ARTICLE VII SECTION 2 CASE 221697 & 221698-700 OF MARCH 8, 2016 i.
i. Elamparo claimed that Poe fell short of the ten-year
POE-LLAMANZARES v. COMELEC
DOCTRINE:
Presumption for and burden of proof against foundlings will be in favor of the
same; Repatriation recovers original citizenship;
IMPORTANT RULING RELATED TO THE PROVISION/DOCTRINE:
The intent of the framers was to include foundlings or those children with
unknown parents, and the only reason why there was no amendment was
because the cases of such were too few to warrant the inclusion of a provision
in the Constitution to apply to them.
If a candidate cannot be disqualified without a prior finding that such
candidate is suffering from a disqualification as “provided by law or the
Constitution”, neither can the candidate’s CoC be cancelled on grounds of
false representations without a prior authoritative finding that he or she is not
qualified.
1. On October 15, 2015, Mary Grace Natividad S. Llamanzares-Poe (aka
Tita Grace. JK Poe) filed her candidacy for the May 2016 Presidential
elections.
2. In her CoC, she declared that she is a natural-born citizen, and that her
residence in the Philippines up to the day before May 9, 2016, would
be 10 years and 11 months counted from May 24, 2005.
3. In G.R. 221697, Estrella Elamparo (Elamparo) filed a petition to cancel
Poe’s CoC.
a. Elamparo argued that Poe cannot be considered a natural-
born Filipino because she was a foundling.
i. Her claim was that international law does not provide
natural-born status and Filipino citizenship on
foundlings.
ii. As such, Poe should not be qualified to apply for
reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under RA 9225
for she is not a natural-born Filipino citizen to begin
with.
b. She also argued that there was material misrepresentation
when Poe stated she is a resident of the Philippines for at least
10 years and 11 months up to the day before the May 9, 2016
elections.
residency requirement as her residence could only be
counted at the earliest from July 2006, when she
reacquired Philippine citizenship assuming she was a
natural-born citizen at all.
4. Basing on the contentions of Elamparo, COMELEC Second Division
promulgated a Resolution cancelling the CoC of Poe.
5. G.R. 221698-700 contains 3 separate petitions from Francisco Tatad
(Tatad), Antonio Contreras (Contreras), and Amado D. Valdez
(Valdez).
a. Tatad claimed that since our country adheres to the principle
of jus sanguinis, foundlings cannot be considered natural-born
Filipino citizens since blood relationship is determinative of
natural-born status.
b. Similar to to Elamparo, he claimed that Poe cannot avail of the
option to reacquire Philippine citizenship under RA 9225.
c. Additionally, Tatad questioned Poe’s lack of intention to
abandon her U.S. domicile as evidenced by the fact that her
husband stayed thereat and her frequent trips to the U.S.
d. Valdez alleged that her repatriation under R.A. 9225 did not
bestow upon her the status of a natural-born citizen, because
of his belief that those who are repatriated will not revert to
their original status as natural-born citizens.
e. Contreras, however, limited his attack to Poe’s residency
issue.
i. He claimed that she did not possess the 10-year
period of residency required for said candidacy and
that she made a false entry in her CoC when she
stated that she is a legal resident of the Philippines for
10 years and 11 months by May 9, 2016.
6. COMELEC First Division concluded that Poe was not qualified for the
position of President of the Republic of the Philippines.
7. Hence, Poe filed a petition for certiorari with urgent prayer for the
issurance of an ex parte TRO.
ISSUES:
1. W/N COMELEC has the authority to decide on the qualification or
lack thereof of a candidate.
2. W/N Poe can be considered a natural-born citizen due to her status as
a foundling.
 3. If so, W/N her repatriation would make her a natural-born citizen of
the Philippines.
4. W/N Poe met the 10-year residency requirement to be a candidate for
the May 2016 Presidential Elections.
RULING:
1. No, the Constitution does not provide such authority to COMELEC.
a. Article IX, C, Section 2, lists down the following powers and
functions COMELEC may exercise, none of which speak of
allowing them to judge the qualification or lack thereof of
Presidential candidates
b. Moreover, Article VII, Section 4 of the same, provides that the
Supreme Court shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President, the
VP, Senators, and the Members of the HR.
c. Article IX, C, Section 2, par. 3, 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.
i. Disqualification proceedings are for the purpose of
barring an individual from becoming a candidate or
from continuing as a candidate for public office, either
from the start or during its progress.
ii. Ineligibility, on the other hand, refers to the lack of
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.
d. There were attempts by COMELEC to provide itself
authorization by creating rules that would allow them to rule
the qualifications of a candidate even during the election, but
such attempts were ultimately quelled because the
authorization does not lie within the COMELEC.
e. In conclusion, if a candidate cannot be disqualified without a
prior finding that such candidate is suffering from a
disqualification as “provided by law or the Constitution”,
neither can the candidate’s CoC be cancelled on grounds of
false representations without a prior authoritative finding
that he or she is not qualified.
2. Yes, because the Constitution has implied that foundlings are
considered as natural-born citizens.
a. To begin, burden of proof resides on the private respondents
to show that Poe is not a Filipino citizen. Burden of proof
would not shift to her because her status as a foundling does
not exclude the possibility that her parents are Filipinos,
especially since, in the Statistics provided by Poe, there is a
high probability, if not certainty, that her parents are
Filipinos.
b. Moreover, despite the fact that 1935 Constitution was silent as
to foundlings, there was no restrictive language which would
exclude foundlings either.
c. To be clear, the intent of the framers was to include foundlings
or those children with unknown parents, and the only reason
why there was no amendment was because the cases of such
were too few to warrant the inclusion of a provision in the
Constitution to apply to them.
d. Both domestic and international laws support this claim.
i. Domestic laws on adoption support the principle that
foundlings are Filipinos: the adoptee must be a
Filipino in the first place to be adopted.
ii. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), and the 1930 Hague Convention all provide
for the right of every child to acquire a nationality,
and that foundlings are presumed to born of citizens
of the country where they were found.
3. Yes, this was clearly provided for in previous jurisprudence.
a. In the case of Bengson v. HRET, repatriation was defined as
the recovery of the original nationality. As such, someone
who was originally natural-born citizen before he lost his
Philippine citizenship, will be restored to his former status as
a natural-born Filipino.
b. The case also noted that there are only two types of citizens
under the 1987 Constitution: natural-born and naturalized
citizens. There is no third category for repatriated citizens.
 4. Yes, because Poe’s claim of residency of 10 years and 11 months on
the day before the 2016 elections is true.
a. Following Poe’s successful change of domicile back to the
Philippines provided by voluminous evidence such as
shipping 28,000 pounds of her household items from the U.S.
to the Philippines, as well as shipping their family dog to the
Philippines, such change of domicile is undisputed.
b. COMELEC disregarded the import of all the evidence
presented by Poe on the basis that the earliest date Poe could
have started residence in the Philippines was in July 2006,
when her application under RA 9225 was approved by the
Bureau of Immigration (BI).
i. COMELEC ruled that Poe’s claim of residence of 10
years and 11 months by May 9, 2016 in her 2016
Presidential CoC was false because she put 6 years
and 6 months as “period of residence before May 13,
2013” in her 2012 Senatorial CoC.
c. Thus, according to COMELEC, she should have been a
Philippine resident only in November 2006. It would mean
that she would have less than 10 years of residency up to May
9, 2016.
d. Poe already explained that she misunderstood the date
required in the 2013 CoC as the period of residence as of the
day she submitted that CoC on 2012. It was from the advice
of her lawyers in 2015 that her residence could be counted
from May 25, 2005.
e. The 2012 CoC should not have been used by the COMELEC
as a binding and conclusive admission against Poe, especially
since such mistake was overcome by evidence.
f. In conclusion, both the 2012 and 2015 CoC’s correctly state the
pertinent period of residency.
g. Poe had returned from the U.S. and was here to stay
permanently on May 24, 2005.
h. So, when she claimed to have been a resident for 10 years and
11 months, she could do so in good faith.
OPINIONS:
1. Carpio, J., Dissenting:
a. There is no majority of this Court that holds that Poe is a
natural-born Filipino citizen. This lack of ruling of the
majority will lead to absurd results, making a mockery of our
national elections by allowing a presidential candidate with
uncertain citizenship status to be potentially elected to the
Office of the President, an office expressly reserved by the
Constitution exclusively for natural-born Filipino citizens.
b. This means that the majority of this Court wants to resolve the
citizenship status of petitioner after the elections, and only if
petitioner wins the elections, despite petitioner having
already presented before the COMELEC all the evidence she
wanted to present to prove her citizenship status. This will
make a mockery of our election process if petitioner wins the
elections but is later disqualified by this Court for not
possessing a basic qualification for the Office of the President
- that of being a natural-born Filipino citizen.
c. It cannot be denied that Poe has failed to prove that she is a
natural-born Filipino citizen and a resident of the Philippines
for at least ten years immediately preceding the 9 May 2016
elections. Petitioner is not eligible to run for President of the
Republic of the Philippines for lack of the essential
requirements of citizenship and residency under Section 2,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
d. Petitioner's certificate of candidacy (COC), wherein she stated
that she is qualified for the position of President, contains
false material representations, and thus, must be cancelled.
e. Petitioner, not being a natural-born Filipino citizen, is also a
nuisance candidate whose COC can motu proprio be
cancelled.