Case Summary (G.R. No. 208908)
Jurisdiction of COMELEC in Section 78 Petitions
The COMELEC has constitutional authority under Article IX-C, Section 2 to enforce election laws and decide all questions affecting elections except those involving the right to vote. Section 78 of the OEC empowers the COMELEC to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy exclusively on the ground of false material representations therein. Contrary to petitioner’s contention that COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to rule on candidacy qualifications without a prior determination by a proper authority, the COMELEC’s power includes preliminary determination of truth or falsity of material representations in certificates of candidacy. Election contests involving proclaimed winners, such as President or Vice-President, fall exclusively under the electoral tribunals—the Supreme Court en banc as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)—after proclamation. Prior to election and proclamation, challenges to qualifications must proceed under Section 78 before the COMELEC. This division of jurisdiction preserves COMELEC’s power to screen candidates pre-election while reserving final adjudication of qualifications for elected officials to their respective tribunals.
Nature and Scope of Judicial Review
Petitions for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 review decisions of the COMELEC on the limited ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion involves a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of power that amounts to a refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. Mere errors of judgment do not suffice. This Court’s review is deferential to COMELEC’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence but compelled to intervene when COMELEC’s appreciation of evidence is grossly unreasonable or tainted by wrong or irrelevant considerations.
Material Misrepresentation and Its Elements
Under Sections 74 and 78 of the OEC, certificates of candidacy must be sworn and contain truthful statements regarding candidacy and eligibility, including citizenship and residency. A petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate is anchored on the exclusivity of false material representation. The core elements for such petition to prosper are: (1) representation pertaining to a material fact; (2) falsity of said representation; and (3) intent to mislead or deceive the electorate. However, jurisprudence holds that while intent to deceive is often considered, it is not an indispensable element—in many cases the existence of a false material representation suffices. The true determining factor remains the fact of eligibility rather than subjective intent. Erroneous statements made without deliberation do not justify disqualification if the candidate is in fact qualified.
Citizenship of Petitioner as a Foundling
Petitioner admits being a foundling with unknown biological parents. The 1935 Constitution, governing petitioner’s birth, does not explicitly include foundlings in the enumeration of citizens but adopts the jus sanguinis principle—citizenship by blood relation to a Filipino father or mother. Citizenship requires proof of such blood relation, and there is no conclusive presumption that foundlings are natural-born citizens absent such proof. However, the Court recognized that foundlings should not be penalized by strict proof requirements given their status. Circumstantial evidence such as petitioner’s abandonment in a predominantly Filipino area, her Filipino physical features, the demographic context, and official acts recognizing her as a citizen, including adoption, issuance of birth certificates, passports, voter registration, and election to public office, support her claim of natural-born citizenship. International law covenants ratified by the Philippines, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, oblige the State to protect the rights of children, including foundlings, to acquire nationality and avoid statelessness. These support, but do not supplant, constitutional and statutory provisions. The Court adopted a functionalist interpretation harmonizing constitutional guarantees of equality, human dignity, and social justice with the jus sanguinis principle, concluding petitioner is a natural-born Filipino absent proof to the contrary.
Reacquisition of Citizenship and Residency Period
Petitioner became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2001. She filed for and was granted reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 on July 18, 2006. The Court clarified that reacquisition of citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 restores a person’s natural-born status if originally natural-born; the act of reacquisition is not a new naturalization. Nonetheless, under prevailing jurisprudence, residency for qualification purposes can only be reckoned from the time of reacquisition of citizenship and/or waiver of permanent alien or resident status; temporary visits or stay under visas (such as the one-year visa-free balikbayan program under R.A. No. 6768 as amended) do not suffice to establish residency. Petitioner’s physical presence in the Philippines began May 24, 2005, when she and her children returned temporarily under the balikbayan program; her husband stayed temporarily in the U.S. until mid-2006 to dispose of their U.S. property. Petitioner enrolled children in Philippine schools, purchased property, registered as taxpayer and voter between 2005 and 2006, establishing an incremental process of domicile reestablishment completed by mid-2006. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in applying these legal standards to limit residency reckoning from the date of citizenship reacquisition. Petitioner’s occasional return trips to the U.S. and retention of real property there did not negate her intent or physical presence in the Philippines sufficient for residency.
On the Previous Certificate of Candidacy
Petitioner declared a residency period of six years and six months before May 13, 2013 in her 2012 senatorial certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC and respondents considered this an admission against interest that is binding. Petitioner explained it was an honest mistake, reckoning residency as of the date of filling the 2012 COC rather than immediately before election day. The Court accepted that a candidate’s honest mistake in a previous COC should not derogate from the fact of actual residence established by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court’s precedent states that it is the fact o
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 208908)
I. Nature and Scope of the Proceedings
- The case involves consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing COMELEC Resolutions dated December 1, 2015, December 11, 2015, and December 23, 2015, which cancelled Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares’ Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for President in the May 9, 2016 elections.
- The petitions challenge COMELEC’s cancellation of petitioner’s COC on the ground of false material representation regarding her natural-born citizenship and residency qualifications.
- A Temporary Restraining Order was issued blocking implementation of the COMELEC resolutions pending the Supreme Court’s final resolution.
- The Court’s power under Rule 65 certiorari is limited to reviewing jurisdictional issues — whether COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
- Grave abuse of discretion is understood to be arbitrary or despotic exercise of power equating to lack of jurisdiction: whimsical or capricious conduct resulting in failure to perform a positive duty.
- The Court does not ordinarily disturb COMELEC’s appreciation of evidence except if the evaluation is grossly unreasonable.
- Jurisdictionally, COMELEC has the authority to inquire into petitions for cancellation of COCs for material misrepresentation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
II. Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares was abandoned as a newborn foundling in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo on September 3, 1968; biological parents unknown.
- She was legally adopted at age five by actor Ronald Allan Kelley Poe and Jesusa Sonora Poe; pedigree established via Court Decree and amended Certificate of Live Birth.
- Acquired a Philippine voter’s ID in 1986 and Philippine passports in 1988, 1993, 1998, 2009, 2013, and 2014.
- She studied in the Philippines and the United States, naturalized as a U.S. citizen in October 2001.
- Returned to the Philippines permanently in May 2005, with family, enrolling children in Philippine schools and buying property.
- Took oath of allegiance to the Philippines under RA 9225 on July 7, 2006, reacquiring Filipino citizenship.
- Renounced U.S. citizenship officially in 2010, enabling appointment to government office and Senate candidacy.
- Filed Certificate of Candidacy for President on October 15, 2015, declaring herself natural-born Filipino citizen and resident for over ten years as of May 9, 2016.
- Her 2012 senatorial COC reflected residency of only 6 years and 6 months as of May 2013, raising questions on the accuracy of her residency claim.
- Multiple petitions were filed before COMELEC challenging her natural-born citizenship and residency qualifications necessary to run for President.
III. Issues Presented
- Whether COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction and committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling petitioner’s COC for President for alleged false material representations.
- Whether foundlings like petitioner are natural-born Filipino citizens under the 1935 Constitution and subsequent constitutional provisions.
- Whether petitioner met the constitutional residency requirement of 10 years immediately prior to the May 9, 2016 elections.
- Whether petitioner knowingly and deliberately misrepresented her qualifications in her Certificate of Candidacy.
- Validity and scope of COMELEC’s jurisdiction to hear and resolve domiciliAry and citizenship qualifications under Section 78 of the OEC before elections.
- Whether the Supreme Court can review COMELEC’s rulings on eligibility prior to proclamation.
- Whether factual declarations in a prior Certificate of Candidacy are binding admissions.
- The legal effect of petitioner’s reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 on the computation of residency.
IV. Jurisdiction and Powers of COMELEC and the Supreme Court
- COMELEC’s jurisdiction under Article IX-C, Section 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution empowers it to enforce laws relative to elections and decide all election questions except those exclusively reserved to electoral tribunals and matters of the right to vote.
- The Supreme Court, sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), has jurisdiction only after proclamation to hear contests involving the President and Vice-President.
- Section 78 of the OEC grants COMELEC authority to deny or cancel COCs exclusively on the ground of false material representation.
- COMELEC may determine the truth or falsity of material representations in COCs including citizenship and residency qualifications in Section 78 proceedings.
- The Supreme Court’s certiorari review is limited to grave abuse of discretion, jurisdictional excess, or lack of jurisdiction by the COMELEC.
- The Court has consistently recognized COMELEC jurisdiction over eligibility questions before elections through Section 78 petitions, distinguishing them from post-election challenges cognizable by PET.
- Petitioner’s argument that only PET can decide qualifications prematurely misunderstands the separation and coexistence of powers and remedies in the electoral process.
V. The Concept of Natural-Born Filipino Citizenship
- Under the 1935 Constitution applicable at petitioner’s birth, citizenship follows the principle of jus sanguinis (right of blood):
- Citizens include those whose fathers (and under 1987 Constitution also mothers) are Philippine citizens.
- Foundlings with unknown parentage are not explicitly included.
- The 1987 Constitution defines natural-born citizens as those who are citizens from birth without performing any act to acquire citizenship.
- Naturalized citizens undergo legal processes—naturalization laws codify requirements for their citizenship, in contrast to natural-born status.
- Foundlings, as abandoned infants with unknown parentage, face evidentiary difficulty proving blood relationship.
- Foundlings’ citizenship must be established by circumstantial evidence and presumptions as direct proof is usually unavailable.
- Legislative and