on the matter of repatriation qualifications to be elected as member of the House
statutes in general and of R.A. No. 9225 in particular. of Representatives. 146
The COMELEC cannot reverse a judicial precedent. elections will be held on 9 May 2016, petitioner must
That is reserved to this Court. And while we may have been a resident of the Philippines prior to 9 May
always revisit a doctrine, a new rule reversing 2016 for ten (10) years. In answer to the requested
standing doctrine cannot be retroactively applied. information of "Period of Residence in the Philippines
In Morales v. Court of Appeals and Jejomar up to the day before May 09, 2016," she put in "10
Erwin S. Binay, Jr.,  where we decreed reversed the
147
years 11 months" which according to her pleadings in
condonation doctrine, we cautioned that it "should be these cases corresponds to a beginning date of 25
prospective in application for the reason that judicial May 2005 when she returned for good from the U.S.
decisions applying or interpreting the laws of the
Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the legal When petitioner immigrated to the U.S. in 1991, she
system of the Philippines." This Court also said that lost her original domicile, which is the Philippines.
"while the future may ultimately uncover a doctrine's There are three requisites to acquire a new domicile:
error, it should be, as a general rule, recognized as 1. Residence or bodily presence in a new locality; 2.
good law prior to its abandonment. Consequently, the an intention to remain there; and 3. an intention to
people's reliance thereupon should be respected." 148
abandon the old domicile.  To successfully effect a
152

change of domicile, one must demonstrate an actual

Lastly, it was repeatedly pointed out during the oral removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona
arguments that petitioner committed a falsehood fide intention of abandoning the former place of
when she put in the spaces for "born to" in her residence and establishing a new one and definite
application for repatriation under R.A. No. 9225 the acts which correspond with the purpose. In other
names of her adoptive parents, and this misled the BI words, there must basically be animus
to presume that she was a natural-born Filipino. It has manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The
been contended that the data required were the purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must
names of her biological parents which are precisely be for an indefinite period of time; the change of
unknown. residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the
place chosen for the new domicile must be actual. 153

This position disregards one important fact - petitioner

was legally adopted. One of the effects of adoption is Petitioner presented voluminous evidence showing
"to sever all legal ties between the biological parents that she and her family abandoned their U.S. domicile
and the adoptee, except when the biological parent is and relocated to the Philippines for good. These
the spouse of the adoptee."  Under R.A. No. 8552,
149
evidence include petitioner's former U.S. passport
petitioner was also entitled to an amended birth showing her arrival on 24 May 2005 and her return to
certificate "attesting to the fact that the adoptee is the the Philippines every time she travelled abroad; e-mail
child of the adopter(s)" and which certificate "shall not correspondences starting in March 2005 to
bear any notation that it is an amended issue."  That
150
September 2006 with a freight company to arrange for
law also requires that "[a]ll records, books, and the shipment of their household items weighing about
papers relating to the adoption cases in the files of the 28,000 pounds to the Philippines; e-mail with the
court, the Department [of Social Welfare and Philippine Bureau of Animal Industry inquiring how to
Development], or any other agency or institution ship their dog to the Philippines; school records of her
participating in the adoption proceedings shall be kept children showing enrollment in Philippine schools
strictly confidential."  The law therefore allows
151
starting June 2005 and for succeeding years; tax
petitioner to state that her adoptive parents were her identification card for petitioner issued on July 2005;
birth parents as that was what would be stated in her titles for condominium and parking slot issued in
birth certificate anyway. And given the policy of strict February 2006 and their corresponding tax
confidentiality of adoption records, petitioner was not declarations issued in April 2006; receipts dated 23
obligated to disclose that she was an adoptee. February 2005 from the Salvation Army in the U.S.
acknowledging donation of items from petitioner's
Clearly, to avoid a direct ruling on the qualifications of family; March 2006 e-mail to the U.S. Postal Service
petitioner, which it cannot make in the same case for confirming request for change of address; final
cancellation of COC, it resorted to opinionatedness statement from the First American Title Insurance
which is, moreover, erroneous. The whole process Company showing sale of their U.S. home on 27 April
undertaken by COMELEC is wrapped in grave abuse 2006; 12 July 2011 filled-up questionnaire submitted
of discretion. to the U.S. Embassy where petitioner indicated that
she had been a Philippine resident since May 2005;
On Residence affidavit from Jesusa Sonora Poe (attesting to the
return of petitioner on 24 May 2005 and that she and
her family stayed with affiant until the condominium
The tainted process was repeated in disposing of the
was purchased); and Affidavit from petitioner's
issue of whether or not petitioner committed false
husband (confirming that the spouses jointly decided
material representation when she stated in her COC
to relocate to the Philippines in 2005 and that he
that she has before and until 9 May 2016 been a
stayed behind in the U.S. only to finish some work
resident of the Philippines for ten (10) years and
and to sell the family home).
eleven (11) months.
The foregoing evidence were undisputed and the
Petitioner's claim that she will have been a resident
facts were even listed by the COMELEC, particularly
for ten (10) years and eleven (11) months on the day
in its Resolution in the Tatad, Contreras and Valdez
before the 2016 elections, is true.
cases.
The Constitution requires presidential candidates to
However, the COMELEC refused to consider that
have ten (10) years' residence in the Philippines
petitioner's domicile had been timely changed as of
before the day of the elections. Since the forthcoming
24 May 2005. At the oral arguments, COMELEC the years, it is clear that when petitioner returned on
Commissioner Arthur Lim conceded the presence of 24 May 2005 it was for good.
the first two requisites, namely, physical presence
and animus manendi, but maintained there was In this connection, the COMELEC also took it against
no animus non-revertendi.  The COMELEC
154
petitioner that she had entered the Philippines visa-
disregarded the import of all the evidence presented free as a balikbayan. A closer look at R.A. No. 6768
by petitioner on the basis of the position that the as amended, otherwise known as the "An Act
earliest date that petitioner could have started Instituting a Balikbayan Program," shows that there is
residence in the Philippines was in July 2006 when no overriding intent to treat balikbayans as temporary
her application under R.A. No. 9225 was approved by visitors who must leave after one year. Included in the
the BI. In this regard, COMELEC relied on Coquilla v. law is a former Filipino who has been naturalized
COMELEC,  Japzon v. COMELEC  and Caballero
155 156
abroad and "comes or returns to the
v. COMELEC.   During the oral arguments, the
157
Philippines."   The law institutes
163

private respondents also added Reyes v. a balikbayan program "providing the opportunity to

COMELEC.  Respondents contend that these cases
158
avail of the necessary training to enable
decree that the stay of an alien former Filipino cannot the balikbayan to become economically self-reliant
be counted until he/she obtains a permanent resident members of society upon their return to the
visa or reacquires Philippine citizenship, a visa-free country"  in line with the government's "reintegration
164

entry under a balikbayan stamp being insufficient. program."  Obviously, balikbayans are not ordinary

165

Since petitioner was still an American (without any transients.

resident visa) until her reacquisition of citizenship
under R.A. No. 9225, her stay from 24 May 2005 to 7 Given the law's express policy to facilitate the return
July 2006 cannot be counted. of a balikbayan and help him reintegrate into society,
it would be an unduly harsh conclusion to say in
But as the petitioner pointed out, the facts in these absolute terms that the balikbayan must leave after
four cases are very different from her situation. one year. That visa-free period is obviously granted
In Coquilla v. COMELEC,  the only evidence
159
him to allow him to re-establish his life and reintegrate
presented was a community tax certificate secured by himself into the community before he attends to the
the candidate and his declaration that he would be necessary formal and legal requirements of
running in the elections. Japzon v. COMELEC  did
160
repatriation. And that is exactly what petitioner did -
not involve a candidate who wanted to count she reestablished life here by enrolling her children
residence prior to his reacquisition of Philippine and buying property while awaiting the return of her
citizenship. With the Court decreeing that residence is husband and then applying for repatriation shortly
distinct from citizenship, the issue there was whether thereafter.
the candidate's acts after reacquisition sufficed to
establish residence. In Caballero v. COMELEC,   the 161
No case similar to petitioner's, where the former
candidate admitted that his place of work was abroad Filipino's evidence of change in domicile is extensive
and that he only visited during his frequent vacations. and overwhelming, has as yet been decided by the
In Reyes v. COMELEC,  the candidate was found to
162
Court. Petitioner's evidence of residence is
be an American citizen who had not even reacquired unprecedented. There is no judicial precedent that
Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 or had comes close to the facts of residence of petitioner.
renounced her U.S. citizenship. She was disqualified There is no indication in Coquilla v. COMELEC,  and
166

on the citizenship issue. On residence, the only proof the other cases cited by the respondents that the
she offered was a seven-month stint as provincial Court intended to have its rulings there apply to a
officer. The COMELEC, quoted with approval by this situation where the facts are different. Surely, the
Court, said that "such fact alone is not sufficient to issue of residence has been decided particularly on
prove her one-year residency." the facts-of-the case basis.

It is obvious that because of the sparse evidence on To avoid the logical conclusion pointed out by the
residence in the four cases cited by the respondents, evidence of residence of petitioner, the COMELEC
the Court had no choice but to hold that residence ruled that petitioner's claim of residence of ten (10)
could be counted only from acquisition of a permanent years and eleven (11) months by 9 May 2016 in her
resident visa or from reacquisition of Philippine 2015 COC was false because she put six ( 6) years
citizenship. In contrast, the evidence of petitioner is and six ( 6) months as "period of residence before
overwhelming and taken together leads to no other May 13, 2013" in her 2012 COC for Senator. Thus,
conclusion that she decided to permanently abandon according to the COMELEC, she started being a
her U.S. residence (selling the house, taking the Philippine resident only in November 2006. In doing
children from U.S. schools, getting quotes from the so, the COMELEC automatically assumed as true the
freight company, notifying the U.S. Post Office of the statement in the 2012 COC and the 2015 COC as
abandonment of their address in the U.S., donating false.
excess items to the Salvation Army, her husband
resigning from U.S. employment right after selling the
As explained by petitioner in her verified pleadings,
U.S. house) and permanently relocate to the
she misunderstood the date required in the 2013 COC
Philippines and actually re-established her residence
as the period of residence as of the day she submitted
here on 24 May 2005 (securing T.I.N, enrolling her
that COC in 2012. She said that she reckoned
children in Philippine schools, buying property here,
residency from April-May 2006 which was the period
constructing a residence here, returning to the
when the U.S. house was sold and her husband
Philippines after all trips abroad, her husband getting
returned to the Philippines. In that regard, she was
employed here). Indeed, coupled with her eventual
advised by her lawyers in 2015 that residence could
application to reacquire Philippine citizenship and her
be counted from 25 May 2005.
family's actual continuous stay in the Philippines over
Petitioner's explanation that she misunderstood the that surrounded the statement were already matters
query in 2012 (period of residence before 13 May of public record and were not hidden.
2013) as inquiring about residence as of the time she
submitted the COC, is bolstered by the change which Petitioner likewise proved that the 2012 COC was
the COMELEC itself introduced in the 2015 COC also brought up in the SET petition for quo
which is now "period of residence in the Philippines warranto. Her Verified Answer, which was filed on 1
up to the day before May 09, 2016." The COMELEC September 2015, admitted that she made a mistake in
would not have revised the query if it did not the 2012 COC when she put in six ( 6) years and six
acknowledge that the first version was vague. ( 6) months as she misunderstood the question and
could have truthfully indicated a longer period. Her
That petitioner could have reckoned residence from a answer in the SET case was a matter of public
date earlier than the sale of her U.S. house and the record. Therefore, when petitioner accomplished her
return of her husband is plausible given the evidence COC for President on 15 October 2015, she could not
that she had returned a year before. Such evidence, be said to have been attempting to hide her
to repeat, would include her passport and the school erroneous statement in her 2012 COC for
records of her children. Senator which was expressly mentioned in her
Verified Answer.
It was grave abuse of discretion for the COMELEC to
treat the 2012 COC as a binding and conclusive The facts now, if not stretched to distortion, do not
admission against petitioner. It could be given in show or even hint at an intention to hide the 2012
evidence against her, yes, but it was by no means statement and have it covered by the 2015
conclusive. There is precedent after all where a representation. Petitioner, moreover, has on her side
candidate's mistake as to period of residence made in this Court's pronouncement that:
a COC was overcome by evidence. In Romualdez-
Marcos v. COMELEC,  the candidate mistakenly put
167
Concededly, a candidate's disqualification to run for
seven (7) months as her period of residence where public office does not necessarily constitute material
the required period was a minimum of one year. We misrepresentation which is the sole ground for
said that "[i]t is the fact of residence, not a statement denying due course to, and for the cancellation of, a
in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be COC. Further, as already discussed, the candidate's
decisive in determining whether or not an individual misrepresentation in his COC must not only refer to a
has satisfied the constitutions residency qualification material fact (eligibility and qualifications for elective
requirement." The COMELEC ought to have looked at office), but should evince a deliberate intent to
the evidence presented and see if petitioner was mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would
telling the truth that she was in the Philippines from 24 otherwise render a candidate ineligible. It must be
May 2005. Had the COMELEC done its duty, it would made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to
have seen that the 2012 COC and the 2015 one's qualifications to run for public office.
168

COC both correctly stated the pertinent period of

residency. In sum, the COMELEC, with the same posture of
infallibilism, virtually ignored a good number of
The COMELEC, by its own admission, disregarded evidenced dates all of which can evince animus
the evidence that petitioner actually and physically manendi to the Philippines and animus non
returned here on 24 May 2005 not because it was revertedi to the United States of America. The
false, but only because COMELEC took the position veracity of the events of coming and staying home
that domicile could be established only from was as much as dismissed as inconsequential, the
petitioner's repatriation under R.A. No. 9225 in July focus having been fixed at the petitioner's "sworn
2006. However, it does not take away the fact that in declaration in her COC for Senator" which the
reality, petitioner had returned from the U.S. and was COMELEC said "amounts to a declaration and
here to stay permanently, on 24 May 2005. When she therefore an admission that her residence in the
claimed to have been a resident for ten (10) years and Philippines only commence sometime in November
eleven (11) months, she could do so in good faith. 2006"; such that "based on this declaration,
[petitioner] fails to meet the residency requirement for
For another, it could not be said that petitioner was President." This conclusion, as already shown,
attempting to hide anything. As already stated, a ignores the standing jurisprudence that it is the fact of
petition for quo warranto had been filed against her residence, not the statement of the person that
with the SET as early as August 2015. The event from determines residence for purposes of compliance with
which the COMELEC pegged the commencement of the constitutional requirement of residency for election
residence, petitioner's repatriation in July 2006 under as President. It ignores the easily researched matter
R.A. No. 9225, was an established fact to repeat, for that cases on questions of residency have been
purposes of her senatorial candidacy. decided favorably for the candidate on the basis of
facts of residence far less in number, weight and
Notably, on the statement of residence of six (6) years substance than that presented by petitioner.  It 169

and six (6) months in the 2012 COC, petitioner ignores, above all else, what we consider as a primary
recounted that this was first brought up in the media reason why petitioner cannot be bound by her
on 2 June 2015 by Rep. Tobias Tiangco of the United declaration in her COC for Senator which declaration
Nationalist Alliance. Petitioner appears to have was not even considered by the SET as an issue
answered the issue immediately, also in the press. against her eligibility for Senator. When petitioner
Respondents have not disputed petitioner's evidence made the declaration in her COC for Senator that she
on this point. From that time therefore when Rep. has been a resident for a period of six (6) years and
Tiangco discussed it in the media, the stated period of six (6) months counted up to the 13 May 2013
residence in the 2012 COC and the circumstances Elections, she naturally had as reference the
residency requirements for election as Senator which of the Republic, the questioned Resolutions of the
was satisfied by her declared years of residence. It COMELEC in Division and En Banc are, one and all,
was uncontested during the oral arguments before us deadly diseased with grave abuse of discretion from
that at the time the declaration for Senator was made, root to fruits.
petitioner did not have as yet any intention to vie for
the Presidency in 2016 and that the general public WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
was never made aware by petitioner, by word or Resolutions, to wit:
action, that she would run for President in 2016.
Presidential candidacy has a length-of-residence 1. dated 1 December 2015 rendered through the
different from that of a senatorial candidacy. There COMELEC Second Division, in SPA No. 15-001 (DC),
are facts of residence other than that which was entitled Estrella C. Elamparo, petitioner, vs. Mary
mentioned in the COC for Senator. Such other facts of Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-Llamanzares,
residence have never been proven to be false, and respondent, stating that:
these, to repeat include:
[T]he Certificate of Candidacy for President of the
[Petitioner] returned to the Philippines on 24 May Republic of the Philippines in the May 9, 2016
2005. (petitioner's] husband however stayed in the National and Local Elections filed by respondent Mary
USA to finish pending projects and arrange the sale of Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-Llamanzares is hereby
their family home. GRANTED.

Meanwhile [petitioner] and her children lived with her 2. dated 11 December 2015, rendered through the
mother in San Juan City. [Petitioner] enrolled Brian in COMELEC First Division, in the consolidated cases
Beacon School in Taguig City in 2005 and Hanna in SPA No. 15-002 (DC) entitled Francisco S. Tatad,
Assumption College in Makati City in 2005. Anika was petitioner, vs. Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-
enrolled in Learning Connection in San Juan in 2007, Llamanzares, respondent; SPA No. 15-007 (DC)
when she was already old enough to go to school. entitled Antonio P. Contreras, petitioner, vs. Mary
Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-Llamanzares,
In the second half of 2005, [petitioner] and her respondent; and SPA No. 15-139 (DC)
husband acquired Unit 7F of One Wilson Place entitled Amado D. Valdez, petitioner, v. Mary Grace
Condominium in San Juan. [Petitioner] and her family Natividad Sonora Poe-Llamanzares, respondent;
lived in Unit 7F until the construction of their family stating that:
home in Corinthian Hills was completed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission
Sometime in the second half of 2005, [petitioner's] RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to GRANT the
mother discovered that her former lawyer who petitions and cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of
handled [petitioner's] adoption in 1974 failed to secure MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD SONORA POE-
from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Iloilo a new LLAMANZARES for the elective position of President
Certificate of Live Birth indicating [petitioner's] new of the Republic of the Philippines in connection with
name and stating that her parents are "Ronald Allan the 9 May 2016 Synchronized Local and National
K. Poe" and "Jesusa L. Sonora." Elections.

In February 2006, [petitioner] travelled briefly to the 3. dated 23 December 2015 of the COMELEC En
US in order to supervise the disposal of some of the Banc, upholding the 1 December 2015 Resolution of
family's remaining household belongings.  [Petitioner]
1a\^/phi1
the Second Division stating that:
returned to the Philippines on 11 March 2006.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission
In late March 2006, [petitioner's] husband informed RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to DENY the
the United States Postal Service of the family's Verified Motion for Reconsideration of SENATOR
abandonment of their address in the US. MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD SONORA POE-
LLAMANZARES. The Resolution dated 11 December
The family home in the US was sole on 27 April 2006. 2015 of the Commission First Division is AFFIRMED.

In April 2006, [petitioner's] husband resigned from his 4. dated 23 December 2015 of the COMELEC En
work in the US. He returned to the Philippines on 4 Banc, upholding the 11 December 2015 Resolution of
May 2006 and began working for a Philippine the First Division.
company in July 2006.
are hereby ANNULED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner
In early 2006, [petitioner] and her husband acquired a MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD SONORA POE-
vacant lot in Corinthian Hills, where they eventually LLAMANZARES is DECLARED QUALIFIED to be a
built their family home.
170
candidate for President in the National and Local
Elections of 9 May 2016.
In light of all these, it was arbitrary for the COMELEC
to satisfy its intention to let the case fall under the SO ORDERED.
exclusive ground of false representation, to consider
no other date than that mentioned by petitioner in her JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
COC for Senator. Associate Justice

All put together, in the matter of the citizenship and WE CONCUR:

residence of petitioner for her candidacy as President
 See Concurring Opinion No. 15-002 (DC), SPA No. 15-007 (DC) and
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO SPA No. 15-139 (DC), p. 2.
Chief Justice
2
 Petition for Certiorari, id. at 16-17;
See Dissenting Please see
 COMELEC First Division Resolution, supra
3

Opinion Concurring Opinion

note 1 at 4.
ANTONIO T. PRESBITERO J.
CARPIO VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
4
 Petition for Certiorari, supra note 1 at 22.

Please see Separate

5
 Id. at 17; Comment (on the Petition
Dissenting Opinion See Dissenting for Certiorari in G.R. No. 221697) filed by
TERESITA J. opinion respondent COMELEC dated 11January
LEONARDO-DE ARTURO D. BRION 2016, p. 6.
CASTRO Associate Justice
Associate Justice
6
 Petition for Certiorari, id.; id. at 7.

I join J. Caguioa's
7
 Id. at 18.
Opinion LUCAS P.
DIOSDADO M. BERSAMIN 8
 Supra note 6.
PERALTA Associate Justice
Associate Justice 9
 Id.

Pls. see Dissenting  COMELEC First Division Resolution, supra

10

Opinion JOSE CATRAL note 1 at 3.

MARIANO C. DEL MENDOZA
CASTILLO Associate Justice 11
 Petition for Certiorari, supra note 1 at 17.
Associate Justice
12
 Id. at 18.
(I concur with the
Dissenting Opinion See Dissenting 13
 Id.
of Justice Perlas- Opinion
Bernabe) ESTELA M.  COMELEC First Division Resolution, supra
14

BIENVENIDO L. PERLAS-BERNABE note 10.

REYES Associate Justice
Associate Justice 15
 Id.

See Separate See Concurring 16

 Supra note 1 at 17-18.
Concurring Opinion Opinion
MARVIC M.V.F. FRANCIS H.
 COMELEC First Division Resolution, supra
17

LEONEN JARDELEZA
note 10.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
18
 Id.
See Concurring Opinion
ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA 19
 Id.
Associate Justice
20
 Petition for Certiorari, supra note 1 at 20.
CERTIFICATION
21
 Id.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above 22
 Supra note 3.
Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the 23
 Supra note 20.
Court.
24
 Supra note 3.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice 25
 Supra note 20.

26
 Supra note 3.

27
 Petition for Certiorari, supra note 4.
Footnotes
28
 Id.
 Petition for Certiorari in G.R. Nos. 221698-
1

700, pp. 15-16; COMELEC First Division

Resolution dated 11 December 2015 in SPA  Id. at 23; COMELEC First Division
29

Resolution, supra note 3.

  Id.; id.
30
 Id.
50

 Id.; id.
31
 Supra note 48.
51

 Id.; id.
32
 Petition for Certiorari, supra note 1 at 31;
52

COMELEC First Division Resolution, supra

 Id. at 23-24; COMELEC First Division
33 note 1 at 6.
Resolution, supra note 1 at 5.
 Comment, supra note 5 at 9.
53

 Id. at 24; id.

34

 Petition for Certiorari, supra note 1 at 31.

54

 Id.
35

 Id. at 32; Comment, supra note 53 at 10.

55

 Supra note 34.

36

 Id.; COMELEC First Division Resolution,

56

 Petition for Certiorari, supra note 1 at 25;

37 supra note 1 at 6.
COMELEC First Division Resolution, supra
note 1 at 5.  Id.; id. at 7.
57

 Id. at 25-26; id.

38
 Id.; id.
58

 Id. at 26; id.

39
 Comment (on the Petition in G.R. No.
59

221697) filed by respondent Elamparo, dated

 Id.; id.
40 January 6, 2016, p. 7.

 Id.; id.
41  COMELEC Second Division Resolution
60

dated December 1, 2015 in SPA No. 15-001

 Id. at 32; id. at 6.
42 (DC), p. 7.

 Supra note 39.

43  Id. at 7-8.
61

 Petition for Certiorari, supra note 1 at 26-27;

44  Supra note 60.
62

COMELEC First Division Resolution, supra

note 1 at 5.  Id.
63

 Section 5, R.A. No. 9225 states:

45  Id. at 8.
64

SEC. 5. Civil and Political Rights and  Id.

65

Liabilities. - Those who retain or re-

acquire Philippine citizenship under  Petition for Certiorari in GR. No. 221697, p.
66

this Act shall enjoy full civil and 7.

political rights and be subject to all
attendant liabilities and responsibilities  Supra note 64.
67

under existing laws of the Philippines

and the following conditions:  Petition for Certiorari, supra note 65 at 8;
68

COMELEC Second Division Resolution, supra

xx xx note 60 at 8-11.

3. Those appointed to any public office  COMELEC Second Division Resolution,

69

shall subscribe and swear to an oath supra note 60 at 34.

of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and its duly constituted  Comment, supra note 59 at 10.
70

authorities prior to their assumption of

office: Provided, That they renounce
 Section 1 of Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules
71

their oath of allegiance to the country

of Procedure, as amended, states:
where they took that oath;
Rule 25 - Disqualification of
xx xx
Candidates
 Petition for Certiorari, supra note 1 at 27.
46

Section 1. Grounds. - Any candidate

who, in an action or protest in which
 Id. at 29.
47
he is a party, is declared by final
decision of a competent court, guilty
 Supra note 46; supra note 1 at 6.
48
of, or found by the Commission to be
suffering from any disqualification
 Petition for Certiorari, supra note 1 at 30; id.
49
provided by law or the Constitution.
 A Petition to Disqualify a Candidate  Sections 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election
89

invoking grounds for a Petition to Code provide:

Deny to or Cancel a Certificate of
Candidacy or Petition to Declare a Sec. 12. Disqualifications. -Any
Candidate as a Nuisance Candidate, person who has been declared by
or a combination thereof, shall be competent authority insane or
summarily dismissed. incompetent, or has been sentenced
by final judgment for subversion,
72
 Petition to Disqualify dated 19 October 2015 insurrection, rebellion or for any
filed by Tatad in SPA No. 15-002 (DC), p. 9. offense for which he has been
sentenced to a penalty of more than
 Id., at 9 and 14.
73 eighteen months or for a crime
involving moral turpitude, shall be
 Id. at 10.
74 disqualified to be a candidate and to
hold any office, unless he has been
given plenary pardon or granted
 Id. at 12.
75

amnesty.
 Id. at 11.
76

This disqualifications to be a
candidate herein provided shall be
 COMELEC First Division Resolution, supra
77
deemed removed upon the declaration
note 1 at 8. by competent authority that said
insanity or incompetence had been
 Id.
78
removed or after the expiration of a
period of five years from his service of
 Petition to Disqualify, supra note 72 at 11.
79
sentence, unless within the same
period he again becomes disqualified.
 Id. at 21.
80

Sec. 68. Disqualifications. - Any

 Id.
81 candidate who, in an action or protest
in which he is a party is declared by
 Id.
82 final decision of a competent court
guilty of, or found by the Commission
 Supra note I at 8.
83
of having (a) given money or other
material consideration to influence,
induce or corrupt the voters or public
 Id.
84
officials performing electoral functions;
(b) committed acts of terrorism to
 Contreras' petition is a petition for
85
enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in
cancellation of Grace Poe's COC under his election campaign an amount in
Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code excess of that allowed by this Code;
which states that: (d) solicited, received or made any
contribution prohibited under Sections
Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated
to or cancel a certificate of any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and
candidacy. - A verified petition seeking 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc,
to deny due course or to cancel a sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified
certificate of candidacy may be filed from continuing as a candidate, or if
by the person exclusively on the he has been elected, from holding the
ground that any material office. Any person who is a permanent
representation contained therein as resident of or an immigrant to a
required under Section 74 hereof is foreign country shall not be qualified to
false. The petition may be filed at any run for any elective office under this
time not later than twenty-five days Code, unless said person has waived
from the time of the filing of the his status as permanent resident or
certificate of candidacy and shall be immigrant of a foreign country in
decided, after due notice and hearing, accordance with the residence
not later than fifteen days before the requirement provided for in the
election. election laws.

 Petition for Cancellation of Grace Poe's

86
 COMELEC First Division Resolution, supra
90

COC dated 17 October 2015 filed by note 1 at 12.

Contreras in SPA No. 15-007 (DC), pp. 2-4.
 Id. at 10.
91

 Id. at 3; Petition for Certiorari, supra note l at

87

13.  Id.
92

 Id. at 3-4.
88
 Id. at 9.
93

 Id.
94
  Id.
95
majority, elect Philippine
citizenship.
 Id.
96

(5) Those who are naturalized

 Id.
97 in accordance with law.

 Id.
98 Section 2. Philippine citizenship may
be lost or reacquired in the manner
 Id.at 9-10.
99 provided by law.

100
 Id.at 10.  Article 163 to 182, Title VI of Executive
110

Order No. 209, otherwise known as The

Family Code of the Philippines, which took
101
 Id.
effect on 4 August 1988.
102
 Id.
 Statistics from the PSA or its predecessor
111

agencies are admissible evidence.

 The 11 December 2015 Resolution of the
103
See Herrera v. COMELEC, 376 Phil. 443 (I
COMELEC First Division was concurred in by 999) and Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, 593 Phil.
Commissioners Louie Tito F. Guia and Ma. 678 (2008). In the latter case, the Court even
Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon. Presiding took judicial notice of the figures.
Commissioner Christian Robert S. Lim issued
a Separate Dissenting Opinion.
 Transcipt of Stenographic Notes, 9 February
112

2016, p. 40.
104
 318 Phil. 329 (1995).
113
 Section 3 (y), Rule 131.
105
 595 Phil. 449 (2008).
114
 236 Phil. 307 (1987).
 Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, supra
106

note 104 at 396-397. 115

 Id. at314-315.
 Id. at 397-398; Fermin v. COMELEC, supra
107

 English translation of the Spanish original

116

note 105 at 471-472.

presented in the petitioner's pleadings before
the COMELEC and this Court. The
 In A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC, Resolution
108
COMELEC and private respondents have not
Approving The Proposed Rule on Adoption disputed the accuracy and correctness of the
(Domestic and Inter-Country), effective 22 translation.
August 2002, "foundling" is defined as "a
deserted or abandoned infant or child whose
 I Jose M. Aruego, The Framing of the
117

parents, guardian or relatives are unknown; or

Philippine Constitution 209 (1949).
a child committed to an orphanage or
charitable or similar institution with unknown
facts of birth and parentage and registered in
118
 TSN, 16 February 2016, pp. 20-21.
the Civil Register as a "foundling."
119
 117 Phil. 976 (1963).
109
 Article IV-Citizenship.
120
 Id. at 978-979.
Sec. I. The following are citizens of the
Philippines:  See Section 5 of the RA No. 8552:
121

"Location of Unknown Parent(s). - It shall be

(1) Those who are citizens of the duty of the Department or the child-caring
the Philippine Islands at the agency which has custody of the child to exert
time of the adoption of this all efforts to locate his/her unknown biological
Constitution, parent(s). If such efforts fail, the child shall be
registered as a foundling and subsequently be
the subject of legal proceedings where he/she
(2) Those born in the
shall be declared abandoned." (Underlining
Philippine Islands of foreign
supplied)
parents who, before the
adoption of this Constitution,
had been elected to public  See Exhibit "l" in SPA No. 15-001 (DC) and
122

office in the Philippine Islands. SPA No. 15-00 (DC).

(3) Those whose fathers are  See Exhibit "2" in SPA No. 15-001 (DC) and
123

citizens of the Philippines. SPA No. 15-00 (DC).

(4) Those whose mothers are  Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, 621 Phil. 536, 600
124

citizens of the Philippines and, (2009) citing Pharmaceutical and Health Care

upon reaching the age of Assoc. of the Philippines v. Duque III, 561
Phil. 386, 398 (2007).
  Article 38.1, paragraphs (b) and (c) of the
125
 Fernandez v. House of Representatives
152

Statute of the International Court of Justice. Electoral Tribunal, 623 Phil. 628, 660 (2009)
citing Japzon v. COMELEC, 596 Phil. 354,
 Mijares v. Ranada, 495 Phil. 372, 395
126 370-372 (2009) further citing Papandayan, Jr.
(2005). v. COMELEC, 430 Phil. 754, 768-770 (2002)
further further citing Romualdez v. RTC,
 Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assoc. of
127 Br. 7, Tacloban City, G.R. No. 104960, 14
the Philippines v. Duque III, 561 Phil. 386, September 1993, 226 SCRA408, 415.
400 (2007).
 Domino v. COMELEC, 369 Phil. 798, 819
153

 International School Alliance of Educators v.

128 (1999).
Quisumbing, 388 Phil. 661, 672-673 (2000).
154
 TSN, 16 February 2016, p. 120.
129
 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 1.
155
 434 Phil. 861 (2002).
 Rep. of the Philippines v.
130

Sandiganbayan, 454 Phil. 504, 545 (2003). 156

 596 Phil. 354 (2009).

131
 "Everyone has the right to a nationality." 157
 G.R. No. 209835, 22 September 2015.

 See Introductory Note to the United Nations

132  G.R. No. 207264, 25 June 2013, 699 SCRA
158

Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 522.

issued by the United Nations High
Commissioner on Refugees. 159
 Supra note 155.

133
 Supra note 124. 160
 Supra note 156.

134
 Supra note 126. 161
 Supra note 157.

135
 Id. at 392; See footnote No. 55 of said case. 162
 Supra note 158.

 Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assoc. of

136
 Republic Act No. 6768 (1989), as amended,
163

the Philippines v. Duque III, supra note 127. Sec. 2(a).

137
 See Exhibits 38 and 39-series.  Republic Act No. 6768 (1989), as amended,
164

Sec. I.
 Opening Statement of the Solicitor General,
138

p. 6.  Republic Act No. 6768 (1989), as amended,

165

Sec. 6.
 First Division resolution dated 11 December
139

2015, upheld in toto by the COMELEC En 166

 Supra note 155.
Banc.
167
 Supra note 104 at 326. (Emphasis supplied)
140
 409 Phil. 633, 649 (2001).
 Ugdoracion, Jr. v. COMELEC, 575 Phil.
168

141
 692 Phil. 407, 420 (2012). 253, 265-266 (2008).

142
 551 Phil. 368, 381 (2007).  In Mitra v. COMELEC, et al., [636 Phil. 753
169

(2010)], It was ruled that the residence

143
 53 I Phil. 407, 417 (2006). requirement can be complied with through an
incremental process including acquisition of
144
 Supra note 142. business interest in the pertinent place and
lease of feedmill building as residence.
145
 Supra note 140 at 646.
 COMELEC Resolution dated 11
170

December2015 in SPA No. 15-002 (DC), pp.

146
 Id. at 651.
4-5.
147
 G.R. No. 217126-27, 10 November 2015.

148
 Id.

 Implementing Rules and Regulations of

149

Republic Act No. 8552, Art. VI, Sec. 33.

150
 Republic Act No. 8552 (1998), Sec. 14.

151
 Republic Act No. 8552 (1998), Sec. 15.