-

~~-~~P~~~~z c~J!~}~~~"c

:r~r :~;~.~,r\.r~n

n- ..

.. ~ t

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

- -.

...,,_ .....-... ....

.....

'"Jq ~ !' r:'"~-f') '1 J

L ,.1 ; J I - ~ ' - c....

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

EN BANC

MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD

S. POE-LLAMANZARES,
Petitioner.
G.R. No. 221698-700
- versus -

COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO
S. TATAD, ANTONIO P.
CONTRERAS and AMADO
D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.

221roqt

~----------------------------------------------------------------------------~

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

AMADO D. VALDEZ

Private respondent AMADO D. VALDEZ, by himself and

assisted by counsel, unto the Honorable Supreme Court most
respectfully states:

PROLOGUE
"No person may be elected President unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered
voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of
age on the day of the election, and a resident of the
Philippines for at least ten years immediately
preceding such election."
-

People of the Republic of the Philippines,

1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 2
Page I of39

....., .......,,~~...,~

D~:,~
' I .,

'

-...
r_ ... ~

q .. v I

Guided by the spirit and letter of the Constitution,

applicable laws and jurisprudence, and in the light of principles
shaped by technical experience, logic, common sense vis-a-vis the
partisan and self-serving point of vie\\' of the PE'fITIONER, the
Honorable Public Respondent COMMISSION ()N ELECTIONS
(""COMELEC") acted with fairness. justice and sense of duty,
according to the urgency of the circumstances, when it issued a
resolution cancelling the said Certificate of Candidacy of
PETITIONER because of false entries about her citizenship and
residency.
I.

'-

Specifically, the COMELEC held that PETITIONER as

a foundling is not a Filipino citizen from birth as defined by Article
IV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Unless she could prove by
admissible evidence that she is a Filipino, her status as a foundling
is the ultimate truth which the Rules of Evidence would al low.
2.

As foundling, the 1961 UN Convention on the

Reduction of Statelessness, with the major objective to remedy the
situation of children born without acquiring any nationality,
presumed her to have the nationality of the state where she is
found.
3.

Such presumed nationality being a concept of

membership in a nation or sovereign state under international law
is different from citizenship which is a narrower concept that
defines the status of those nationals who have full political
privileges. (p. 553, The New Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. 8, 15
edition)
4.

Even assuming arguendo that she was a natural-born

Filipino citizen, she renounced and abjured her Fi Iipino citizenship
in 2001. While she regained her Filipino citizenship, but not her
natural-born status in 2006. she remained a US citizen under
Republic Act No. 9225, or the Dual Citizenship Law of 2003,
maintaining dual allegiance, which is inimical to national interest
under Sec. 5, Article IV of the same Constitution.
5.

'-

'-

Page 2 of39

'~---------

--

Citizenship, the main integral clement of which is

allegiance, must not be taken Iightly. Dual allegiance must be
discouraged and prevented. It \\as held in Laurel vs. Afis(i, that a
citizen owes, not a qualified or temporary, but an absolute and
permanent allegiance which consists in the obligation of fidelity
and obedience to his government or sovereign. Under this judicial
standard, she was not a true citizen when she renounced her
citizenship in 2001, and when ~he reacquired it under R.A. 9225,
she was both a US and Filipino citizen from 2006 to 20 l 0.
6.

It is understandable for Congress to deliberately state in

Section 3 of R.A. 9225, for those who had alreadv_, lost their
citizenship before the etfectivity of the law, that they be '"deemed
to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship". In the deliberations of
Congress of R.A. 9225, particularly the bicameral discussions, we
heard them adopt the word '"'deemed" in the context of Burca v.
3
Republic to underscore a specific act to reacquire citizenship, and
under Section 5, pars. 2 and 3 thereof, a specific act of
renunciation of foreign citizenship was required to allow a dual
citizen to be elected or appointed to public office.~
7.

Just to be sure that there is no doubt on the

understanding of the constitutional definition of a natural-born
citizen, we refer to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It defines
"acquire" as, "to get (something); to come to own (son1ething); to
come to have (something); to gain (a new skill, ability, etc. usually
by own effort". On the other hand '""perfect" is therein defined as,
"make (something) completely free from faults or defects, or as
close to such a condition as possible.''
8.

Since PETITIONER had to perform a specific act to

reacquire her citizenship in 2006 under R.A. 9225, by filing a
petition for reacquisition \vith the Bureau of Immigration and
executing an oath of allegiance to the Philippines upon approval,
and further, performed an act to "perfect it" by executing an oath
of renunciation of her US citizenship to be elected or appointed for
9.

1
2

Pindangan ,\grictiltural

Im \' 'ichcnkcl. X; 1'111! ;~,,

77 Phil. 85<1

3
"'

C11.

i/[R!/ ."1J

Pp4 & 6 rranscnpt of Bicameral ( unlcr.:ncc

<111

lllH"211 "-\fl 2'10 dated !X \ugusi. 20IH

Page 3 of 39

public office. She is clearly not a natural-born citizen under

Section 3, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution.

In 1991. she left the Philippines and established her

domicile in the United States. When she acquired US citizenship in
2001, there was no doubt that her domicile of choice is the United
States. After R.A. 9225 took effect in 2003, after three (3) years, or
in 2006, she re-acquired her Filipino citizenship without
renouncing her US citizenship. Betvveen 2006 and 20 I 0, she was a
dual citizen with dual allegiance a condition that is considered
inin1ical to national interest. The rule is a person must only have
one domicile. Since she was both a Filipino citizen and US citizen
from 2006 and 2010, which is her domicile, the Philippines or the
United States?
10.

'-

She indicated in her Certificate of Candidacv

., for
President that she would have been a resident of the Philippines for
ten (10) years on 16 May 2016. Based on the facts subn1itted and
brought within the cognizance of the COMELEC, the issue is
whether PETITIONER 's entries in her Certificate of Candidacy
that she is a natural-born citizen and had complied with the tenyear residency requirement under Sec. 2 Article VII of the
Constitution is false. By applying the Constitution and
jurisprudence, the COMELEC found that she is not a natural-born
citizen and that she failed to comply with the TEN-year residency
requirement.
11.

In making
the decision of whether there was an abuse
'of discretion or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
COMELEC, Justice Marvic Leonen laid open his mind during the
oral arguments some moral and philosophical questions in
resolving PETITIONER 's citizenship and residency.
12.

Firstly, he revealed his judicial code, which is giving

everyone his due, in accordance with law. He wants to interpret the
law so that justice is done. He said that he will decide on the basis
of what is legal and hopes that the outcome is just. But, he is
disturbed by the fact that if the law imposes on the PETITIONER
the burden to look for her parents, then there can never be any
13.

Page 4 of 39

foundling that can become President. What would happen, he asks,

in terms ofjustness'?
In an article entitled Justice and Lavi'", Prof. Dr. Emil
Bruner , said that there are two ideas to be considered in the
dispensation of justice - the idea of law and idea of equality. To
him, between the two, lavv is more fundamental. Before we know
what is due to each man, we look into the law if something is due
to him. The law pre-ordains \Vhat is due to him~ hence, justice is
inseparable from the laV\.
14.
6

That is why, fol lowing Dr. Bruner, it is axiomatic that

law must be made for al I, or none at al I. It cannot be made to fit to
an individual, however unique, she may be. Otherwise, it would
invalidate the very conception of the law, which by necessity is
applicable to all. According to Dr. Bruner, this is the standard
which enables a judge to say that a law is unjust. A judge n1ay
disregard the law to apply a higher justice. This then would be
based on divine love, which gives what is not, but can never be his
"due". The power given to judges is to apply the law to give what
is due to an individual.
15.

There was never injustice on PE.ITfIONER as a

foundling. Our country was never remiss in taking care of
foundlings. Pursuant to the 1961 U .N. Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness, with the major objective to remedy the
situation of children born without acquiring any nationality, the
Philippines extended to the PETITIONER Philippine citizenship.
As a presumed Filipino citizen and the Philippines being her
domestic or habitual domicile she \Vas allowed to have a home,
parental care and the protection of society and fan1ily through
adoption.
16.

PETITIONER and her adopted parents, by availing of

the adoption law, recognized her presumed nationality and cannot
now reject it without a changed circumstance, like her natural
parents revealing then1selves or by evidence to prove that she is
indeed a natural-born Filipino citizen. This is not a burden in1posed
17.

5
6

Justice and the S1><:ial Order fl (>ndPn llJ-f'I pp ..'hcX

l'roksS<ll or I heolog). fkctor I Jlll\Cf.'ll\ of /.und1 \11 n1crla11d

Page 5 of 39

by law and consequently her status as a foundling will not place

Justice Leonen to commit injustice.

The status of the PETITIONER as not being a naturalborn citizen is not willful and designed for injustice. It is not just a
personal accident of life but above all the result of a historical
development resulting in a constitutional government that al locates
the privileges of citizenship. It begun with the natural theory of
Thomas Aquinas who believed that the government of one man is
more useful than a government of many, to John Locke who
believed in the reverse, and to Thomas Jefferson, who expanded
the concept of social contract with the allocation of government
power under a Constitution.
18.

The Philippines as an heir to the legacy of western

democratic thought, adopted a Constitution through the wi 11 of the
sovereign Filipino people. In there is Article IV that defined and
enumerated natural-born Filipino citizens and those who are
naturalized. There is no denial here of the right to equal protection
since in Chan Teck Lao v. Repuhlh a naturalized citizen is
entitled to similar treatment as a native born except where the
charter itself provides otherwise. 8 In another case it was held that
citizenship acquired through naturalization is not second class
9
citizenship.
19.

Yet, where there is still a lingering doubt that the

PETITIONER may be a natural-born citizen, former Senator
Ambrosio Padilla, the author of the Comn1entary on the Ci vi I
Code, suggested she may file a petition for naturalization with an
10
alternative prayer that she be declared a Filipino citizen.
But
definitely, it will take a constitutional amendment to resolve her
problem about her natural-born status at this critical point. Surely,
this is not a judicial issue on the shoulders of our Honorable
magistrates.
20.

55 SUV\ L 6. 1974

l.i Seng Ciiap ' Director of I.and,. a:, cncd ll\ ' , , \ h1<lttY , I wmlcrn1 . x; i'liil 2..)3
Phil. 257
9
Rcpubltc 1 s. Cokeng. 23 SCk>\ 5'll. ' 7 8 (I '!631 mid "I \(J(\ hliX 1I 1171.1 1
10
Vol. I. Civil L<m pf the l'h11ippinc,. 2(Jl) \:<>I I

1I<)..jl)1

and r "Cheong ' Ma'"r nf \lantla. X3

Page 6 of 39

Recognizing the foundling status of the PETITIONE:R,

allowing her to have a presumed citizenship which she recognized
by her adoption, the home, parenta1 care, the protection of f-amily
and society she was blessed to receive because of her adoption are
substantial and undeniable proof that the law has been fair and just
to her all her life.
21.

On the other hand, PE"TTflONER resided in the US as

her domicile for about NINE'rEEN ( 19) years since l 991, then
renounced and abjured the Filipino citizenship extended to her in
2001, and nurtured double allegiance from 2006 to 2010. She only
ceased to be inimical to national interest when she renounced her
US citizenship in 2010 for the purpose of accepting an
appointment as Chairman of MTRCB.
22.

PETITIONER was not given a raw deal at the

COMELEC. She was given opportunity to be heard before an
impartial body, which is characterized by liberality in the
submission of evidence and oral presentations. In said proceedings,
the Honorable Public Respondent Cf)MELEC did not receive
proof that would support a reasonable conclusion to deem
PETITIONER as the child of Filipino parents. The Honorable
Public
Respondent
COMELEC
likewise
culled . from
PETITIONER's own docun1ents that she renounced and
abjured her presumed Filipino citizenship and took an oath of
complete allegiance to the United States of America in 200 I under
the following Oath of Allegiance, to wit:
23.

'-

''/hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and

entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and
fidelity to any foreign prince. potentate. state, or
sovereignty, of whom or which I have hereto(ore been
a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America
against all enemies. frJreign and domestic: that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that 1 vvi/1
bear arms on heha(l qf the United States where
required b.v the laiL that I H>ill pe1iiJrm noncombatant
service in the Armed Forces (~l the United States H'hen
required h_v la1v: that I vrill perfiJrm work ql national
importance under civilian direction H'hen required h_v
Page 7 of 39

law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any

mental reservation or purpose of evasion,- so help me
God. " (Emphasis by the undersigned.)

Notwithstanding PETrrIONER 's admission that she

kept her U.S. citizenship unti I 20 l 0, the Honorable Public
Respondent COMELEC, in the spirit of liberality, decided in the
Resolution dated 1 I December 2015 of the Honorable COMELEC
First Division 11 that the earliest that PETI'rION ER could be
considered to have changed her domicile to the Philippines was on
July 10, 2006.
24.

COMELEC's decision
denying or cancelling
PETITlONER's Certificate of Candidacy is anchored on solid
grounds. It is false for her to state that she is a natural-born citizen
in the light of the Constitution and R.A. 9225 which did not restore
to her a natural-born status as Fi Iipin.o citizen, even assuming that
she could prove the san1e now and in the future. Clearly, the
earliest date that she could be considered domiciled in the
Philippines, when the important element of animus non revertendi
exists is July 2006 by virtue of the llonorable Court's decisions,
13
singly or as collectively, in the cases of COOUILLA 12 JAPZON .
CABALLER0 1.1 and JALOSJOS 15 .
25.

In a broader landscape, the RESOLlJT'ION is not about

PETITlONER's qualifications only. It has strategic and long-term
significance. It will be recalled that the late Honorable Blas Opie
during the 1986 Constitutional Commission warned about the
threat to the Philippines by those having dual allegiance. His fears
went into the text of the 1987 Constitution with a provision that
dual allegiance is inimical to national _interest. It \Vas prophetic as it
became now a looming reality with the enactment of R.A. 9225. A
careless application of R.A. 9225 conjures a scenario of a Filipino
citizen who renounces his status, becomes a Syrian citizen, joins
the ISIS, or, becomes a Chinese citizen, re-acquires natural-born
status, then elected President only to surrender the West Philippine
26.

11
..
1
'

13

11

5
'

RLSOI UTION.

(I H.

NP. 15191.\. \I Jul~ 20112

(i.R. No 180088. llJ .lanuan 20()l!

Ci.R. 20983'. 22 Scptc111her 201~
< i.R

No. llJl9711. 2.\ '\pril 2012

Page 8 of 39

Sea to a foreign power. rhis awesome judicial responsibility will

have serious and far-reaching implications for the present and
future generations.
There is sage reminder t!om this august court which
resonated in the game-changing doctrinal precedent of Maquiling
. . on Elect1ons
. 16 , vLZ:
.
vs. Comm1ss1on
27.

'The ballot cannot override the constitutional

and statutory requirements for qualifications and
disqualifications of candidates. When the law requires
certain qualifications to be possessed or that certain
disqual(fications he not possessed by persons desiring
to serve as elective public officials, those
qualifications must be met before one even becomes a
candidate. When a person lvho is not qual?lied is voted
for and eventually garners the highest numher qf'votes.
even the will qf the electorate c:xpressed through the
ha/lot cannot cure the defect in the qua!Uications qf'the
candidate. We might as well write off our election laws

if the voice of the electorate is the sole determinant of

who should be proclaimed worthy to occupy elective
positions in our republic. .. (Emphasis by the
undersigned.)
The Honorable Supreme Court, as the conscience of the
sovereign people and clothed with authority given by them rightly
17
admonished in Talaga vs. Commission on Elections citing
Miranda vs. Abaya 18 that "the importance of a valid certificate
28.

rests at the very core of the electoral process. It cannot he taken

lightly, lest there he anarchy and chaos. Verily, this explains why
the law provides for ground.\' for the cancellation and denial <~f
due course to cert~ficates of candidacJ'. "
The Honorable Public Respondent COMELEC listened,
applied the law and jurisprudence based on their findings of facts.
The alternative of ignoring the Constitution, the law, and
29.

16
11

18

(ii{

No. liJ564ll. 16 April 201.'

G.R. No. 196804. 09 October 2012

370 Phil. 642: J 11 SCRA 617: l <J<J<J

Page 9 of39

established judicial precedents would have serious consequences

as it would clearly involve: BETRAY AL OF PUBLIC TRUST.
II

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

Again we state the relevant facts admitted in the
pleadings and culled from the declarations made during the
clarificatory hearing on the matter on 25 November 2015 before
the members of the Honorable First Division of the Honorable
Public Respondent COMELEC, to wit:
30.

1) Stripped

of non-essentials, the relevant

narrative began on 03 September 1968, when
PETITIONER was allegedly found abandoned
in a church in Jaro, Iloilo City. This was
registered on 06 September 1968 in the Office
of the Civil Registrar of Iloilo City and her
Certificate of Live Birth showed that she was
given the name "Mary Grace Natividad
Contreras Militar," the last name referring to
her alleged "founder," Edgardo Militar.

2) By hindsight, PETITIONER's birth certificate

could have established for her the presumption

of a natural-born status, but she was also given
a foundling certificate which had the logical
consequence of dissociating her from any
blood relation to Edgardo Militar, a Filipino
citizen.
3) PETITIONER was not meant to be forever an

orphan for she was car'ed for from mansion to

mansion in Iloilo (though she was not in so
sorry a state) until she was adopted by Filipino
film actors Susan Roces (real name Jesusa
Sonora Poe) and Fernando Poe, Jr., (real name
Ronald Allan Kelley Poe) by the Order of the

Page 10 of39

Municipal Court of San Juan, Rizal on 13 May

1974. Her name was now "Mary Grace
Natividad Sonora Poe" and from then on she
would live a good life.
4) The affluence of her adoptive parents enabled

her to enroll in 1988 at the expensive Boston

College in the U.S.A. where she eventually
graduated with a degree of Bachelor of Arts in
Political Studies. On 27 July 1991, she married
Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares, a dual
citizen - Filipino and American - who was
then living in the U.S.A.
5) On 29 July 1991, PETITIONER established

her life in the U.S.A. while public service in

the Philippines was not in her mind and
apparently there were no economic and
political difficulties for her to avoid in the
Philippines. She and her husband were blessed
with three (3) children: Brian (born 1992),
Hanna (born 1998) and Nikka (born 2004).
6) On 18 October 2001, consistent with the family

decision to make the USA their home, like any

Filipino already rooted there, she acquired
U.S.A. citizenship through naturalization and
renounced her allegiance and fidelity to the
Republic of the Philippines by swearing before
God and before the Stars and Stripes flag of the
19
U.S.A. an Oath of Allegiance.
7) Without

renouncing
her
American
citizenship, PETITIONER reacquired her
Philippine citizenship , under R.A. 9225, by
taking the prescribed Oath of Allegiance to the

19

Herein Par.4, "I hereby declare. on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any
foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will
support and defend the Constitution and laws of the llnited States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic: that
I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States where required by the law:
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the llnited States when required by law: that I will perform work
of national importance under civilian direction when required Iv, lav.. and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion: so help me G()d ... (Emphasis by the undersigned.)

Page 11 of39

Republic of the Philippines on 07 July 2006.

For comparison with the Oath of Allegiance to
the U.S.A. cited above, PETITIONER's Oath
of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
reads as follows, to wit:

"/ .......... , solemnly swear that I

will
support and defend
the
Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines and obey the laws and
legal orders promulgated by the duly
constituted
authorities
of
the
Philippines; and I hereby declare that
I recognize and accept the supreme
authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance
thereto; and that I imposed this
obligation upon myse(f voluntarily
without mental reservation or purpose
.
,,20
o1,{' evaszon.

20

8)

PETITIONER filed on 10 July 2006 the

requisite petition for reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225, in
accordance with Administrative Order No.
91, Series of 2004 of the Bureau of
Immigration (''BI"). She also filed derivative
citizenship petitions for her three (3)
children.

9)

Acting on her petition to reacqulfe

Philippine citizenship, the BI, through
Commissioner Alipio Fernandez, Jr., issued
an Order granting the reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship on 18 July 2006. The
BI also issued Identification Certificates or
"ICs" for PETITIONER and her three (3)
children on 31 July 2006. The relevant parts
of the Order read, to wit:

Note the lack of renunciation of any foreign sovereign.

Page 12 of39

careful review of the

documents submitted in support of the
instant petition indicate that the
PETITIONER was a former citizen of
the Republic of the Philippines being
born to Filipino parents and is
presumed to be a natural born
Philippine citizen; thereafter, became
an American citizen and is now a
holder of an American passport; was
issued an ACR and JCR and has
taken her oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines on July 7,
2006 and so is thereby deemed to have
re-acquired
her
Philippine
Citizenship. "
"A

I 0)

PETITIONER took more than nineteen ( 19)

years from 1991 since she decided to start a
family in the U.S.A., then more than nine (9)
years since she renounced her Filipino
citizenship in 2001, and more than four (4)
years since she reacquired her Filipino
citizenship in 2006, when she finally
decided to renounce her U.S.A. citizenship
by executing an Affidavit of Renunciation of
Allegiance to the United States of America
and Renunciation of American Citizenship
before a notary public on 20 October 20 I 0.
The next day or on 21 October 2010,
PETITIONER submitted to the BI the said
affidavit and subsequently took her Oath of
Office as Chairperson of the Movie and
Television Review and Classification Board.

11)

On 12 July 2011, PETITIONER executed

before the Vice Consul of the U.S.A.
Embassy in Manila an Oath/Affirmation and
categorically declared that she had resided
outside of the U.S.A. ''from 05 2005 to
present". In compliance with the rules of the
Page 13 of39

U.S.A., the U.S.A. Vice Consul to the

Philippines issued to PETITIONER a
Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the
United States on 09 December 2011, stating
that by
reason
of PETITIONER's
acceptance of the MTR CB appointment, she
had "expatriated herself' on 21 October
2010.

21

12)

Between 2006 when she reacquired

Philippine citizenship and 2010 when she
renounced
her
U.S.A.
citizenship,
PETITIONER was a dual citizen not
because of the circumstances of birth like in
Mercado vs. Manzano 21 , but because of her
renunciation and reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship. She also admitted that
between 2006 and 2010 she used her
U.S.A. passport in her trips, more than
once or five (5) times in that period, to
and from the Philippines and the U.S.A.
She also could have and can validly use her
U.S.A. passport until 09 December 2011, the
effective date when she was issued by the
U.S.A. Vice Consul to the Philippines the
said Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the
United States.

13)

When she filed her COC on 02 October

2012 as a senatorial candidate for the 13
May
2013
mid-term
elections,
PETITIONER unequivocally declared in
said COC that she had resided "six years and
6 months" prior to the 13 May 13 elections.
Otherwise stated, PETITIONER has been a
resident of the Philippines only from 13
November 2006.

G.R. No. 135083. 26 May 1999

Page 14 of39

14)

After garnering the highest number of votes

for Senator, PETITIONER was proclaimed
on 16 May 2013 as a Senator of the
Republic of the Philippines. In 2014,
PETITIONER indicated in her Statement of
Assets and Liabilities that she has two (2)
residential properties in the U.S.A., a fact
that she also confirmed during the
clarificatory hearing on 25 November 2015
as herein provided.

15)

Then, on 15 October 2015, PETITIONER

filed her COC for President of the
Philippines for the 09 May 2016 national
elections. In that COC, she indicated that
she would have been a resident of the
Philippines for ten ( 10) years and eleven
( 11) months before the date of the election,
or since June 2005. Clearly, this contradicts
her declaration in her COC for the senatorial
post in the 2013 elections in which she
stated under oath that she had been a
resident of the Philippines for six (6) years
and six (6) months or since 13 November
2006. Again, this will also contradict the
actual reckoning of her domicile in the
Philippines when she became solely a
Filipino citizen on 20 October 2010, the date
of her renunciation of U.S.A. citizenship.

16)

In light of the aforementioned factual

backdrop, the RESOLUTION of the
Honorable Public Respondent COMELEC
PETITIONER's
COC
for
cancelled
President in connection with the 09 May
2016 elections, hence the instant Petition.

Page 15 of39

III

ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION

The undersigned Respondent VALDEZ filed on time
with the COMELEC, the Petition to Deny Due Course to or
Cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of the PETITIONER
under the authority of Section 78 of the OEC which provides, to
wit:
31.

Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a

certificate of candidacy. - A ver(fied petition
seeking to deny due course or to cancel a
certificate of candidaly may be filed by the person
exclusively on the s;round that any material
representation contained therein as required
under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may
be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days
from the time of the filins; of the certificate of
candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice
and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the
election.
The cited provision is clear and unambiguous in stating
that the only ground to deny due course or to cancel a COC is that
the material representation in the COC as required under Section
78 of the same code is false. It did not require intent to make the
misrepresentation. In a special law like the Omnibus Election
Code, the intent is immaterial in the cancellation or denial of the
Certificate of Candidacy.
32.

Against the contention that even if the material

representation is false but there is no deceit, the COMELEC cannot
deny or cancel the Certificate of Candidacy is absurd and specious.
It amounts to saying that when a particular material is required in
red, a colour-blind person can insist to qualify his material as red
even if it is actually green. Definitely, he was not speaking falsely
nor did he intend to deceive.
33.

Page 16of39

Similarly, granting arguendo that PETITIONER did not

have the intent to falsify in claiming to be natural-born citizen and
that he has complied with the residency requirement, this will not
be an excuse not to deny or cancel her Certificate of Candidacy
because her material representation of her natural-born citizenship
and residency is false. It is false if the representation is not based
on the facts in the light of the constitution, the law, and
jurisprudence. The attendant "intent to deceive" only makes the
false material representation more flagrant and contemptible.
34.

The truth is that even as early as May 2015, when the

question on PETITIONER' s citizenship and residency for purposes
of the 2016 Presidential Elections started making the rounds of
news desks and coffee shops, PETITIONER was already put on
notice of her disqualifications to run for the presidency. It was
specifically pointed out in June 2015 by Rep. Toby Tiangco that
based on her COC in the 2013 senatorial elections her residency in
the Philippines would not amount to ten ( 10) years on the day of
the 2016 Presidential elections. It was also alleged that she is not a
natural-born citizen because of her status as a foundling. She
admitted then that she does not know who her real parents are, but
stated that she would present in the proper forum the documents
that would prove that she is qualified to run for the presidency.
35.

All the above are part of the dynamics imposed by the

sheer importance of these constitutional requirements for the
Presidency on every citizen who votes, on the COMELEC which
administers the election, and on the PETITIONER who is a
candidate for the position, every one of whom has the duty to
determine at the outset their due compliance. In that sense alone,
when she filed her Certificate of Candidacy she recognized the
impending scrutiny by the administrative process under Section 78
of the Omnibus Election Code to cancel or deny her COC on the
ground of material representation that will be found to be false.
36.

Verily, Talaga vs. Alcala22 , citing the case of Sinaca vs.

23
Mula , portrayed the nature of a COC as "xxx formal
manifestation to the whole world of the candidate's political creed
37.

22
23

G.R. No. 196804. October 9, 2012

G.R. No. 135691

Page 17 of 39

or lack of political creed. It is a statement of a person seeking to

run for a public office certifying that he announces his candidacy
for the office mentioned and that he is eligible for the office ... " In
24
Miranda vs. Abaya , the Honorable Supreme Court warned that it
cannot be taken lightly, lest there be anarchy and chaos."

Risos-Vidal vs. Commission on Elections25 is the latest

pronouncement of the Honorable Supreme Court on this issue, viz:
38.

"The pivotal consideration in a Section 78 petition

is material misrepresentation relating to
qualifications for elective public office. To
"misrepresent" is "to describe (someone or
something) in a false way especially in order to
deceive someone." It, therefore, connotes
malevolent intent or bad faith that impels one to
adulterate information. A Section 78 petition
thus, squarely applies to instances in which a
candidate is fully aware of a matter of fact that
disqualifies him or her but conceals or
otherwise falsely depicts that fact as to make it
appear that he or she is qualified. A petition for
disqualification, on the other hand, may apply in
cases where a disqualification exists but, because
of an attendant ambiguity (such as an unsettled
legal question), a candidate acts in good faith and
without any deliberate attempt to conceal or
mislead. (Italics supplied, emphasis by the
undersigned.)
Thus, COMELEC under the authority of Section 78 of
the Omnibus Election Code, did not act with abuse of discretion or
acted in excess of its discretion when it denied due course or
cancelled the COC of PETITIONER for the 2016 Presidential
Elections.
39.

Like the Fornier petition in Tecson v. Comelec 26 , when

the COMELEC treated the VALDEZ Petition under Section 78 of
40.

21

25

G.R. No. 13635L July 28, 1999

G.R. No. 206666. 21 January 2015

"G.R. No. 161434, March 3. 2004

Page 18 of 39

B.P. Blg. 881, or the Omnibus Election Code, the resolution

granting the Petition was correctly brought to this Honorable Court
for review under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. The procedural journey of the Petition from the COMELEC
to this Court, therefore, is unassailable in the light of Article IX
(C), Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:

.. Unless otherwise provided by this

Constitution or by law, any decision, order, ruling
of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved
party within thirty days from receipt of a copy
thereof"
IV
SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT VALDEZ' ARGUMENTS IN
HIS COMMENT TO THE PETITION
Allow us to respectfully summarize, reiterate, and adopt
as an integral part of our arguments, the significant points raised in
our COMMENT to the PETITION, since they have not been
rebutted or taken up in the oral arguments. They can be at least
presumed to be valid until the Honorable Justices say otherwise.
41.

ON THE ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP

Natural-born citizens are citizens of the Philippines

from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or
perfect their Philippine citizenship.
42.

As worded, there is no clear authority under R.A.

9225 to allow her to re-acquire natural-born status. Verbal legis
non est recedendum. There is no way to depart from the words
used in the law.
43.

Page 19 of39

Revisiting the deliberations on R.A. 9225, it can be

gleaned (rom the final text of RA. 9225 that Congress did not
agree to restore the status of being natural-born citizens who lost
their citizenship be{ore the enactment of the law. 27
44.

Fr. Bernas' account of the 1987 Constitution clearly

declared that: "If a natural-born Filipino citizen loses his
45.

citizenship by renunciation or by any other mode recognized by

law, would he still be considered natural-born if he subsequently
reacquires citizenship? It is submitted, that whether under the 1973
or 1987 ~rovision, such a person would not be a natural-born
Filipino." 8

The danger created by dual allegiance under R.A.

9225 militates against PETITIONER 's acquisition of naturalborn status. In the case of AASJS vs. Datumanong29 , the Court said
46.

that on its face RA 9225 does not recognize dual allegiance and
that the danger of dual allegiance still exists.

Same: Cordora 30 clearly validates the said viewpoint

with Justice Carpio's advice of putting R.A. 9225 under ''strict
process", or that it shall be rigidly enforced and strictly construed
on Filipino citizens with dual allegiance.
47.

Same; same:
Following the past treatment of
citizenship laws by this Honorable Court in Ly Hong vs. Republic31
and Republic vs. Hong32 , when confronted with the question
applying R.A. 9225, any doubt shall be resolved against the grant
of natural-born status against PETITIONER and those similarly
situated. 33
48.

The case ofBENGSON III is not a judicial precedent

to be the basis of PETITIONER's acquisition of a natural-born
status as Filipino citizen. {il In R.A. 2630 of BENGSON III, the
49.

"p. 9-13. Comment

'8

p. 17 Comment
" GR No. 160869. 11 May 2007

' Cordora vs. Commission on Elections. G.R. No. 176947. 19 Fd1-ruary 2009
"G.R. L-14630 [1966]
"485 SCRA 405 [2006]
,, p. 17-20 Comment

Page 20 of 39

returning citizen will just take his oath of allegiance with a

renunciation, while R.A. 9225, through Administrative Order No.
91, now Memorandum Circular No. MCL-08-006, an applicant for
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship must file a Petition, pay
Two Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (PHP2,500,00) as processing
fee, submit proof as natural-born citizen of the Philippines, like
Philippine Birth Certificate, Old Philippine passport, Voter's
affidavit or voter's identification card, marriage contract indicating
the Philippine citizenship of applicant, and such other document
that would show that the applicant is a former natural-born citizen
of the Philippines, etc.
50.

Same: {jj) Those who can reacquire Philippine

citizenship under R.A. 2630 were those who rendered service to or

accepted commission in the armed forces of a foreign country,
specifically the United States with who the Philippines has a
defense treaty. It would seem that these Filipinos cannot be faulted
and penalized for joining the U.S. Armed Forces with the consent
of the Philippine government to give effect to the Mutual Defense
Treaty with the United States.
51.

Same; same: (iii) Other statutes referred to in the

decision are for those who lost their citizenship due to: desertion of
34
the armed forces , service in the armed forces of the allied forces
in World War II 35 , marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien, and
due to political and economic necessity 36 . At the time of
BENGSON III, R.A. 9225 was still inexistent.
52.

Same, same; same: (iv) Unlike the abovementioned

repatriation laws that demanded both immediate oath of allegiance

and renunciation, R.A. 9225 allowed the PETITIONER to
reacquire her Filipino citizenship and remain an American citizen
at the same time; 6!l Whether it is the ratio or mere obiter, Justice
Kapunan stated in BENGSON Ill that: "The reason therefor is

clear: as to such persons, they would either be natural-born or

naturalized depending on the reasons for the loss of their

31
35

36

C.A. No. 63
R.A. NO. 965
R.A. No. 8171

Page 21 of 39

citizenship and the mode prescribed by the applicable law for the
. . . thereoJ.
.r,,37
reacquisition

PETITIONER added the words "(under R.A.

9225 " in a vain attem t to lace Parreno vs. Commission on
Audi , misquoted Tabasa vs. Court of Appeals . This
Honorable Court already clarified in Sobejana-Condon vs.
Comelec 40 that R.A. 9225 is an abbreviated repatriation process
that restores one's Filipino citizenship, omitting reference to the
delicate words "natural-born citizen". 41
53.

PETITIONER 's filing of a Petition to Re-acquire

Filipino citizenship under R.A. 9225 is a specific act inconsistent
with the definition of the Constitution of a natural-born citizen
under Sec. 2, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution.
54.

Same: The further requirement of renunciation shows

that her status, even after she reacquired her citizenship in 2006,
was yet incomplete for her to enter public office as it can only be
PERFECTED with the mandatory requirement of renunciation
42
(which she did in 2010) of her U.S. citizenship.
55.

Same; same: Merriam-Webster dictionary defines

"acquire" as, "to get (something) to come to own (something); to
come to have (something); to gain (a new skill, ability, etc. usually
by own effort". On the other hand, "perfect" is therein defined as,
"make (something) completely free from faults or defects, or as
43
close to such a condition as possible."
56.

B
ON THE ISSUE OF DOMICILE

31

p. 20-23 COMMENT

38

G.R. No. 162224. 07 June 2007 under RA 9225

19
G.R. No. 125795, 29 August 2006.
' G.R. No. 198742. IO August 2012
" p. 24 Comment
42

p. 26-27. COMMENT

"p. 38 Comment

Page 22 of 39

PETITIONER
committed
a
material
misrepresentation in her COC when she declared that she has
been a resident of the Philippines for at least ten (10) years and
eleven (11) months prior to 09 May 2016. In determining the
date to commence the reckoning of the ten-year period,
PETITIONER clearly avoided to consider 18 July 2006 when she
reacquired her Filipino citizenship, dismissed November 2006, the
date mentioned to start her residence in the Philippines in her COC
to run for the Senate in 2010, and June 2010 when she renounced
her US citizenship. Any of these dates would make her entry in her
Certificate of Candidacy for the Presidency that she complied with
the residency requirement for the 9 May 2016 election a false
. 1representation.
. 44
matena
57.

PETITIONER did not dispute that she declared in her

Certificate of Candidacy on 02 October 201245 that she had been
a resident of the Philippines for only 6 years and 6 months as of
13 May 2013. It is an admission made in a public document that
she actually re-established her residence in the Philippines only in
November 2006. She is bound by this statement made in
unguarded moments when the lure of the highest public office was
still a remote possibility. It is a statement under oath to ensure
truthfulness by the threat of criminal sanction. Being a welleducated and well-traveled person, no one can be persuaded that
there is an honest mistake or even carelessness on her part.
58.

Same: It is the principle of estoppel under Article 1431

of the New Civil Code and the rule of Conclusive Presumption
under Sec. 2 (a) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court that prevent her
from making a contrary assertion. 46
59.

Respondent COMELEC just followed settled

jurisprudence when it found that PETITIONER has not yet
abandoned her domicile in the USA when she travelled to that
place between 24 Mav 2005 and 07 July 2006. Applying Reyes vs.
COMELEC 's47 statement that "xxx a Filipino citizen who becomes
a naturalized elsewhere effectively abandons his domicile of
60.

" p. 39 Comment
15

2012COC

"' pp. 39. 40. 4 J Comment

"G.R. No. 207264. 22 October 2013

Page 23 of 39

origin," PETITIONER was still considered domiciled in the US

in July 2006 being still an American citizen until then.

Same: In REYES, even as she had presented proof of

the one-year residency requirement of the law, it said that she
"never regained her domicile in Marinduque as she remains to be
an American citizen. No amount of her stay in the said locality can
substitute the fact that she has not abandoned her domicile of
choice in the USA."
61.

Same; same: In CABALLERO, he claimed residency

even before he reacquired his citizenship by virtue of R.A. 9225 by
claiming that he had already established a physical presence in
Uyugan, Batanes. This Honorable Court speaking through Justice
Peralta said that, "it was only after reacquiring his Filipino
citizenship by virtue of RA 9225 on September 13, 2012 that
PETITIONER can rightfully claim that he re-established his
domicile in Uyugan, Batanes."
62.

Same; same; same: In CAASI v. COURT OF

APPEALS, this Honorable Court said that "Miguel's immigration
to the United States in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his
domicile and residence in the Philippines. For he did not go to the
United States merely to visit his children or his doctor there; he
entered the United States with the intention to live there
permanently as evidenced by his application for an immigrant's
(not a visitor's or tourist's) visa.
63.

Same; same; same; same: In PETITIONER's case,

using her US passport five (5) times from 2005-2010, negates her
intention to reside in the Philippines. Until that time the intent to
return to the US still lurks and animus non revertendi has not been
fully established within the scope of the doctrine reiterated in the
case ofM aqu11ing. 48
64.

Several
acts
of PETITIONER
established
overwhelming proof of material misrepresentation of her
residency or domicile in her certificate of candidacy (or President
65.

"'G.R. No. 195649. 02 July 2013; p. 41-45 Comment

Page 24 of 39

of the Philippines. These consist of her keeping her US citizenship

from 2006 to 20 I 0, the use of her US passport five times for four
years during that period, maintaining two (2) residential properties
in the US until the present time, her intention to pay federal and
state taxes in the US even after her renunciation, and her husband
remaining in the US for she reacquired her Filipino citizenship.

Same: Her situation is different from JALOSJOS 9

because in the determination of the latter's domicile, he was no
longer given the option to choose from two domiciles when he
abandoned his Australian domicile, while PETITIONER between
2006 and prior to her renunciation of US citizenship in 2010, she
had two (2) possible domiciles to choose from, the US and the
Philippines.
66.

Same; same: Jurisprudence chose US domicile for

PETITIONER pursuant to Maquiling 50 , which specifically held
that "[T]he use of foreign passport after renouncing one's foreign
citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of representation as to
one's nationality and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino
citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants the Oath of
Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective
position."
67.

Same; same; same: If PETITIONER's repeated use of

her US passport effectively revokes a renunciation of foreign
citizenship, even more in its effects of negating her intention to
establish her residence in the Philippines. Thus, she failed to
establish her animus non revertendi to her US domicile.
68.

Same; same; same; same: Going back to Reyes v.

Comelec, it is only upon her reacquisition of Filipino citizenship
on 18 July 2006, that she can be considered to have established her
domicile in the Philippines because no amount of her stay in the
Philippines as an American citizen, or as both American and
Filipino citizen, can translate to establishment of her domicile in
the Philippines. 51
69.

19

tj R. ,f.,, 191910, H llr,t ?01:?

tjR. ;11,, 195619, 0? J.ly ?013
51
pp. 45-53 Comment

50

Page 25 of 39

Allowing PETITIONER to disown her senatorial

COC is a dangerous precedent. Her own entries in her sworn COC
for the senatorial elections mathematically sums her residence in
the Philippines up to 13 May 2016 is EIGHT (8) years, ELEVEN
(11) months and TWENTY-FIVE (25) days which is still short of
the residency requirement.
70.

Same: To say that there is failure to understand the

residency requirement for the Senate would at best be too
convenient as there is not much difference with the language used
in the Constitution for the Senate and the Presidency.
71.

Same; same: PETITIONER's claim that her COC for

the Senate covers the time when her family allegedly wound up
their affairs in the U.S. until the day she submitted her COC was
rejected by the COMELEC that being a Boston College graduate
with a degree in Bachelor of Arts in Political Studies she know the
proper usage of the phrase "Period of Residence in the Philippines
before May 13, 2013.
72.

Same; same; same: Logic and ordinary experience

tells us that PETITIONER would conduct her own research on the
exact qualifications required for the elective position she is vying
prior to filling-up and submitting her COC under oath. In the
language of the Supreme Court, "a valid certificate of candidacy
rests at the very core of the electoral process. It cannot be taken
lightly, lest there be anarchy and chaos. 52
73.

There is no doubt that the Honorable COMELEC

performed its positive duty in weighing and considering with
impartiality, justice and independence the PETITIONER's
evidence as well as the arguments presented by both parties.
Wrongly applying Varias 53 , PETITIONER was unmindful of the
presence of arguments and counter-arguments presented and their
ample opportunity to rebut and present contrary arguments as
74.

" Miranda vs. Abaya, G.R. No. 136351, July 28. 1999
G.R. No. 189078. 30 March 2010

53

Page 26 of 39

shown in the long hours of clarificatory hearings conducted and

COMELEC's own consultations.

Same: The proceedings that actually transpired before

the Honorable Public Respondent COMELEC are more than what
was written about in the case of Flores vs. Montemayors 4 , citing
Solid Homes, Inc. vs. laserna.ss In fact, it is PETITIONER's own
admissions and evidence which ultimately guided the Honorable
COMELEC in it RESOLUTION.
75.

Same; same: In Mata/am v. COMELECs 6 , this

Honorable Court held, "It is axiomatic that factual findings of
administrative agencies which have acquired expertise in their field
are binding and conclusive on the Court. xxx Comelec is presumed
to be most competent in matters falling within its domain."
76.

Same;
same;
same:
Only
substantial,
not
preponderance, of evidence is necessary. Section 5, Rule 133 of
the Rules of Court provides that in cases filed before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to justify a conclusion. s7
77.

Residency, (or purposes of election laws, is not a

simple issue of fact but requires a determination of the law
applicable in the light of jurisprudence. In Romualdez v. RTC, Br.
7, Tacloban City, "In election cases, the Court treats domicile and
residence as synonymous terms xxx "domicile xxx imports not
only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
intention. xxx Residence thus acquired, however, may be lost by
adopting another choice of domicile. In order, in turn, to acquire a
new domicile by choice, there must xxx residence or bodily
presence in the new locality, xxx animus manendi coupled with
animus non revertendi. xxx"
78.

"G.R. 170146, 08 June 2011

55
56

57

G.R. No. 166051, 08 April 2008

G.R. No. 123230, April 18, 1997
pp. 55-59 Comment

Page 27 of 39

Same: The legal question is when is the reckoning date

of the prescribed residence or domicile for election purposes. To
answer the legal question, the COMELEC considered the
following undisputed, salient relevant facts: (i) She was born a
foundling and was not able to prove her citizenship; (ii) She
renounced her Philippine citizenship in 2001; (iii) She reacquired
her presumptive Philippine citizenship in 2006 under R.A. 9225;
(iv) between 2006 and 2010 when she renounced her American
citizenship, she was a dual citizen with dual allegiance; (v) From
2005 to the present she has real properties both in the Philippines
and the U.S.; (vi) She claims to start residing in the Philippines in
2005, enrolled her children here, but used her US passports to
travel five (5) times to the United States between 2006 and 2010;
(vii) based on her COC for the Senate she is short of the 10-year
residency requirement preceding the 13 May 2016 elections.
79.

Same; same: Then the COMELEC applied the

Honorable Supreme Court decisions in (i) COQUILLA, which held
that as regards residency, "xxx the number of years he claimed to
have resided or stayed in Oras, Eastern Samar since 1985 as an
American citizen and permanent resident of the U.S.A. before
November 10, 2000 when he reacquired his Philippine citizenship
by [repatriation] cannot be added to his actual residence thereat
after November 10, 2000 until May 14, 2001 to cure his deficiency
in days, months, and year to render him eligible to run for an
elective office in the Philippines. xxx";
80.

Same; same; same: (ii) Like Coquilla, JAPZON and

CABALLERO informed us that the right to count the period of
residency starts only from the renunciation of the foreign
citizenship, which shall be followed by proof of physical presence
and intention to remain;
81.

Same; same; same; same: (iii) In REYES vs.

Commission on Elections 58 , this Honorable Court held, that
"[T]here being no proof that [PETITIONER] had renounced her
American citizenship, it follows that she has not abandoned her
domicile in the USA. xxx For [PETIT IONER] has never regained
her domicile in Marinduque as she remains to be an American
82.

'"G.R. No. 207264, 25 June 2013

Page 28 of39

citizen. No amount of her stay in the said locality can substitute the
fact that she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the
USA."

Same; same; same; same; same: (iv) In JALOSJOS,

under the principle that every person must have a domicile, who
abandoned his Australian domicile, his domicile was reckoned
from the time of his return in Zamboanga on 22 November 2008,
and four (4) days after or on 26 November 2008 he took his oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and renouncing his
Australian citizenship. 59
83.

IV
FINAL ARGUMENTS ON R.A. 9225
While the language of the statute is clear and
unequivocal, it may be well to revisit the debate on R.A. 9225
during the process of legislation. There is that sense about the
legislators' effort to avoid the use of language that could have
brought the law to constitutional challenge. We eavesdrop on the
following exchanges during the deliberation in the House of
Representatives, viz:
84.

"On further queries of Rep. Javier, Rep. Libanan

affirmed that natural born Filipino citizens and who
have reacquired their Filipino citizenship under the Bill
be considered as natural-born citizens, and therefore
qualified to run for the presidency, the vice-presidency
or for a seat in Congress. He also agreed with the
observation of Rep. Javier that a natural-born citizen is
one who is a citizen of the country at the time of birth.
He also explained that the Bill will, in effect, return to a
Filipino citizen who has acquired foreign citizenship,
the status of being a natural-born citizen effective at the
time he lost his Filipino citizenship.

59

p. 59 to 64 Comment

Page 29 of39

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As rejoinder, Rep. Javier opined that doing so

would be discriminating against naturalized Filipino
citizens by election who are disqualified to run for
certain public offices. He then suggested that the Bill be
amended by not considering as natural-born citizens
those Filipinos who had renounced their Filipino
citizenship and acquired foreign citizenship. He said
that they should be considered as repatriated
. .
,,6()
cztzzens.
Representative Javier and Representative Libanan
continued in their verbal skirmish, to wit:
85.

"Rep. Javier said that he does not oppose the Bill

but only wants to be fair to other Filipino citizens who
are not considered natural-born. He reiterated that
natural-born Filipino citizens who had renounced their
citizenship by pledging allegiance to another
sovereignty should not be allowed to revert back to
their status of being natural-born citizens once they
decide to regain their Filipino citizenship. He
underscored that this will in a way allow such Filipino
to enjoy dual citizenship.
On whether the Sponsors will agree to an
amendment incorporating the position of Rep. Javier,
Rep Libanan stated that this will defeat the purpose of
the Bill.
Rep. Javier disagreed therewith, adding that
natural-born citizens who acquired foreign citizenships
and later decided to regain Filipino citizenship, will be
considered as repatriated citizens. "61
86.

After several exchanges it was decided that:

"On whether the Sponsors would agree to
not giving back the status of being natural-born

60
61

Sobejana-Condon vs. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 198742, 10 August 2012).

Id.

Page 30 of 39

citizens to natural-born Filipino citizens who

acquired foreign citizenship, Rep. Libanan
remarked that the Body in plenary session will
decz"de on the matter. ,,62

In fact, this concern of Representative Javier lingered

up to the Bicameral Conference Committee on the Disagreeing
Provision of House Bill No. 4720 and Senate Bill No. 2130 held on
August 18, 2003. The exchanges on the subject between Rep.
Javier and Chairman Drilon during the deliberations of the
bicameral committee were amply quoted in the case of David vs.
63
Agbay .
87.

Also, the interpretation of the word "repatriation" by

PETITIONER herein so as to mean re-acquisition of one's naturalbom citizenship is in contrast with the meaning of "repatriation" as
used by Rep. Javier in the afore-quoted interpellation between him
and Rep. Libanan as to mean that it will not allow the reacquisition of natural-born citizenship.
88.

The most devastating blow on PETITIONER's refuge

in R.A. 9225 is the emphatic, deliberate and significant use of the
word "deemed to have reacquired their Philippine citizenship upon
the effectivity of the Act." Quoted hereunder are pertinent
exchanges during the Bicameral Committee conference on 18
August 2003, as follows:
89.

CHAIRMAN DRILON: The title of the Senate

version is precisely retention and reacquisition. The
reacquisition will apply to those who lost their Philippine
citizenship by virtue of Commonwealth Act 63. Upon the
effectivity, assuming that we can agree on this, upon the
effectivity of this new measure amending Commonwealth
Act 63, the Filipinos who lost their citizenship are deemed to
have reacquired their Philippine citizenship upon the
effectivity of the Act.

62

63

Id.
G.R.No.199113, 18March2015

Page 31 of39

The second aspect is retention of Philippine

citizenship applying to future instances. So that's the
distinction.
REP. JAVIER: Well I'mjust asking that question
because we are here making distinctions between natural
born citizens. This is very important for government
positions, 'no', because natural born citizens are only
qualified for specific positions under the constitution.
xxxxxxxxxx
CHAIRMAN DRILON: xxxxxx Congressman
Javier, that is our concept. Conceptualization, ah, reacquired
for those who previously lost by virtue of Commonwealth
Act 63 and retention for those in the future. 64
On the further pages of the transcript are the following
self-explanatory exchanges on the use of the word ''deemed"
between Chairman Drilon and Rep. Locsin, viz:
90.

"REP. LOCSIN. Let's discuss that the first one is it's I

think pretty settled. I forgot which case it is, but the
word DEEMED, to be honest with you, already means
that they must make a positive act. So I'm just telling
out that this positive act should be an oath of allegiance.
CHAIRMAN DRILON: Can we have the exact
wording as proposed by Teddy?
xxxxxxxxxx
On the next pages 07-08 is the approved proposal of
Rep. Locsin, to wit: Section 3 would just read - "Any provision of
the law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural born citizens of the
Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to
have reacquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines."
91.

" p.4 Bicameral Conference Committee Meeting on House 13ill No 4 720 and Senate Bill No. 2310. 18 August 2003.

Page 32 of 39

As far as reacquisition is concerned, the non-restoration

of the natural-born status is settled. Even when they discussed
about the retention, there is the sense that the former citizens threw
away their citizenship upon being naturalized in a foreign country.
Let us hear them again:
92.

CHAIRMAN LIBANAN: I believe that. .. excuse me. I

believe that we should not require those for future ... ah, for
them to take the oath. Otherwise, we will be going back to
81 71. In this case we are repeating Commonwealth Act 63.
xxxxxxxxxx
REP. LOCSIN. What's wrong with this, what's wrong
with requiring it? One is retention. It's actually a fiction (?).
The minute you renounce your country as these people do,
they really threw it away. Now in giving them this law we
cannot retain. That's why we cannot say you can keep it. But
to be honest with this they'll all be acquiring it. So let them
take the oath, it's a harmless oath. Otherwise, betraying our
country is ... wala. But what message does that send,
accomplish nothing? 65
The importance of the oath as a positive act is
emphasized by Rep. Locsin, when talking with the Undersecretary
of Justice Ricardo Paras III, on 18 August 2003, viz:
93.

Rep. LOCSIN. Okay. That's the oath and you

make sure it's authentic. Because you know, you can
never tell with these characters, they' re coming with the
fake oath so ... in case they're afraid with the
consequences in the US.
CHAIRMAN DRILON. They can require that the
oath be authenticated by the embassy where they are.
That's their own rule.
MR. RICARDO PARAS III (Undersecretary,
Department of Justice). Canceling for those who

65

p.26 Bicameral Conference Committee Meeting on House Bill No. 4720 and Senate Bill No. 2310. 18 August 2003.

Page 33 of39

will ... took

their
oath
issuing ... (interrupted)

of

allegiance

and

REP. LOCSIN. Your obligation whenever you see

a Filipino with an American passport is to give him an
ACR. You give it to him, and he has to take it even if
he keeps saying, '"There is a law" I say, "I don't believe
in the law. You take it, until you show me your oath." If
he doesn't want to take ... show you an oath, you give it
to him. Throw it on his face, Okay. And don't be afraid.
xxxxxxx
MR. PARAS. Sir, just a matter of. .. Another thing
which they will have to satisfy themselves is the
fact that the person taking his oath was a naturalbom clitizen because yun ang limitation ng law.
CHAIRMAN DRILON. In other words, that
. h cert1.fiicate. 66
means a birt
Then, Rep. Locsin again reiterated the significance of
the word "deemed", which was settled in paragraph 3 of R.A. 9225
with respect to reacquisition. The following is his argument to
include the word "deemed" for retention, viz:
94.

REP. LOCSIN. Frank, Frank, just to make it more

consistent with ... I'm sorry, I just forgot the case that
was cited, but the word DEEMED really requires a
positive act. So, let this be spelled out. This is a positive
act and it's a harmless oath. So, we shall say - SHALL
BE DEEMED TO HA VE RETAINED THEIR
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP 67 .
To the mind of the Bicameral committee as expressed
by Rep. Locsin, was "xxx The courts have already decided the
word "deemed" means they must make a positive act. Let the
courts say that this positive act, that, you know, solidifies the
95.

'' p.69-71 Bicameral Conference Committee Meeting on House Bill No. 4720 and Senate Bill No. 23 I 0. 18 August 2003.
"p.27 Bicameral Conference Committee Meeting on House Bill No. 4720 and Senate Bill No. 2310. 18 August 2003.

Page 34 of39

deemed to have retained his registration in some kind of registry or

an oath, but spelled out would be better. " 68
Representative Locsin summed up the legislative intent
not to accord natural-born status to Filipinos re-acquiring
Philippine citizenship in this wise:
96.

REP. LOCSIN. Mr. Speaker, this is the elegant solution

to an attempt to resurrect dead Philippine citizenship by
operation of law. This was the original version of this
bill, as you well know, because you opposed it.
The original version of this bill contemplated that
upon the passage of this bill, all former natural-born
Filipinos who had abjured and renounced their
Philippine citizenship would nonetheless wake up one
day and find themselves Filipinos again without making
any positive act to reacquire. So that I found, and so did
the Speaker, the distinguished Gentleman as repulsive
to our sense of nationhood. And because of that, the
solution we found was, [at the very least,] and even
many Filipino-Americans agree that, at the very least, a
former Filipino citizen, owes it to his old country to
reaffirm his allegiance to that country by a simple oath.
And that oath taken from the Commonwealth Act is the
one incorporated in the law. " 69
Again, in the end Rep. Locsin anchored the
constitutionality of the law on the requirement of an oath as an act
to reacquire and perfect Philippine citizenship in exchange with
Representative Dilangalen during the session of the House of
Representative on August 26, 2003 to consider the Conference
Committee Report on S.B. No. 2130 and H.B. No. 4 720, which
was enacted into R.A, 9225, viz:
97.

Rep. Dilangalen: Yes, because the Constitution is

very clear.
xxxxxxx
'Consideration of Conference Committee Report on Senate Bill No. 2310 and House Hill No. 4 720. 26 August 2003
69

pp. 12-13 Consideration of Conference Committee Report on Senate Hill No. 2310 and House Hill No. 4720. 26 August 2003

Page 35 of39

Rep. Dilangalen: You will perform an act to

perfect his Philippine citizenship.
Rep. Locsin: Sure. Your guess is as good as mine
but the very Section 3 already says that those who
have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of
their naturalization are deemed to have reacquired
Philippine citizenship. By the way, "deemed" ..
Rep. Dilangalen: Upon. But there is a condition upon taking ...
Rep. Locsin: No. Actually, it is worse than that.
Actually you should be happy with this. I believe
that jurisprudence already has fixed that the word
"deemed" implies a positive act. 70

CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the inevitable conclusion is that
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMELEC did not commit grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing
its Resolution ordering the cancellation of Petitioner's Certificate
of Candidacy because she has committed a material representation
in her COC for President when she stated that she is a natural born
citizen and has met the residency requirement which are false.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed that the certificate of candidacy of PETITIONER MARY
GRACE SONORA POE LLAMANZARES be CANCELLED
and her Petition be DENIED DUE COURSE.
Other reliefs, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

10

P. 29 Consideration of Conference Committee Report on Senate Rill No. 2310 and House Bill No. 4720. 26 August 2003

Page 36 of39

-------------------------------------

---

------------

Makati City for City of Manila, 22 February 2016.

~ifc)fKrA~
Private Respondent
Assisted by:
VALDEZ LAW
Counsel for the
Respondent Amado D. Valdez
6A Vernida 1, 120 Amorsolo St.,
Legaspi Village, Makati City,
Philippines, 1229
Tel. No. (632) 801-1296
Fax No. (632) 752-1869

By:

MELQUIADES MARCUS N. VALDEZ II

Attorney's Roll No. 59407
PTR No. 5324512/01.04.16/Makati City
IBP No. 011738/Lifetime QC
MCLE No. IV-0010603/06.04.2012
Email: mmnv@valdezlawoffices.com

D~~YAGONCILLO

PTR. No. 53j4$ 1/01.04.16/Makati City

. 011156/08.22.12
Attorney's Roll No. 60452
MCLE No. IV-0019507 I 05.02.2013
Email: dasa@valdezlawoffices.com

MARKA~N~-/

Roll of~ b ey's No. 63316

PTR No. 56 2
9/01.04.16/Makati Cjty
IBP No. 014165/ Lifetime Pampanga
MCLE Compliance: MCLE Exempt
(Admitted to the Bar, 2014)
Email: mms@valdezlawoffices.com
Page 37 of39

J~1~ ~ ~
LOR~~~ELO G. DIONISIO
Roll of Attorney's No. 59482
PTR No. 5324510101.04.16/Makati City
IBP No. 013145/Lifetime PPLM
MCLE No. IV-0012907 /03 .03 .13
Email: lgd@valdezlawoffices.com

Copy furnished:

POBLADOR BAUTISTA & REYES f!C<,tc-rf?'f 1-ll'J#-OC>c.,. I L:f

Counsel for PETITIONER
5th Floor, SEDCCO I Building
120 Rada comer Legaspi Streets
Legaspi Village, Makati City
ATTY. GEORGE ERWIN M. GARCIA J~..,a OOC..I 2(.,
G.E. GARCIA Law Office
Ground Floor. LAIKO Building
372 Cabildo St., Intramuros, Manila l 002
ATTY. MANUELITO R. LUNA No-# ~ t.p I 21
Counsel for Private Respondent Francisco S. Tatad
Rm. 412, FEMI Building Annex
A. Soriano Sr. Avenue
Intramuros, Manila
DR. ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS UbPrivate Respondent
Political Science Department
De La Salle University
2401 Taft Avenue
Manila
HON. CHRISTIAN ROBERT LIM
Acting Chairperson
COMELEC
Public Respondent
Shipping Center Building
707 A. Soriano Avenue
Intramuros, Manila

oo cP I ZI

'1 o..ft.- OD u123

Page 38 of39

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ~D...ft 06 G; I 2:-C 00 (j, \ 31>

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICEAfOO cPI -l-(""

Supreme Court
Manila
ATTY. ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO
Private Respondent
8th Floor, Pacific Star Building
Sen. Gil Puyat cor. Makati Avenue
Makati City

o_.Jf-

OtJ c, f 21

Page 39 of 39

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, AJVIADO D. VALDEZ. a f l!pmo itizen,

legal age, \Nith postal
address at Suite 6-A Vernida f Condominium. :\morsolo
. Legaspi Village,
1'1akati City: after being duly svvorn m accordance vvith lav,,. hereby depose and
state:
1.
I am one of the respondents in rhe case entitled '"1'1ary Grace
Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC. Francisco S. Tatad, Antonio P.
Contreras, and Amado D. Valde7'. docketed as G.R. No. 221698-700. pending
with the Supreme Court En Banc.
2.
I caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Verified
Memorandum.
~a-n&f,.,H->

3.
I have read the foregoing Verified ~ommem- and the allegations
contained therein are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge andJor
based on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WFIEREOF. I ha\ e hereunto set my hand this 22nd day of

February 2016 in Makati City.

r1
.-./r~t41 u-1/f tf!,,</~
Amado D. Valdez
A(fiant

SUBSCRIBED AND S\VOR1' to befcire me this 22nd day of February

2016 in Makati City, affiant exhibiting to me his Senior Citizen ID No. 24888
issued in Quezon City on May l 5, 2006.

Doc. No.

Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2016.

i~R.BA.TALLA
NOTARYf'~UC FORMAKATI CITY

PP'T. NO. M32

4Nl!t DEC. 31. 20lf;

LL OF ATTV. NO. 48348

PU11NCE NO. lV.OOl63l3-4/1,Q/13
ISP N<*106762. l1FETIME MEMBER Yl(ibo3
PTR No. 532-3505 JAN. 04, 2016

EXK\lTM BLOG. CENTER

MAKATl AVE. COR., JUPITER ST. MAkATl CITY

"-;;--~-~~

IZIPliBl.I< Ol

1111 Plfl!.JPl'l"'I'

c JTY or

, " ,,
.\FHO \ \, n W '-HH ICl

MER\VIN

~.

t;ABl\

A. ol kg:!I ;1gc. \\llh 21ddrcss ;~ 1\J Kapalatan SL Prid;.1kas

/one. I fol: Spirit. <)uc/oll Cit\ :i!tn blillg d11h "' 11rn. llt:Tt'b: <kpost and <:tnlt': !hut
I <lilt <111 cniplu\<.'1. 1 I \ \ ! f >I I : \ \\ ()I I I< I \ \\ i1h Plli1 ,. ;1ddrc<.." f, \ \ ernid<1 I,
120 Anwrsolo SL I .eg;vp1 \'ill;t~t 1\ln"-;1f1 ( '''
()n 22 h~bruan :2016. I -.;enl'd :1 cllp\ 1d !lit MEMORANl>l'M OF PRIV:\TE
l{ESPONDENT AMADO I>. \'AUH:Z i11 the case entitled "MARY (;J{A('E
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARE~ n. COMELE< ,ET \L.". dod:.c.:tcd <1'; ~r I~.

No. 221698-700. Suprcrrn.:' Court. Cit~. oli\1:tnil:1. pursuant to Sections 7 and 11. Rule l

as follo\\s:

By Registered Mail:
ATTY. ALEXANDER .I. POBLADOR, DINO
VIVENCIO A.A. TAMA YO, .Jl STJ!'i
CHRISTOPHER ( . 1\'IENDOZA and
SANDRA MAE T. MA<~ALAN<;
POBLADOI{ BAUTISTA & RFYFS
:"th Floor. SJ:DCCO I Building
120 Rada cnrner Legusp1 Strcel::.
1

Legaspi Village. f'v1ukati Cit\

ATTY. MANUELITO R. U;NA
Rm. 412.. FEMI Building Anne"
A Soriano Sr. A venue
Intramuros. Manila

DR. ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS

Political Science Department
De La Salle Lfnivcrsit'
240 I Tan A venue
Manila
HON. CHRISTIAN ROBERI. LJM
/\ding Chairperson

COMl:LEC'
Shipping Center Building
707 A. Soriano A venue
lnLramuros. !\fanila

THl: SOLICITOR GFNEHAI

134 Amorsolo St.. Legaspi VillagL

Makati

Cit~

INFORMATION OFFICE
Supreme Court

Padre Faura St.,

Ermita Manila

G.E. GARCIA LAW OFFICE

Ground Floor. L;\IK<) Building
372 Cahildo St.. lntramuros l\fanila

ATTY. l(STRELLA C. FLAMPAIU)

81h Floor. Pacific Star Building
Sen. <iii Puyat /\\cnue eor. \labti \\cntte
Maka ti Cit\
H.\1 . l t.iliH
'JD' OE MANJLA
b) depositing a mp: on 2} I vhruan ~01 ll in the
Post Ortice in sealed
emelope plainly addr,ssed lo them. \\1th p()stnge lull: prepaid. ;y; t'.\ iuenced h: Regi<;tr:
Rtceipl Nos. which are hereto attached and indkated after the names of the addressees.
and with instructions lo the postmaster 111 relUrn tlh; mail to lht c;endcr <tfler It'll (I !I) da: s

if undeli\ered.

MEI

FEB

~;

SlJl.JSCRlBED AND SWORN to hel(1rl Ille this 22 rebruary 2016 at the

1;f[Y'.Of. i'vJANJLJ.1 affiant exhibiting l.n me lwr \alid l!nified rvtulti-Purpose ID No.
CRN-011 1-4872214-2.

Doc. No.

1'\1' .

Page No. J..~

Book No. .... V~
Series of 2015.

lM"('

,:.

,".
; ;: -'r , 1. 311 20H
'
'

\lt

.'

r: .. :1DOMANllJ.\
IBP y:7::) :: ; /I.~.;.! -2015
F'TR. NO . .'F~l7~6U0l0:.12016

N0.9Q'3Brn/.\',.:, ,"; .