MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES v. COMELEC, GR No.

221697, 2016-03-08
Facts:
Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares (petitioner) was found abandoned as a newborn infant in the
Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo by a certain Edgardo Militar (Edgardo) on 3 September 1968. Parental care and
custody over petitioner was passed on by Edgardo to his relatives, Emiliano Militar (Emiliano) and his wife
In her Foundling Certificate and Certificate of Live Birth, the petitioner was given the name "Mary Grace
Natividad Contreras Militar."
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.
Having reached the age of eighteen (18) years in 1986, petitioner registered as a voter with the local
COMELEC Office in San Juan City. On 13 December 1986, she received her COMELEC Voter's
Identification Card
On 4 April 1988, petitioner applied for and was issued Philippine Passport No. F927287[6] by the Department
of Foreign Affairs (DFA). Subsequently, on 5 April 1993 and 19 May 1998, she renewed her Philippine
passport and respectively secured Philippine Passport Nos. L881511 and DD156616... petitioner married
Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares (Llamanzares), a citizen of both the Philippines and the U.S., at
Sanctuario de San Jose Parish in San Juan City.[10] Desirous of being with her husband who was then based
in the U.S., the couple flew back to the U.S. two days after the wedding ceremony or on 29 July 1991
In her earnest desire to be with her grieving mother, the petitioner and her husband decided to move and
reside permanently in the Philippines sometime in the first quarter of 2005.[19] The couple began preparing
for their resettlement including notification of their children's schools that they will be transferring to
Philippine schools for the next semester;[20] coordination with property movers for the relocation of their
household goods, furniture and cars from the U.S. to the Philippines;... petitioner came home to the
Philippines on 24 May 2005[24] and without delay, secured a Tax Identification Number from the Bureau of
Internal Revenue
On 7 July 2006, petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003.
nder the same Act, she filed with the Bureau of Immigration (BI) a sworn petition to reacquire Philippine
citizenship together with petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her three minor children on 10 July
2006.
the BI acted favorably on petitioner's petitions and declared that she is deemed to have reacquired her
Philippine citizenship while her children are considered as citizens of the Philippines... efore assuming her
post, petitioner executed an "Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States of America and
Renunciation of American Citizenship" before a notary public in Pasig City on 20 October 2010
On 12 July 2011, the petitioner executed before the Vice Consul of the U.S. Embassy in Manila an
"Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of the United States.
On 2 October 2012, the petitioner filed with the COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Senator
for the 2013 Elections wherein she answered "6 years and 6 months" to the question "Period of residence in
the Philippines before May 13, 2013."[53] Petitioner obtained the highest number of votes and was
proclaimed Senator on 16 May 2013.
On 15 October 2015, petitioner filed her COC for the Presidency for the May 2016 Elections.[56] In her COC,
the petitioner declared that she is a natural-born citizen and that her residence in the Philippines up to the
day before 9 May 2016 would be ten (10) years and eleven (11) months counted from 24 May 2005
Elamparo argued that petitioner cannot be considered as a natural-born Filipino on account of the fact that
she was a foundling.[62] Elamparo claimed that international law does not confer natural born status and
Filipino citizenship on foundlings
Tatad theorized that since the Philippines adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis, persons of unknown
parentage, particularly foundlings, cannot be considered natural-born Filipino citizens since blood
relationship is determinative of natural-born status.[
Issues:
whether or not the COC of petitioner should be denied due course or cancelled "on the exclusive ground"
that she made in the certificate a false material representation.
Can the COMELEC be such judge?
Ruling:
Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of petitioner's parents are the fact that she was abandoned as
an infant in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo City. She also has typical Filipino features: height, flat nasal
bridge, straight black hair, almond shaped eyes and an oval face.
All of the foregoing evidence, that a person with typical Filipino features is abandoned in Catholic Church in
a municipality where the population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be
more than a 99% chance that a child born in the province would be a Filipino, would indicate more than
ample probability if not statistical certainty, that petitioner's parents are Filipinos.
To deny full Filipino citizenship to all foundlings and render them stateless just because there may be a
theoretical chance that one among the thousands of these foundlings might be the child of not just one, but
two, foreigners is downright discriminatory, irrational, and unjust. It just doesn't make any sense. Given the
statistical certainty 99.9% - that any child born in the Philippines would be a natural born citizen, a decision
denying foundlings such status is effectively a denial of their birthright.
As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens. While the 1935 Constitution's
enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language which would definitely exclude
foundlings either
That the Philippines is not a party to the 1930 Hague Convention nor to the 1961 Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness does not mean that their principles are not binding. While the Philippines is not a
party to the 1930 Hague Convention, it is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article
15(1) of which[131] effectively affirms Article 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention. Article 2 of the 1961
"United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness" merely "gives effect" to Article 15(1) of the
UDHR.
In sum, all of the international law conventions and instruments on the matter of nationality of foundlings
were designed to address the plight of a defenseless class which suffers from a misfortune not of their own
making. We cannot be restrictive as to their application if we are a country which calls itself civilized and a
member of the community of nations.
It was grave abuse of discretion for the COMELEC to treat the 2012COC as a binding and conclusive
admission against petitioner.
The COMELEC, by its own admission, disregarded the evidence that petitioner actually and physically
returned here on 24 May 2005 not because it was false, but only because COMELEC took the position that
domicile could be established only from petitioner's repatriation under R.A. No. 9225 in July 2006. However,
it does not take away the fact that in reality, petitioner had returned from the U.S. and was here to stay
permanently, on 24 May 2005. When she claimed to have been a resident for ten (10) years and eleven (11)
months, she could do so in good faith.
In sum, the COMELEC, with the same posture of infallibilism, virtually ignored a good number of
evidenced dates all of which can evince animus manendi to the Philippines and animus non revertedi to the
United States of America. The veracity of the events of coming and staying home was as much as dismissed
as inconsequential, the focus having been fixed at the petitioner's "sworn declaration in her COC for
Senator" which the COMELEC said "amounts to a declaration and therefore an admission that her residence
in the Philippines only commence sometime in November 2006"; such that "based on this declaration,
[petitioner] fails to meet the residency requirement for President." This conclusion, as already shown,
ignores the standing jurisprudence that it is the fact of residence, not the statement of the person that
determines residence for purposes of compliance with the constitutional requirement of residency for
election as President. It ignores the easily researched matter that cases on questions of residency have been
decided favorably for the candidate on the basis of facts of residence far less in number, weight and
substance than that presented by petitioner.[169] It ignores, above all else, what we consider as a primary
reason why petitioner cannot be bound by her declaration in her COC for Senator which declaration was not
even considered by the SET as an issue against her eligibility for Senator. When petitioner made the
declaration in her COC for Senator that she has been a resident for a period of six (6) years and six (6)
months counted up to the 13 May 2013 Elections, she naturally had as reference the residency requirements
for election as Senator which was satisfied by her declared years of residence. It was uncontested during the
oral arguments before us that at the time the declaration for Senator was made, petitioner did not have as yet
any intention to vie for the Presidency in 2016 and that the general public was never made aware by
petitioner, by word or action, that she would run for President in 2016. Presidential candidacy has a
length-of-residence different from that of a senatorial candidacy. There are facts of residence other than that
which was mentioned in the COC for Senator.
In light of all these, it was arbitrary for the COMELEC to satisfy its intention to let the case fall under the
exclusive ground of false representation, to consider no other date than that mentioned by petitioner in her
COC for Senator.
All put together, in the matter of the citizenship and residence of petitioner for her candidacy as President of
the Republic, the questioned Resolutions of the COMELEC in Division and En Banc are, one and all, deadly
diseased with grave abuse of discretion from root to fruits.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED
[T]he Certificate of Candidacy for President of the Republic of the Philippines in the May 9, 2016 National
and Local Elections filed by respondent Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-Llamanzares is hereby
GRANTED.
Petitioner MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD SONORA POE-LLAMANZARES is DECLARED QUALIFIED
to be a candidate for President in the National and Local Elections of 9 May 2016.
Principles:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
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 who commits any act declared by law to be grounds
for disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a candidate.
It is noteworthy that the Constitution withholds from the COMELEC even the power to decide cases
involving the right to vote, which essentially involves an inquiry into qualifications based on age, residence
and citizenship of voters.
Disqualification" proceedings, as already stated, are based on grounds specified in §12 and §68 of the
Omnibus Election Code and in §40 of the Local 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, their
purpose is to eliminate a candidate from the race either from the start or during its progress.
"Ineligibility," on the other hand, refers to the lack of the qualifications prescribed in the Constitution or the
statutes for holding public office and the purpose of the proceedings for declaration of ineligibility is to
remove the incumbent from office.
First is the fact that unless a candidate wins and is proclaimed elected, there is no necessity for determining
his eligibility for the office. In contrast, whether an individual should be disqualified as a candidate for acts
constituting election offenses (e.g., vote buying, over spending, commission of prohibited acts) is a
prejudicial question which should be determined lest he wins because of the very acts for which his
disqualification is being sought.
Second is the fact that the determination of a candidates' eligibility, e.g., his citizenship or, as in this case,
his domicile, may take a long time to make, extending beyond the beginning of the term of the office.
where the determination of Aquino s residence was still pending in the COMELEC even 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 receipt of certificates of candidacy a ministerial duty of the COMELEC and
its officers.
The law is satisfied if candidates state in their certificates of candidacy that they are eligible for the position
which they seek to fill, leaving the determination of their qualifications to be made after the election and
only in the event they are elected. Only in cases involving charges of false representations made in
certificates of candidacy is the COMELEC given jurisdiction.
Third is the policy underlying the prohibition against pre proclamation cases in elections for President, Vice
President, Senators and members of the House of Representatives. (R.A. No. 7166, § 15) The purpose is to
preserve the prerogatives of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and the other Tribunals as "sole
judges" under the Constitution of the election, returns and qualifications of members of Congress of the
President and Vice President, as the case may be.