Grace Poe vs COMELEC Poe stated that she wanted to be with her grieving On July 12, 2011, Poe
On July 12, 2011, Poe executed an
(Case Digest: GR 221697, GR 221698-700
March 8, 2016)
FACTS:
Grace Poe (Poe) was found abandoned in a church
in Jaro Iloilo sometime 1968. Parental care was
passed to the relatives of Edgardo Militar, the
person who found the child. The relatives then
reported and registered the child as a founding
with the Civil Registrar of Iloilo. The child was
then named Mary Grace Militar. The child was
subsequently adopted by Fernando Poe, Jr and
Susan Roces sometime in 1974. Necessary
annotations were placed in the child’s foundling
certificate but it was only in 2005 that Susan
Roces discovered that their lawyer failed to secure
a new Certificate of Live Birth indicating Poe’s
new name as well as the name of the adoptive
parents. Roces then submitted an affidavit and in
2006, a Certificate of Live Birth in the name of
Mary Grace Poe was released by the Civil Registry
of Iloilo.
At the age of 18, Poe was registered as a voter of
San Juan. In 1988, she was issued a Philippine
passport. In 1991, Poe married Teodoro
Llamanzares and flew to the US right after the
wedding. She then gave birth to her eldest child in
the US. In 2001, Poe became a naturalized
American Citizen and she obtained a US Passport
that same year.
In April 2004, Poe came back to the Philippines in
order to support her father’s candidacy. It was at
this time that she gave birth to her youngest
daughter. She then returned to the US in July 2004
with her two daughters. Poe returned in
December 2004 after learning of her father’s
deteriorating condition. The latter died and Poe
stayed until February 2005 to take care of the
funeral arrangements.
mother hence, she and her husband decided to
move and reside permanently in the Philippines
sometime first quarter of 2005. They prepared for
resettlement including notification of their
children’s schools, coordination with property
movers and inquiry with Philippine authorities as
to how they can bring their pet dog. According to
Poe, as early as 2004, she already quit her job in
the US.
Poe came home on May 24, 2005 and immediately
secured a TIN while her husband stayed in the US.
She and her family stayed with her mother until
she and husband was able to purchase a
condominium in San Juan sometime February
2006. On February 14, 2006, Poe returned to the
US to dispose the other family belongings. She
travelled back in March 2006. In early 2006, Poe
and husband acquired a property in Corinthian
Hills in Quezon City where they built their family
home.
On July 7, 2006, Poe took her Oath of Allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to R.A.
9225. On July 10, 2006, she filed a sworn petition
to reacquire Philippine citizenship together with
petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her
three children. The Bureau of Immigration acted
in favor of the petition on July 18, 2006. She and
her children were then considered dual citizens.
Poe then registered as voter in August 2006 and
secured a Philippine passport thereafter.
On October 6, 2010, she was appointed as
Chairperson of the MTRCB. Before assuming her
post, she executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of
Allegiance to the US before a notary public in
Pasig City on October 20, 2010. The following day,
she submitted the Affidavit to the Bureau of
Immigration and took her oath as MTRCB
Chairperson. According to Poe, she stopped using
her American passport from then on.
Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of
the US before the Vice Consul of the US Embassy in
Manila. On December 9, 2011, the US Vice Consul
issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the US
effective October 21, 2010.
On October 2, 2012, Poe filed with COMELEC her
Certificate of Candidacy for Senator stating that
she was a resident of the Philippines for a period
of 6 years and 6 months before May 13, 2013. She
was then proclaimed a Senator on May 16, 2013.
On October 15, 2015, Poe filed her COC for the
Presidency for the May 2016 elections. She
declared that she is a natural born and her
residence in the Philippine up to the day before
election would be 10 years and 11 months
counted from May 24, 2005.
Several petitions were filed against Poe alleging
that (1) she committed material
misrepresentation in her COC when she stated
that she is a resident of the Philippines for at least
10 years 11 months up to the day before May 9,
2016 Elections, (2) she is not natural born
considering that Poe is a foundling. It was argued
that international law does not confer natural
born status and Filipino citizenship to foundlings
hence, she is not qualified to apply for
reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under
R.A.9225 as she is not a natural citizen to begin
with. Assuming that Poe was a natural born
citizen, she lost it when she became a US Citizen.
In addition, one of the petitioners, Francisco
Tatad, theorized that:
1. Philippines adhere to the principle of ju
sanguinis and hence persons of unknown
parentage, particularly foundlings, are not
natural born Filipino citizens.
2. Using statutory construction, considering
that foundlings were not expressly
included in the categories of citizens in
 the 1935 Constitution, the framers are
said to have the intention to exclude them
3. International conventions are not self-
executory hence, local legislations are
necessary to give effect to obligations
assumed by the Philippines.
4. There is no standard practice that
automatically confers natural born status
to foundlings.
Petitioner Valdez alleged that Poe’s repatriation
under R.A 9225 did not bestow upon her the
status of a natural born citizen as those who
repatriates only acquires Philippine citizenship
and not their original status as natural born
citizens. Poe countered these petitions by alleging
that:
1. The grounds invoked by the petitioners
were not proper grounds for a
disqualification case as enumerated
under Section 12 and 68 of the Omnibus
Election Code.
2. What the petitioners filed focus on
establishing her ineligibility, hence, they
fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal, not the
COMELEC.
3. The July 18, 2006 Order of the Bureau of
Immigration declaring her as natural
born, her appointment as MTRCB Chair
and the issuance of the decree of adoption
reinforced her position as a natural born
citizen
4. As early as first quarter of 2005, she
started to reestablish her domicile in the
Philippines and that she can reestablish
her domicile of choice even before she
renounced her American citizenship.
5. The period of residency as stated in her
COC for senator was a mistake in good
faith. COMELEC ruled against the
petitioner resolving that she is not a
natural born citizen and that she failed to
complete the 10 year residency
requirement. Hence, the present petition
forcertiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES AND RATIO:
1. Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to
disqualify POE
The procedure and the conclusions from which
the Resolutions of the COMELEC emanated are
tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction.
The issue before the COMELEC is whether the COC
should be denied due course ‘on the exclusive
ground’ that she made in the certificate a false
material representation. COMELEC should
restrain itself from going into the issue of
qualifications of the candidate. It cannot, in the
same cancellation case, decide the qualification or
lack thereof of a candidate. Not one of the
enumerated powers of the COMELEC as stated in
Article IX C, Sec. 2 of the Constitution grants the
commission the power to determine the
qualifications of a candidate. Such powers are
granted to the Electoral Tribunal as stated in
Article VI Section 17 and the Supreme Court under
Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Insofar as the qualification of a candidate is
concerned, Rule 25 and Rule 23 of the COMELEC
rules do not allow, are not authorization and are
not vestment of jurisdiction for the COMELEC to
determine the qualification of a candidate. The
facts of qualification must first be established in a
prior proceeding before an authority vested with
jurisdiction. Prior determination of qualification
may be by statute, by an executive order or by a
judgment of a competent court or tribunal.
Lacking this prior determination, the certificate of
candidacy cannot be cancelled or denied due
course on ground of false representations
regarding a candidate’s qualifications except if
there exists self-evident facts of unquestioned or
unquestionable veracity and judicial confessions.
In this light the COMELEC cannot cancel Poe’s
certificate of candidacy lacking prior
determination of her qualifications by a
competent body.
2. Whether it can be concluded that Poe’s
parents are Filipinos.
Presumption regarding paternity is neither
unknown nor unacceptable in Philippine Law.
There is more than sufficient evidence that Poe
has Filipino parents and is therefore a natural-
born Filipino. Hence, the burden of proof was on
private respondents to show that petitioner is not
a Filipino citizen.
Private respondents should show that Poe’s
parents were aliens. Her admission that she is a
foundling did not shift the burden to her because
such status did not exclude the possibility that her
parents were Filipinos. In fact, there is a high
probability that her parents are Filipinos. The
Solicitor General offered official Statistics from the
Philippine Statistics office that from 1965 to 1975,
the total number of foreigners born in the
Philippines was 15,985. While the Filipinos born
in the country were more than 10 Million. On this
basis, there is a 99% chance that the child born in
the Philippines would be a Filipino which in turn,
would indicate more than ample probability that
Poe’s parents are Filipinos.
Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality
of Poe’s parents are the fact that:
a) She was abandoned in a Roman Catholic
Church in Iloilo
b) She has typical Filipino features
There are disputable presumptions that things
have happened according to the ordinary course
of nature. On this basis, it is safer to assume that
Poe’s parents are Filipinos. To assume otherwise
is to accept the absurd.
3. Whether as a foundling, Poe is a natural
born Citizen
Foundlings are as a class, natural born citizens.
While the 1935 Constitution is silent as to
foundlings, there is no restrictive language that
would exclude them either. Because of silence and
ambiguity in the enumeration, there is a need to
examine the intent of the framers.
The amendment to the Constitution proposed by
constitutionalist Rafols to include foundlings as
natural born citizens was not carried out, not
because there was any objection to the notion that
persons of unknown parentage are not citizens,
but only because their number was not enough to
merit specific mention. There was no intent or
language that would permit discrimination against
foundlings. On the contrary, all three Constitutions
guarantee the basic right to equal protection of
the laws. Likewise, domestic laws on adoption
support the principle that foundlings are Filipinos.
These laws do not provide that adoption confers
citizenship upon the adoptee, rather, the adoptee
must be Filipino in the first place to be adopted.
Recent legislation all expressly refer to “Filipino
children” and include foundlings as among
Filipino children who may be adopted.
The argument that the process to determine that
the child is a foundling leading to the issuance of a
foundling certificate is acts to acquire or perfect
Philippine citizenship is without merit. Hence, the
argument that as a foundling, Poe underwent a
process in order to acquire or perfect her
Philippine citizenship is untenable.
“Having to perform an act” means that the act
must be personally done by the citizen. In this
case, the determination of foundling status was
done by authorities, not by Poe. Second, the object
of the process is to determine the whereabouts of
the parents, not the citizenship of the child and
lastly, the process is not analogous to
naturalization proceedings.
Under international law, foundlings are citizens.
Generally accepted principles of international law
which include international customs form part of
the laws of the land. The common thread of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and the
International Convent on Civil and Political Rights
obligates the Philippines to grant nationality from
birth and to ensure that no child is stateless. The
principles stated in the:
a) Hague Convention on Certain Questions
Relation to the Conflict of Nationality laws
(that a foundling is presumed to have the
nationality of the country of birth)
b) Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness (foundling is presumed
born of citizens of the country where he is
found)
bind the Philippines although we are not signatory
to these conventions.
Although we are not a signatory to the Hague
Convention, we are a signatory to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which
affirms Article 14 of the Hague Convention.
Likewise, the Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness affirms Article 15 of the UDHR. By
analogy, although the Philippines has not signed
the International Convention for the Protection of
Persons from Enforced Disappearance, we (the
Supreme Court) ruled that the proscription
against enforced disappearance was nonetheless
binding as a generally accepted principle of
international law.
Poe’s evidence shows that at least 60 countries in
Asia, North and South America and Europe have
passed legislation recognizing foundlings as its
citizens. 166 out of 189 countries accept that
foundlings are recognized as citizens. Hence, there
is a generally accepted principle of international
law to presume foundlings as having been born
and a national of the country in which it is found.
Hence, as a foundling, Poe is a natural born
Filipino citizen.
4. Whether Poe’s repatriation resulted to
reacquisition of natural born citizenship.
The COMELEC arrogantly disregarded
jurisprudence on the matter of repatriation which
states that repatriation results in the recovery of
the original nationality. A natural born citizen
before he lost his Philippine nationality will be
restored to his former status as natural born
Filipino after repatriation (Benson v. HRET,
Pareno v. Commission on Audit etc). In passing
R.A. 9225, Congress saw it fit to decree that
natural born citizenship may be reacquired even if
it has been lost. It is not for the COMELEC to
disagree with the Congress’ determination.
Neither is repatriation an act to ‘acquire or
perfect’ one’s citizenship. In the case of Bengson,
the Court pointed out that there are only two
types of citizens under the 1987 constitution:
natural born and naturalized. There is no third
category for repatriated citizens. The COMELEC
cannot reverse a judicial precedent. Hence,
COMELEC’s decision is wrapped with grave abuse
of discretion.
5. Whether Poe is a resident of the Philippine
for 10 years
Poe alleged that her residency should be counted
from May 24, 2005 when she returned for good
from the US. There are three requisites to acquire
a new domicile 1. Residence or bodily presence in
a new locality 2. Intention to remain (animus
manendi) and 3. Intention to abandon the old
domicile (animus non-revertendi). The purpose
to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be
for an indefinite period of time, the change of
residence must be voluntary and the residence at
the place chosen for the new domicile must be
actual.
Poe presented voluminous evidence showing that
she and her family abandoned their US domicile
and relocated to the Philippines for good. These
evidence include former US passport showing her
arrival on May 24, 2005 and her return to the
Philippines every time she travelled abroad, email
correspondences with freight company to arrange
for the shipment of household items as well as
with the pet Bureau; school records of her
children showing enrolment in the Philippine to
the Philippine schools starting on June 2005 etc.
COMELEC refused to consider the petitioner’s
domicile has been timely changed as of May 24,
2005 and maintained that although there is
physical presence and animus manendi, there is
no animus revertendi. Respondents contend that
the stay of an alien former Filipino cannot be
counted until he/she obtains a permanent
resident visa or reacquired Philippine citizenship
since she is still an American until July 7, 2006 on
the basis of previous cases ruled upon by the
Supreme Court.
SC held that the other cases previously decided by
the court wherein residence was counted only
from the acquisition of permanent residence were
decided as such because there is sparse evidence
on establishment of residence. These cases cannot
be applied in the present case. In the case at bar,
there is overwhelming evidence that leads to no to
other conclusion that Poe decided to permanently
abandon her US residence and reside in the
Philippines as early as May 24, 2005.
These evidence, coupled with her eventual
application to reacquire Philippine citizenship is
clear that when she returned in May 2005, it was
for good.
The stamp in her passport as a balikbayan does
not make Poe an ordinary transient.
Poe was able to prove that her statement in her
2012 COC was only a mistake in good faith. Such a
mistake could be given in evidence against her but
it was by no means conclusive considering the
overwhelming evidence submitted by Poe.
Considering that the COMELEC failed to take into
consideration these overwhelming evidence, its
decision is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
The decision of the COMELEC is hereby annulled
and set aside. Poe is thus declared qualified to be a
candidate for President in the National and Local
Election on May 9, 2016.
FACTS:
In her COC for presidency for the May 2016
elections, Grace Poe declared that she is a natural-
born citizen and that her residence in the
Philippines up to the day before 9 May 2016
would be 10 years and 11 months counted from
24 May 2005.
May 24, 2005 was the day she came to the
Philippines after deciding to stay in the PH for
good. Before that however, and even afterwards,
she has been going to and fro between US and
Philippines. She was born in 1968, found as
newborn infant in Iloilo, and was legally
adopted. She immigrated to the US in 1991 and
was naturalized as American citizen in 2001. On
July 18, 2006, the BI granted her petition declaring
that she had reacquired her Filipino citizenship
under RA 9225. She registered as a voter and
obtained a new Philippine passport. In 2010,
before assuming her post as an appointed
chairperson of the MTRCB, she renounced her
American citizenship to satisfy the RA 9225
requirement . From then on, she stopped using
her American passport.
Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny
or cancel her candidacy on the ground
particularly, among others, that she cannot be
considered a natural-born Filipino citizen since
she cannot prove that her biological parents or
either of them were Filipinos. The COMELEC en
banc cancelled her candidacy on the ground that
she is in want of citizenship and residence
requirements, and that she committed material
misrepresentations in her COC.
On certiorari, the SC reversed the ruling and held
(9-6 votes) that Poe is qualified as a candidate for
Presidency. Three justices, however, abstained to
vote on the natural-born citizenship issue.
Issue 1: W/N the COMELEC has jurisdiction to
rule on the issue of qualifications of candidates
(Read Dissent)
HELD:
No. Article IX-C, Sec 2 of the Constitution provides
for the powers and functions of the COMELEC, and
deciding on the qualifications or lack thereof of a
candidate is not one among them.
In contrast, the Constitution provides that only
the SET and HRET tribunals have sole jurisdiction
over the election contests, returns, and
qualifications of their respective members,
whereas over the President and Vice President,
only the SC en banc has sole jurisdiction. As for
the qualifications of candidates for such positions,
the Constitution is silent. There is simply no
authorized proceeding in determining the
ineligibility of candidates before elections. Such
lack of provision cannot be supplied by a mere
rule, and for the COMELEC to assimilate grounds
for ineligibility into grounds for disqualification in
Rule 25 in its rules of procedures would be
contrary to the intent of the Constitution.
Hence, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion when it decided on the qualification
issue of Grace as a candidate in the same case for
cancellation of her COC.
Issue 2: W/N Grace Poe-Llamanzares is a
natural-born Filipino citizen (Read Dissent)
HELD:
Yes, Grace Poe might be and is considerably a
natural-born Filipino. For that, she satisfies one of
the constitutional requirements that only natural-
born Filipinos may run for presidency.
First, there is a high probability that Grace Poe’s
parents are Filipinos. Her physical features are
typical of Filipinos. The fact that she was
abandoned as an infant in a municipality where
the population of the Philippines is
overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would
be more than 99% chance that a child born in such
province is a Filipino is also a circumstantial
evidence of her parents’ nationality. That
probability and the evidence on which it is based
are admissible under Rule 128, Section 4 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence. To assume otherwise
is to accept the absurd, if not the virtually
impossible, as the norm.
Second, by votes of 7-5, the SC pronounced that
foundlings are as a class, natural-born
citizens. This is based on the finding that the
deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional
Convention show that the framers intended
foundlings to be covered by the
enumeration. While the 1935 Constitution’s
enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is
no restrictive language which would definitely
exclude foundlings either. Because of silence
and ambiguity in the enumeration with
respect to foundlings, the SC felt the need to
examine the intent of the framers.
Third, that foundlings are automatically conferred
with natural-born citizenship is supported by
treaties and the general principles of international
law. Although the Philippines is not a signatory to
some of these treaties, it adheres to the customary
rule to presume foundlings as having born of the
country in which the foundling is found.
Issue 3: W/N Grace Poe satisfies the 10-year
residency requirement
HELD:
Yes. Grace Poe satisfied the requirements of
animus manendi coupled with animus revertendi
in acquiring a new domicile.
Grace Poe’s domicile had been timely changed as
of May 24, 2005, and not on July 18, 2006 when
her application under RA 9225 was approved by
the BI. COMELEC’s reliance on cases which decree
that an alien’s stay in the country cannot be
counted unless she acquires a permanent resident
visa or reacquires her Filipino citizenship is
without merit. Such cases are different from the
circumstances in this case, in which Grace Poe
presented an overwhelming evidence of her actual
stay and intent to abandon permanently her
domicile in the US. Coupled with her eventual
application to reacquire Philippine citizenship and
her family’s actual continuous stay in the
Philippines over the years, it is clear that when
Grace Poe returned on May 24, 2005, it was for
good.
Issue 4: W/N the Grace Poe’s candidacy should
be denied or cancelled for committing material
misrepresentations in her COC
HELD:
No. The COMELEC cannot cancel her COC on the
ground that she misrepresented facts as to her
citizenship and residency because such facts refer
to grounds for ineligibility in which the COMELEC
has no jurisdiction to decide upon. Only when
there is a prior authority finding that a candidate
is suffering from a disqualification provided by
law or the Constitution that the COMELEC may
deny due course or cancel her candidacy on
ground of false representations regarding her
qualifications.
In this case, by authority of the Supreme Court
Grace Poe is now pronounced qualified as a
candidate for the presidency. Hence, there cannot
be any false representations in her COC regarding
her citizenship and residency. ##
Citizenship by blood, by place of birth, the
Grace Poe case and politics
by Gerardo P Sicat on Apr 2, 2016 No Comments
Crossroads (Toward Philippine economic and social
progress)
Philippine Star, 23 March 2016
The recent case of Grace Poe ripped the Supreme
Court into two camps. Though the court had
decided to let her run for president, it was a close
call.
A line of justices appointed under the Aquino
administration made a big difference, for the four
of them voted as one. This gave the court’s
decision a political tone rather than one based on
the factual legal issues.
I explore a different angle in this discussion. What
if the basis of citizenship reckoning had been
more inclusive to allow the place of birth as a
means of determining “natural-born?”
This supposition has no direct bearing on the
outcome as decided. However, it is highly
instructive from a broader perspective.
The Grace Poe case. Foundlings by their very
nature have unknown parentage. Sometimes, the
parents throw away their offspring into safe
havens (a church, an orphanage, a doorstep, etc.)
for one or more specific reasons. (The pregnancy
was unwanted. The infant is illegitimate and there
is shame. Or the parent suffers from abject
poverty. Etcetera.)
For a foundling, this case is out of the ordinary,
running for political office that requires the
qualification of being a “natural-born” citizen. But
Grace Poe has uniquely done it twice: first, as
senator (for which her case was not questioned)
and, now, as candidate for president.
The matter assumes gigantic proportions for the
entire nation. Before the Commission on Elections,
the suits to disqualify her candidacy were based
on her not being a natural-born citizen and for
lack of legal residency as a returning citizen.
Disqualification of her candidacy by the election
body elevated the case to the Supreme Court on
appeal.
Grace Poe went to live abroad when she married
an American citizen (though of ethnic Filipino
origin). She also acquired US citizenship, only to
return to re-acquire her Philippine citizenship in
order to become a public official.
Blood relationship as basis: jus sanguinis. The
main difficulty of the Supreme Court arose from
the rules governing the determination of a
natural-born Filipino citizen. The parentage of a
foundling is essential to the concept of natural-
born citizen.
In Philippine law, there is no other legal basis
allowed for natural-born citizenship except blood
relationship, or jus sanguinis. Under this rule, the
key to the determination of natural-born status is
the citizenship of one of the parents.
Such determination of natural-born citizenship
would be simpler if, in addition to jus sanguinis,
Philippine laws attached importance to place of
birth as a principle of citizenship. Jus soli, or
citizenship by place of birth, is the other principle.
Many countries allow both principles for
citizenship determination. Not the Philippines.
Thus, to determine if a child is natural-born, the
citizenship of one of the parents is critical. One
parent’s citizenship should have been sufficient,
but in the Philippine patriarchal society, the male
parent’s citizenship matters more.
The Supreme Court’s decision. In deciding this
case, the Supreme Court was deeply divided.
Seven justices voted to allow Grace Poe to run;
five voted for disqualification, and three did not
participate on the issue.
The vote on the residency was also divided, with
seven out of 13 justices voting to recognize
residency being fulfilled. (In the residency issue,
the court appeared magnanimous. It overlooked
the factual deficiency of a few weeks to meet the
residency requirement.)
The crux of the matter lay in the natural-born
definition in Philippine laws. It is based only on
blood relationship. Proof of blood relationship
with a Filipino father had to be made for a
foundling to be called natural-born.
No such proof could be gathered in the unique
case of Grace Poe because, apparently, parentage
was not known. The question then arose, is failure
to establish uniqueness of evidence as to
parentage a failure of proof? This was essentially
where the decision issue seemed to focus on.
The court justices who favored a liberal outlook
on the issue invoked probabilistic reasoning: a
foundling on Philippine soil was likely to be of
Filipino parentage. Further, they adopted the
principle in international law that foundlings have
citizenship rights to the country where they are
found. They also seemed to use physical features,
or physiognomy, as a positive factor.
The issue of natural born citizenship is a factual
and unique issue. When applied to the presidency
of the land, it is all the more significant.
Despite the generous grounds given to the case of
foundlings, the main issue at hand is whether the
most important position of leadership in the
country could be given to a liberal interpretation
of a factual issue.
Citizenship by place of birth. Imagine if
Philippine citizenship rules also included jus soli
as a core principle of determining citizenship.
Then all this convoluted problem of dealing with
natural-born citizenship (probabilistic, liberal
interpretation) would disappear.
Interestingly, this country could have been much
more progressive, more modern, and with much
higher living standards if that rule were part of the
core principles of Filipino citizenship when the
independence constitution was adopted.

A baby found on Philippine soil could also be more

easily assumed to be Filipino under this principle.
Though it might be questionable to say that born
on the soil is “found on the soil”, this is much
easier than proving blood relationship.

A foundling on Philippine soil can only be

Philippine born. The movement of people across
borders is controlled by the immigration
authorities. Lack of immigration documentation
then means the foundling is born on Philippine
soil.

Thus, all foundlings on Philippine soil could be

presumed to be born on it. Jus soli reigns!

Implications of jus soli rule on economic

development. Far from just being helpful in this
rather odd case of Grace Poe’s citizenship, there is
another reason why the matter of jus soli
citizenship principle is of much greater
significance.

Philippine economic development performance

has been hampered by many legal constraints. The
definition of citizenship – the strictness with
which they have been associated with blood
relationship – has made capital and
entrepreneurship very scarce in the country.

The place of birth rule of citizenship could have

eased many complicated economic constraints
that have bogged down Philippine attraction of
foreign direct investments. (This, of course, is
another topic.)