G.R. No.

221697
March 8, 2016
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner
v.
COMELEC AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO Respondents

X----------------------------------------- X
G.R. No. 221698-700
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner
v.
COMELEC, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS, AND AMADO
VALDEZ, Respondents

Facts:

Petitioner, an abandoned newborn child was found on September 3, 1968 in a Church in Iloilo by a certain
Edgardo Militar.
On September 6, 1968, she was reported and registered as a foundling with the Office of the Civil Registrar
of Iloilo City. In 1974, she was legally adopted by Roland Allan Kelly Poe and Jesusa Sonora Poe.

Petitioner initially began pursuing a degree in Development Studies at the University of the Philippines, but
then opted to continue studying abroad and left for the United States of America in 1988.
She immigrated to the U.S. in 1991 after her marriage to Theodore Llamanzares, and in 2001 became a
naturalized American citizen and obtained a U.S. passport.

In 2005, Poe-Llamanzares moved back and decided to permanently reside in the Philippines.
On July 7, 2006, Petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to R.A.
9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003.

In October 2012, Petitioner filed her COC for Senator wherein she stated that her period of residency would
be 6 years and 6 months before the May 13, 2013 elections.

On October 15, 2015, Petitioner filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the May 2016 Presidential Elections.
In her COC, Poe-Llamanzares declared that she is a natural-born citizen of The Republic of the Philippines
and that her residence in the Country up to the day before May 9, 2016 would be ten (10) years and eleven
(11) months counted from May 24, 2005.
Attached to Petitioner’s COC is an Affidavit of Renunciation of her U.S. Citizenship, subscribed and sworn
before a notary public in Quezon City on October 14, 2015.

Petitioner’s filing of her COC for President triggered the filing of several COMELEC cases against her which
were the subject of these consolidated cases.
Estrella Elamparo (G.R. 221697) argued that the Petitioner cannot be considered as a natural-born Filipino
on account of the fact that she is a foundling and that International Law does not confer natural-born status
and Filipino citizenship on foundlings and that even assuming that Petitioner is a natural-born Filipino, she
is deemed to have lost that status when she became a naturalized American citizen. According to
Elamparo, natural-born citizenship must be continuous from birth.
On matter of the Petitioner’s residency, Poe-Llamanzares allegedly falls short on the 10-year residency
requirement of the Constitution as her residency could only be counted from July 2006, when she
reacquired her Philippine citizenship under RA 9225.
Elamparo then filed a petition in the COMELEC to deny or cancel the said COC on the ground that
Petitioner committed material misrepresentation.

COMELEC 2nd Division promulgated a Resolution that Poe-Llamanzares, did in fact commit material
misrepresentations. Hence, Petitioner’s COC was cancelled. COMELEC En Banc denied Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration.

Three separate petitions were filed (G.R. Nos. 221698-700) by Tatad, Contreras, and Valdez against the
Petitioner before the COMELEC.

Tatad filed a petition to disqualify Petitioner under Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure alleging
that Poe-Llamanzares lacks the requisite residency and citizenship to qualify her for the Presidency. Tatad
asserts that International conventions and treaties are non self-executory and that local legislations are
necessary in order to give effect to treaty obligations assumed by the Philippines.
Contreras’ petition, on the other hand, argued the Petitioner’s residency.

COMELEC 1st Division ruled that Poe-Llamanzares is not a natural-born citizen and that she failed to
complete the 10-year residency requirement, and cancelled her COC.
COMELEC En Banc denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner instituted the present petitions for certiorari with urgent prayer for the issuance of an ex parte
temporary restraining order / status ante order and / or writ of preliminary injunction.
On December 28, 2015, TROs were issued by the Court enjoining the COMELEC and its representatives
from implementing the assailed resolutions until further orders from the Court.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Poe-Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino citizen ;

Ruling:
The last paragraph of Article VII, Sec. 4, which provides that:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of the President or Vice-President and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. The
tribunals which have jurisdiction over the question of the qualifications of the President, the Vice-President,
Senators, and the Members of the House of Representatives was made clear by the constitution.

1. The fact is that Petitioner's blood relationship with a Filipino citizen is DEMONSTRABLE. The
private respondents should have shown that both of the petitioner’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, especially as in this case where there is a
high probability, if not certainty, that her parents are Filipinos.
She was found in Iloilo, a municipality wherein there is 99% probability that residents are Filipinos
(said probability and circumstantial evidence are admissible on the Rules of Evidence)
Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of the Petitioner’s parents are the fact that she was
an infant found in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo City, and has typical Filipino features: height,
flat nasal bridge, straight black hair, almond shaped eyes, and an oval face.
All of the foregoing evidence would indicate more than ample probability, if not statistical certainty,
that Petitioner’s parents are Filipinos.

To deny full Filipino citizenship to all foundlings and render them stateless is downright
discriminatory, irrational, and unjust. As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-born
citizens. While the 1935 Constitution’s enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive
language which would exclude foundlings either. And because of silence and ambiguity, in the
enumeration with respect to foundlings, there is a need to examine the intent of the framers.
The Court found no intent or language permitting discrimination against foundlings. On the contrary,
all three Constitutions (1935, 1973, 1987) guarantee the basic right to equal protection of the laws.

It is a generally accepted principle of International Law to presume foundlings as having been born
or nationals of the country in which the foundling was found and adopting these legal principles from
the 1930 Hague Convention and the 1961 Convention on Statelessness is rational, reasonable, and
consistent with the jus sanguinis regime in our Constitution.

2. The Constitution requires Presidential Candidates to have been a resident of the Philippines for at
least 10 years before the day of the elections (Poe-Llamanzares provided 10 years and 11 months,
which according to her pleadings began when she decided to return for good from the U.S.).
There are three requisites to acquire a new domicile:
 1. Residence / Bodily presence in a new locality;
2. An intention to remain there;
3. An intention to abandon the old domicile
The Petitioner presented voluminous evidence showing that she and her family abandoned their
U.S. domicile: selling their house, notifying the U.S. Postal Service of the abandonment of their
address, donating excess items to the Salvation Army.
And evidence to prove her intention to permanently relocate here in the Philippines: securing T.I.N.,
acquiring property and actually constructing a residence here. Coupled with her eventual application
to reacquire PH Citizenship, it is clear that when Petitioner returned to the Philippines on May 24,
2005, it was for good.
It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a Certificate of Candidacy which ought to be decisive in
determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the constitution’s residency qualification
requirement.
Had the COMELEC done its duty to look into the evidence, it would have seen that both 2012 and
2015 COC of Petitioner both correctly stated her pertinent period of residency.
This is due to the fact that Poe-Llamanzares explained that she misunderstood the query in 2012
(period of residence before May 13, 2013) as inquiring about residence as of the time she submitted
the COC, was bolstered by the change which the COMELEC itself introduced in the 2015 COC
which was already “period of residence in the PH up to the day before May 9, 2016”. The
COMELEC would not have revised this if it did not acknowledge that the first version was vague.
Petitioner established residency from April - May 2006, which was when their house in the U.S. was
sold. Petitioner could have reckoned residence from an earlier date given the evidence that she had
returned a year before.