POLITICAL LAW

GRACE POE-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:

Citizenship; Burden of Proof; The burden of proof was on private respondents to show that
petitioner is not a Filipino citizen.—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.

Same; Foundlings; Presumptions; That a person with typical Filipino features is abandoned in
Catholic Church in a municipality where the population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly
Filipinos such that there would be more than a ninety-nine percent (99%) chance that a child born
in the province would be a Filipino, would indicate more than ample probability if not statistical
certainty, that petitioner’s parents are Filipinos.—Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of
petitioner’s parents are the fact that she was abandoned as an infant in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo
City. She also has typical Filipino features: height, flat nasal bridge, straight black hair, almond shaped
eyes and an oval face. There is a disputable presumption that things have happened according to the
ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life. All of the foregoing evidence, that a person with
typical Filipino features is abandoned in Catholic Church in a municipality where the population of the
Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be more than a 99% chance that a child
born in the province would be a Filipino, would indicate more than ample probability if not statistical
certainty, that petitioner’s parents are Filipinos. That probability and the evidence on which it is based are
admissible under Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

Same; Same; As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens.—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 definitely exclude foundlings either.
Because of silence and ambiguity in the enumeration with respect to foundlings, there is a need to
examine the intent of the framers. In Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 152 SCRA 284
(1987), this Court held that: The ascertainment of that intent is but in keeping with the fundamental
principle of constitutional construction that the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people
adopting it should be given effect. The primary task in constitutional construction is to ascertain and
thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the
Constitution. It may also be safely assumed that the people in ratifying the Constitution were guided
mainly by the explanation offered by the framers.

Same; Same; Foundlings are likewise citizens under international law.—Foundlings are likewise
citizens under international law. Under the 1987 Constitution, an international law can become part of the
sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that
an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local
legislation. On the other hand, generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the
incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from
treaty obligations. Generally accepted principles of international law include international custom as
evidence of a general practice accepted as law, and general principles of law recognized by civilized
nations. International customary rules are accepted as binding as a result from the combination of two
elements: the established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological

1|Page
MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW DLS – SY1920
 POLITICAL LAW
element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter
element is a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law
requiring it. “General principles of law recognized by civilized nations” are principles “established by a
process of reasoning” or judicial logic, based on principles which are “basic to legal systems generally,”
such as “general principles of equity, i.e., the general principles of fairness and justice,” and the “general
principle against discrimination” which is embodied in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention Against Discrimination in Education, the
Convention (No. 111) Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation.” These are
the same core principles which underlie the Philippine Constitution itself, as embodied in the due process
and equal protection clauses of the Bill of Rights.

Same; Same; The common thread of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) is to obligate the Philippines to grant nationality from birth and ensure
that no child is stateless.—The common thread of the UDHR, UNCRC and ICCPR is to obligate the
Philippines to grant nationality from birth and ensure that no child is stateless. This grant of nationality
must be at the time of birth, and it cannot be accomplished by the application of our present naturalization
laws, Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended, and R.A. No. 9139, both of which require the applicant to
be at least eighteen (18) years old. The principles found in two conventions, while yet unratified by the
Philippines, are generally accepted principles of international law. The first is Article 14 of the 1930 Hague
Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws under which a foundling is
presumed to have the “nationality of the country of birth,” to wit: Article 14 A child whose parents are both
unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth. If the child’s parentage is established, its
nationality shall be determined by the rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known. A
foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on the territory of the State in which
it was found. (Underlining supplied) The second is the principle that a foundling is presumed born of
citizens of the country where he is found, contained in Article 2 of the 1961 United Nations Convention on
the Reduction of Statelessness: Article 2 A foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in
the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born within the territory of parents
possessing the nationality of that State.

Same; Same; It is a generally accepted principle of international law to presume foundlings as

having been born of nationals of the country in which the foundling is found.—Petitioner’s evidence
shows that at least sixty countries in Asia, North and South America, and Europe have passed legislation
recognizing foundlings as its citizen. Forty-two (42) of those countries follow the jus sanguinis regime. Of
the sixty, only thirty-three (33) are parties to the 1961 Convention on Statelessness; twenty-six (26) are
not signatories to the Convention. Also, the Chief Justice, at the 2 February 2016 Oral Arguments pointed
out that in 166 out of 189 countries surveyed (or 87.83%), foundlings are recognized as citizens. These
circumstances, including the practice of jus sanguinis countries, show that it is a generally accepted
principle of international law to presume foundlings as having been born of nationals of the country in
which the foundling is found.

FACTS :

Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares (petitioner) was found abandoned as a newborn infant in the
Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo by a certain Edgardo Militar (Edgardo) on 3 September 1968. Parental care
and custody over petitioner was passed on by Edgardo to his relatives, Emiliano Militar (Emiliano) and his
wife. When petitioner was five (5) years old, celebrity spouses Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (a.k.a. Fenando
Poe, Jr.) and Jesusa Sonora Poe (a.k.a. Susan Roces) filed a petition for her adoption with the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) of San Juan City. Having reached the age of eighteen (18) years in 1986, petitioner
registered as a voter with the local COMELEC Office in San Juan City.

2|Page
MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW DLS – SY1920
 POLITICAL LAW
On 4 April 1988, petitioner applied for and was issued Philippine Passport. On 27 July 1991, petitioner
married Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares (Llamanzares), a citizen of both the Philippines and the
U.S., at Sanctuario de San Jose Parish in San Juan City. Desirous of being with her husband who was
then based in the U.S., the couple flew back to the U.S. two days after the wedding ceremony or on 29
July 1991. On 8 April 2004, the petitioner came back to the Philippines together with Hanna to support
her father's candidacy for President in the May 2004 elections.

She returned to the U.S. with her two daughters on 8 July 2004. After a few months, specifically on 13
December 2004, petitioner rushed back to the Philippines upon learning of her father's deteriorating
medical condition. Her father slipped into a coma and eventually expired. The petitioner stayed in the
country until 3 February 2005 to take care of her father's funeral arrangements as well as to assist in the
settlement of his estate. The couple began preparing for their resettlement including notification of their
children's schools that they will be transferring to Philippine schools for the next semester. coordination
with property movers for the relocation of their household goods, furniture and cars from the U.S. to the
Philippines; and inquiry with Philippine authorities as to the proper procedure to be followed in bringing
their pet dog into the country.

As early as 2004, the petitioner already quit her job in the U.S. In late March 2006, petitioner's husband
officially informed the U.S. Postal Service of the family's change and abandonment of their address in the
U.S. On 7 July 2006, petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003. Again,
petitioner registered as a voter of Barangay Santa Lucia, San Juan City on 31 August 2006.40 She also
secured from the DFA a new Philippine Passport bearing the No. XX4731999.

On 6 October 2010, President Benigno S. Aquino III appointed petitioner as Chairperson of the Movie and
Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB). On 12 July 2011, the petitioner executed before
the Vice Consul of the U.S. Embassy in Manila an "Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of the
United States.". On 9 December 2011, the U.S. Vice Consul issued to petitioner a "Certificate of Loss of
Nationality of the United States" effective 21 October 2010.

On 15 October 2015, petitioner filed her COC for the Presidency for the May 2016 Elections. Petitioner's
filing of her COC for President in the upcoming elections triggered the filing of several COMELEC cases
against her which were the subject of these consolidated cases.Petitioner's claim that she will have been
a resident for ten (10) years and eleven (11) months on the day before the 2016 elections.

ISSUE : WON GRACE POE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES

HELD :

(THE 4 REASON WHY THE SC RULED IN FAVOR OF GPOE ON CITIZENSHIP)

1-A) 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 evider1ce that petitioner has Filipino parents and is
therefore a natural-born Filipino. The Solicitor General offered official statistics from the Philippine
Statistics Authority (PSA)111 that from 1965 to 1975, the total number of foreigners born in the
Philippines was 15,986 while the total number of Filipinos born in the country was 10,558,278. The
statistical probability that any child born in the Philippines in that decade is natural-born Filipino was
99.83%. Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of petitioner's parents are the fact that she was
abandoned as an infant in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo City.1âwphi1 She also has typical Filipino
features: height, flat nasal bridge, straight black hair, almond shaped eyes and an oval face.

1-B) 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 definitely exclude

3|Page
MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW DLS – SY1920
 POLITICAL LAW
foundlings either. Because of silence and ambiguity in the enumeration with respect to foundlings, there is
a need to examine the intent of the framers. All exhort the State to render social justice. Of special
consideration are several provisions in the present charter: Article II, Section 11 which provides that the
"State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights," Article XIII,
Section 1 which mandates Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect
and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
inequalities x x x" and Article XV, Section 3 which requires the State to defend the "right of children to
assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse,
cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development." Certainly, these provisions
contradict an intent to discriminate against foundlings on account of their unfortunate status.

1-C)Recent legislation is more direct. R.A. No. 8043 entitled "An Act Establishing the Rules to Govern the
Inter-Country Adoption of Filipino Children and For Other Purposes" (otherwise known as the "Inter-
Country Adoption Act of 1995"), R.A. No. 8552, entitled "An Act Establishing the Rules and Policies on
the Adoption of Filipino Children and For Other Purposes" (otherwise known as the Domestic Adoption
Act of 1998) and this Court's A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC or the "Rule on Adoption," all expressly refer to
"Filipino children" and include foundlings as among Filipino children who may be adopted.

1-D) Foundlings are likewise citizens under international law. Under the 1987 Constitution, an
international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation.
The transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law through
a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation

D.1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("UDHR") has been interpreted by this Court as part of
the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State.

D.2) The Philippines has also ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

D.3) n 1986, the country also ratified the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR).

The common thread of the UDHR, UNCRC and ICCPR is to obligate the Philippines to grant nationality
from birth and ensure that no child is stateless. This grant of nationality must be at the time of birth, and it
cannot be accomplished by the application of our present naturalization laws, Commonwealth Act No.
473, as amended, and R.A. No. 9139, both of which require the applicant to be at least eighteen (18)
years old. That the Philippines is not a party to the 1930 Hague Convention nor to the 1961 Convention
on the Reduction of Statelessness does not mean that their principles are not binding. While the
Philippines is not a party to the 1930 Hague Convention, it is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights. this Court noted that the Philippines had not signed or ratified the "International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance." Yet, we ruled that the
proscription against enforced disappearances in the said convention was nonetheless binding as a
"generally accepted principle of international law." Another case where the number of ratifying countries
was not determinative is Mijares v. Ranada, where only four countries had "either ratified or acceded to"
the 1966 "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters" when the case was decided in 2005. In sum, all of the international law conventions
and instruments on the matter of nationality of foundlings were designed to address the plight of a
defenseless class which suffers from a misfortune not of their own making. We cannot be restrictive as to
their application if we are a country which calls itself civilized and a member of the community of nations.

4|Page
MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW DLS – SY1920