Title
David vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal
Case
G.R. No. 221538
Decision Date
Sep 20, 2016
Petitioner challenged Senator Poe's natural-born citizenship; Supreme Court upheld SET's ruling, affirming her eligibility as a foundling under jus sanguinis.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 221538)

Procedural History

David filed a quo warranto petition with the SET on August 6, 2015, contending that respondent lacked natural-born status and two-year residency. The SET required documentary supplementation, heard oral arguments, and admitted DNA test results that proved inconclusive. On November 17, 2015, the SET dismissed the petition, holding that respondent is a natural-born citizen under Article IV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. A motion for reconsideration was denied on December 3, 2015. David then filed a Rule 65 petition before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the SET.

Issue

Did the Senate Electoral Tribunal commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares, a foundling, is a natural-born citizen qualified to serve as Senator under Article VI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution?

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

The SET has exclusive original jurisdiction over Senatorial qualification contests (Const., Art. VI, Sec. 17). Supreme Court review is limited to certiorari under Rule 65 to determine lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by the SET (Const., Art. VIII, Sec. 1). Grave abuse implies a capricious or despotic exercise of judgment in clear disregard of the law.

Citizenship Law and Constitutional Text

Article IV, Section 1 enumerates Filipino citizens by parentage and birth; Section 2 defines natural-born citizens as those “citizens … from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect” citizenship. The 1987 Constitution requires a natural-born status for Senators (Art. VI, Sec. 3). Jus sanguinis is the prevailing principle under Philippine law.

Analysis of Foundling Citizenship

The SET found that, despite unknown parentage, respondent could be reasonably presumed to have Filipino parentage based on: (1) her abandonment as an infant in Iloilo in 1968 when the population was overwhelmingly Filipino; (2) absence of international airports at the discovery site; (3) her physical features; and (4) statistical data showing less than 1% of recorded births in 1968 were to foreigners. The SET concluded that these circumstances support an inference satisfying the substantial-evidence standard before a quasi-judicial body, and that the Constitution’s purpose of protecting children and ensuring equal access to public service demands preventing foundlings’ permanent exclusion from natural-born status.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court held that the SET did not exceed its jurisdiction or commit grave abuse of discretion. It affirmed that:
– Constitutional text (Ar

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.