Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
;
-
2
- , ' i:.a...;'
' ' ~
:'-li,;.'\...... ~· ~.:
BY: _ _ _ _ __
EN BANC
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS
and AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PREFATORY
Sen. P~e will leave, for the time being, the baselessness of
COMELEC's order of cancellation, so that she can immediately
bring to the attention of this Honorable Court the questionable
and oppressive timing with which the COMELEC En Banc
released its 23 December 2015 Resolution, which affirmed the
COMELEC First Division's 11 December 2015 Resolution in the
consolidated cases of Tatad vs. Poe-Llamanzares (SPA No. 15-
002 [DC]; the "Tatad Petition"), Contreras vs. Poe-Llamanzares
(SPA No. 15-007 [DC]; the "Contreras Petition") and Valdez vs.
Poe-Llamanzares (SPA No. 15-139 [DC[; the "Valdez Petition").
That said, the fact of the matter is that upon the lapse of
the 5th day from Sen. Poe's receipt of the 23 December 2015 En
Banc Resolution), there will be a real, pressing and imminent
threat that the COMELEC will remove her name, not simply
from the official list of candidates, but from the ballot, which
will be used in the 9 May 2016 elections. This is precisely the
!" ~·,,.,~· danger which the COMELEC Commissioner Ma. Rowena Amelia _.,,
1 Section 7, Article IX A., 1987 Constitution
2 Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court
3 Under Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court "(t)he petition shall be filed within thirty
(30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed.
The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or
resolution, if aliowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall
interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the
petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any
event, reckoned from notice of denial." (Underscoring supplied)
3
4
,, .p.t~p:/ /www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/ 116826-comelec-en-ba
guanzon -grace- poe-di sq ualifica ti on
s ~rµphasis supplied
6 t\i http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/749797 / grace-poes-name-to-remain-in-official-lis!-'~f~
,; candidates-for-now-comelec
~; if.f '
4
Filipino.
.
case, Sen. Poe respectfully submits that she is a natural-born
Her stance is, not only pursuant to elementary
principles on the burden of proof, disputable presumptions,
6
> ' )~
,; ',; :f
' ,;· -rw,
;·
;f·
7
was ·~cting in good faith and telling the truth in her COC ~,erl::kV
she represented that by 9 May 2016, she will be a residei;it o't~he··:·
Philippines for "10" years and "11" months. ,,,.:.,. '· ··&:·
<
v
i
t -;:.:
10
I.
PARTIES
, .. « .. " ., • ~ II"""""•
......,. k:,
III.
TIMELINESS OF THIS PETITION
IV.
ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS AT THE COMELEC,
THE FACTS, AND THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS
A. Antecedent Proceedings
·fi~~ppines before the May 2013 elections was ~ix (6) years >a~'~
, · s~ (6~ months only. He further argued that residence should Ul".~-· ·
fact be counted only from either 2010 (when Sen. Poe executed~
sworn renunciation of American citizenship before a local nti>t~ . ·
p~blic), or 2011 (when Sen. Poe, though not required uhder
\ ft »,.; .\ ..
9.
Summons was served on Sen. Poe on 12 November
,.,. 1 .• ·~~.1.5t t'\1~ tilJlely file~.~~[ Verjfied Answer12 on 23 l'i81v~a,1tje~. ~~ ....~
·~~)5:.1.3 In gist, Sen. Poe argued that the Tatad Petition dig ~~·t :.ti
.state':· a cause of action as it did not state ground_~: J~e;('
"disqualification under Sections 12 or 68 of the OEC; tqat;.'t, J.
• ~>~
9. .t;nnex'"C" hereof . · ' ·~
, .,; ·1 Q;Apart from herein private respondents, Atty. Estrella C. Elamparo filed SPA Nd;~li:-,
· (DC) which was handled by the COMELEC's Second Division ·
11 A •h ., "D" h
nnex ereo f . ·..:
'•'"'~;;· . ,.
l'.2 .Annex "E" hereof ·· ·:• °''~/ !~ "' ·
t~./fhere were non-working holidays in view of the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting f~om
18.to . 19 November 2015.
'~
~ ,; N
,1;,
13
B. The Facts
17. Sen. Poe is a foundling; she does not know who her
biological parents are. She was born on September 3, 1968 in
Jaro, Iloilo. However, immediately after her mpther gave birth to ·~
.her, she was abandoned in the Parish Church of Jaro, wh,ere ''a·d'
'cert8fn Mr. Edgardo Militar found her.24 Mr. Edgardo,~- ,; ·
chose to place herein petitioner in the care and custody of Pi.is ~1.
:relatives, the spouses "Mr. and Mrs. Emiliano Militar." 25
;;• .: ..
·.. ~ ··~
. f..¥-
' ,"#
.f.c
.;•. ';; ~
22 Sen. Poe's marked exhibits in the proceedings a quo, which were also marked in the .
proceedings for SPA No. 15-002 (DC) (entitled Francisco S. Tatad, petitioner, vs. Ma7"!ii Grac;e.
_ .. ......_ .~idad Sonora Eq,,~-Llamanzares, re~pq_n4,e1].t), SPA No. 15-007 (DC) (entitled_A!J:{Qn#9, f; ... 'i.•
· '' Contrems, petitioner, vs. Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-Llamanzares, respondent): arid ,
'~PA ~o, 15-139 (DC) (entitled Amado D. Valdez, petitioner, vs. Mary Grace NatjvifJ:qd ;,
Sonom Poe- Llamanzares, respondent), are summarized in a table attached to this P~tfti~·- ,;~
'' as Annex "L". Faithful reproductions of Petitioner's exhibits which were ma~~ed ~d ~;;
offeredjn the proceedings a quo are attached hereto as Annex "M-series". :.. ·. ·~,.;.
23 Gor'ies of Sen. Poe's Memoranda (with Formal Offers of Evidence) in the Tatad/
::¥.id V~dei cases are attached hereto as Annexes "N", "O", and "P" respectively.
r:~ ..
'fatad's,. Contreras' and Valdez' Memoranda are attached Annexes "Q", "R" and~.
"
; ~ copy of the Memoran~um submitted by volunteer amicus curiae Dean Arturo "O~.· . ·.~Pi.·.
m SfJ\ No. 15-139 (DC) is attached hereto as Annex "T" " · _··rf:\'\ :y,:~'
24 Tatad Petition, p. 6; Valdez Petition, par. 6; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad e,a~, 'W·i
, '.4.~J; Sen. Poe's Foundling Certificate/Certificate of Live Birth, which was nia~ ris
, ;:;Exhibit" 1" in all three cases. , ?!
· ~ See Bxhibit "l"
~;·
~
t;
16
19. When herein Petitioner was five (5) years old, the
spouses Ronald Allan Kelly Poe (a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr.) and
Jesusa Sonora Poe (a.k.a. Susan Races) filed a petition for her
adoption. On 13 May 1974, the Municipal Court of San Juan
("San Juan Court") rendered a Decision granting the petition of
the Spouses Poe, 28 and ordering a change in herein petitioner's
name "from Mary Grace Natividad Contreras Militar to Mary
Grace Natividad Sonora Poe."29
28 Tatad Petition, p. 7; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.3; COMELEC Resolution
dated 11 December 2015, p.2; Exhibit "2" in the Tatad case
29 See Exhibit "2" in the Tatad case
30 Exhibit "2-A" in the Tatad case
31 A copy of OCR-Iloilo's Certification dated 11 November 2005 is Exhibit "2-B" in the
Tatad case
32 See Exhibit "l" in the Tatad case
17
--
of Ronald Allan Poe and Jesusa Sonora Poe were also
written on herein petitioner's Foundling Certificate, in the
boxes or spaces reserved for the names of those legally
considered as herein petitioner's parents.
33
-
Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.4; Exhibit "3" in the Tatad case .
3
• _ :'.~~r,k~~'"a~,E"hibJ.t.:~4" ig the Tatad case; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad cas~, ~!3E:., 2.5 - ·
.,.~.~'· 35 ~oe tiemorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.6; COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December ·
2015, p.2
28 Tatad Petition, p. 7; Contreras Petition, p.4; Valdez Petition, par.7; Poe Memorandum
in the Tatad case, par. 2.7; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case, par. 2.1; Poe
Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.1; COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015,
p.3
3 7 Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2. 7; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case,
par.2.1; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.1; COMELEC Resolution dated 11
December 2015, p.3
38 Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.8; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case, par.
28. Despite living in the United States for more than ten
(10) years, it was only on 18 October 2001 that Petitioner
became naturalized as a citizen of the U.S.A. 44 On 19 December
2001, the U.S.A. "Passport Agency" in Washington issued U.S.A.
Passport No. 017037793 45 to her. ,. .,.;
-~ .
..~. ··i,fl, ·~ ..+:,
',
,.._: 30. On 8 April 2004, Petitioner travelled til~ to ,
·-";• • ; 'f,.,
~
Valdez Petition, par. 8; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.8; Poe Merri~randum
39 ·4
in Contreras case, par. 2.2; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.2; COM.r>LBC
Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.3 ",
40 Valdez Petition, par. 8; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2J~. l; .Poe
~!\i~morandum in c:mtrera~ cas.e,yar. 2.2.1; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case.: p~r;,~:2.l; .·
· ~OMEL~C Resolution dated '11 December 2015, p.3 '*:· • , ;, · "'.,.- ""'""
' ,f 41 ~o~ Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.9 ·: ~·. ·!;,~·- _
~ ;, ~ arked as Exhibit "4-A" in the Tatad case; Poe Memorandum in the Tat~qJts;~;'~:·•
91
43
~arked as Exhibit "4-B" in the Tatad case; Poe Memorandum in the Tat.~~:]I:~
1..9. l . \··ii'".~}"~
,
4
~E}.t.p,dPetition, p. 4; Contreras Petition, p.~; Valdez Petition, par.9; Poe MerJQr.a;J'fl~ll. . ;"~.-.'.-..·
¥ the Tatad case, par. 2.10; Poe Memorandum m Contreras case, par. 2.3; Poe lYl~n!t~\J.l,;.Q
-· in. Valdez case, p~r.. 2.3; .cOMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.3'::.-\.(:.::·: ·.·"':,..·<-;;.,?;·~':·. .
4;~ !\farked as Exh1b1t "5" m the Tatad case _ _ ···t\~tlt · ·'·"
46 See also Exhibit "41" in the Tatad case, p. 2, par. 5; Poe Memorandum ~ -fohe:f:Jt,
, case, par. 2.11; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case, par. 2.4; Poe Memorandtl~x~e'Z
1
. ~ ' > case, par. 2 .4 J.it·· ·
47 See Exhibit "5" in the Tatad case; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2"- ~2
.("
.3 ' "
·f,.·
'~f ~, .·
:\.":'
tt., .it'
19
48 See Exhibit "5" in the Tatad case; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case par. 2.12
49 Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.13; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case,
par. 2.5; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.5
50 See also Exhibit "41" in the Tatad case, Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.14;
Poe Memorandum in Contreras case, par. 2.6; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.6;
COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.3
51 Id., p.2, par. 5; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.14; Poe Memorandum in
Contreras case, par. 2.6; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.6; COMELEC Resolution
dated 11 December2015, p.3
........ ~l!;l..,..f·~2i. par. 6; Poe Memorandum i£J.1JS Wfl.d case, par. 2.15; Poe Meryo.rf_i~uji.lll... 7 :. ~"'
~eras case, par. 2.T; Poe Memorandum m ra1dez case, par. 2.7
53 Id., p. 2, par. 6; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.15; Poe Memorandum in
Contreras case, par. 2.7; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.7; COMELEC
Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.3
54 Id., p. 2, par. 7; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.16; Poe Memorandum in
Contreras case, par. 2.8; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.8; COMELEC
Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.3
55 See Exhibit "5" in the Tatad case; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.16; Poe
Memorandum in Contreras case, par. 2.8; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.8;
COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.3
56 See also Exhibit "41" in the Tatad case, p. 2, par. 8; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad
case, par. 2.17; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case, par. 2.19; Poe Memorandum in
Valdez case, par. 2.9; COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.3
20
57 Id., p. 2, par. 8; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.17; Poe Memorandum in
Contreras case, par. 2.9; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.9; COMELEC
Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.3
58 Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.18; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case,
par. 2.10; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.10; COMELEC Resolution dated '1
December 2015, p.3
59 These email correspondence were marked as Exhibits "6-series," in the Tatad case and
Exhibit "2-series" in the Contreras and Valdez cases, and attached to the Affidavit of
Teodoro V. Llamanzares, which was marked as Exhibit "42" in the Tatad case and Exhibit
"27" in the Contreras and Valdez cases. See also, Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par.
~
"
2.19; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case, par. 2.11; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case,
par. 2.11; COMtLECResolUtio~ dat~d 11December2015, p.3-4
..
60 See Exhibit "5" in the Tatad case, at p. 10; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par.
2.20; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case, par. 2.12; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case,
par. 2.12; COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.4
61 See also Exhibit "41" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "26" in the Contreeras and Valdez
cases, p. 2, par. 9; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.20; Poe Memorandum in
Contreras case, par. 2.12; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.12; COMELEC
Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.4
62 Id., p. 2, par. 9; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.20; Poe Memorandum in
Contreras case, par. 2.12; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.12; COMELEC
Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.4
21
·, . if
;,· -~!~
63 Id., f. 2, par. 8; Poe Memorandum in the Tat~d case, par. 2. 21; Poe Memorahdtln\,:~ ':';
· ,C9n;treras case, par. 2.13; Poe Memorandum m Valdez case, par. 2.13; COM. EEEC·.
'Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.4 <l!i~·~ ,1;; ~
64 Id., ~pp. 2 to 3, par. 10: Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.2.~; , ;Poe
Memorandum in Contreras case, par. 2.13; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par:..,2.13;
COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.4 .,i. ,l,,.!i.''
65 Id., pp. 2 to 3, par. 10; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2;'2f; Poe
Memorandum in Contreras case, par. 2.13; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2 . 13;
COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.4 '' .'
66 Exhibit "7" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "3" in the Contreras and Valdez case&; ls
. ~I}tian/s,Official Transcript of Records from the Beacon School; COMELEC Resoluti~q£~t:\.j
. · .I:I! December 2015, p.4 · . 'i '"
., 6 7 Exhibit "7-A" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "3-A" in the Contreras and Valdez C<;lifts'i
Cettification dated 15 April 2015 issued by the Registrar of La Salle Green .-·-·
~qdta Bernadette F. Firmalino
6 ~ E;xh,ibjts "7-B" and "7-C" in the Tatad case and Exhibits "3-B" and "3-C"in the
. ·;Ind Valdez cases are Hanna's Permanent Records at the Assumption CoL
·'·'Elementary and Secondary Student, respectively; COMELEC Resolution '.~°"
· De9~JIJber 2015, p.4 , . ~!'!""-~""
69 Exhibit "7-D" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "3-D" in the Contreras and Valdez~a~$·~.~ff'
~· ,, ~·
' . ,.
v , ..
-t,:,'
~~
._
22
10 Exhibit "7-E" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "3-E" in the Contreras and Valdez cases is a
Certification dated 14 April 2015 issued by Directress of The Greenmeadows Learning
Center, Ms. Anna Villaluna-Reyes; COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.4
, •
7
1._Whj.bit "~·F;' in t~~~~~,al'lc!.~xhibit "3-F" in the Contreras and Val~ez ~a~e! i::; -.,,,•
~nika's Permanent Record at the Assumption College as an Elementary Student. · ' ·
72 Marked as Exhibit"S" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "4" in the Contreras and Valdez
cases; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.22; Poe Memorandum in Contreras
case, par. 2.14; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par. 2.14
73 Marked as Exhibit "9" in the Tatad case; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.23
74 Marked as Exhibit "10" in the Tatad case; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.23
75 Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.25; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case,
cases
23
78 Marked as Exhibits "13" and "14" in the Tatad case and Exhibits "3" and "8" in the
Contreras and Valdez cases are Declarations of Real Property Nos. 96-39721 and 96-
39722 issued by the Office of the City Assessor of San Juan City, respectively covering
Unit 7F and its parking slot.
7 9 See also Exhibit "41" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "26" in the Contreras and Valdez
Contreras and Valdez cases are receipts dated 23 February 2006 issued by the Salvation
Army showing the donation of these household belongings.; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad
7 ........~~' .par. 2.26; Poe Memora'1~1l1 in,.Contreras case, par.2.16; Poe Merrior~i:t~;;m Jn,,. _,1$,, ~
Valdez case, par.2.16; COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.4
82 COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.4
83 Exhibit "16" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "10" in the Contreras and Valdez cases is an
e-mail from the U.S.A. Postal Service, sent on 28 March 2006 to petitioner's husband,
confirming the latter's submission of a request for change of address to the U.S.A. Postal
Service ; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.27; Poe Memorandum in Contreras
case, par.2.17; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par.2.17; COMELEC Resolution dated 11
December 20°15, p.4
8 4 Exhibit "17" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "11" in the Contreras and Valdez cases is a
Final Statement issued by First American Title Insurance Company which indicates as
Settlement Date: "04-27 /2006"; COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.4
24
:Jt
,'f'~
." ~ *· 'Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the •'·
~
J ·i:;
" 1lilf
25
92 Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.32; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case,
par.2.22; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par.2.22; COMELEC Resolution dated 11
December 2015, p.5
ft'. f''1"'
93
~A fe:rt~fi~d true.copy ~f iPep.~Pil.'~~iOJ:lfMS mar~ed as Exhibit "20" in t~e~ la~i 1 1 . ....
and 'Ex'lub1t "14" m the Contreras ai1d Valdez cases
94 Certified true copies of these Petitions were marked as Exhibits "21", "21-A" and "21-B"
in the Tatad case and Exhibits "15", "15-A" and "15-B" in the Contreras and Valdez cases
95 Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.32; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case,
par.2.22; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par.2.22; COMELEC Resolution dated 11
December 2015, p.5
96 See Exhibit "4-B" in the Tatad case
9 7 Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.33; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case,
par.2.23; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par.2.23; COMELEC Resolution dated 11
December 2015, p.5
98 A certified true copy of Office Order No. AFF-06-9133 dated 18 July 2006 was marked as
Exhibit"22" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "16" in the Contreras and Valdez cases.
99 Underscoring supp lied
26
100 Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.34; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case,
par.2.24; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par.2.24; COMELEC Resolution dated 11
December 2015, p.5
101 Certified true copies of Identification Certificate Nos. 06-10918 (in herein petitioner's
name), 06-10919 (in Brian's name), 06-10920 (in Hanna's name), and 06-10921 (in
Anika's name), were marked as Exhibits "23", "23-A", "23-B" and "23-C" in the Tatad case
and Exhibits "17", "17-A", "17-B" and "17-C" in the Contreras and Valdez cases.
102 The stub of herein petitioner's application form, showing the date of such application
was marked as Exhibit "24" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "18" in the Contreras and
Valdez cases. See also, Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.35; Poe Memorandum
in Contreras case, par.2.25; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par.2.25; COMELEC
Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.5
!03 See Exhibit "5" in the Tatad case; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.36;
COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.5
104 Marked as Exhibit "25" in the Tatad case; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par.
2.36; COMELEC Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.5
10s Poe Memqrandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.37; Poe Memorandum in Contreras case,
par.2.26; Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par.2.26; COMELEC Resolution dated 11
December 2015, p.5
106 Petitioner's Appointment was marked as Exhibit "26" in the Tatad case and Exhibit
"19" in the Contreras and Valdez cases.
27
-
before assuming her post as MTRCB Chairperson on 26 October
2010.107
it
55.3. On page 21 of its 23 December 2015 Resolution,
the COMELEC En Banc stated that Sen. Poe "like\Vis~ ,~,
' ·' "~'•""' ~·
107 A certified true copy of petitioner's Certificate of Assumption of office as ·MTRCB
Chairperson was marked as Exhibit "26-A" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "20" in .the
'· i: ront:r;trjils i:inrl Val~ez cases. ·'
,·~· :t. ¥ ~ _..,..........,..,'1~~- •. ~ ·~
· • 108 Poe Memorand m m the9ffiaci !ase, par. 2.38; Poe Memorandum m Contreras· Cl\~•
t. . . . . . ff: 4 - ,J< ' • ) ';. '
:.J£
, ''µ!:ir.2.~6• Poe Memorandum in Valdez case, par.2.26; COMELEC Resolution dasedtp
December 2015, p.5 .. '' J";
109 Petitioner's Affidavit of Renunciation was marked as Exhibit "27" in the Tatad ca$e ·1\
Exhibit "21" in the Contreras and Valdez cases. ., ; '-.; '
11.0 t,Jntlerscoring supplied '~.r; .l;
1 11 Pay M.emorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.38.1; COMELEC Resolution ~ed"'
·$;
~
---
28
117 Flight No. "NW020", which Sen. Poe took on 14 February 2006, is a flight to the U.S.A.
_, __
118 Flight No. "PR104", which Sen. Poe took on 20 April 2009, is a flight to San Francisco,
U.S.A.
119 Flight No. "PR102", which Sen. Poe took on 19 October 2009, is a flight to Los Angeles,
U.S.A.
122 Flight No. "PR300", which Sen. Poe took on 14 July 2011, is a flight to Bangkok,
Thaland
12 3 Flight No. ".PR732", which Sen. Poe took on 11 August 2011, is a flight to Hong Kong
Exhibit "29" in the Tatad case; Poe Memorandum in the Tatad case, par. 2.39; COMELEC
Resolution dated 11 December 2015, p.6
30
57. To ensure that even under the laws of the U.S.A., she
would no longer be considered its citizen, Petitioner likewise
renounced her U.S.A. citizenship in accordance with the laws of
that country. However, Petitioner was not legally required under
Philippine law to make another renunciation, as her earlier
renunciation of U.S.A. citizenship on October 20, 2010 was
sufficient to qualify her for public office.121
wherein she stated that she had taken her oath as M'F~QB ·
·Chairperson
.
on 210ctober 2010, with the intent, arricf~
' !· • ..•
~;.
:i>: others, of relinquishing her U.S.A. citizenship. · ,,f'~
.·. $•";
57 .3. In the same Questionnaire, Petitioner stated that
she had resided "Outside of the United States," i.e., in tl:»e.
4
f # Philippines," from 3 September 1968 to 29 July 1991 arf<l
f~om "05 2005" to "Present." On page 4 of<i: the
Questionnaire, Petitioner stated: · ·•.: ..
:?· ;t,
31
,;::
1~ :r 'i<.t~_,
~;~; -1~· ~1,·
.'.0)..~:
/
The COMELEC Resolutions
·-/
·.·};-
r~· ~·
;_,.:.
14 \ Exhibit "27" in the Tatad case and Exhibit "21" in the Contreras and Valdez cases"·:·"'·
;···:,
142 Underscoring supplied
'.t
:l ·,t·._
34
Annex "U" hereof. Faithful reproductions of the Annexes to this Verified Motion for
14 3
Reconsideration are likewise attached.
36
under R.A. No. 9225; Sen. Poe did not intend to deceive
anyone when she stated in her COC that she is a natural-
born citizen; and the position that foundlings are not
natural-born citizens is at most a disputed legal issue.
)1
·;-,).'·1~. .
.r
!:'
. ~;1;
'"~·t~:
........ -;
37
v.
GROUNDS FOR THIS PETITION
144 In the succeeding paragraphs, the COMELEC's First Division and the COMELEC En
B.
THE COMELEC ACTED WHIMSICALLY
AND CAPRICIOUSLY, IGNORED SETTLED
JURISPRUDENCE AND DISREGARDED
THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN RULING
THAT SEN. POE MADE A FALSE
MATERIAL REPRESENTATION IN HER
COC FOR PRESIDENT WHEN SHE
STATED THEREIN THAT SHE IS A
"NATURAL BORN FILIPINO CITIZEN."
B.1.
B.2.
B.3. *
>¢' "· .
~. ' .!>:.
<y ·~
The COMELEC acted whimsically,
capriciously, contrary to common
~~ ·.;\ ,\, '.i
-,, ~~
contravention of the letter and
spirit of the fundamental law, in
concluding that a foundling like
,, ... Sen. Poe is excluded from the
f
• enumeration of Philippine
""
citizens under Section 1, Article
:f IV of the 1935 Constitution.
.l '\:f:
; .i
'~· ~
.c ""'~
;~ ·'
~
40
B.4.
B.5.
B.6.
B.7.
B.8.
B.9.
B.10.
B.11.
CITIZEN." ,.
~·
:""4~.
~·-
< !' ~ c.
THE COMELEC ACTED WHIMSICALLY
.i
,>
' ,z AND CAPRICIOUSLY, IGNORED SETTLED
~·~""~
JURISPRUDENCE AND GROSSLY .~ 4\!f'•' ~
.\IL
MISAPPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE ON
'~·
RECORD IN RULING THAT SEN. POE ),•
/,
..;,:' J.,:
REPRESENTATION IN HER COC FOR
·-PRESIDENT ··-WHEN SHE STATED l ..- -
·;i
i~,.;'4~;
~·-'"·. ·~~.\J.t_',
~~f.
r.
~ THE DAY BEFORE MAY 09, 2016"
.lf * WOULD BE "10" YEARS AND "11"
~·.·;_
MONTHS.
·' . ~"
ih· ~
i, !~~·
,,
C.1.
residence in the
Philippines.
C.2.
C.3.
possession of a permanent
resident visa, the COMELEC
applied a "very legalistic,
academic and technical approach
to the residence requirement"
which "does not satisfy" and is
completely divorced from the
"simple, practical and common-
sense rationale for the residence
requirement."
C.4.
D.
£;h11
D.1. '·!,.
: t • , . . . . . 'I'll
.:,.,,.
In the absence of a false material
representation in Sen. Poe's COC
for President, the petitions a quo
:~
should have been dismissed
~·
outright for being premature "f'sil2.S~I#;_;)
;1-
petitions for quo warranto which '
.:.,
..
, ·'"".":' ,..,.,
~
·' 1',·i:.:
~~
';#l.' : ;.
I+ ~
t. !-· ..~r
.;;., •'
46
l
jurisdiction of the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal ("PET").
D.2.
VI.
DISCUSSION
c~celiation of Sen. Poe's COC for President. For these, and tllC.:
"reasons to be discussed in detail below, Sen. Poe respec~f11;:'
subn\its that a writ of certiorari is in order in this case. '
·i
+f
-:".'~"'~ . ' . ~:~fl;~~· '
~S)i
Mitra VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 191938, 2 July 2010; Dela Pena VS. Osmooa ,jlls,ii·
G,QMELEC, G.R. No. 209286, 23 September 2014
i.5'6 ld .
.-.
" '·~"*, tl
';'r:
~ I
i$'
r· ct;
..tf~·~ ';}:
~ ·~ il:'i·lfa
/-~
' '
--·~t~r:~'}:~1l;~
""' ~.;· .$.•
49
77. There was neither factual nor legal basis for the
COMELEC to adopt a liberal approach in ruling on the fatal
procedural defects in the Ta tad Petition. There[ore, the decision
to do so was clearly arbitrary and whimsical, and tainted with
grave abuse of discretion.
~-,
,Tatad Petition (and even in his Memorandum). The ··
~no claim in his pleadings that Sen. Poe was dishot _ ...... .
.,. Jr· that she intended to deceive anyone whel)~::':h~~.
J. accomplished her COC for President. Until the ve~,~~ 1
1
Tatad maintained that he simply wanted the COMELEC\~ ·~
1. "disqualify" Sen. Poe as a candidate for the Presidencyt(. 'f.lli ~•' ·
~.. "sole issue" framed in his Memorandum (pp. 8 to ~)' is
"•
,i ?,
f
52
53
COMELEC Rules.
,, '
.i' ''reconsider and reverse the First Division's 11 Decerrtbci{
.... ···<"'<t. ~-
. ·
' ,f
80. Section 1 of Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules ma.Pi'
. :\)I~''
.. ·1·
.'\'.•
'J6'\ Unde:rscoring supplied
~· ,:,,_
r ' if
i' ~· ,· .
. . 7t
SS
. , orqer:
'
'enjoining the implementation of the SET's Decision'.' t1<f(t Ii! .,-
.~ '" ,• ·~
~-
_· \,6t, Sectiop 17, Article VI, 1987 Constitution
:i:,'
p· · ;· . ~tf:_
,,
-
58
in bad faith with the intent to mislead, when she asserted in her
COC for President that she is a "NATURAL BORN FILIPINO
CITIZEN," because the first standing, final and executory ruling
on this issue is that Sen. Poe is a natural-born Filipino. A person
can only assume one status. Sen. Poe cannot be a natural,..born
citizen as a Senator and at the same time, lack such citizenship
as a Presidential candidate, and commit deliberate
misrepresentation by stating that she is a natural-born Filipino
as found by the SET.
together with a quote from Paa vs. Chan, thus: · ' '· ,.
- "':.
J~ '11'
Ii} '.c•,
be resolved in favor of the State.
;, .IJ
<;;~.
·~
'-.,.:
1tt
j «;
~·· ll!f'<
61
;}'-
. . n contrast, t ere was no proo in t ¢ ~ "':~.'·· .;
proceedings a quo that Sen. Poe is a citizen of another · ·
.f~'
country,
.
or that she was born a foreigner or born of ....,;·~
..""'•' .~
~
,,.
·"
'·
.i¥,: ~'
64
I
101.3. In Fermin, 17 4 this Honorable Court ordered
the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the
petitioner had not made out a "prima facie case." M
~
According to the High Court, the petitioner had not
presented "(c)onvincing evidence" to "substantiate every
allegation," "sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called
on to answer it." Notably, unlike the cases of Aznar and
Salcedo, the COMELEC En Banc did not even attempt to
argue that Fermin does not apply to Sen. Poe's case. It is
·therefore reasonable to assume that the COMELEC agrees
that Fermin is applicable.
11s G.R. No. 180088, 19 January 2009, cited in Sabili vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193261, 24
April 2012)
116 Underscoring supplied
111 G.R. No. 191938, 2 July 2010
11a G.R. No. 207264, 25 June 2013
67
17 9Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 166859, 169203 & 180702, 12 April 2011;
Republic vs. Vda. De Neri, G.R. No. 139588, 4 March 2004; See separate concurring
opinion of Justice Callejo in Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 161434, 161634 & 161824, 3
March 2004
iso Spouses Hanopol vs. Shoemar, Inc., G.R. Nos. 137774 & 148185, 4 October 2002,
citing Borlongan vs. Madrideo, G.R. No. 120267, 25 January 2000, which in tum, cited
Summa Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 175 (1996)
68
181 Venzon vs. Santos, et al., G.R. No. 128308, 14 April 2004
182 Section 3(a), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
183 In Gonzles vs. Pennisi, G.R. No. 169958, 5 March 2010, this section was applied to a
certificate of live birth which the Supreme Court held to be "valid unless declared invalid
by competent authority." See also Cacho vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123361, 3 March
1997, where the Supreme Court held that: "The execution of public documents, as in the
case of the Affidavit of Adjudication, is entitled to a presumption of regularity and proof is
required to assail and controvert the same. Thus, the burden of proof rests upon him who
alleges the contrary and respondents cannot shift the burden to petitioner by merely
casting doubt as to his existence and his identity without presenting preponderant
evidence to controvert such presumption. With more reason shall the same rule apply in
the case of the Special Power of Attorney duly sworn before the Philippine Consulate
General of the Republic of the Philippines in Chicago, the act of the administering oath
being of itself a performance of duty by a public official."
t84 G.R. Nos. 95122-23, 31 May 1991
18s G.R. No. 83820, 25 May 1990
69
x x x
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary
203
course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life;
108. All told, there was no legal basis for the COMELEC to
place the burden of proof on Sen. Poe to prove her natural-born
citizenship or to prove her bloodline to a Filipino parent. Tatad
ought to have proven that Sen. Poe was not telling the truth
when she claimed in her COC for President that she is a
"NATURAL BORN FILIPINO CITIZEN." The COMELEC should
have demanded proof from the Tatad that Sen. Poe is not a
natural-born Filipino.
x x x
211Underscoring supplied
2 12This is true not only with respect to foundlings, but even with respect to legitimate
children, whose filiation (or biological tie) to their father is merely presumed by law. In
other words, a legitimate child may in fact be not biologically related to his or her Filipino
father, but the law will still consider him or her a Filipino citizen, because of the quasi-
conclusive presumption that he or she is born of the husband of his or her mother. There
are therefore situations wherein a person is presumed by law to be a Filipino citizen,
notwithstanding the absence of any actual "blood tie" to a Filipino parent, as in the case of
a child conceived or born within a valid marriage between a Filipino father and an alien
mother, but is actually the product of artificial insemination with a donor, or of adulterous
relations.
81
Sr. Montinola. Para una aclaracion. For clarification. The gentleman said
Alli se dice "de adres "of unknown arents." Current
83
desconocidos." Los Codigos actuates codes consider them Filipino, that is,
consideran como filipino, es decir, I refer to the Spanish Code wherein
me refiero al codigo espanol quien all children of unknown parentage
considera como espanoles a todos born in Spanish territory are
los hijos de padres desconocidos considered Spaniards, because the
nacidos en territorio espanol, porque presumption is that a child of
la presuncion es que el hijo de unknown parentage is the son of a
padres desconocidos es hijo de un Spaniard. This may be applied in the
espanol, y de esa manera se podra Philippines in that a child of
aplicar en Filipinas de que un hijo unknown parentage born in the
desconocido aqui y nacido en Philippines is deemed to be Filipino,
Filipinas se considerara que es hijo and there is no need ...
filipino y no hay necesidad ...
224 I JOSE M. ARUEGO, THE FRAMING OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION 209 (1949)
22s Exhibit "43", p. 24
2 26 G.R. No. L-14129, 31 July 1962, citing Blevins vs. Mullally, 135 p. 307, 22 Cal. App.
519)
87
MR. CINCO. But suppose a child is born to a Filipino mother; the child has got a
father we cannot tell who he is, but it came out that the child appears to be very
white, it does not seem to be born of a Filipino father, what kind of citizenship has
the child?
MR. SANCHEZ. The general rule in international law will apply that (sic) child
follows the citizenship of his mother.
MR. CINCO. So that he is a Filipino citizen?
MR. SANCHEZ. I think so because that is the rule of international law.230
x x x
MR. PAREDES. Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: I have asked for
a chance to talk against all these five amendments, because I find them destructive
of the rules of International Law, converting the Filipino unnecessarily into a
treacherous and enabling every foreigner to be a Filipino just because he is
susceptible of naturalization.
x x x. With regard to No. 2., "All persons born in the Philippines or any foreign
country of a mother who is a citizen of the Philippines." I believe that is the point of
discussion, because as to the first point, if he is born of a Filipino father in or
outside the Philippines, he is a Filipino. We know that according to the rules of
International Law the nationality of a son follows the nationality of the father. x x
x.
x x x
The third reason is that in International Law, as I have stated, we have already
adopted this theory, and if we are going to alter the rules of International Law
which in the body of the article or chapter on principles we have declared to follow,
we will be contradicting the well-settled rules of International Law from time
immemorial, that the children will follow the nationality of the father.
(Underscoring supplied)
89
233 Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Phil. vs. Duque III, G.R. No.
173034, 9 October 2007
23 4 Id., citing JOAQUIN 0. BERNAS, S.J., AN INTRODUCTION TO PuBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2002
ed., p. 57
235 See Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, referred to as the transformation
clause (as it 'transforms' treaties into municipal or domestic law), which states that "(n)o
91
vs. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, 2 May 1997; Bayan vs. Zamora, G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572,
138587, 138680 & 138698, 10 October 2000; Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
104 768, 21 July 2003; Article 26, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which the
Philippines ratified on 15 November 1972, states that "Every treaty in force is binding
upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. n
23 7 Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association vs. Dugue III, G. R. No. 173034, 9 October
2007
238 The underscored phrase, otherwise known as the "incorporation" clause, was
Article 2
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or
freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall
have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in
an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a
remedy shall have his right thereto determined by
competent judicial, administrative or legislative
authorities, or by any other competent authority
provided for by the legal system of the State, and to
develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall
enforce such remedies when granted.24 4
247 "Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State
Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with
its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such
legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in
the present Covenant." (Underscoring supplied)
248 Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, 18 January 2000
95
Article 2
x x x249
Article 7
142. The only way the Philippines can perform its treaty
obligations under the UNCRC and the ICCPR in the case of a
foundling is to recognize him or her as its own citizen, that is-a
Philippine citizen. The Philippines has no authority to consider a
foundling a citizen of another county. In the words of the Hon.
Justice Carpio in his separate opinion in Maquiling vs.
COMELEC, "Philippine courts have no power to declare whether
a person possesses citizenship other than that of the
Philippines. "253
256 The Philippines ratified the ICCPR and the UNCRC on 23 October 1986 and on 21
August 1990 respectively.
257 Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution provides: "No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws." (Underscoring supplied)
258 People v. Cayat, G.R. No. L-45987, 5 May 1939
99
26 2See Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, in relation to Bayan
Muna vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, 1 February 2011
263 Underscoring supplied
101
26 4Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association vs. Duque III, G.R. No. 173034, 9 October
2007
26 5 The underscored phrase, otherwise known as the "incorporation" clause, was
Pacta Sunt Servanda La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. vs. Hon. Fernandez, G.R. No.
L-63796-97, 2 May 1984; Sujanani vs. Hon. Ongpin,
G.R. No. L-65659, 21 May 1984; Tanada vs. Angara,
G.R. No. 118295, 2 May 1997; Secretary of Justice vs.
Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, 18 January 2000; Bayan vs.
Zamora, G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572, 138587, 138680 &
138698, 10 October 2000; See La Bugal-B'laan Tribal
Association vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 127882, 27 January
2004; Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Atlanta
Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 193796, 2 July 2014
A State may not be sued Arigo vs. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, 16 September 2014;
without its consent (State's Baer vs. Tizon, G.R. No. L-24294, 3 May 1974; Sanders
Immunity from Suit) vs. Hon. Verdiano, G.R. No. L-46930, 10 June 1988;
U.S.A. vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 (1990); Shauf vs. Hon.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90314, 27 November 1990;
Wylie vs. Rarang, G.R. No. 74135, 28 May 1992; U.S.A.
vs. Hon. Reyes, G.R. No. 79253, 1 March 1993; Parreno
vs. Mcgranery, G.R. No. L-4263, 12 March 1953 (which
also cited Syquia vs. Lopez, et al., 84 Phil. 312, G.R. No.
L-1648; Marvel Building Corp. vs. Philippine War
Damage Commission, 85 Phil. 27, G.R. No. L-1822;
Marquez Lim vs. Nelson, et al., 87 Phil. 328, G.R. No. L-
2412.); The Holy See vs. Rosario, Jr., G.R. No. 101949,
1 December 1994; Jusmag Philippines vs. NLRC, G.R.
No. 108813, 15 December 1994; The Department of
Health vs. Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. G.R. No. 169304, 13
March 2007 (Shaufv. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90314,
November 27, 1990, 191 SCRA 713 cited in United
States of America v. Reyes, G.R. No. 79253, March 1,
1993, 219 SCRA 192.)
Vienna Convention on Reyes vs. Bagatsing, G.R. No. 180016, 29 April 2014
Diplomatic Relations
adooted in 1961.
Diplomatic immunity Lasco vs. United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural
Resources Exploration, G.R. Nos. 109095 - 109107, 23
February 1995; and Sombilon vs. Romulo, G.R. No.
175888, 11 February 2009
103
"(A) belligerent occupant Vda. De Villarual vs. Manila Motor Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-
(like the Japanese in 1942- 10394, 13 December 1958
1945) may legitimately
billet or quarter its troops
in privately owned land
and buildings for the
duration of its military
operations, or as military
necessity should demand."
"(A) foreign army allowed Tubb vs. Griess, G.R. No. L-1325, 7 April 1947; and
to march through a Dizon vs. The Commanding General of the Philippine
friendly country or to be Ryukus Command, G.R. No. L-2110, 22 July 1948
stationed in it, by (citing Tubb vs. Griess)
permission of its
government or sovereign,
is exempt from the civil
and criminal jurisdiction of
the place."
"(A") state has the right to Illuh Asaali vs. Commission of Customs, G.R. No. L-
protect itself and its 24170, 28 February 1969
revenues, a right not
limited to its own territory
but extending to the high
seas."
"(J)udicial acts which are Etorma vs. Ravelo, G.R. No. L-718, 24 March 1947
not of political complexion
of de facto governments
established by the military
occupant in an enemy
territory" (a principle
based on the Regulations
of the Hague Convention),
are valid
"The Hague Convention, Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, 26 March 1949
the Geneva Convention
and significant precedents Liban vs. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352, 18 January 2011
of international (Geneva Convention only)
jurisprudence established
by the United Nations" and
the "rules and regulations"
of the Hague and Geneva
conventions
"(S)equestration of cash, I Haw Pia vs. China Banking Corp., G.R. No. L-554, 9
funds, and realizable April 1948
securities in occupied
territory (as) proscribed by
article 53 of the Hague
Regulations"
United Nations Convention I People vs. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, 21April2014
on the Elimination of all
Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (UN-
CEDA W) "and its allied
issuances" (In 1981, 180
countries, including the
Philippines, ratified this
Convention.)
104
The 1968 Vienna Agustin vs. Edu, G.R. No. L-49112, 2 February 1979
Convention on Road Signs
and Signals
"The Paris Convention and Sehwani, Inc. vs. In-N-Out Burger, Inc., G.R. No.
the WIPO Joint 171053, 15 October 2007
Recommendation"
There is no "duty on the BPI vs. De Reny Fabric Industries, Inc., G.R. No. L-
part of a bank to verify 24821, 16 October 1970
whether what has been
described in letters of
credits or drafts or
shipping documents
actually tallies with what
was loaded aboard ship"
105
Article 14
Article 2
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, Rainer Baubock, Eva Ersb0ll, Kees Groenendijk, Harald Waldrauch,
eds., Amsterdam University Press (2006)
27s See Myres S. McDougal, Harold D. Lasswell and Lung-chu Chen, Nationality and
Human Rights: The Protection of the Individual and External Arenas, 83 Yale L.J. 900, 965
(1974).
219 Underscoring supplied
2so Underscoring supplied
110
28 3See "Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights' Compilation Report;" "Universal Periodic
Review: The Philippines" available at http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4ee07aa22.pdf
See also the 21 June 2015 "With Due Respect" column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer
of former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban which reported the information from Mr.
Bernard Kerblat, country representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees that at a ministerial meeting on 7 December 2011, the Philippine panel pledged
to initiate accession to the Convention on Statelessness.
284 Underscoring supplied
285 The other one being the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
112
shall be arbitrarily deprived of such nationality nor denied the right to change that
nationality.
291 Article 20. Right to Nationality
1. Every person has the right to a nationality.
2. Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose territory he
was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality.
3. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or of the right to change it.
29a Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and
Venezuela. However, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela denounced the convention on 26
May 1998 and 10 September 2012 respectively.
299 Article 24
1. Everyone shall have the right to citizenship.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his citizenship or of the right to change it.
300 These countries are Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia,
Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Non.vay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia,
Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United
Kingdom.
301 Id.
115
305
G.R. No. 182498, 3 December 2009, cited with approval in Navia vs. Pardico, G.R. No.
184467, 19 June 2012
117
307Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association vs. Duque III, G.R. No. 173034, 9 October
2007
119
(c) Aside from the usual process that the passing of a law
entails and the lobbying that precedes such
enactment, naturalization of an alien by direct act of
Congress usually requires the taking of an oath of
allegiance and its registration with the Bureau of
Immigration. 326
326 See footnote 321 of Sen. Poe's Memorandum on SPA 15·002 (DC)
3 27SEC. 1. Who ma.11 become Philippine citizens. - Philippine citizenship may be acquired
by: (a) Natives of the Philippines who are not citizens thereof under the Jones Law; (b)
natives of the other Insular possessions of the United States; (c) citizens of the United
States, or foreigners who under the laws of the United States may become citizens of said
country if residing therein.
328 See Exhibit "37", p. 203
126
329 Padilla, Evidence, Vol. 2, 1994 ed. P.62, citing 20 Am. Jur Sec. 158, p.162
330 Id. citing 31 CJS, Sec.114, pp. 723-724
331 See Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
332 G.R. No. 161434, 3 March 2004
128
all the others, to be considered alone, but that all the provisions
bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and
to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the
instrument. Sections bearing on a particular subject should be
considered and interpreted together as to effectuate the whole
purpose of the Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to
defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can be
made to stand together.
UDHR, the UNCRC, and the ICCPR, among others, but it is also
an interpretation that runs counter to the very spirit animating
our Constitution.
192. However, Sen. Poe's did not argue per se that the
COMELEC was bound by the B.l.'s 18 July 2006 order. Sen. Poe
simply stressed (repeatedly) in the proceedings a quo, that the
DOJ has the "primary jurisdiction" to decide whether said order
was legally issued, which necessarily includes the initial inquiry
as to whether Sen. Poe was a "former natural-born Filipino"
qualified for repatriation under R.A. No. 9225.
Vilando vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. G .R. Nos. 19214 7 & 192149,
3 47
23 August 2011; Co vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. G.R. Nos. 92191-92,
30 July 1991, citing Queto vs. Catolico. G.R. Nos. L-25204 & L-25219, 23 January 1970
135
199. If the
COMELEC opinion is adopted, then this
Honorable Court has, over the last 14 years, effectively and
repeatedly created unconstitutional jurisprudence on the subject
of repatriation and the effects of R.A. No. 9225.
J6o Section 1 of BI Memorandum Circular No. AFF. 05-002, otherwise known as the
"Revised rules Governing Philippine Citizenship under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 and
Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 91, Series of 2004."
140
208. Sen. Poe has always believed, in good faith, that she is
a natural-born Filipino. Therefore, even if she was wrong (and
she was not), Sen. Poe did not "deliberately" mislead anyone
when she stated in her COC for President that she is a
"NATURAL BORN FILIPINO CITIZEN."
We do not believe that in real life there are not many cases
of good faith founded upon an error of law. When the acquisition
appears in a public document, the capacity of the parties has
already been passed upon by competent authority, and even
established by appeals taken from final judgments and
administrative remedies against the qualification of registrars, and
the possibility of error is remote under such circumstances; but,
unfortunately, private documents and even verbal agreements far
exceed public documents in number, and while no one should be
ignorant of the law, the truth is that even we who are called upon
to know and apply it fall into error not infrequently. However, ~
clear, manifest, and truly unexcusable ignorance is one thing, to
which undoubtedly refers article 2, and another and different thing
is possible and excusable error arising from complex legal
principles and from the interpretation of conflicting doctrines.
373 Gallego vs. Verra, G.R. No. 48641, 24 November 1941 (citing Nuval vs. Guray, 52 Phil.
645); Japzon v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 180088, 19 January 2009; Jalosjos vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 191970, 24 April 2012 (citing Limbona v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 181097, June 25, 2008, 555 SCRA 391, 401)
374 G.R. Nos. 119976, 18 September 1995, citing Gallego vs. Vera, 73 Phil. 453 (1941)
31s Underscoring supplied
376 Mitra vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 191938, 2 July 2010; Japzon v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 180088, 19 January 2009, citing Papandayan. Jr. v. Commission on
Elections, 430 Phil. 754 (2002)
148
consisting of 1
page
"3-F" I "7-F" I Elementary Pupil's
Permanent Record
for Jesusa Anika
Carolina P.
Llamanzares,
issued by the
Assumption
College, consisting
of 1 page
"4" "8" Identification Card 1. Shortly after Sen. Poe returned to
issued by the the Philippines permanently in
Bureau of Internal May 2005, she secured for herself
Revenue ("B.l.R.") a T.I.N. (239-290-513-000) from
to Sen. Poe on the B.l.R.;
July 22, 2005, 2. In the first quarter of 2005 and
consisting of 1 no later than May 2005, Sen. Poe
page had abandoned her residence in
the U.S.A., and, from then on, she
intended to reside permanently in
the Philippines; and
3. By May 9, 2016, Sen. Poe will be
a resident of the Philippines for
ten (10) years and eleven (11)
months
"5" "11" Condominium 1. In the first quarter of 2005 and
Certificate of Title no later than May 2005, Sen. Poe
("CCT") No. had abandoned her residence in
11985-R covering the U.S.A., and, from then on, she
Unit 7F of One intended to reside, as she did
Wilson Place, actually and physically reside,
which the Registry permanently in the Philippines;
of Deeds for San 2. In the second half of 2005, Sen.
Juan City issued Poe and her husband acquired a
on February 20, residential condominium with
2006, consisting parking slot in San Juan City,
of 4 pages which they used as a family
"6" "12" CCT No. 11986-R residence until the completion of
covering the their intended permanent family
parking slot for home at Corinthian Hills, Quezon
Unit 7F of One City; and
Wilson Place, 3. By May 9, 2016, Sen. Poe will be
which the Registry a resident of the Philippines for
of Deeds for San ten (10) years and eleven (11)
Juan City issued months
on February 20,
2006, consisting
of 2 pages
"7" I "13" I Declaration of
Real Property No.
96-39721 covering
Unit 7F of One
Wilson Place,
issued bv the
152
389 See Exhibit "J" (Sen. Poe's travel records) and Exhibit "5", p.10 (Sen. Poe's U.S.A.
Passport), showing arrival in the Philippines on 24 May 2005
390 Sen. Poe's trips abroad during the contested period from May 2005 to July 2006 are:
1) Hong Kong - Philippine departure: September 11, 2005, Philippine arrival:
September 14, 2005, lasting only four (4) days;
2) USA - Philippine departure: December 16, 2005, Philippine arrival: January 7,
2006, lasting only twenty two (22) days;
3) USA - Philippine departure: February 14, 2006, Philippine arrival: March 11, 2006,
lasting only twenty five (25) days;
4) Thailand - Philippine departure: July 2, 2006, Philippine arrival: July 5, 2006,
lasting only four (4) days. (See Exhibits "I" for the Petitioner and "S" for Sen. Poe)
391 See Exhibit "30-A", p. 4, in response to item no. 7 appearing on the same page.
392 Id. p. l
393 Supra note 390, infra note 411
394 Exhibit "41" for Sen. Poe.
395 See Jalosjos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 191970, 24 April 2012 [citing Co v. Electoral
Tribunal of the House of Representatives, G.R. Nos. 92191-92 and 92202-03, July 30,
1991, 199 SCRA 692, 715, citing Delos Reyes v. Solidum, 61 Phil. 893, 899 (1935)], where
the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that "a candidate is not required to have a
157
(Sen. Poe's Petition filed with the Bureau of Immigration ["B.I."J), and "22" (Order of B.I.
granting Sen. Poe's Petition).
402 Exhibits "21", "21-A", and "21-B".
403 Exhibit "24".
404 Exhibit "27".
405 Exhibit "29".
406 Exhibit "30-A".
158
411 Sen. Poe's travel records (Exhibit "J" for the private respondent Tatad) and U.S.A.
Passport (Exhibit "S" for Sen. Poe) show that Sen. Poe was physically present in the
Philippines continuously from May 24, 2005 to December 16, 2005, except for a brief four
(4) day travel to Hong Kong from September 11 to 14, 2005, after which she returned to
the Philippines. On December 16, 2005, Sen. Poe briefly travelled to the U.S.A. to attend to
her family's ongoing relocation, staying there for only twenty two (221 days. She returned to
the Philippines on January 7, 2006. Sen. Poe's last lengthy stay in the U.S.A. was from
February 14, 2006 to March 11, 2006, or twenty five (251 days (less than one month!. to
supervise the packing and collection of her family's household goods, and wrap-up her
family's affairs in the United States. (See Exhibits "6-series" [e-mail correspondence with
Victory Van International! and "15" to "15·A" [receipts for donated goods from the
Salvation Army], which show Sen. Poe's activities during this period.) Sen. Poe did not
leave the country again until July 2, 2006, for a brief four (4) day visit to Thailand, after
which she returned to the Philippines on July 5, 2006. On November 1, 2006, Sen. Poe
again went overseas for a brief four (4) day visit to Singapore, after which she returned to
the Philippines on November 4, 2006. These uncontroverted pieces of evidence clearly
show that Sen. Poe had been continuously staying in the Philippines since May 2005, only
leaving for brief periods of overseas business, but always returning to the Philippines.
4 12 See Exhibit "6-seriea" for the Sen. Poe, which show that as early as March 2005, Sen.
Poe and her husband had been in touch with property movers and obtaining estimates
regarding the total cost of relocating their household goods, furniture, and other movable
properties to the Philippines. The spouses eventually obtained the services of Victory Van
International, which scheduled the collection and storage (for eventual transport to the
Philippines) of the Llamanzares family's household goods in two (2) batches: the first in
February 2006 (see e-mail dated February 10 and 15, 2006), and the second in April 2006
(see e-mail dated April 7 and 27, 2006). This timeline is consistent with the fact that Sen.
Poe's house in the U.S.A. was sold on April 27, 2006. These pieces of evidence indubitably
show that Sen. Poe and her family abandoned their U.S.A. domicile and could no longer
have been living in the United States during this period. This logical conclusion is
consistent with the fact that Sen. Poe and her children returned to the country with the
intention to reside here permanently starting May 2005.
4 13 Exhibit "17" in Tatad case; Exhibit "11" in Contreras and Valdez cases
160
Poe's travels to the U.S.A. using her U.S.A. passport from May
2005 to July 2006. (See page 39 of the 11 December 2015
Resolution). The COMELEC also cited Sen. Poe's apparent
statement in her COC for Senator that she had resided in the
Philippines for only "6,, years and "6,, months on 13 May 2013.
According to the COMELEC, this was proof that Sen. Poe had
resided in the Philippines since November 2006 and, therefore,
for only 9 years and 6 months by 9 May 2016.
"1" in SPA 15-007 and 139; Exhibit "5" in SPA 15-002). Sen.
Poe (together with her children) initially lived with her mother at
23 Lincoln St., Greehhills West, San Juan City. Paragraph 9 of
the Affidavit of Sen. Poe's mother, Jesusa Sonora Poe,
corroborates this fact (See Exhibit "26" in SPA 15-007 and 139;
Exhibit "41" in SPA 15-002). In paragraph 10 of her Affidavit,
Ms. Poe even recounted how "the living arrangements at 23
Lincoln had to be modified to accommodate (Sen. Poe) and (Ms.
Poe's) grandchildren," and that "one of the spaces in the house
had to be converted into a bedroom for one of the children."
227. In the first place, Sen. Poe did not "travel frequently"
to the U.S.A. between May 2005 and July 2006. Her cancelled
U.S.A. Passport shows that she travelled to the U.S.A. only twice
during this period and each trip did not last more than a month
(See Sen. Poe's cancelled U.S.A. Passport, Exhibit "1" in SPA 15-
007 and 139; Exhibit "5" in SPA 15-002). As explained in
paragraph 55.3.3., the five (5) trips which Sen. Poe referred to in
her Motion for Reconsideration (between 2006 to 2011) actually
happened on on 14 February 2006, on 20 April 2009, on 19
October 2009, on 27 December 2009 and on 27 March 2010. It
bears stressing that after 20 October 2010, Sen. Poe no longer
used her U.S.A. Passport. This fact is evident from a simple
examination of the entries in her cancelled U.S.A. Passport as
well as the travel logs which Private Respondent Tatad himself
submitted. Those same travel logs reveal that Sen. Poe travelled
only twice in 2011, and she used her Philippine passport on
both occasions. Those two 2011 trips were not even to the U.S.A.
but to Hong Kong and to Thailand. Therefore, it was erroneous
for the COMELEC En Banc to conclude, or to imply that Sen. Poe
had asserted, that she travelled to the U.S.A. in 2011 "using her
U.S.A. Passport." The evidence in the proceeding a quo simply
does not support that conclusion. And even then, travelling to
the U.S.A. at an average of less than once a year (and for short
durations at that) cannot, by any standard, be described as
"frequent" travels to the U.S.A.
in the U.S.A. Sen. Poe's trip to the U.S.A. in February 2006 was
"for the purpose of supervising the disposal of some of the
family's remaining household belongings. "4 19 In fact, during this
trip, Sen. Poe even donated some of the family's household
belongings to the Salvation Army (See Exhibits "9" and "9-A" in
SPA 15-007 and 139; Exhibits "15" and "15-A" in SPA 15-002).
Surely, a trip which involved the disposal of the family's personal
properties in the U.S.A. cannot be considered evidence of Sen.
Poe's supposed intent not to abandon (or to maintain) her
residence in the U.S.A.
229. Again, as held, in De Guzman v. Commission on
Elections, 4 20 there is grave abuse of discretion when the
COMELEC "grossly misappreciate(s) evidence of such nature as
to compel a contrary conclusion." Also, in Jalover vs. Osmena
and COMELEC, 421 this Honorable Court held that "when the
COMELEC's action on the appreciation and evaluation of
evidence oversteps the limits of its discretion to the point of
being grossly unreasonable, the Court is not only obliged, but
has the constitutional duty to intervene." The only logical and
"reasonable" conclusion that one can derive from Sen. Poe's trip
to the U.S.A. in February 2006, is that she wanted to abandon
her home in the U.S.A. (not maintain it).
230 . That said, regardless of the purpose of Sen. Poe's two
short trips to the U.S.A. between May 2005 and July 2006, these
trips cannot by themselves negate her compliance with the 10-
year residence requirement for Presidential candidates.
Japzon422 is again instructive:
4 19 Answer to Tatad Petition, par. 1.26; Answer to Contreras Petition, par. 1.16; and
the Philippines) and not just the period after her U.S.A.
residence was sold and when her family was already
complete in the country, after her husband's return. Sen.
Poe's period of residence in her COC for Senator should,
therefore, have been counted from 24 May 2005, and
extended all the way "up to the day before" the 13 May
2013 elections. Sen. Poe realized only this year that she
should have stated "7" years and "11" months (instead of
1
years since July 1990. His claim that he had been a resident of
Tuguegarao since July 1990 is credible considering that he was
governor from 1988 to 1998 and, therefore, it would be
convenient for him to maintain his residence in Tuguegarao,
which is the capital of the province of Cagayan. 431
239. Since Sen. Poe's COC for Senator does not coincide
with the fact of her residence, this document should have been
disregarded by the COMELEC, and not declared to be "binding''
or decisive on the issue of Sen. Poe's compliance with the 10-
year residence requirement. The COMELEC should disregard
what is stated in a COC when it does not jive with the rest of the
evidence. Conversely, it should not throw away or, worse, ignore
the rest of the evidence when these do not jive with what is
stated in the COC.
435 G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002, 385 SCRA 607
436 G.R. No. 180088, 19 January 2009
437 G.R. No. 209835, 22 September 2015
176
438 Comm. Guia, Separate Opinion in SPA No. 15-001 (DC) dated 23 December 2015, p. 5.
177
439 Id., at p. 7
178
"6-series");
3. School records of Sen.
Poe's two older
children showing that
they were enrolled in
Philippines schools
for the Academic Year
2005 to 2006
(Exhibits "7-series");
4. Identification Card
bearing Sen. Poe's
TIN which the BIR
issued on 22 July
2005 (Exhibit "8");
5. Condominium
Certificates of Title
Nos. 11985-R and
11986-R showing that
Sen. Poe and her
husband had
acquired a
condominium unit
(and parking slot) in
San Juan City no
later than 20
February 2006
(Exhibits "11" and
"12");
6. Declarations of Real
Property Nos. 96-
39721 and 96-39722
covering the same
condominium unit
(and parking slot) in
San Juan City
showing that these
real properties were
declared for tax
purposes in Sen.
Poe's and her
husband's name on
25 April 2006
(Exhibits "13" and
"14");
7. Receipts issued by
the Salvation Army
both dated 23
February 2006
showing that Sen. Poe
had donated a
number of her
household goods in
the U.S.A. (Exhibits
"15" and "15-A");
Section 1, RA No. 6768 as amended by RA No. 9174. The law also provides for training
44 1
programs thus:
In the case of non-OFW balikbayan, the Department of Tourism shall make the
necessary arrangements with the TLRC and other training institutions for possible
livelihood training.
442 G.R. No. 191970, 24 April 2012
182
444 It must be emphasized that Sen. Poe did not have to secure a permanent resident visa
at that time, for her residence in the country was at any rate lawful and allowed under the
balikbayan program.
184
Elections, G.R. No. 180088, 19 January 2009, citing Papandayan. Jr. v. Commission on
Elections, 430 Phil. 754 (2002)
186
460 A video clip of this press conference was uploaded on video-sharing site Youtube by
SunStar Philippines on 2 June 2015, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OrlG5ns2yE.
A compact disk containing a copy of this video clip is attached as Annex "2" of Sen. Poe's
Verified Motion for Reconsideration (Annex "U" hereof), and re-attached as Annex "W"
hereof.
461 Several media outfits, reporting on the press conference held by Rep. Tiangco, ran
front-page stories regarding Sen. Poe's alleged failure to meet the ten-year residency
requirement on the basis of her COC for Senator. A sampling of these articles which
indubitably show that the public was aware of this issue as early as June 2, 2015, are
attached as Annex "3-series" of Annex "U".
462 Again, Sen. Poe's statements during this ambush interview, i.e., that she mistakenly
reckoned her period of residency in her 2013 COC only from April 2006 (when she and her
husband sold their house in the U.S.A.) despite living in the country with her children
since early 2005.. were reported by several media outfits via print and broadcast media.
Sen. Poe's alleged failure to meet the ten-year residency requirement, and Sen. Poe's
assertion that she was able to comply with the same-were on the news for several days. A
sampling of these news reports are attached as Annex "4-series" of Annex "U" hereof. A
compact disc containing video clips of news reports broadcasted during this relevant
192
period was also attached as Annex "5" of Annex "U" hereof, and re-attached hereto as
Annex "X".
193
46 8 See Fermin v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179695, December 18, 2008.
469 G.R. No. 191970, 24 April 2012
410 G.R. No. 151914, 31 July 2002
4 11 G.R. No. 176947, 19 February 2009
412 G.R. No. 120295, 28 June 1996
473 G.R. No. 180088, 19 January 2009
196
4 soJavellana vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. L-36142, etc., 31 March 1973
481 Article V, 1987 Constiution
482 Section 4, Article VII, 1987 Constitution
483 G.R. No. 161434, 3 March 2004
201
VII.
EXTREMELY URGENT APPLICATION FOR AN
EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,
STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER,
AND/OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUCTION
486 See for example, Fermin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179695, 18 December 2008, 574 SCRA
782: "A COMELEC rule or resolution cannot supplant or vary the legislative enactments
that distinguish the grounds for disqualification from those of ineligibility, and the
appropriate proceedings to raise the said grounds. In other words, Rule 25 and COMELEC
Resolution No. 7800 cannot supersede the dissimilar requirements of the law for the filing
of a petition for disqualification under Section 68, and a petition for the denial of due
course to or cancellation of CoC under Section 78 of the OEC."
487 G.R. No. 190529, 22 March 2011, 646 SCRA 63
203
488 Available at
http: I lwww.comelec.gov .ph I uploadslAboutCOMELEC I BidsandAwards I ProcurementProje
ctslBAC012014AESOMRIBAC012014AESOMRITB TermsOfReference.pdf
489 The entire document is 67 pages. Only the first page, and pp. 61 to 67 where the
http:Ilwww.tempo.com.phl2015112109 ltwo-crucial-dates-for-the-candidates-in-the-
coming-electionsl ("The second important Comelec date is January 15, 2016. The Comelec
will start printing the official ballots on this date.); also "Cha-cha referendum proposed:'
found at http: //www.mb.com.phlcha-cha-referendum-proposedl ("The Comelec has
disclosed that it will start printing the ballots on January 15, 2016.")
491 See "Comelec concludes substitution of candidates for 2016 polls", available at
RELIEFS
A~·-'·
By:
/.ffe.-
ALEXANBtR J. POBLADOR
PTR No. 4777501/Jan. 27, 2015/Makati City
Lifetime IBP No. 00066/Makati City
OR No. 345214/March 1, 1993
Roll of Attorneys No. 29440
MCLE Compliance No. V-0009389 /__ J 2,2015
A. TAMAYO
~/Jan. 17,
2015/Makati City
'fetime IBP No. 01293/Quezon City
R No. 449518/December 29, 1997
Roll of Attorneys No. 36289
MCLE CompliancyN\:r.\IV-0015221/April 2, 2013
ET . ........ .ell.......
MA C~~ONORA Affiant
POE LLAMANZARES
,,
209
COPY FURNISHED:
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Public Respondent
Palacio Del Go bernador
Gen. Luna St., lntramuros
Manila
EXPLANATION