GR 221697 March 8 2016

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gr-221697-march-8-2016 1/36

GR 221697 March 8 2016

NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner,

-versus

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C ELAMPAR!, Res"on#ents,

$%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-$

GR 21698-700NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner,

-versus

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, &RANC'SC! S TATAD, ANT!N'! P C!NTRERAS AND

AMAD! D (ALDE),Res"on#ents,

*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-$

D E C I S I O N

PEREZ, J.:

Before the Court are two consolidated petitions under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules

of Court with extremel ur!ent application for an ex parte issuance of temporar restrainin!

order" status quo ante order and"or writ of preliminar in#unction assailin! the followin!$

%&' & Decem(er )*&5 Resolution of the Commission on Elections %CO+E,EC' Second

Di-ision.

%)' )/ Decem(er )*&5 Resolution of the CO+E,EC En Banc0 in S12 No3 &5**& %DC'.

%/' && Decem(er )*&5 Resolution of the CO+E,EC irst Di-ision. and

%4' )/ Decem(er )*&5 Resolution of the CO+E,EC En Banc0 in S12 No3 &5**) %DC'0 S12

No3 &5** %DC' and S12 No3 &5&/7 %DC' for ha-in! (een issued without #urisdiction or with

!ra-e a(use of discretion amountin! to lac8 or excess of #urisdiction3

+i#e

The Fac!

+ar 9race Nati-idad S3 1oe,laman:ares %petitioner' was found a(andoned as a new(orn

infant in the 1arish Church of ;aro0 Iloilo ( a certain Ed!ardo +ilitar %Ed!ardo' on / Septem(er

&76<3 1arental care and custod o-er petitioner was passed on ( Ed!ardo to his relati-es0

Emiliano +ilitar %Emiliano' and his wife3 =hree das after0 6 Septem(er &76<0 Emiliano reported

and re!istered petitioner as a foundlin! with the Office of the Ci-il Re!istrar of Iloilo Cit

%OCRIloilo'3 In her oundlin! Certificate and Certificate of ,i-e Birth0 the petitioner was !i-en

the name >+ar 9race Nati-idad Contreras +ilitar3?&

@hen petitioner was fi-e %5' ears old0 cele(rit spouses Ronald 2llan Aelle 1oe %a383a3

enando 1oe0 ;r3' and ;esusa Sonora 1oe %a383a3 Susan Roces' filed a petition for her adoption

with the +unicipal =rial Court %+=C' of San ;uan Cit3 On &/ +a &740 the trial court !ranted

their petition and ordered that petitioners name (e chan!ed from >+ar 9race Nati-idad

Contreras +ilitar? to >+ar 9race Nati-idad Sonora 1oe3? 2lthou!h necessar notations were

http://barexamphil.com/gr-21698700/


8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


made ( OCRIloilo on petitioners foundlin! certificate reflectin! the court decreed adoption0)

the petitioners adopti-e mother disco-ered onl sometime in the second half of )**5 that the

lawer who handler petitioners adoption failed to secure from the OCRIloilo a new Certificate

of ,i-e Birth indicatin! petitioners new name and the name of her adopti-e parents3/ @ithout

dela0 petitioners mother executed an affida-it attestin! to the lawers omission which she

su(mitted to the OCRIloilo3 On 4 +a )**60 OCRIloilo issued a new Certificate of ,i-e Birth

in the name of +ar 9race Nati-idad Sonora 1oe34

a-in! reached the a!e of ei!hteen %&<' ears in &7<60 petitioner re!istered as a -oter with the

local CO+E,EC Office in San ;uan Cit3 On &/ Decem(er &7<60 she recei-ed her CO+E,EC

oters Identification Card for 1recinct No3 &76 in 9reenhills0 San ;uan0 +etro +anila35

On 4 2pril &7<<0 petitioner applied for and was issued 1hilippine 1assport No3 7))<6 ( the

Department of orei!n 2ffairs %D2'3 Su(seuentl0 on 5 2pril &77/ and &7 +a &77<0 she

renewed her 1hilippine passport and respecti-el secured 1hilippine 1assport Nos3 ,<<&5&& and

DD&566&63

Initiall0 the petitioner enrolled and pursued a de!ree in De-elopment Studies at the Fni-ersit

of the 1hilippines< (ut she opted to continue her studies a(road and left for the Fnited States of

2merica %F3S3' in &7<<3 1etitioner !raduated in &77& from Boston Colle!e in Chestnuts ill0

+assachusetts where she earned her Bachelor of 2rts de!ree in 1olitical Studies37

On ) ;ul &77&0 petitioner married =eodoro +isael Daniel 3 ,laman:ares %,laman:ares'0 a

citi:en of (oth the 1hilippines and the F3S30 at Sanctuario de San ;ose 1arish in San ;uan Cit3&*

Desirous of (ein! with her hus(and who was then (ased in the F3S30 the couple flew (ac8 to theF3S3 two das after the weddin! ceremon or on )7 ;ul &77&3&&

@hile in the F3S30 the petitioner !a-e (irth to her eldest child Brian Daniel %Brian' on &6 2pril

&77)3&)er two dau!hters anna +acAen:ie %anna' and ;esusa 2ni8a %2ni8a' were (oth (orn

in the 1hilippines on &* ;ul &77< and 5 ;une )**40 respecti-el3&/

On &< Octo(er )**&0 petitioner (ecame a naturali:ed 2merican citi:en3&4 She o(tained F3S3

1assport No3 *&*/7/ on &7 Decem(er )**&3&5

On < 2pril )**40 the petitioner came (ac8 to the 1hilippines to!ether with anna to support herfathers candidac for 1resident in the +a )**4 elections3 Itwas durin! this time that she !a-e

(irth to her oun!est dau!hter 2ni8a3 She returned to the F3S3 with her two dau!hters on < ;ul

)**43&6

2fter a few months0 specificall on &/ Decem(er )**40 petitioner rushed (ac8 to the 1hilippines

upon learnin! of her fathers deterioratin! medical condition3 & er father slipped into a coma

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


and e-entuall expired3 =he petitioner staed in the countr until / e(ruar )**5 to ta8e care of

her fathers funeral arran!ements as well as to assist in the settlement of his estate3&<

2ccordin! to the petitioner0 the untimel demise of her father was a se-ere (low to her entire

famil3 In her earnest desire to (e with her !rie-in! mother0 the petitioner and her hus(and

decided to mo-e and reside permanentl in the 1hilippines sometime in the first uarter of

)**53&7 =he couple (e!an preparin! for their resettlement includin! notification of their

childrens schools that the will (e transferrin! to 1hilippine schools for the next semester.)*

coordination with propert mo-ers for the relocation of their household !oods0 furniture and cars

from the F3S3 to the 1hilippines.)& and inuir with 1hilippine authorities as to the proper

procedure to (e followed in (rin!in! their pet do! into the countr3)) 2s earl as )**40 the

petitioner alread uit her #o( in the F3S3)/

inall0 petitioner came home to the 1hilippines on )4 +a )**5)4 and without dela0 secured a

=ax Identification Num(er from the Bureau of Internal Re-enue3 er three %/' children

immediatel followed)5 while her hus(and was forced to sta in the F3S3 to complete pendin!

pro#ects as well as to arran!e the sale of their famil home there3)6

=he petitioner and her children (riefl staed at her mothers place until she and her hus(and

purchased a condominium unit with a par8in! slot at One @ilson 1lace Condominium in San

;uan Cit in the second half of )**53) =he correspondin! Condominium Certificates of =itle

co-erin! the unit and par8in! slot were issued ( the Re!ister of Deeds of San ;uan Cit to

petitioner and her hus(and on )* e(ruar )**63)< +eanwhile0 her children of school a!e (e!an

attendin! 1hilippine pri-ate schools3

On &4 e(ruar )**60 the petitioner made a uic8 trip to the F3S3 to super-ise the disposal of

some of the famils remainin! household (elon!in!s3)7 She tra-elled (ac8 to the 1hilippines on

&& +arch )**63/*

In late +arch )**60 petitioners hus(and officiall informed the F3S3 1ostal Ser-ice of the

famils chan!e and a(andonment of their address in the F3S3/& =he famil home was e-entuall

sold on ) 2pril )**63/) 1etitioners hus(and resi!ned from his #o( in the F3S3 in 2pril )**60

arri-ed in the countr on 4 +a )**6 and started wor8in! for a ma#or 1hilippine compan in

;ul )**63//

In earl )**60 petitioner and her hus(and acuired a 5*7suare meter lot in Corinthian ills0

Gue:on Cit where the (uilt their famil home/4 and to this da0 is where the couple and their

children ha-e (een residin!3/5 2 =ransfer Certificate of =itle co-erin! said propert was issued in

the couples name ( the Re!ister of Deeds of Gue:on Cit on & ;une )**63

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


On &5 Octo(er )*&50 petitioner filed her COC for the 1residenc for the +a )*&6 Elections3 56

In her COC0 the petitioner declared that she is a natural(orn citi:en and that her residence in the

1hilippines up to the da (efore 7 +a )*&6 would (e ten %&*' ears and ele-en %&&' months

counted from )4 +a )**535 =he petitioner attached to her COC an >2ffida-it 2ffirmin!

Renunciation of F3S323 Citi:enship? su(scri(ed and sworn to (efore a notar pu(lic in Gue:on

Cit on &4 Octo(er )*&535<

1etitioners filin! of her COC for 1resident in the upcomin! elections tri!!ered the filin! of

se-eral CO+E,EC cases a!ainst her which were the su(#ect of these consolidated cases3

+i#e

ORIGIN OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN G.R. NO. 221697

2 da after petitioner filed her COC for 1resident0 Estrella Elamparo %Elamparo' filed a petition

to den due course or cancel said COC which was doc8eted as S12 No3 &5**& %DC' and raffled

to the CO+E,EC Second Di-ision357 She is con-inced that the CO+E,EC has #urisdiction o-erher petition36* Essentiall0 Elamparos contention is that petitioner committed material

misrepresentation when she stated in her COC that she is a natural(orn ilipino citi:en and that

she is a resident of the 1hilippines for at least ten %&*' ears and ele-en %&&' months up to the da

(efore the 7 +a )*&6 Elections36&

On the issue of citi:enship0 Elamparo ar!ued that petitioner cannot (e considered as a natural

(orn ilipino on account of the fact that she was a foundlin!36) Elamparo claimed that

international law does not confer natural(orn status and ilipino citi:enship on foundlin!s36/

ollowin! this line of reasonin!0 petitioner is not ualified to appl for reacuisition of ilipino

citi:enship under R323 No3 7))5 for she is not a natural(orn ilipino citi:en to (e!in with3 64

E-en assumin! arguendo that petitioner was a natural(orn ilipino0 she is deemed to ha-e lost

that status when she (ecame a naturali:ed 2merican citi:en3652ccordin! to Elamparo0 natural

(orn citi:enship must (e continuous from (irth366

On the matter of petitioners residenc0 Elamparo pointed out that petitioner was (ound ( the

sworn declaration she made in her )*&) COC for Senator wherein she indicated that she had

resided in the countr for onl six %6' ears and six %6' months as of +a )*&/ Elections3

Elamparo li8ewise insisted that assumin! arguendo that petitioner is ualified to re!ain her

natural(orn status under R323 No3 7))50 she still fell short of the tenear residenc reuirement

of the Constitution as her residence could onl (e counted at the earliest from ;ul )**60 when

she reacuired 1hilippine citi:enship under the said 2ct3 2lso on the assumption that petitioner is

ualified to reacuire lost 1hilippine Citi:enship0 Elamparo is of the (elief that she failed to

reesta(lish her domicile in the 1hilippines36

1etitioner seasona(l filed her 2nswer wherein she countered that$



8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


%&' the CO+E,EC did not ha-e #urisdiction o-er Elamparos petition as it was actuall a petition

for quo warranto which could onl (e filed if 9race 1oe wins in the 1residential elections0 and

that the Department of ;ustice %DO;' has primar #urisdiction to re-o8e the BIs ;ul &<0 )**6

Order.

%)' the petition failed to state a cause of action (ecause it did not contain alle!ations which0 if

hpotheticall admitted0 would ma8e false the statement in her COC that she is a natural(orn

ilipino citi:en nor was there an alle!ation that there was a willful or deli(erate intent to

misrepresent on her part.

%/' she did not ma8e an material misrepresentation in the COC re!ardin! her citi:enship and

residenc ualifications for$

a3 the &7/4 Constitutional Con-ention deli(erations show that foundlin!s were considered

citi:ens.

(3 foundlin!s are presumed under international law to ha-e (een (orn of citi:ens of the place

where the are found.

c3 she reacuired her natural(orn 1hilippine citi:enship under the pro-isions of R323 No3 7))5.

d3 she executed a sworn renunciation of her 2merican citi:enship prior to the filin! of her COC

for 1resident in the +a 70 )*&6 Elections and that the same is in full force and effect and has

not (een withdrawn or recanted.

e3 the (urden was on Elamparo in pro-in! that she did not possess natural(orn status.

f3 residence is a matter of e-idence and that she reesta(lished her domicile in the 1hilippines as

earl as +a )40 )**5.

!3 she could reesta(lish residence e-en (efore she reacuired natural(orn citi:enship under R323

No3 7))5.

h3 statement re!ardin! the period of residence in her )*&) COC for Senator was an honest

mista8e0 not (indin! and should !i-e wa to e-idence on her true date of reacuisition of

domicile.

i3 Elamparos petition is merel an action to usurp the so-erei!n ri!ht of the ilipino people to

decide a purel political uestion0 that is0 should she ser-e as the countrs next leader36<

2fter the parties su(mitted their respecti-e +emoranda0 the petition was deemed su(mitted for

resolution3

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


On & Decem(er )*&50 the CO+E,EC Second Di-ision promul!ated a Resolution findin! that

petitioners COC0 filed for the purpose of runnin! for the 1resident of the Repu(lic of the

1hilippines in the 7 +a )*&6 National and ,ocal Elections0 contained material representations

which are false3 =he fallo of the aforesaid Resolution reads$

WHEREFORE0 in -iew of all the fore!oin! considerations0 the instant 1etition to Den Due

Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidac is here( GRANTED3 2ccordin!l0 the Certificate

of Candidac for 1resident of the Repu(lic of the 1hilippines in the +a 70 )*&6 National and

,ocal Elections filed ( respondent +ar 9race Nati-idad Sonora 1oe ,laman:ares is here(

CANCELLED367

+otion for Reconsideration of the & Decem(er )*&5 Resolution was filed ( petitioner which the

CO+E,EC En Banc resol-ed in its )/ Decem(er )*&5 Resolution ( denin! the same3*

+i#e

ORIGIN OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN GR. NOS. 221698"700

=his case stemmed from three %/' separate petitions filed ( rancisco S3 =atad %=atad'0 2ntonio

13 Contreras %Contreras' and 2mado D3 alde: %alde:' a!ainst petitioner (efore the CO+E,EC

which were consolidated and raflled to its irst Di-ision3

In his petition to disualif petitioner under Rule )5 of the CO+E,EC Rules of 1rocedure0&

doc8eted as S12 No3 &5**) %DC'0 =atad alle!ed that petitioner lac8s the reuisite residenc and

citi:enship to ualif her for the 1residenc3)

=atad theori:ed that since the 1hilippines adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis0 persons ofun8nown parenta!e0 particularl foundlin!s0 cannot (e considered natural(orn ilipino citi:ens

since (lood relationship is determinati-e of natural(orn status3/ =atad in-o8ed the rule of

statutor construction that what is not included is excluded3 e a-erred that the fact that

foundlin!s were not expressl included in the cate!ories of citi:ens in the &7/5 Constitution is

indicati-e of the framers intent to exclude them34 =herefore0 the (urden lies on petitioner to

pro-e that she is a natural(orn citi:en35

Neither can petitioner see8 refu!e under international con-entions or treaties to support her claim

that foundlin!s ha-e a nationalit36 2ccordin! to =atad0 international con-entions and treaties are

not selfexecutor and that local le!islations are necessar in order to !i-e effect to treat

o(li!ations assumed ( the 1hilippines3 e also stressed that there is no standard state practice

that automaticall confers natural(orn status to foundlin!s3<

Similar to Elamparos ar!ument0 =atad claimed that petitioner cannot a-ail of the option to

reacuire 1hilippine citi:enship under R323 No3 7))5 (ecause it onl applies to former natural

(orn citi:ens and petitioner was not as she was a foundlin!37



8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


Referrin! to petitioner s COC for Senator0 =atad concluded that she did not compl with the ten

%&*' ear residenc reuirement3<* =atad opined that petitioner acuired her domicile in Gue:on

Cit onl from the time she renounced her 2merican citi:enship which was sometime in )*&* or

)*&&3<&2dditionall0 =atad uestioned petitioners lac8 of intention to a(andon her F3S3 domicile

as e-inced ( the fact that her hus(and staed thereat and her freuent trips to the F3S3<)

In support of his petition to den due course or cancel the COC of petitioner0 doc8eted as S12

No3 &5&/7 %DC'0 alde: alle!ed that her repatriation under R323 No3 7))5 did not (estow upon

her the status of a natural(orn citi:en3</ e ad-anced the -iew that former natural(orn citi:ens

who are repatriated under the said 2ct reacuires onl their 1hilippine citi:enship and will not

re-ert to their ori!inal status as natural(orn citi:ens3<4

e further ar!ued that petitioners own admission in her COC for Senator that she had onl (een

a resident of the 1hilippines for at least six %6' ears and six %6' months prior to the &/ +a )*&/

Elections operates a!ainst her3 alde: re#ected petitioners claim that she could ha-e -alidl

reesta(lished her domicile in the 1hilippines prior to her reacuisition of 1hilippine citi:enship3

In effect0 his position was that petitioner did not meet the ten %&*' ear residenc reuirement for

1resident3

Fnli8e the pre-ious CO+E,EC cases filed a!ainst petitioner0 Contreras petition0<5 doc8eted as

S12 No3 &5** %DC'0 limited the attac8 to the residenc issue3 e claimed that petitioners )*&5

COC for 1resident should (e cancelled on the !round that she did not possess the tenear period

of residenc reuired for said candidac and that she made false entr in her COC when she

stated that she is a le!al resident of the 1hilippines for ten %&*' ears and ele-en %&&' months ( 7

+a )*&63<6

Contreras contended that the rec8onin! period for computin! petitioner s residencin the 1hilippines should (e from &< ;ul )**60 the date when her petition to reacuire 1hilippine

citi:enship was appro-ed ( the BI3< e asserted that petitioners phsical presence in the

countr (efore &< ;ul )**6 could not (e -alid e-idence of reacuisition of her 1hilippine

domicile since she was then li-in! here as an 2merican citi:en and as such0 she was !o-erned (

the 1hilippine immi!ration laws3<<

In her defense0 petitioner raised the followin! ar!uments$

First 0 =atads petition should (e dismissed outri!ht for failure to state a cause of action3 is

petition did not in-o8e !rounds proper for a disualification case as enumerated under Sections&) and 6< of the Omni(us Election Code3<7 Instead0 =atad completel relied on the alle!ed lac8

of residenc and natural(orn status of petitioner which are not amon! the reco!ni:ed !rounds

for the disualification of a candidate to an electi-e office37*

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


Second 0 the petitions filed a!ainst her are (asicall petitions for quo warranto as the focus on

esta(lishin! her ineli!i(ilit for the 1residenc37& 2 petition for uo warranto falls within the

exclusi-e #urisdiction of the 1residential Electoral =ri(unal %1E=' and not the CO+E,EC37)

Third 0 the (urden to pro-e that she is not a natural(orn ilipino citi:en is on the

respondents37/Otherwise stated0 she has a presumption in her fa-or that she is a natural(orn

citi:en of this countr3

Fourth0 customar international law dictates that foundlin!s are entitled to a nationalit and are

presumed to (e citi:ens of the countr where the are found374 Conseuentl0 the petitioner is

considered as a natural(orn citi:en of the 1hilippines375

Fifth0 she claimed that as a natural(orn citi:en0 she has e-er ri!ht to (e repatriated under R323

No3 7))5 or the ri!ht to reacuire her natural(orn status376 +oreo-er0 the official acts of the

1hilippine 9o-ernment en#o the presumption of re!ularit0 to wit$ the issuance of the &< ;ul

)**6 Order of the BI declarin! her as natural(orn citi:en0 her appointment as +=RCB Chair

and the issuance of the decree of adoption of San ;uan R=C3 7 She (elie-ed that all these acts

reinforced her position that she is a natural(orn citi:en of the 1hilippines37<

Sixth0 she maintained that as earl as the first uarter of )**50 she started reesta(lishin! her

domicile of choice in the 1hilippines as demonstrated ( her childrens resettlement and

schoolin! in the countr0 purchase of a condominium unit in San ;uan Cit and the construction

of their famil home in Corinthian ills377

Seventh0 she insisted that she could le!all reesta(lish her domicile of choice in the 1hilippines

e-en (efore she renounced her 2merican citi:enship as lon! as the three determinants for a

chan!e of domicile are complied with3&** She reasoned out that there was no reuirement that

renunciation of forei!n citi:enship is a prereuisite for the acuisition of a new domicile of

choice3&*&

Eighth0 she reiterated that the period appearin! in the residenc portion of her COC for Senator

was a mista8e made in !ood faith3&*)

In a Resolution&*/ promul!ated on && Decem(er )*&50 the CO+E,EC irst Di-ision ruled that

petitioner is not a natural(orn citi:en0 that she failed to complete the ten %&*' ear residencreuirement0 and that she committed material misrepresentation in her COC when she declared

therein that she has (een a resident of the 1hilippines for a period of ten %&*' ears and ele-en

%&&' months as of the da of the elections on 7 +a )*&63 =he CO+E,EC irst Di-ision

concluded that she is not ualified for the electi-e position of 1resident of the Repu(lic of the

1hilippines3 =he dispositi-e portion of said Resolution reads$

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


WHEREFORE0 premises considered0 the Commission RESOLVED0 as it here( RESOLVES0

to GRANTthe 1etitions and cancel the Certificate of Candidac of MARY GRACE

NATIVIDAD SONORA POE-LLAMANZARES for the electi-e position of 1resident of the

Repu(lic of the 1hilippines in connection with the 7 +a )*&6 Snchroni:ed ,ocal and National

Elections3

1etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration see8in! a re-ersal of the CO+E,EC irst

Di-isions Resolution3 On )/ Decem(er )*&50 the CO+E,EC En Banc issued a Resolution

denin! petitioners motion for reconsideration3

2larmed ( the ad-erse rulin!s of the CO+E,EC0 petitioner instituted the present petitions

for certiorari with ur!ent praer for the issuance of an ex parte temporar restrainin! order" status

quo anteorder and"or writ of preliminar in#unction3 On )< Decem(er )*&50 temporar

restrainin! orders were issued ( the Court en#oinin! the CO+E,EC and its representati-es

from implementin! the assailed CO+E,EC Resolutions until further orders from the Court3 =he

Court also ordered the consolidation of the two petitions filed ( petitioner in its Resolution of

&) ;anuar )*&63 =hereafter0 oral ar!uments were held in these cases3

+i#e

R#$%&'

=he Court 9R2N=S the petition of +ar 9race Nati-idad S3 1oe ,laman:ares and to 2NNF,

and SE= 2SIDE the$

&3 Resolution dated & Decem(er )*&5 rendered throu!h its Second Di-ision0 in S12 No3 &5**&%DC'0 entitled Estrella C. Elamparo petitioner vs. !ary "race #atividad Sonora $oe%

&laman'ares3

)3 Resolution dated && Decem(er )*&50 rendered throu!h its irst Di-ision0 in the consolidated

cases S12 No3 &5**) %DC' entitled Francisco S. Tatad petitioner vs. !ary "race #atividad

Sonora $oe%&laman'ares respondent . S12 No3 &5** %DC' entitled (ntonio $. Contreras

petitioner vs. !ary "race #atividad Sonora $oe%&laman'ares respondent . and S12 No3 &5&/7

%DC' entitled (mado ). *alde' petitioner v. !ary "race #atividad Sonora $oe&laman'ares

respondent 3

/3 Resolution dated )/ Decem(er )*&5 of the Commission En Banc0 upholdin! the & Decem(er

)*&5 Resolution of the Second Di-ision3

43 Resolution dated )/ Decem(er )*&5 of the Commission En Banc0 upholdin! the && Decem(er

)*&5 Resolution of the irst Di-ision3



8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


=he procedure and the conclusions from which the uestioned Resolutions emanated are tainted

with !ra-e a(use of discretion amountin! to lac8 of #urisdiction3 =he petitioner is a GF2,IIED

C2NDID2=E for 1resident in the 7 +a )*&6 National Elections3

=he issue (efore the CO+E,EC is whether or not the COC of petitioner should (e denied due

course or cancelled >on the exclusi-e !round? that she made in the certificate a false material

representation3 =he exclusi-it of the !round should hed!e in the discretion of the CO+E,EC

and restrain it from !oin! into the issue of the ualifications of the candidate for the position0 if0

as in this case0 such issue is et undecided or undetermined ( the proper authorit3 =he

CO+E,EC cannot itself0 in the same cancellation case0 decide the ualification or lac8 thereof

of the candidate3

@e rel0 first of all0 on the Constitution of our Repu(lic0 particularl its pro-isions in 2rticle IH0

C0 Section )$

Section 2 =he Commission on Elections shall exercise the followin! powers and functions$

%&' Enforce and administer all laws and re!ulations relati-e to the conduct of an election0

ple(iscite0 initiati-e0 referendum0 and recall3

%)' Exercise exclusi-e ori!inal #urisdiction o-er all contests relatin! to the elections0 returns0 and

ualifications of all electi-e re!ional0 pro-incial0 and cit officials0 and appellate #urisdiction

o-er all contests in-ol-in! electi-e municipal officials decided ( trial courts of !eneral

#urisdiction0 or in-ol-in! electi-e (aran!a officials decided ( trial courts of limited

#urisdiction3

Decisions0 final orders0 or rulin!s of the Commission on election contests in-ol-in! electi-e

municipal and (aran!a offices shall (e final0 executor0 and not appeala(le3

%/' Decide0 except those in-ol-in! the ri!ht to -ote0 all uestions affectin! elections0 includin!

determination of the num(er and location of pollin! places0 appointment of election officials and

inspectors0 and re!istration of -oters3

%4' Deputi:e0 with the concurrence of the 1resident0 law enforcement a!encies and

instrumentalities of the 9o-ernment0 includin! the 2rmed orces of the 1hilippines0 for the

exclusi-e purpose of ensurin! free0 orderl0 honest0 peaceful0 and credi(le elections3

%5' Re!ister0 after sufficient pu(lication0 political parties0 or!ani:ations0 or coalitions which0 in

addition to other reuirements0 must present their platform or pro!ram of !o-ernment. and

accredit citi:ens arms of the Commission on Elections3 Reli!ious denominations and sects shall

not (e re!istered3 =hose which see8 to achie-e their !oals throu!h -iolence or unlawful means0

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution0 or which are supported ( an forei!n

!o-ernment shall li8ewise (e refused re!istration3

inancial contri(utions from forei!n !o-ernments and their a!encies to political parties0

or!ani:ations0 coalitions0 or candidates related to elections constitute interference in national

affairs0 and0 when accepted0 shall (e an additional !round for the cancellation of their re!istration

with the Commission0 in addition to other penalties that ma (e prescri(ed ( law3

%6' ile0 upon a -erified complaint0 or on its own initiati-e0 petitions in court for inclusion or

exclusion of -oters. in-esti!ate and0 where appropriate0 prosecute cases of -iolations of election

laws0 includin! acts or omissions constitutin! election frauds0 offenses0 and malpractices3

%' Recommend to the Con!ress effecti-e measures to minimi:e election spendin!0 includin!

limitation of places where propa!anda materials shall (e posted0 and to pre-ent and penali:e all

forms of election frauds0 offenses0 malpractices0 and nuisance candidacies3

%<' Recommend to the 1resident the remo-al of an officer or emploee it has deputi:ed0 or the

imposition of an other disciplinar action0 for -iolation or disre!ard of0 or diso(edience to its

directi-e0 order0 or decision3

%7' Su(mit to the 1resident and the Con!ress a comprehensi-e report on the conduct of each

election0 ple(iscite0 initiati-e0 referendum0 or recall3

Not an one of the enumerated powers approximate the exactitude of the pro-isions of 2rticle

I0 Section & of the same (asic law statin! that$

=he Senate and the ouse of Representati-es shall each ha-e an Electoral =ri(unal which shall

(e the sole #ud!e of all contests relatin! to the election0 returns0 and ualifications of their

respecti-e +em(ers3 Each Electoral =ri(unal shall (e composed of nine +em(ers0 three of

whom shall (e ;ustices of the Supreme Court to (e desi!nated ( the Chief ;ustice0 and the

remainin! six shall (e +em(ers of the Senate or the ouse of Representati-es0 as the case ma

(e0 who shall (e chosen on the (asis of proportional representation from the political parties and

the parties or or!ani:ations re!istered under the partlist sstem represented therein3 =he senior

;ustice in the Electoral =ri(unal shall (e its Chairman3

or of the last para!raph of 2rticle II0 Section 4 which pro-ides that$

=he Supreme Court0 sittin! en +ane0 shall (e the sole #ud!e of all contests relatin! to the election0

returns0 and ualifications of the 1resident or ice1resident0 and ma promul!ate its rules for

the purpose3

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


=he tri(unals which ha-e #urisdiction o-er the uestion of the ualifications of the 1resident0 the

ice1resident0 Senators and the +em(ers of the ouse of Representati-es was made clear (

the Constitution3 =here is no such pro-ision for candidates for these positions3

Can the CO+E,EC (e such #ud!e

=he opinion of ;ustice icente 3 +endo:a in ,omualde'%!arcos v. Commission on Elections0&*4

which was affirmati-el cited in the En Banc decision in Fermin v. C-!E&EC &*5 is our !uide3

=he citation in Fermin reads$

2pparentl reali:in! the lac8 of an authori:ed proceedin! for declarin! the ineli!i(ilit of

candidates0 the CO+E,EC amended its rules on e(ruar &50 &77/ so as to pro-ide in Rule )5

J&0 the followin!$

"rounds for disqualification. 2n candidate who does not possess all the ualifications of a

candidate as pro-ided for ( the Constitution or ( existin! law or who commits an act declared

( law to (e !rounds for disualification ma (e disualified from continuin! as a candidate3

=he lac8 of pro-ision for declarin! the ineli!i(ilit of candidates0 howe-er0 cannot (e supplied

( a mere rule3 Such an act is eui-alent to the creation of a cause of action which is a

su(stanti-e matter which the CO+E,EC0 in the exercise of its rulema8in! power under 2rt3 IH0

20 J6 of the Constitution0 cannot do it3 It is noteworth that the Constitution withholds from the

CO+E,EC e-en the power to decide cases in-ol-in! the ri!ht to -ote0 which essentiall

in-ol-es an inuir into qualifications (ased on age0 residence and citi'enship of -oters3 K2rt3

IH0 C0 J)%/'L

=he assimilation in Rule )5 of the CO+E,EC rules of !rounds for ineli!i(ilit into !rounds for

disualification is contrar to the e-ident intention of the law3 or not onl in their !rounds (ut

also in their conseuences are proceedin!s for >disualification? different from those for a

declaration of >ineli!i(ilit3? >Disualification? proceedin!s0 as alread stated0 are (ased on

!rounds specified in J&) and J6< of the Omni(us Election Code and in J4* of the ,ocal

9o-ernment Code and are for the purpose of (arrin! an indi-idual from +ecoming a candidate

or from continuing as a candidate for pu(lic office3 In a word0 their purpose is to eliminate a

candidate from the race either from the start or durin! its pro!ress3 >Ineli!i(ilit0? on the other

hand0 refers to the lac8 of the ualifications prescri(ed in the Constitution or the statutes forholdin! pu(lic office and the purpose of the proceedin!s for declaration of ineli!i(ilit is to

remove the incum+ent from office3

Conseuentl0 that an indi-idual possesses the ualifications for a pu(lic office does not impl

that he is not disualified from (ecomin! a candidate or continuin! as a candidate for a pu(lic

office and -ice -ersa3 @e ha-e this sort of dichotom in our Naturali:ation ,aw3 %C323 No3 4/'

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


=hat an alien has the ualifications prescri(ed in J) of the ,aw does not impl that he does not

suffer from an of KtheL disualifications pro-ided in J43

Before we !et derailed ( the distinction as to !rounds and the conseuences of the respecti-e

proceedin!s0 the importance of the opinion is in its statement that >the lac8 of pro-ision for

declarin! the ineli!i(ilit of candidates0 howe-er0 cannot (e supplied ( a mere rule?3 ;ustice

+endo:a lectured in ,omualde'%!arcos that$

=hree reasons ma (e cited to explain the a(sence of an authori:ed proceedin! for

determinin! +efore election the ualifications of a candidate3

irst is the fact that unless a candidate wins and is proclaimed elected0 there is no necessit for

determinin! his eli!i(ilit for the office3 In contrast0 whether an indi-idual should (e disualified

as a candidate for acts constitutin! election offenses %e3!30 -ote (uin!0 o-er spendin!0

commission of prohi(ited acts' is a pre#udicial uestion which should (e determined lest he wins

(ecause of the -er acts for which his disualification is (ein! sou!ht3 =hat is wh it is pro-ided

that if the !rounds for disualification are esta(lished0 a candidate will not (e -oted for. if he has

(een -oted for0 the -otes in his fa-or will not (e counted. and if for some reason he has (een

-oted for and he has won0 either he will not (e proclaimed or his proclamation will (e set aside3

Second is the fact that the determination of a candidates eli!i(ilit0 e3!30 his citi:enship or0 as in

this case0 his domicile0 ma ta8e a lon! time to ma8e0 extendin! (eond the (e!innin! of the

term of the office3 =his is ampl demonstrated in the companion case %9R3 No3 &)*)650 (gapito

(. (quino v. C-!E&EC ' where the determination of (quino/s residence was still pending in the

C-!E&EC even after the elections of !ay 0 1223. This is contrary to the summary character proceedings relating to certificates of candidacy. That is why the law ma4es the receipt of certf

ficates of candidacy a ministerial duty of the C-!E&EC and its officers3 =he law is satisfied if

candidates state in their certificates of candidac that the are eli!i(le for the position which the

see8 to fill0 lea-in! the determination of their ualifications to (e made after the election and

onl in the e-ent the are elected3 Onl in cases in-ol-in! char!es of false representations made

in certificates of candidac is the CO+E,EC !i-en #urisdiction3

=hird is the polic underlin! the prohi(ition a!ainst pre proclamation cases in elections for

1resident0 ice 1resident0 Senators and mem(ers of the ouse of Representati-es3 %R323 No3

&660 J &5' =he purpose is to preser-e the prero!ati-es of the ouse of Representati-es Electoral=ri(unal and the other =ri(unals as >sole #ud!es? under the Constitution of the election0 returns

and qualifications of mem(ers of Con!ress of the 1resident and ice 1resident0 as the case ma

(e3&*6

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


=o (e sure0 the authoritati-eness of the ,omualde' pronouncements as reiterated in Fermin0 led

to the amendment throu!h CO+E,EC Resolution No3 75)/0 on )5 Septem(er )*&) of its Rule

)53 =his0 the &5 e(ruar&77/ -ersion of Rule )50 which states that$

"rounds for disqualification. 2n candidate who does not possess all the ualifications of a

candidate as pro-ided for ( the Constitution or ( existin! law or who commits an act declared

( law to (e !rounds for disualification ma (e disualified from continuin! as a candidate3&*

was in the )*&) rendition0 drasticall chan!ed to$

"rounds. 2n candidate who0 in action or protest in which he is a part0 is declared ( final

decision of a competent court0 !uilt of0 or found ( the Commission to (e sufferin! from an

disualification pro-ided ( law or the Constitution3

2 1etition to Disualif a Candidate in-o8in! !rounds for a 1etition to Den to or Cancel a

Certificate of Candidac or 1etition to Declare a Candidate as a Nuisance Candidate0 or a

com(ination thereof0 shall (e summaril dismissed3

Clearl0 the amendment done in )*&) is an acceptance of the realit of a(sence of an authori:ed

proceedin! for determinin! +efore election the ualifications of candidate3 Such that0 as presentl

reuired0 to disualif a candidate there must (e a declaration ( a final #ud!ment of a competent

court that the candidate sou!ht to (e disualified >is !uilt of or found ( the Commission to (e

sufferin! from an disualification pro-ided ( law or the Constitution3?

Insofar as the ualification of a candidate is concerned0 Rule )5 and Rule )/ are flipsides of one

to the other3 Both do not allow0 are not authori:ations0 are not -estment of #urisdiction0 for the

CO+E,EC to determine the ualification of a candidate3 =he facts of ualification must

(eforehand (e esta(lished in a prior proceedin! (efore an authorit properl -ested with

#urisdiction3 =he prior determination of ualification ma (e ( statute0 ( executi-e order or (

a #ud!ment of a competent court or tri(unal3

If a candidate cannot (e disualified without a prior findin! that he or she is sufferin! from a

disualification >pro-ided ( law or the Constitution0? neither can the certificate of candidac (e

cancelled or denied due course on !rounds of false representations re!ardin! his or her

ualifications0 without a prior authoritati-e findin! that he or she is not ualified0 such priorauthorit (ein! the necessar measure ( which the falsit of the representation can (e found3

=he onl exception that can (e conceded are selfe-ident facts of unuestioned or unuestiona(le

-eracit and #udicial confessions3 Such are0 anwa0 (ases eui-alent to prior decisions a!ainst

which the falsit of representation can (e determined3

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


=he need for a predicate findin! or final pronouncement in a proceedin! under Rule )/ that deals

with0 as in this case0 alle!ed false representations re!ardin! the candidates citi:enship and

residence0 forced the CO+E,EC to rule essentiall that since foundlin!s&*< are not mentioned in

the enumeration of citi:ens under the &7/5 Constitution0&*7 the then cannot (e citi:ens3 2s the

CO+E,EC stated in oral ar!uments0 when petitioner admitted that she is a foundlin!0 she said it

all3 =his (orders on (i!otr3 Oddl0 in an effort at tolerance0 the CO+E,EC0 after sain! that it

cannot rule that herein petitioner possesses (lood relationship with a ilipino citi:en when >it is

certain that such relationship is indemonstra(le0? proceeded to sa that >she now has the (urden

to present e-idence to pro-e her natural filiation with a ilipino parent3?

+i#e

O& C%%(e&!h%)

=he fact is that petitioners (lood relationship with a ilipino citi:en is DE+ONS=R2B,E3

2t the outset0 it must (e noted that presumptions re!ardin! paternit is neither un8nown nor

unaccepted in 1hilippine ,aw3 =he amil Code of the 1hilippines has a whole chapter on

1aternit and iliation3&&* =hat said0 there is more than sufficient e-idence that petitioner has

ilipino parents and is therefore a natural(orn ilipino3 1arentheticall0 the (urden of proof was

on pri-ate respondents to show that petitioner is not a ilipino citi:en3 =he pri-ate respondents

should ha-e shown that (oth of petitioners parents were aliens3 er admission that she is a

foundlin! did not shift the (urden to her (ecause such status did not exclude the possi(ilit that

her parents were ilipinos0 especiall as in this case where there is a hi!h pro(a(ilit0 if not

certaint0 that her parents are ilipinos3

=he factual issue is not who the parents of petitioner are0 as their identities are un8nown0 (ut

whether such parents are ilipinos3 Fnder Section 40 Rule &)<$

Sect ! ,elevancy collateral matters 5 E-idence must ha-e such a relation to the fact in issue as

to induce (elief in its existence or noexistence3 E-idence on collateral matters shall not (e

allowed0 except when it tends in an reasona(le de!ree to esta(lish the pro(a(ilit of

impro(a(ilit of the fact in issue3

=he Solicitor 9eneral offered official statistics from the 1hilippine Statistics 2uthorit %1S2'&&&

that from &765 to &750 the total num(er of forei!ners (orn in the 1hilippines was &507<6 whilethe total num(er of ilipinos (orn in the countr was &*055<0)<3 =he statistical pro(a(ilit that

an child (orn in the 1hilippines in that decade is natural(orn ilipino was ""#$%3 or her

part0 petitioner presented census statistics for Iloilo 1ro-ince for &76* and &7*0 also from the

1S23 In &76*0 there were 76)05/) ilipinos and 40/4 forei!ners in the pro-ince. ""&2% of the

population were ilipinos3 In &7*0 the fi!ures were &0&6)0667 ilipinos and 50/*4 forei!ners0 or

""''%3 2lso presented were fi!ures for the child producin! a!es %&547'3 In &76*0 there were



8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


)/*05)< female ilipinos as a!ainst /* female forei!ners or ""&#%3 In the same ear0 there

were )&*0/47 ilipino males and <<6 male aliens0 or ""'#%3 In &7*0 there were )*0)77

ilipino females -ersus &0&7* female aliens0 or ""'&%3 =hat same ear0 there were )4504*

ilipino males as a!ainst onl &0&65 male aliens or ""'$%3 CO+E,EC did not dispute these

fi!ures3 Nota(l0 Commissioner 2rthur ,im admitted0 durin! the oral ar!uments0 that at the time

petitioner was found in &76<0 the ma#orit of the population in Iloilo was ilipino3&&)

Other circumstantial e-idence of the nationalit of petitioners parents are the fact that she was

a(andoned as an infant in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo Cit3 She also has tpical ilipino

features$ hei!ht0 flat nasal (rid!e0 strai!ht (lac8 hair0 almond shaped ees and an o-al face3

=here is a disputa(le presumption that thin!s ha-e happened accordin! to the ordinar course of

nature and the ordinar ha(its of life3&&/ 2ll of the fore!oin! e-idence0 that a person with tpical

ilipino features is a(andoned in Catholic Church in a municipalit where the population of the

1hilippines is o-erwhelmin!l ilipinos such that there would (e more than a 77M chance that a

child (orn in the pro-ince would (e a ilipino0 would indicate more than ample pro(a(ilit if not

statistical certaint0 that petitioners parents are ilipinos3 =hat pro(a(ilit and the e-idence on

which it is (ased are admissi(le under Rule &)<0 Section 4 of the Re-ised Rules on E-idence3

=o assume otherwise is to accept the a(surd0 if not the -irtuall impossi(le0 as the norm3 In the

words of the Solicitor 9eneral$

Second3 It is contrar to common sense (ecause forei!ners do not come to the 1hilippines so

the can !et pre!nant and lea-e their new(orn (a(ies (ehind3 @e do not face a situation where

the pro(a(ilit is such that e-er foundlin! would ha-e a 5*M chance of (ein! a ilipino and a5*M chance of (ein! a forei!ner3 @e need to frame our uestions properl3 @hat are the chances

that the parents of anone (orn in the 1hilippines would (e forei!ners 2lmost :ero3 @hat are

the chances that the parents of anone (orn in the 1hilippines would (e ilipinos 7737M3

2ccordin! to the 1hilippine Statistics 2uthorit0 from )*&* to )*&40 on a earl a-era!e0 there

were &0660*46 children (orn in the 1hilippines to ilipino parents0 as opposed to &0/*& children

in the 1hilippines of forei!n parents3 =hus0 for that sample period0 the ratio of nonilipino

children to natural (orn ilipino children is &$&/53 =his means that the statistical pro(a(ilit that

an child (orn in the 1hilippines would (e a natural (orn ilipino is 7737/M3

rom &765 to &750 the total num(er of forei!ners (orn in the 1hilippines is &507<6 while the

total num(er of ilipinos (orn in the 1hilippines is &5055<0)<3 or this period0 the ratio of non

ilipino children is I $66&3 =his means that the statistical pro(a(ilit that an child (orn in the

1hilippines on that decade would (e a natural (orn ilipino is 773</M3

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


@e can in-ite statisticians and social anthropolo!ists to crunch the num(ers for us0 (ut I am

confident that the statistical pro(a(ilit that a child (orn in the 1hilippines would (e a natural

(orn ilipino will not (e affected ( whether or not the parents are 8nown3 If at all0 the

li8elihood that a foundlin! would ha-e a ilipino parent mi!ht e-en (e hi!her than 7737M3

ilipinos a(andon their children out of po-ert or perhaps0 shame3 @e do not ima!ine forei!ners

a(andonin! their children here in the 1hilippines thin8in! those infants would ha-e (etter

economic opportunities or (elie-in! that this countr is a tropical paradise suita(le for raisin!

a(andoned children3 I certainl dou(t whether a forei!n couple has e-er considered their child

excess (a!!a!e that is (est left (ehind3

=o den full ilipino citi:enship to all foundlin!s and render them stateless #ust (ecause there

ma (e a theoretical chance that one amon! the thousands of these foundlin!s mi!ht (e the child

of not #ust one0 (ut two0 forei!ners is downri!ht discriminator0 irrational0 and un#ust3 It #ust

doesnt ma8e an sense3 9i-en the statistical certaint 7737M that an child (orn in the

1hilippines would (e a natural (orn citi:en0 a decision denin! foundlin!s such status iseffecti-el a denial of their (irthri!ht3 =here is no reason wh this onora(le Court should use

an impro(a(le hpothetical to sacrifice the fundamental political ri!hts of an entire class of

human (ein!s3 our onor0 constitutional interpretation and the use of common sense are not

separate disciplines3

2s a matter of law0 foundlin!s are as a class0 natural(orn citi:ens3 @hile the &7/5 Constitutions

enumeration is silent as to foundlin!s0 there is no restricti-e lan!ua!e which would definitel

exclude foundlin!s either3 Because of silence and am(i!uit in the enumeration with respect to

foundlin!s0 there is a need to examine the intent of the framers3 In #itafan v. Commissioner of

6nternal ,evenue0&&4

this Court held that$

=he ascertainment of that intent is (ut in 8eepin! with the fundamental principle of constitutional

construction that the intent of the framers of the or!anic law and of the people adoptin! it should

(e !i-en effect3 =he primar tas8 in constitutional construction is to ascertain and thereafter

assure the reali:ation of the purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the

Constitution3 It ma also (e safel assumed that the people in ratifin! the Constitution were

!uided mainl ( the explanation offered ( the framers3&&5

2s pointed out ( petitioner as well as the Solicitor 9eneral0 the deli(erations of the &7/4

Constitutional Con-ention show that the framers intended foundlin!s to (e co-ered ( theenumeration3 =he followin! exchan!e is recorded$

Sr Raos.

&or an a/en#/ent ' "ro"ose that ater susection 2, the ooin is

inserte#. 3The natura chi#ren o a orein ather an# a &ii"ino /other not

reconi4e# 5 the ather

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


x x x x

Presi#ent.

7e ou# i9e to re:uest a cari;cation ro/ the "ro"onent o the

a/en#/ent The ente/an reers to natura chi#ren or to an5 9in# oieiti/ate chi#ren<

Sr Raos.

To a 9in#s o ieiti/ate chi#ren 't aso incu#es natura children of

unknown parentage, natura or ieiti/ate chi#ren o un9non "arents

Sr Montinoa.

&or cari;cation The ente/an sai# 3o un9non "arents= Current co#es

consi#er the/ &ii"ino, that is, ' reer to the S"anish Co#e herein a chi#ren

o un9non "arentae orn in S"anish territor5 are consi#ere# S"aniar#s,ecause the "resu/"tion is that a chi# o un9non "arentae is the son o a

S"aniar# This /a5 e a""ie# in the Phii""ines in that a chi# o un9non

"arentae orn in the Phii""ines is #ee/e# to e &ii"ino, an# there is no

nee#>

Sr Raos.

There is a nee#, ecause e are reatin the con#itions that are re:uire# to

e &ii"ino

Sr Montinoa.

?ut that is the inter"retation o the a, thereore, there is no /ore nee# or

a/en#/ent

Sr Raos.

The a/en#/ent shou# rea# thus. 3Natura or ieiti/ate o a orein ather

an# a &ii"ino /other reconi4e# 5 one, or the chi#ren o un9non

"arentae=

Sr ?riones.

The a/en#/ent shou# /ean chi#ren orn / the Phii""ines o un9non

"arentae

Sr Raos.

The son o a &ii"ina to a &oreiner, athouh this "erson #oes not reconi4e

the chi#, is not un9non

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


Presi#ent.

Does the ente/an acce"t the a/en#/ent or not<

Sr Raos.

' #o not acce"t the a/en#/ent ecause the a/en#/ent ou# e$cu#e thechi#ren o a &ii"ina ith a oreiner ho #oes not reconi4e the chi# Their

"arentae is not un9non an# ' thin9 those o overseas &ii"ino /other an#

ather ho/ the atter #oes not reconi4e, shou# aso e consi#ere# as

&ii"inos

Presi#ent.

The :uestion in or#er is the a/en#/ent to the a/en#/ent ro/ the

@ente/an ro/ Ceu, Mr ?riones

Sr ?usion.

Mr Presi#ent, #ont 5ou thin9 it ou# e etter to eave this /atter in the

han#s o the Leisature<

Sr Ro$as.

Mr Presi#ent, /5 hu/e o"inion is that these cases are few and far in

between, that the constitution need [not] refer to them. By international law

the principle that children or people born in a country of unknown parents

are citizens in this nation is recognized, and it is not necessary to include a

provision on the subject exhaustively.116

=hou!h the Rafols amendment was not carried out0 it was not (ecause there was an o(#ection to

the notion that persons of >un8nown parenta!e? are not citi:ens (ut onl (ecause their num(er

was not enou!h to merit specific mention3 Such was the account0 && cited ( petitioner0 of

dele!ate and constitution law author ;ose 2rue!o who said$

Durin! the de(ates on this pro-ision0 Dele!ate Rafols presented an amendment to include as

ilipino citi:ens the ille!itimate children with a forei!n father of a mother who was a citi:en of

the 1hilippines0 and also foundlin!s. (ut this amendment was defeated primaril (ecause the

Con-ention (elie-ed that the cases0 (ein! too few to warrant the inclusion of a pro-ision in the

Constitution to appl to them0 should (e !o-erned ( statutor le!islation3 +oreo-er0 it was

(elie-ed that the rules of international law were alread clear to the effect that ille!itimate

children followed the citi:enship of the mother0 and that foundlin!s followed the nationalit of

the place where the were found0 there( ma8in! unnecessar the inclusion in the Constitution

of the proposed amendment3

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


=his explanation was li8ewise the position of the Solicitor 9eneral durin! the &6 e(ruar )*&6

Oral 2r!uments$

@e all 8now that the Rafols proposal was re#ected3 But note that what was declined was the

proposal for a textual and explicit reco!nition of foundlin!s as ilipinos3 2nd so0 the wa to

explain the constitutional silence is ( sain! that it was the -iew of +ontinola and Roxas which

pre-ailed that there is no more need to expressl declare foundlin!s as ilipinos3

O(-iousl0 it doesnt matter whether +ontinolas or Roxas -iews were le!all correct3 ramers

of a constitution can constitutionali:e rules (ased on assumptions that are imperfect or e-en

wron!3 =he can e-en o-erturn existin! rules3 =his is (asic3 @hat matters here is that +ontinola

and Roxas were a(le to con-ince their collea!ues in the con-ention that there is no more need to

expressl declare foundlin!s as ilipinos (ecause the are alread impliedl so reco!ni:ed3

In other words0 the constitutional silence is full explained in terms of lin!uistic efficienc and

the a-oidance of redundanc3 =he polic is clear$ it is to reco!ni:e foundlin!s0 as a class0 as

ilipinos under 2rt3 I0 Section &%/' of the &7/5 Constitution3 =his inclusi-e polic is carried

o-er into the &7/ and &7< Constitution3 It is appropriate to in-o8e a famous scholar as he was

paraphrased ( Chief ;ustice ernando$ the constitution is not silentl silent0 it is silentl

-ocal3&&<

=he Solicitor 9eneral ma8es the further point that the framers >wor8ed to create a #ust and

humane societ0? that >the were reasona(le patriots and that it would (e unfair to impute upon

them a discriminator intent a!ainst foundlin!s3? e exhorts that0 !i-en the !ra-e implications of

the ar!ument that foundlin!s are not natural(orn ilipinos0 the Court must search the records ofthe &7/50 &7/ and&7< Constitutions >for an express intention to den foundlin!s the status of

ilipinos3 =he (urden is on those who wish to use the constitution to discriminate a!ainst

foundlin!s to show that the constitution reall intended to ta8e this path to the dar8 side and

inflict this across the (oard mar!inali:ation3?

@e find no such intent or lan!ua!e permittin! discrimination a!ainst foundlin!s3 On the contrar0

all three Constitutions !uarantee the (asic ri!ht to eual protection of the laws3 2ll exhort the

State to render social #ustice3 Of special consideration are se-eral pro-isions in the present

charter$ 2rticle II0 Section && which pro-ides that the >State -alues the di!nit of e-er human

person and !uarantees full respect for human ri!hts0? 2rticle HIII0 Section & which mandatesCon!ress to >!i-e hi!hest priorit to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the

ri!ht of all the people to human di!nit0 reduce social0 economic0 and political ineualities x x x?

and 2rticle H0 Section / which reuires the State to defend the >ri!ht of children to assistance0

includin! proper care and nutrition0 and special protection from all forms of ne!lect0 a(use0

cruelt0 exploitation0 and other conditions pre#udicial to their de-elopment3? Certainl0 these

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


pro-isions contradict an intent to discriminate a!ainst foundlin!s on account of their unfortunate

status3

Domestic laws on adoption also support the principle that foundlin!s are ilipinos3 =hese laws

do not pro-ide that adoption confers citi:enship upon the adoptee3 Rather0 the adoptee must (e a

ilipino in the first place to (e adopted3 =he most (asic of such laws is 2rticle &5 of the Ci-il

Code which pro-ides that >KlLaws relatin! to famil ri!hts0 duties0 status0 conditions0 le!al

capacit of persons are (indin! on citi:ens of the 1hilippines e-en thou!h li-in! a(road3?

2doption deals with status0 and a 1hilippine adoption court will ha-e #urisdiction onl if the

adoptee is a ilipino3 In Ellis and Ellis v. ,epu+lic0&&7 a child left ( an unidentified mother was

sou!ht to (e adopted ( aliens3 =his Court said$

In this connection0 it should (e noted that this is a proceedin!s in rem0 which no court ma

entertain unless it has #urisdiction0 not onl o-er the su(#ect matter of the case and o-er the

parties0 +ut also over the res0 which is the personal status of Ba( Rose as well as that of

petitioners herein3 Our Ci-il Code %2rt3 &5' adheres to the theor that #urisdiction o-er the status

of a natural person is determined ( the latters nationalit3 1ursuant to this theor0 we ha-e

#urisdiction o-er the status of Ba( Rose0 she (ein! a citi:en of the 1hilippines0 (ut not o-er the

status of the petitioners0 who are forei!ners3&)*%Fnderlinin! supplied'

Recent le!islation is more direct3 R323 No3 <*4/ entitled >2n 2ct Esta(lishin! the Rules to

9o-ern the InterCountr 2doption of ilipino Children and or Other 1urposes? %otherwise

8nown as the >InterCountr 2doption 2ct of &775?'0 R323 No3 <55)0 entitled >2n 2ct

Esta(lishin! the Rules and 1olicies on the 2doption of ilipino Children and or Other

1urposes? %otherwise 8nown as the Domestic 2doption 2ct of &77<' and this Courts 23+3 No3*)6*)SC or the >Rule on 2doption0? all expressl refer to >ilipino children? and include

foundlin!s as amon! ilipino children who ma (e adopted3

It has (een ar!ued that the process to determine that the child is a foundlin! leadin! to the

issuance of a foundlin! certificate under these laws and the issuance of said certificate are acts to

acuire or perfect 1hilippine citi:enship which ma8e the foundlin! a naturali:ed ilipino at (est3

=his is erroneous3 Fnder 2rticle I0 Section ) >Natural(orn citi:ens are those who are citi:ens

of the 1hilippines from (irth without ha-in! to perform an act to acuire or perfect their

1hilippine citi:enship3? In the first place0 >ha-in! to perform an act? means that the act must (e

personall done ( the citi:en3 In this instance0 the determination of foundlin! status is done not ( the child (ut ( the authorities3&)& Secondl0 the o(#ect of the process is the determination of

the wherea(outs of the parents0 not the citi:enship of the child3 ,astl0 the process is certainl not

analo!ous to naturali:ation proceedin!s to acuire 1hilippine citi:enship0 or the election of such

citi:enship ( one (orn of an alien father and a ilipino mother under the &7/5 Constitution0

which is an act to perfect it3

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


2rticle

&3 =he child shall (e re!istered immediatel after (irth and shall ha-e the ri!ht from (irth to a

name0 the ri!ht to acuire a nationalit and as far as possi(le0 the ri!ht to 8now and (e cared for

( his or her parents3

)3 States 1arties shall ensure the implementation of these ri!hts in accordance with their national

law and their o(li!ations under the rele-ant international instruments in this field0 in particular

where the child would otherwise (e stateless3

In &7<60 the countr also ratified the &766 International Co-enant on Ci-il and 1olitical Ri!hts

%ICC1R'3 2rticle )4 thereof pro-ide for the ri!ht of every child 7to acquire a nationality8?

2rticle )4

&3 E-er child shall ha-e0 without an discrimination as to race0 colour0 sex0 lan!ua!e0 reli!ion0national or social ori!in0 propert or (irth0 the ri!ht0 to such measures of protection as are

reuired ( his status as a minor0 on the part of his famil0 societ and the State3

)3 E-er child shall (e re!istered immediatel after (irth and shall ha-e a name3

/3 E-er child has the ri!ht to acuire a nationalit3

=he common thread of the FDR0 FNCRC and ICC1R is to o(li!ate the 1hilippines to !rant

nationalit from (irth and ensure that no child is stateless3 =his !rant of nationalit must (e at the

time of (irth0 and it cannot (e accomplished ( the application of our present naturali:ation laws0Commonwealth 2ct No3 4/0 as amended0 and R323 No3 7&/70 (oth of which reuire the

applicant to (e at least ei!hteen %&<' ears old3

=he principles found in two con-entions0 while et unratified ( the 1hilippines0 are !enerall

accepted principles of international law3 =he first is 2rticle &4 of the &7/* a!ue Con-ention on

Certain Guestions Relatin! to the Conflict of Nationalit ,aws under which a foundlin! is

presumed to ha-e the >nationalit of the countr of (irth0? to wit$

2rticle &4

2 child whose parents are (oth un8nown shall ha-e the nationalit of the countr of (irth3 If the

childs parenta!e is esta(lished0 its nationalit shall (e determined ( the rules applica(le in

cases where the parenta!e is 8nown3

2 foundlin! is0 until the contrar is pro-ed0 presumed to ha-e (een (orn on the territor of the

State in which it was found3 %Fnderlinin! supplied'

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


=he second is the principle that a foundlin! is presumed +orn of citi'ens of the countr where he

is found0 contained in 2rticle ) of the &76& Fnited Nations Con-ention on the Reduction of

Statelessness$

2rticle )

2 foundlin! found in the territor of a Contractin! State shall0 in the a(sence of proof to the

contrar0 (e considered to ha-e (een (orn within the territor of parents possessin! the

nationalit of that State3

=hat the 1hilippines is not a part to the &7/* a!ue Con-ention nor to the &76& Con-ention on

the Reduction of Statelessness does not mean that their principles are not (indin!3 @hile the

1hilippines is not a part to the &7/* a!ue Con-ention0 it is a si!nator to the Fni-ersal

Declaration on uman Ri!hts0 2rticle &5%&' of which&/& effecti-el affirms 2rticle &4 of the &7/*

a!ue Con-ention3 2rticle ) of the &76& >Fnited Nations Con-ention on the Reduction of

Statelessness? merel >!i-es effect? to 2rticle &5%&' of the FDR3&/) In ,a'on v. Tagitis0&// this

Court noted that the 1hilippines had not si!ned or ratified the >International Con-ention for the

1rotection of 2ll 1ersons from Enforced Disappearance3? et0 we ruled that the proscription

a!ainst enforced disappearances in the said con-ention was nonetheless (indin! as a >!enerall

accepted principle of international law3? ,a'on v. Tagitis is li8ewise nota(le for declarin! the (an

as a !enerall accepted principle of international law althou!h the con-ention had (een ratified

( onl sixteen states and had not e-en come into force and which needed the ratification of a

minimum of twent states3 2dditionall0 as petitioner points out0 the Court was content with the

practice of international and re!ional state or!ans0 re!ional state practice in ,atin 2merica0 and

State 1ractice in the Fnited States3

2nother case where the num(er of ratifin! countries was not determinati-e is !ijares v.

,anada0&/4where onl four countries had >either ratified or acceded to?&/5 the &766 >Con-ention

on the Reco!nition and Enforcement of orei!n ;ud!ments in Ci-il and Commercial +atters?

when the case was decided in )**53 =he Court also pointed out that that nine mem(er countries

of the European Common +ar8et had acceded to the ;ud!ments Con-ention3 =he Court also

cited F3S3 laws and #urisprudence on reco!nition of forei!n #ud!ments3 In all0 onl the practices

of fourteen countries were considered and et0 there was pronouncement that reco!nition of

forei!n #ud!ments was widespread practice3

Our approach in ,a'on and !ijares effecti-el ta8es into account the fact that >!enerall

accepted principles of international law? are (ased not onl on international custom0 (ut also on

>!eneral principles of law reco!ni:ed ( ci-ili:ed nations0? as the phrase is understood in 2rticle

/<3& para!raph %c' of the IC; Statute3 ;ustice0 fairness0 euit and the polic a!ainst

discrimination0 which are fundamental principles underlin! the Bill of Ri!hts and which are

>(asic to le!al sstems !enerall0?&/6support the notion that the ri!ht a!ainst enforced

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


disappearances and the reco!nition of forei!n #ud!ments0 were correctl considered as >!enerall

accepted principles of international law? under the incorporation clause3

1etitioners e-idence&/ shows that at least sixt countries in 2sia0 North and South 2merica0 and

Europe ha-e passed le!islation reco!ni:in! foundlin!s as its citi:en3 orttwo %4)' of those

countries follow the jus sanguinis re!ime3 Of the sixt0 onl thirtthree %//' are parties to the

&76& Con-ention on Statelessness. twentsix %)6' are not si!natories to the Con-ention3 2lso0

the Chief ;ustice0 at the ) e(ruar )*&6 Oral 2r!uments pointed out that in &66 out of &<7

countries sur-eed %or <3</M'0 foundlin!s are reco!ni:ed as citi:ens3 =hese circumstances0

includin! the practice of jus sanguiniscountries0 show that it is a !enerall accepted principle of

international law to presume foundlin!s as ha-in! (een (orn of nationals of the countr in which

the foundlin! is found3

Current le!islation re-eals the adherence of the 1hilippines to this !enerall accepted principle of

international law3 In particular0 R323 No3 <55)0 R323 No3 <*4) and this Courts Rules on

2doption0 expressl refer to >ilipino children3? In all of them0 foundlin!s are amon! the

ilipino children who could (e adopted3 ,i8ewise0 it has (een pointed that the D2 issues

passports to foundlin!s3 1assports are ( law0 issued onl to citi:ens3 =his shows that e-en the

executi-e department0 actin! throu!h the D20 considers foundlin!s as 1hilippine citi:ens3

2doptin! these le!al principles from the &7/* a!ue Con-ention and the &76& Con-ention on

Statelessness is rational and reasona(le and consistent with the jus sanguinis re!ime in our

Constitution3 =he presumption of natural(orn citi:enship of foundlin!s stems from the

presumption that their parents are nationals of the 1hilippines3 2s the empirical data pro-ided (

the 1S2 show0 that presumption is at more than 77M and is a -irtual certaint3

In sum0 all of the international law con-entions and instruments on the matter of nationalit of

foundlin!s were desi!ned to address the pli!ht of a defenseless class which suffers from a

misfortune not of their own ma8in!3 @e cannot (e restricti-e as to their application if we are a

countr which calls itself ci-ili:ed and a mem(er of the communit of nations3 =he Solicitor

9enerals warnin! in his openin! statement is rele-ant$

Pthe total effect of those documents is to si!nif to this onora(le Court that those treaties and

con-entions were drafted (ecause the world communit is concerned that the situation of

foundlin!s renders them le!all in-isi(le3 It would (e tra!icall ironic if this onora(le Courtended up usin! the international instruments which see8 to protect and uplift foundlin!s a tool to

den them political status or to accord them secondclass citi:enship3&/<

=he CO+E,EC also ruled&/7 that petitioners repatriation in ;ul )**6 under the pro-isions of

R323 No3 7))5 did not result in the reacuisition of natural(orn citi:enship3 =he CO+E,EC

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


reasoned that since the applicant must perform an act0 what is reacuired is not >natural(orn?

citi:enship (ut onl plain >1hilippine citi:enship3?

=he CO+E,ECs rule arro!antl disre!ards consistent #urisprudence on the matter of

repatriation statutes in !eneral and of R323 No3 7))5 in particular3

In the seminal case of Bengson 666 v. 9,ET 0&4* repatriation was explained as follows$

+oreo-er0 repatriation results in the reco-er of the ori!inal nationalit3 =his means that a

naturali:ed ilipino who lost his citi:enship will (e restored to his prior status as a naturali:ed

ilipino citi:en3 On the other hand0 if he was ori!inall a natural(orn citi:en (efore he lost his

1hilippine citi:enship0 he will (e restored to his former status as a natural(orn ilipino3

R323 No3 7))5 is a repatriation statute and has (een descri(ed as such in se-eral cases3 =he

includeSo+ejana%Condon v. C-!E&EC &4& where we descri(ed it as an >a((re-iated repatriation

process that restores ones ilipino citi:enship x x x3? 2lso included is $arre:o v. Commission

on (udit 0&4) which citedTa+asa v. Court of (ppeals0&4/ where we said that >KtLhe repatriation of

the former ilipino will allow him to reco-er his natural(orn citi:enship3 $arre:o v.

Commission on (udit &44 is cate!orical that >if petitioner reacuires his ilipino citi:enship %under

R323 No3 7))5'0 he will Precover his natural%+ornciti:enship3?

=he CO+E,EC construed the phrase >from (irth? in the definition of natural citi:ens as

implin! >that natural(orn citi:enship must (e!in at (irth and remain uninterrupted and

continuous from (irth3? R323 No3 7))5 was o(-iousl passed in line with Con!ress sole

prero!ati-e to determine how citi:enship ma (e lost or reacuired3 Con!ress saw it fit to decree

that natural(orn citi:enship ma (e reacuired e-en if it had (een once lost3 It is not for the

CO+E,EC to disa!ree with the Con!ress determination3

+ore importantl0 CO+E,ECs position that natural(orn status must (e continuous was alread

re#ected in Bengson 666 v. 9,ET &45 where the phrase >from (irth? was clarified to mean at the

time of (irth$ >2 person who at the time of his (irth0 is a citi:en of a particular countr0 is a

natural(orn citi:en thereof3? Neither is >repatriation? an act to >acuire or perfect? ones

citi:enship3 In Bengson 666 v. 9,ET 0 this Court pointed out that there are onl two tpes of

citi:ens under the &7< Constitution$ natural(orn citi:en and naturali:ed0 and that there is no

third cate!or for repatriated citi:ens$

It is apparent from the enumeration of who are citi:ens under the present Constitution that there

are onl two classes of citi:ens$ %&' those who are natural(orn and %)' those who are naturali:ed

in accordance with law3 2 citi:en who is not a naturali:ed ilipino0 ie30 did not ha-e to under!o

the process of naturali:ation to o(tain 1hilippine citi:enship0 necessaril is a natural(orn

ilipino3 Noteworth is the a(sence in said enumeration of a separate cate!or for persons who0

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


after losin! 1hilippine citi:enship0 su(seuentl reacuire it3 =he reason therefor is clear$ as to

such persons0 the would either (e natural(orn or naturali:ed dependin! on the reasons for the

loss of their citi:enship and the mode prescri(ed ( the applica(le law for the reacuisition

thereof3 2s respondent Cru: was not reuired ( law to !o throu!h naturali:ation proceedin!s in

order to reacuire his citi:enship0 he is perforce a natural(orn ilipino3 2s such0 he possessed all

the necessar ualifications to (e elected as mem(er of the ouse of Representati-es3 &46

=he CO+E,EC cannot re-erse a #udicial precedent3 =hat is reser-ed to this Court3 2nd while we

ma alwas re-isit a doctrine0 a new rule re-ersin! standin! doctrine cannot (e retroacti-el

applied3 In !orales v. Court of (ppeals and ;ejomar Erwin S. Binay ;r.0&4 where we decreed

re-ersed the condonation doctrine0 we cautioned that it >should (e prospecti-e in application for

the reason that #udicial decisions applin! or interpretin! the laws of the Constitution0 until

re-ersed0 shall form part of the le!al sstem of the 1hilippines3? =his Court also said that >while

the future ma ultimatel unco-er a doctrines error0 it should (e0 as a !eneral rule0 reco!ni:ed as

!ood law prior to its a(andonment3 Conseuentl0 the peoples reliance thereupon should (erespected3?&4<

,astl0 it was repeatedl pointed out durin! the oral ar!uments that petitioner committed a

falsehood when she put in the spaces for >(orn to? in her application for repatriation under R323

No3 7))5 the names of her adopti-e parents0 and this misled the BI to presume that she was a

natural(orn ilipino3 It has (een contended that the data reuired were the names of her

(iolo!ical parents which are precisel un8nown3

=his position disre!ards one important fact petitioner was le!all adopted3 One of the effects of

adoption is >to se-er all le!al ties (etween the (iolo!ical parents and the adoptee0 except whenthe (iolo!ical parent is the spouse of the adoptee3?&47 Fnder R323 No3 <55)0 petitioner was also

entitled to an amended (irth certificate >attestin! to the fact that the adoptee is the child of the

adopter%s'? and which certificate >shall not (ear an notation that it is an amended issue3?&5* =hat

law also reuires that >KaLll records0 (oo8s0 and papers relatin! to the adoption cases in the files

of the court0 the Department Kof Social @elfare and De-elopmentL0 or an other a!enc or

institution participatin! in the adoption proceedin!s shall (e 8ept strictl confidential3?&5& =he

law therefore allows petitioner to state that her adopti-e parents were her (irth parents as that

was what would (e stated in her (irth certificate anwa3 2nd !i-en the polic of strict

confidentialit of adoption records0 petitioner was not o(li!ated to disclose that she was an

adoptee3

Clearl0 to a-oid a direct rulin! on the ualifications of petitioner0 which it cannot ma8e in the

same case for cancellation of COC0 it resorted to opinionatedness which is0 moreo-er0 erroneous3

=he whole process underta8en ( CO+E,EC is wrapped in !ra-e a(use of discretion3

+i#e



8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


O& Re!%*e&ce

=he tainted process was repeated in disposin! of the issue of whether or not petitioner committed

false material representation when she stated in her COC that she has (efore and until 7 +a

)*&6 (een a resident of the 1hilippines for ten %&*' ears and ele-en %&&' months3

1etitioners claim that she will ha-e (een a resident for ten %&*' ears and ele-en %&&' months on

the da (efore the <=1> elections0 is true3

=he Constitution reuires presidential candidates to ha-e ten %&*' ears residence in the

1hilippines (efore the da of the elections3 Since the forthcomin! elections will (e held on 7

+a )*&60 petitioner must ha-e (een a resident of the 1hilippines prior to 7 +a )*&6 for ten

%&*' ears3 In answer to the reuested information of >1eriod of Residence in the 1hilippines up

to the da (efore +a *70 )*&60? she put in >&* ears && months? which accordin! to her

pleadin!s in these cases corresponds to a (e!innin! date of )5 +a )**5 when she returned for

!ood from the F3S3

@hen petitioner immi!rated to the F3S3 in &77&0 she lost her ori!inal domicile0 which is the

1hilippines3 =here are three reuisites to acuire a new domicile$ &3 Residence or (odil presence

in a new localit. )3 an intention to remain there. and /3 an intention to a(andon the old

domicile3&5) =o successfull effect a chan!e of domicile0 one must demonstrate an actual remo-al

or an actual chan!e of domicile. a +ona fide intention of a(andonin! the former place of

residence and esta(lishin! a new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose3 In

other words0 there must (asicall (e animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi3 =he

purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must (e for an indefinite period of time. the

chan!e of residence must (e -oluntar. and the residence at the place chosen for the newdomicile must (e actual3&5/

1etitioner presented -oluminous e-idence showin! that she and her famil a(andoned their F3S3

domicile and relocated to the 1hilippines for !ood3 =hese e-idence include petitioners former

F3S3 passport showin! her arri-al on )4 +a )**5 and her return to the 1hilippines e-er time

she tra-elled a(road. email correspondences startin! in +arch )**5 to Septem(er )**6 with a

frei!ht compan to arran!e for the shipment of their household items wei!hin! a(out )<0***

pounds to the 1hilippines. email with the 1hilippine Bureau of 2nimal Industr inuirin! how to

ship their do! to the 1hilippines. school records of her children showin! enrollment in 1hilippine

schools startin! ;une )**5 and for succeedin! ears. tax identification card for petitioner issuedon ;ul )**5. titles for condominium and par8in! slot issued in e(ruar )**6 and their

correspondin! tax declarations issued in 2pril )**6. receipts dated )/ e(ruar )**5 from the

Sal-ation 2rm in the F3S3 ac8nowled!in! donation of items from petitioners famil. +arch

)**6 email to the F3S3 1ostal Ser-ice confirmin! reuest for chan!e of address. final statement

from the irst 2merican =itle Insurance Compan showin! sale of their F3S3 home on ) 2pril

)**6. &) ;ul )*&& filledup uestionnaire su(mitted to the F3S3 Em(ass where petitioner

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


indicated that she had (een a 1hilippine resident since +a )**5. affida-it from ;esusa Sonora

1oe %attestin! to the return of petitioner on )4 +a )**5 and that she and her famil staed with

affiant until the condominium was purchased'. and 2ffida-it from petitioners hus(and

%confirmin! that the spouses #ointl decided to relocate to the 1hilippines in )**5 and that he

staed (ehind in the F3S3 onl to finish some wor8 and to sell the famil home'3

=he fore!oin! e-idence were undisputed and the facts were e-en listed ( the CO+E,EC0

particularl in its Resolution in the =atad0 Contreras and alde: cases3

owe-er0 the CO+E,EC refused to consider that petitioners domicile had (een timel chan!ed

as of )4 +a )**53 2t the oral ar!uments0 CO+E,EC Commissioner 2rthur ,im conceded the

presence of the first two reuisites0 namel0 phsical presence and animus manendi0 (ut

maintained there was noanimus non%revertendi. &54 =he CO+E,EC disre!arded the import of

all the e-idence presented ( petitioner on the

(asis of the position that the earliest date that petitioner could ha-e started residence in the

1hilippines was in ;ul )**6 when her application under

R323 No3 7))5 was appro-ed ( the Bl3 In this re!ard0 CO+E,EC relied on Couilla -3

CO+E,EC0&55 ;ap:on -3 CO+E,EC &56 and Ca(allero -3 CO+E,EC3 & 5 Durin! the oral

ar!uments0 the pri-ate respondents also added Rees -3 CO+E,EC3 &5< Respondents contend

that these cases decree that the sta of an alien former ilipino cannot (e counted until he"she

o(tains a permanent resident -isa or reacuires 1hilippine citi:enship0 a -isa free entr under a

(ali8(aan stamp (ein! insufficient3 Since petitioner was still an 2merican %without an resident

-isa' until her reacuisition of citi:enship underR323 No3 7))50 her sta from )4 +a )**5 to ;ul )**6 cannot (e counted3

But as the petitioner pointed out0 the facts in these four cases are -er different from her

situation3 InCoquilla v. C-!E&EC 0&57 the onl e-idence presented was a communit tax

certificate secured ( the candidate and his declaration that he would (e runnin! in the elections3

;ap'on v. C-!E&EC &6* did not in-ol-e a candidate who wanted to count residence prior to his

reacuisition of 1hilippine citi:enship3 @ith the Court decreein! that residence is distinct from

citi:enship0 the issue there was whether the candidates acts after reacuisition sufficed to

esta(lish residence3 In Ca+allero v. C-!E&EC 0&6& the candidate admitted that his place of wor8

was a(road and that he onl -isited durin! his freuent -acations3 In ,eyes v. C-!E&EC 0&6)

thecandidate was found to (e an 2merican citi:en who had not e-en reacuired 1hilippine

citi:enship under R323 No3 7))5 or had renounced her F3S3 citi:enship3 She was disualified on

the citi:enship issue3 On residence0 the onl proof she offered was a se-enmonth stint as

pro-incial officer3 =he CO+E,EC0 uoted with appro-al ( this Court0 said that >such fact alone

is not sufficient to pro-e her oneear residenc3?

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


It is o(-ious that (ecause of the sparse e-idence on residence in the four cases cited ( the

respondents0 the Court had no choice (ut to hold that residence could (e counted onl from

acuisition of a permanent resident -isa or from reacuisition of 1hilippine citi:enship3 In

contrast0 the e-idence of petitioner is o-erwhelmin! and ta8en to!ether leads to no other

conclusion that she decided to permanentl a(andon her F3S3 residence %sellin! the house0 ta8in!

the children from F3S3 schools0 !ettin! uotes from the frei!ht compan0 notifin! the F3S3 1ost

Office of the a(andonment of their address in the F3S30 donatin! excess items to the Sal-ation

2rm0 her hus(and resi!nin! from F3S3 emploment ri!ht after sellin! the F3S3 house' and

permanentl relocate to the 1hilippines and actuall reesta(lished her residence here on )4 +a

)**5 %securin! =3I3N0 enrollin! her children in 1hilippine schools0 (uin! propert here0

constructin! a residence here0 returnin! to the 1hilippines after all trips a(road0 her hus(and

!ettin! emploed here'3 Indeed0 coupled with her e-entual application to reacuire 1hilippine

citi:enship and her famils actual continuous sta in the 1hilippines o-er the ears0 it is clear

that when petitioner returned on )4 +a )**5 it was for !ood3

In this connection0 the CO+E,EC also too8 it a!ainst petitioner that she had entered the

1hilippines -isafree as a (ali8(aan3 2 closer loo8 at R323 No3 66< as amended0 otherwise

8nown as the >2n 2ct Institutin! a Bali8(aan 1ro!ram0? shows that there is no o-erridin! intent

to treat +ali4+ayans as temporar -isitors who must lea-e after one ear3 Included in the law is a

former ilipino who has (een naturali:ed a(road and >comes or returns to the 1hilippines3? &6/

=he law institutes a +ali4+ayan pro!ram >pro-idin! the opportunit to a-ail of the necessar

trainin! to ena(le the +ali4+ayan to (ecome economicall selfreliant mem(ers of societ upon

their return to the countr?&64 in line with the !o-ernments >reinte!ration pro!ram3?&65

O(-iousl0 +ali4+ayans are not ordinar transients3

9i-en the laws express polic to facilitate the return of a +ali4+ayan and help him reinte!rate

into societ0 it would (e an undul harsh conclusion to sa in a(solute terms that the +ali4+ayan

must lea-e after one ear3 =hat -isafree period is o(-iousl !ranted him to allow him to re

esta(lish his life and reinte!rate himself into the communit (efore he attends to the necessar

formal and le!al reuirements of repatriation3 2nd that is exactl what petitioner did she

reesta(lished life here ( enrollin! her children and (uin! propert while awaitin! the return of

her hus(and and then applin! for repatriation shortl thereafter3

No case similar to petitioners0 where the former ilipinos e-idence of chan!e in domicile is

extensi-e and o-erwhelmin!0 has as et (een decided ( the Court3 1etitioners e-idence ofresidence is unprecedented3

=here is no #udicial precedent that comes close to the facts of residence of petitioner3 =here is no

indication in Coquilla v. C-!E&EC&66 and the other cases cited ( the respondents that the

Court intended to ha-e its rulin!s there appl to a situation where the facts are different3 Surel0

the issue of residence has (een decided particularl on the factsofthe case (asis3

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


=o a-oid the lo!ical conclusion pointed out ( the e-idence of residence of petitioner0 the

CO+E,EC ruled that petitioners claim of residence of ten %&*' ears and ele-en %&&' months (

7 +a )*&6 in her )*&5 COC was false (ecause she put six %6' ears and six %6' months as

>period of residence (efore +a &/0 )*&/? in her )*&) COC for Senator3 =hus0 accordin! to the

CO+E,EC0 she started (ein! a 1hilippine resident onl in No-em(er )**63 In doin! so0 the

CO+E,EC automaticall assumed as true the statement in the )*&) COC and the )*&5 COC as

false3

2s explained ( petitioner in her -erified pleadin!s0 she misunderstood the date reuired in the

)*&/ COC as the period of residence as of the da she su(mitted that COC in )*&)3 She said that

she rec8oned residenc from 2pril+a )**6 which was the period when the F3S3 house was

sold and her hus(and returned to the 1hilippines3 In that re!ard0 she was ad-ised ( her lawers

in )*&5 that residence could (e counted from )5 +a )**53

1etitioners explanation that she misunderstood the uer in )*&) %period of residence (efore &/

+a )*&/' as inuirin! a(out residence as of the time she su(mitted the COC0 is (olstered ( the

chan!e which the CO+E,EC itself introduced in the )*&5 COC which is now >period of

residence in the 1hilippines up to the da (efore +a *70 )*&63? =he CO+E,EC would not

ha-e re-ised the uer if it did not ac8nowled!e that the first -ersion was -a!ue3

=hat petitioner could ha-e rec8oned residence from a date earlier than the sale of her F3S3 house

and the return of her hus(and is plausi(le !i-en the e-idence that she had returned a ear (efore3

Such e-idence0 to repeat0 would include her passport and the school records of her children3

It was !ra-e a(use of discretion for the CO+E,EC to treat the )*&) COC as a (indin! andconclusi-e admission a!ainst petitioner3 It could (e !i-en in e-idence a!ainst her0 es0 (ut it was

( no means conclusi-e3 =here is precedent after all where a candidates mista8e as to period of

residence made in a COC was overcome +y evidence3 In ,omualde'%!arcos v. C-!E&EC 0&6 the

candidate mista8enl put se-en %' months as her period of residence where the reuired period

was a minimum of one ear3 @e said that 7?i@t is the fact of residence not a statement in a

certificate of candidacy which ought to +e decisive in determining whether or not an individual

has satisfied the constitution/s residency qualification requirement 3? =he CO+E,EC ou!ht to

ha-e loo8ed at the e-idence presented and see if petitioner was tellin! the truth that she was in

the 1hilippines from )4 +a )**53 ad the CO+E,EC done its dut0 it would ha-e seen that the

)*&) COC and the )*&5 COC +oth correctl stated the pertinent period of residenc3

=he CO+E,EC0 ( its own admission0 disre!arded the e-idence that petitioner actuall and

phsicall returned here on )4 +a )**5 not (ecause it was false0 (ut onl (ecause CO+E,EC

too8 the position that domicile could (e esta(lished onl from petitioners repatriation under

R323 No3 7))5 in ;ul )**63 owe-er0 it does not ta8e awa the fact that in realit0 petitioner had

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


>sworn declaration in her COC for Senator? which the CO+E,EC said >amounts to a

declaration and therefore an admission that her residence in the 1hilippines onl commence

sometime in No-em(er )**6?. such that >(ased on this declaration0 KpetitionerL fails to meet the

residenc reuirement for 1resident3? =his conclusion0 as alread shown0 i!nores the standin!

#urisprudence that it is the fact of residence0 not the statement of the person that determines

residence for purposes of compliance with the constitutional reuirement of residenc for

election as 1resident3 It i!nores the easil researched matter that cases on uestions of residenc

ha-e (een decided fa-ora(l for the candidate on the (asis of facts of residence far less in

num(er0 wei!ht and su(stance than that presented ( petitioner3&67 It i!nores0 a(o-e all else0 what

we consider as a primar reason wh petitioner cannot (e (ound ( her declaration in her COC

for Senator which declaration was not e-en considered ( the SE= as an issue a!ainst her

eli!i(ilit for Senator3 @hen petitioner made the declaration in her COC for Senator that she has

(een a resident for a period of six %6' ears and six months counted up to the &/ +a )*&/

Elections0 she naturall had as reference the residenc reuirements for election as Senator

which was satisfied ( her declared ears of residence3 It was uncontested durin! the oralar!uments (efore us that at the time the declaration for Senator was made0 petitioner did not ha-e

as et an intention to -ie for the 1residenc in )*&6 and that the !eneral pu(lic was ne-er made

aware ( petitioner0 ( word or action0 that she would run for 1resident in )*&63 1residential

candidac has a len!thofresidence different from that of a senatorial candidac3 =here are facts

of residence other than that which was mentioned in the COC for Senator3 Such other facts of

residence ha-e ne-er (een pro-en to (e false0 and these0 to repeat include$

K1etitionerL returned to the 1hilippines on )4 +a )**53 KpetitionersL hus(and howe-er staed

in the FS2 to finish pendin! pro#ects and arran!e the sale of their famil home3

+eanwhile KpetitionerL and her children li-ed with her mother in San ;uan Cit3 K1etitionerL

enrolled Brian in Beacon School in =a!ui! Cit in )**5 and anna in 2ssumption Colle!e in

+a8ati Cit in )**53 2ni8a was enrolled in ,earnin! Connection in San ;uan in )**0 when she

was alread old enou!h to !o to school3

In the second half of )**50 KpetitionerL and her hus(and acuired Fnit of One @ilson 1lace

Condominium in San ;uan3 K1etitionerL and her famil li-ed in Fnit until the construction of

their famil home in Corinthian ills was completed3

Sometime in the second half of )**50 KpetitionersL mother disco-ered that her former lawerwho handled KpetitionersL adoption in &74 failed to secure from the Office of the Ci-il

Re!istrar of Iloilo a new Certificate of ,i-e Birth indicatin! KpetitionersL new name and statin!

that her parents are >Ronald 2llan A3 1oe? and >;esusa ,3 Sonora3?

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


In e(ruar )**60 KpetitionerL tra-elled (riefl to the FS in order to super-ise the disposal of

some of the famils remainin! household (elon!in!s3 K1etitionerL returned to the 1hilippines on

&& +arch )**63

In late +arch )**60 KpetitionersL hus(and informed the Fnited States 1ostal Ser-ice of the

famils a(andonment of their address in the FS3

=he famil home in the FS was sole on ) 2pril )**63

In 2pril )**60 KpetitionersL hus(and resi!ned from his wor8 in the FS3 e returned to the

1hilippines on 4 +a )**6 and (e!an wor8in! for a 1hilippine compan in ;ul )**63

In earl )**60 KpetitionerL and her hus(and acuired a -acant lot in Corinthian ills0 where the

e-entuall (uilt their famil home3&*

In li!ht of all these0 it was ar(itrar for the CO+E,EC to satisf its intention to let the case fallunder the exclusi-e !round of false representation0 to consider no other date than that mentioned

( petitioner in her COC for Senator3

2ll put to!ether0 in the matter of the citi:enship and residence of petitioner for her candidac as

1resident of the Repu(lic0 the uestioned Resolutions of the CO+E,EC in Di-ision and En

Banc are0 one and all0 deadl diseased with !ra-e a(use of discretion from root to fruits3

WHEREFORE0 the petition is GRANTED3 =he Resolutions0 to wit$

&3 dated & Decem(er )*&5 rendered throu!h the CO+E,EC Second Di-ision0 in S12 No3 &5**& %DC'0 entitled Estrella C. Elamparo petitioner vs. !ary "race #atividad Sonora $oe%

&laman'ares respondent 0 statin! that$

K=Lhe Certificate of Candidac for 1resident of the Repu(lic of the 1hilippines in the +a 70

)*&6 National and ,ocal Elections filed ( respondent +ar 9race Nati-idad Sonora 1oe

,laman:ares is here( 9R2N=ED3

)3 dated && Decem(er )*&50 rendered throu!h the CO+E,EC irst Di-ision0 in the consolidated

cases S12 No3 &5**) %DC' entitled Francisco S. Tatad petitioner vs. !ary "race #atividad

Sonora $oe%&laman'ares respondent . S12 No3 &5** %DC' entitled (ntonio $. Contreras

petitioner vs. !ary "race #atividad Sonora $oe%&laman'ares respondent . and S12 No3 &5&/7

%DC' entitled (mado ). *alde' petitioner v. !ary "race #atividad Sonora $oe%&laman'ares

respondent . statin! that$

@EREORE0 premises considered0 the Commission RESO,ED0 as it here( RESO,ES0 to

9R2N= the petitions and cancel the Certificate of Candidac of +2R 9R2CE N2=IID2D

8/18/2019 GR 221697 March 8 2016


SONOR2 1OE,,2+2NQ2RES for the electi-e position of 1resident of the Repu(lic of the

1hilippines in connection with the 7 +a )*&6 Snchroni:ed ,ocal and National Elections3

/3 dated )/ Decem(er )*&5 of the CO+E,EC En Banc0 upholdin! the & Decem(er )*&5

Resolution of the Second Di-ision statin! that$

@EREORE0 premises considered0 the Commission RESO,ED0 as it here( RESO,ES0 to

DEN the erified +otion for Reconsideration of SEN2=OR +2R 9R2CE N2=IID2D

SONOR2 1OE,,2+2NQ2RES3 =he Resolution dated && Decem(er )*&5 of the Commission

irst Di-ision is 2IR+ED3

43 dated )/ Decem(er )*&5 of the CO+E,EC En Banc0 upholdin! the && Decem(er )*&5

Resolution of the irst Di-ision3

are here( ANN(LED and SET ASIDE3 1etitioner +2R 9R2CE N2=IID2D SONOR2

1OE,,2+2NQ2RES is DECLARED )(ALIFIED to (e a candidate for 1resident in the

National and ,ocal Elections of 7 +a )*&63

SO ORDERED

Documents

GR 221697 March 8 2016