Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Comelec
Facts, Issues, and Ruling
Ryan Carlo Ortega Pelaez
The Facts
The Issues
The Ruling
Held:
1. Yes, Grace Poe might be and is considerably a natural-born Filipino. For that,
she satisfies one of the constitutional requirements that only natural-born
Filipinos may run for presidency.
First, there is a very high probability that Grace Poes parents are Filipinos.
Grace Poe's physical features are typical of Filipinos. As a matter of fact that she
was abandoned as an infant in a municipality where the population of the
Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be more than 99%
chance that a child born in such province is a Filipino is also a circumstantial
evidence of her parents nationality. That high probability and the evidence on
which it is based are admissible under Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised Rules
on Evidence. To assume otherwise is to accept the absurd, if not the virtually
impossible, as the norm.
Second, by votes of 7-5, the Supreme Court pronounced and said that foundlings
are as a natural-born citizens. This is based on the finding that the deliberations
of the 1934 Constitutional Convention manifests that the framers intended
foundlings to be covered by the enumeration. While the 1935 Constitutions
enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language which
would definitely exclude foundlings either. Because of silence and ambiguity in
the enumeration with respect to foundlings, the Supreme Court felt the need to
examine or test the intent of the framers.
Third, that foundlings are automatically conferred with natural-born citizenship is
supported by treaties and the general principles of international law. Although the
Philippines is not a signatory to some of these treaties, it adheres to the
customary rule to presume foundlings as having born of the country in which the
foundling is found.
2. Yes. Grace Poe satisfied the requirements of animus manendi coupled with
animus revertendi in acquiring a new domicile.
Grace Poes domicile had been timely changed as of May 24, 2005, and not on
July 18, 2006 when her application under RA 9225 was approved by the BI.
COMELECs reliance on cases which decree that an aliens stay in the country
cannot be counted unless she acquires a permanent resident visa or reacquires
her Filipino citizenship is without merit. Such cases are different from the
circumstances in this case, in which Grace Poe presented an overwhelming and
somehow an accurate evidence of her actual stay and intent to abandon
permanently her domicile in the US. Coupled with her eventual application to
reacquire Philippine citizenship and her familys actual continuous stay in the
Philippines over the years, it is clear that when Grace Poe returned on May 24,
2005, it was for good.
3. No. The COMELEC cannot cancel, deny or reject her Cerftificate of Candidacy
on the ground that she misrepresented facts as to her citizenship and residency
because such facts refer to grounds for ineligibility in which the COMELEC has
no jurisdiction to decide upon. Only when there is a prior authority finding that a
candidate is suffering from a disqualification provided by law or the Constitution
that the COMELEC may deny due course or cancel her candidacy on ground of
false representations regarding her qualifications.
In this case, by authority of the Supreme Court Grace Poe was pronounced
qualified as a candidate for the presidency. Hence, there cannot be any false
representations in her COC regarding her citizenship and residency.
Sources:
http://barexamphil.com/grace-poe-vs-comelec/
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/03/11/1561940/full-text-
supreme-court-decision-grace-poe-vs-comelec