(Conclusion)
Ultimate issues
Whether Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares (“Poe”) made a material misrepresentation in her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for President hinges on whether (1) she is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and (2) she is a resident of the Philippines for 10 years immediately preceding the May 9, 2016 election.
Citizenship
The majority opinion accuses the Comelec of bordering on “bigotry” when it ruled that since foundlings are not mentioned in the enumeration of citizens under the 1935 Constitution, they cannot be citizens. The majority said that the burden of proof was on the complaining petitioners to show that Poe was not natural born; there is a presumption that Poe has Filipino parents and is therefore a natural born citizen; the statistical probability that a child born from 1965 to 1975 in the Philippines is a natural-born Filipino is 99.83%; Poe has typical Filipino features; there is more than a 99% chance that a child born in the province would be a Filipino; while the 1935 Constitution is silent on foundlings, there is no restrictive language either that would exclude foundlings; under international law foundlings are citizens of the country of birth and that international law forms part of the law of the land. The majority opinion said that when a Filipino reacquires citizenship under RA 9225, the repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality, and that since Poe was a natural-born citizen, she reacquired such status when she repatriated under RA 9225.
In the main dissenting opinion by Justice Antonio T. Carpio, he said that the Philippines adheres to the jus sanguinis principle of the “law of the blood” to determine citizenship at birth, which means that an individual acquires Filipino citizenship at birth solely by virtue of biological descent from a Filipino father or mother; the framers of the Constitution rejected the proposal to include foundlings as citizens of the Philippines; foundlings whose parents are unknown cannot be considered Filipino citizens; each independent nation has the right to determine who are its citizens; there is no customary international law presuming a foundling as a citizen of the country where the foundling is found; the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on foundlings; the only way a foundling can be considered a Filipino citizen is for the foundling to be naturalized; there is no law conferring natural-born citizenship on a foundling based alone on statistical probability; the position of the Solicitor General that a foundling with blond hair, blue eyes, white Caucasian skin, no Asian genes, is a natural born Filipino citizen is the height of absurdity and amends the Constitution and makes jus soli the governing principle for foundlings, contrary to the jus sanguinis principle in the constitution; it is incumbent on the person who claims Philippine citizenship to prove to the satisfaction of the court that he is really a Filipino, and no presumption can be indulged in favor of the claimant of Philippine citizenship.
Justice Mariano del Castillo noted in his dissenting opinion that it is not improbable that Poe was born to Filipino parents and that she should continue to obtain deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence to prove her genealogy. Even if the court rules on her citizenship now, that ruling can be changed at any time when there is certainty about her biological lineage because generally there is no res judicata on citizenship issues.
Residence
The majority opinion said that Poe’s claim that she will have been a resident for 10 years and 11 months on the day before May 9, 2016 election is true, citing her U.S. passport showing her arrival in the Philippines on May 24, 2005; school records of her children showing enrollment in the Philippines since June 2005; title to a condominium issued in February 2006; a March 2006 e-mail to U.S. Postal Service confirming a change of address; the sale of U.S. home on April 27, 2006.
With respect to Poe’s declaration in her COC for President that she will be a Philippine resident for 10 years and 11 months by May 9, 2016, which the Comelec said was contrary to her declaration in her COC for Senator which put six years and six months as her residence before May 13, 2013, which would mean that she started being a Philippine resident only in November 2006, the Supreme Court justified it saying Poe misunderstood the date required in her senatorial COC as the period of residence as of the day she submitted the COC in 2012. The Supreme Court said that Poe’s senatorial COC was not conclusive as to the period of residence and that Poe physically returned to the Philippines on May 24, 2005. The court concluded that to constitute material misrepresentation the misrepresentation must not only refer to material facts but there must be a deliberate intent to mislead.
The dissenting opinion by Justice Mariano del Castillo said that Poe made contrasting declarations as to her period of residence in the Philippines in her senatorial COC and presidential COC which rendered her vulnerable to the charge that she committed material misrepresentation in her COC for president. For Justice del Castillo’s dissenting opinion, see http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/march2016/221697_delcastillo.pdf
Justice del Castillo pointed out that from May 24, 2005 (when Poe entered the Philippines as a visa-free balikbayan for one year) to July 18, 2006 (when the Bureau of Immigration approved Poe’s petition to reacquire Philippine citizenship), Poe was an alien on temporary sojourn in the Philippines. Obtaining a Tax Identification Number is not conclusive proof of intent to remain in the Philippines, but merely indicates an intention to pay taxes. Buying a condominium or buying land do not evince an intent to remain in the Philippines for good. Poe also acquired a house in the U.S. in 2008, and still maintained the one she bought in 1992. Poe’s intention to mislead in her COC for president is shown by making it appear that she met the 10-year residency requirement when in fact, she did not.
(Atty. Tipon has a Master of Laws degree from Yale Law School where he specialized in Constitutional Law. He has also a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the Philippines. He placed third in the Philippine Bar Examination in 1956. His current practice focuses on immigration law and criminal defense. He writes law books for the world’s largest law book publishing company and writes legal articles for newspapers. He has also a radio show in Honolulu, Hawaii with his son Noel, senior partner of the Bilecki & Tipon law firm, where they discuss legal and political issues. Office: American Savings Bank Tower, 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2305, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. 96813. Tel. (808) 225-2645. E-Mail: filamlaw@yahoo.com. Website: www.MilitaryandCriminalLaw.com. He was born in Laoag City, Philippines. He served as a U.S. Immigration Officer. He is co-author with retired Manila RTC Judge Artemio S. Tipon of the best-seller “Winning by Knowing Your Election Laws” and co-author of “Immigration Law Service, 1st ed.,” an 8-volume practice guide for immigration officers and lawyers. This article is a general overview of the subject matter discussed and is not intended as legal advice. No warranty is made by the writer or publisher as to its completeness or correctness at the time of publication. No attorney-client relationship is established between the writer and readers relying upon and/or acting pursuant to the contents of this article.)
