Case
POE LLAMANZARES (PETITIONER) V COMELEC (RESPONDENT),
Elamparo and Tatad
Topic Natural Born Citizens
Type of Case Motion for reconsideration with prayers of urgent issuance of an ex-
parte temporary restraining order/status quo ante order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction
Facts On October 15, 2015 when the petitioner Mary Grace Natividad Sonora
Poe filed her Certificate of Candidacy for President triggered the filing of
several COMELEC cases against her. Issues on her being a foundling that
questions her citizenship, and the discrepancy on the number of years
that she resides in the country
Petitioner was found in a church by Edgardo Militar, and was
given under the custody of his relative Emilliano Militrar, he
then reported and registered the petitioner is a foundling and
has given the name “Mary Grace Natividad Contreras Militar”
When the petitioner was 5 years old she was adopted by Edgar
Rolland Poe and Jesusa Sonora Poe and was given the name
“Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe”. However, her adoptive
mother discovered n 2005 that her lawyer failed to secure from
Iloilo OCR her certificate of live birth indicating her new name
and adopted parents name. without any delay, they have
secured the said document by submitting an affidavit attesting
the lawyers omission
Petitioner has been living in the Philippine not until 1988 when
she decided to pursue her studies in the US. When she married
Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares, a citizen of both the
Philippines and US in San Juan City they have decided to leave
the country two days after the wedding and live in the US. She
became a naturalized American Citizen on October 18, 2001
She came back to PH when her father decided to run for
presidency and been in and out for the country until May
25,2005 when decided to permanently reside back in PH
together with her 3 children.
July 18, 2006 Bureau of Immigration granted her petition and
declared that she acquired her Philippine Citizenship following
her oath of allegiance to RP pursuant to RA 9225 “Citizen
Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003)
October 20, 2010 she executed “Affidavit of Renunciation or
Allegiance to the USA and Renunciation of American
Citizenship” in compliance to Sec 5 of RA 9225. On October 12,
2011 the petitioner executed before the Vice-Consul of US
embassy an “oath/affirmation or renunciation of nationality of
the US” and she was issued by the embassy “ Certificate of Loss
of Nationality of the US” on Dec. 9, 2011 effective October 21,
2010.
The petitioner filed her COC for Senator 2013 elections where
she claimed that she’s been living for 6years and 6months in the
PH
October 15, 2015 the petitioner filed her COC for Presidency
and declared that she is a natural born citizen and has a total of
10years 11 months residency.
Petitioner’s Argument COMELEC did not have any jurisdiction over Elamparo’s petition
She did not make any material misrepresentation in the COC
regarding her citizenship and residency qualification
Foundlings are presumed under international law to have been
born of citizens of the place where they were found
She reacquired her natural born PH citizenship under RA 9225
and executed a sworn renunciation of her American citizenship
prior the filing of her COC for Presidency
Re-established her domicile in PH as early as 2005
Lack of residency and natural born status of petitioner are not
among the recognized grounds for the disqualification of
candidate to an elective position
Petition for her ineligibility for Presidency is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of Presidential Electoral tribunal and no the
COMELEC
Respondent’s Petitioner cannot be considered Natural Born Filipino on
Argument account that she was a foundling
Even assuming arguendo that the petitioner was a natural born
filipino she is deemed to have lost that status when she became
a naturalize American citizen. According to respondent, natural
born citizen must be continuous from birth
Petitioner failed to comply 10year residency requirement as
she declared 6yrs 6months in her COC.
Tatad averred that the fact that foundlings were not expressly
included in the categorie s of citizens in the 1935 constitution
He claimed that petitioner cannot avail of the option to
reacquire Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 because it only
applies to former natural born citizen to which the petitioner
was not as she is a foundling
Tatad questioned petitioner lack of intetion to abandon her US
domicile as evinced by the fact that her husband stayed therat
and frequent trips to US
Lower Court Ruling Both petitions to deny due course to or cancel COC of Elamparo and
Tatad were granted by COMELEC second and first Division respectively
and cancels the COC of Ms. Poe-Llamanzares
Issue Whether the petitioner is a natural born citizen of the Philippines
Ruling Yes, when the Petitioner affirmed that she is a foundling “At the outset,
it must be noted that presumptions regarding paternity is neither
unknown nor unaccepted in Philippine Law. The Family Code of the
Philippines has a whole chapter on Paternity and Filiation. That said,
there is more than sufficient evidence that petitioner has Filipino
parents and is therefore a natural-born Filipino. Parenthetically, the
burden of proof was on private respondents to show that petitioner is
not a Filipino citizen. The private respondents should have shown that
both of 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. Based on statistics offered by the Solicitor
General, the statistical probability that any child born in PH from 1965-
1975 is natural-born Filipino was 99.83% and for the petitioner’s part to
which she was found
Doctrine Constitutional silence is fully explained in terms of linguistic efficiency
and the avoidance of redundancy. The policy is clear: it is to recognize
foundlings, as a class , as Filipinos under Art IV, Sec 1(3) of the 1935
constitution. This inclusive police is carried over into the 1973 and 1987
Constitution.
Under international law Foundlings are likewise citizens. Under the
1987 Constitution, an international law can become part of the sphere
of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. The PH has
ratified generally accepted principles of international law and binding
on the state:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (everyone has the right
to a nationality; No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality)
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Article 7
1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) Article 24
The common thread of International Law is to obligate PH to grant
nationality from birth and ensure that no child is stateless.
However, there are still principles found in some international laws that
are not yet ratified by the Philippines, but are generally accepted
principles.
Article 14 of Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating
to the Conflict of Nationality Laws under which a foundling is
presumed to have “nationality of the country of birth”
Article 2 of 1961 “ UN Convention on the Reduction of
Statlessness”
Current legislation reveals the adherence of the PH to this generally
accepted principle of international law. In particular RA 8552, RA 8042
and the Courts rules on adoption expressly refer to “Filipino Children”.
Likewise it has been pointed that the DFA issues passports to
foundlings. This shows that even the executive department, acting
through the DFA, considers foundlings as Philippine citizens.
Decision The petition is GRANTED. The resolutions issued by COMELEC 2 ND and
1st Division are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. Petitioner Mary Grace
Sonora Poe-Llamanzares is DECLARED QUALIFIED to be a candidate for
President
