PEO-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC AND ELAMPARO


POE-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC AND ELAMPARO

G.R.NO. 221697. MARCH 2016

FACTS:


Grace Poe was found in a church in Iloilo sometime in 1968. The children of the who found her reported the incident before the Local Civil Registrar. It was named as Mary Grace Militar. She was subsequently adopted by Fernando Peo Jr. and Susan Roces sometime in 1974. In year 2006, a Certificate of Live Birth in the name of Mary Grace Poe was issued by the Civil Registrar of Iloilo.

At the age oof 18 Poe was registered as a voter of San Juan. She married to Teodoro Llamanzares and flew to U.S.A after the wedding. In 2001, Poe became naturalized American Citizen.

In 2004, Peo come back to the Philippines to support her father’s candidacy. She then returned to U.S. After learning of her father’s deteriorating condition, Poe returned within the same year. Because she wanted to be with her grieving mother, she and her husband decided to move and reside permanently in the Philippine in year 2005. In 2006, Poe took her oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. She also filed a sworn petition to reacquire Philippine citizenship. The Bureau of Immigration acted in favor of the Petition and she and her children were then considered dual citizens.

In 2011, Poe executed an oath of renunciation of Nationality of U.S and she issued a certificate of loss of Nationality of U.S effective October 2010.

Poe in year 2013 won and proclaimed a senator of the Philippines. In October 2015 she filed her certificate of candidacy for Presidency where she declared herself as natural born Filipino citizen. Several petitions were filed against Poe’s citizenship.

ISSUE:

Whether the principle of Jus Sanguinis applied to foundlings, hence whether Pore is a natural born Filipino citizen.

HELD:

As a matter of law, foundlings are a class, natural born citizens. While the 1935 Constitution’s enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language which would definitely exclude foundling either. Because of the silence and ambiguity in the enumeration as to foundlings, there is no need to examine the intent of the framers. The intent of the framers and the people adopting it should be given effect.

Domestic laws on adaptation also support the principle that foundlings are Filipinos. These laws do not provide that adoption confers citizenship upon adoptee. Rather, the adoptee must be a Filipino in the first place to be adopted.

Popular posts from this blog

GOCHAN vs. YOUNG

ARNOLD HALL vs. PICCIO