Grace Poe vs COMELEC, 2016 (GR 221697) - Philippine Jurisprudence

7/31/2016

Gr ac ace Poe vs COM EL ELEC, 2016 ( GR GR 221697) - Phi lilippi ne ne Jur is ispr ud udence

Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence in Digital Ether. Latest Digests

Bulletin

Law

Jurisprudence

Foundlings are Natural-Born Filipino Citizens (Grace Poe vs COMELEC, 2016)

   Bar2016



  Download

Laws, Statutes and Codes → Full Text ← Grace Poe vs COMELEC (Case Digest: GR 221697, GR 221698-700 March 8, 2016) Facts: Facts:

Case Digests Political Law Labor Law Civil Law Taxation Law

In her COC for presidency for the May 2016 elections, Grace G race Poe

Commercial Law

declared that she is a natural-born citizen and that her residence in

Criminal Law

the the Philippines up to the day before 9 May 2016 201 6 would be 10 years

Remedial Law

and and 11 months counted from 24 May 2005.

Legal and Judicial Ethics

May 24, 2005 was the day she came to the Ph ilippines after 

CC

deciding to stay in the PH for good. Before that however, however, and even afterwards, she has been going to and fro between US and Philippines. Philippines. She was was born in 1968, found as newborn infant in Iloilo, and was was legally adopted. She immigrated to the US US in 1991 and was naturalized as American American citizen citizen in 2001. On July 18, 2006, the BI granted her petition declaring that she had reacquired her Filipino citizenship citizenship under RA 9225. She registered as a voter  and obtained a new Philippine 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 

Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence in Digital Ether by The Bar is Bar  is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri AttributionbutionNonCommercial 4.0 International License. License. Posts via Email

Email Address

candidacy on the ground particularly, among others, that she http://bar exam phi l.com /gr ace- poe- vs- com el ec/

1/5

7/31/2016

Gr ace Poe vs COM ELEC, 2016 ( GR 221697) - Phi lippi ne Jur ispr udence

cannot be considered a natural-born Filipino citizen since she cannot prove that her biological parents or either of them were

Subscribe

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.

http://barexamphil.com/grace-poe-vs-comelec/

2/5

7/31/2016

Gr ace Poe vs COM ELEC, 2016 ( GR 221697) - Phi lippi ne Jur ispr udence

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 Constitut ion’s enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language which would d efinitely 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 http://barexamphil.com/grace-poe-vs-comelec/

3/5

7/31/2016

Gr ace Poe vs COM ELEC, 2016 ( GR 221697) - Phi lippi ne Jur ispr udence

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. ## Carpio Dissent (Highlights): “Foundlings are Deemed  Naturalized Filipino Citizens”  Brion Dissent (Highlights): “COMELEC’s Broad Quasi-Judicial  Power Includes the Determination of a Candidate’s Eligibility”  → Full Text ←

Share this:

6

Related

GR 221697 Grace

Foundlings are

GR 21698700

Poe vs COMELEC,

Deemed

Grace Poe vs

Mar 8 2016 Carpio

Naturalized Filipino

COMELEC, Mar 8

DISSENT (Political)

Citizens (Grace

2016 (Political)

Poe vs Comelec, 2016 Carpio DISSENT)

http://barexamphil.com/grace-poe-vs-comelec/

4/5

7/31/2016

Gr ace Poe vs COM ELEC, 2016 ( GR 221697) - Phi lippi ne Jur ispr udence

Leave a Reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Post Comment

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email. ← previous - next →

http://barexamphil.com/grace-poe-vs-comelec/

5/5