Grace Poes citizenship

12:53 AM June 14th, 2015

CRITICS CHALLENGE the citizenship qualifications of Sen. Grace Poe to run for, be elected to
and hold a higher public office allegedly because 1) as a foundling, she was stateless, 2) by her
marriage, she acquired the American citizenship of her husband, and 3) her adoption by
Fernando Poe Jr. and Susan Roces did not confer natural-born citizenship on her. I respectfully
disagree.
Natural-born citizen. Under our 1987 Constitution, [n]o person may be elected President [or
Vice-President or Senator or Congressman] unless he [or she] is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines
In turn, [n]atural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.
Since the Constitution requires natural-born citizenship from birth and since Senator Poe was
born in 1968, the governing law would be the 1935 Constitution. Neither that Charter nor any
statute as of that year expressly conferred citizenship on foundlings.
However, the framers of the 1935 Constitution explained that expressly providing citizenship
rules for foundlings was unnecessary since that could be determined from international law. Note
that under the same Charter (and also under the present one), the Philippines adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation. Applicable
international law. Mijares vs Ranada (April 12, 2005) held that generally accepted principles of
international law even if they [are] not derived from treaty obligations [have] two elements:
the established, widespread and consistent practice on the part of states; and a psychological
element known as the opinio juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity) a belief
that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it.
Under Art. 2 of the 1961 International Convention on Statelessness, [a] foundling found in the
territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to
have been born within the territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State.
Applying that article to Senator Poe, a foundling found in the Philippines is presumed, in the
absence of contrary proof, to have Filipino biological parents. Since she was found near a church
in Jaro, Iloilo, when she was only a few days old, her parents are presumed to be Filipinos.
Therefore, she is a natural-born citizen.
True, the Philippines is not a signatory or a Contracting State in this treaty. However, the treaty
possesses the two elements of a generally accepted principle of international law because the
grant of nationality to a foundling is an established, widespread and consistent practice of
many states since 1961 to the present. Hence, it is deemed a part of the law of the Nation.
According to Razon vs Taglis (Dec. 3, 2009), this widespread practice or international
custom could be shown from State practice, State legislation, international and national
judicial decisions, recitals in treaties and other international instruments, a pattern of treaties in
the same form, the practice of international organs, and resolutions relating to legal questions in
the UN General Assembly.
Further, under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which the
Philippines is a signatory and which our Supreme Court has consistently enforced, Everyone
has a right to a nationality. Thus, a denial of nationality or citizenship to Senator Poe would be a
plain violation of the UDHR.
Parenthetically, it is high time the Philippines acceded to and joined the 1961 Convention on
Statelessness for the benefit of all Filipinos, especially illegitimate children whose parents are
unknown, not just of Senator Poe. After all, it is not their fault that their parents have abandoned
them.
American citizenship and adoption. True, she acquired American citizenship after she married
her American husband. But she already renounced such citizenship in accordance with American
law. And the American Embassy has affirmed such renunciation.

This affirmation is important because under the 1930 Hague Convention on the Conflict of
Nationality Laws, [i]t is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals.
Thus, American, not Philippine, law determines who are American citizens.
True also, our Supreme Court has ruled several times that adoption does not confer citizenship. It
only gives the adopted child the civil rights of a legitimate child, like the right to use the surname
of and to inherit from the adoptive parents.
In my humble opinion, these rulings do not apply to foundlings. They were issued by our Court
to prevent aliens from short-circuiting our strict naturalization rules by undergoing the easier
adult adoption processes.
However, I will no longer dwell on this issue because Senator Poe does not derive her naturalborn citizenship from her adoption but from generally accepted principles of international law on
the presumed citizenship of foundlings.
Her presumed citizenship can become indisputable if her paternity is established by
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence. Under existing jurisprudence starting with Tijing vs
Court of Appeals (March 8, 2001) and People vs Vallejo (May 2, 2002), a DNA test is a
conclusive way of proving filiations.
I will take up Grace Poes residence qualification in another column.

Reactions to Grace Poes citizenship

12:14 AM June 21st, 2015

Last Sundays piece titled Grace Poes citizenship elicited several reactions (aside from the
many in the Inquirer.net website which I will no longer take up now).
United Nations. Most exhilarating is an early e-mail from Bernard Kerblat, country
representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), who wrote,
Your opinion sounds like a pleasant soothing philharmonic orchestra composition to our ears.
He added in part: Thank you for the badly needed clarification that a foundling in the
Philippines is not a stateless person contrary to what some uninformed voices have recently
asserted Your statement to the effect that Parenthetically, it is high time the Philippines
acceded to and joined the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961 Convention)
for the benefit of all Filipinos is music to our ears. YES, the UNHCR FULLY supports your
statement.
Later, on June 16, Kerblat, his deputy Yasser Saad and his legal aide Iya Gallardo visited me at
my home. They explained that, during a ministerial meeting on Dec. 7, 2011, the Philippine
panel pledged to initiate our accession to the 1961 Convention.
Last February, various executive agencies convened to develop a national plan to end
statelessness in our country by 2016. This piece of good news, after a long drought of no news,
should be followed up. And I will do so in future columns. Today, let me answer questions on
Senator Poes citizenship.
From everywhere. Reader Paulino Yusi, a Makati lawyer, argues that the presumption in Article 2
of the 1961 Convention saying that foundlings found in the Philippines have Filipino parents
does not ipso facto mean that Poe is a natural-born citizen.
He posits that, under the 1935 Constitution, those born with Filipino mothers and foreign fathers
need to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching majority age. Thus, he concludes that Poe
cannot be deemed natural-born because she had to perform an act (election of Philippine
citizenship) after her birth.
Answer: The 1961 Convention refers to parents. So, to confer natural-born citizenship on Poe,
it is enough that her legally presumed father (who is a parent) is Filipino. She need not elect
anymore because her presumed father already conferred natural-born citizenship on her.
From Dubai, Joselito Basilio, citing a deceased Supreme Court justice, wrote that Article 2 of the
1961 Convention may not be compatible with our 1987 Constitution because it is based on jus
soli while our Charter is based on jus sanguinis.
Answer: The 1961 Convention simply states that a foundling is presumed to have parents who
are nationals of the country where the foundling was found. Under our 1987 Constitution, a child
follows the citizenship of the father or mother. Thus, I see no incompatibility.

From California, Ray Lopez wondered why some critics make themselves intellectual
prostitutes to sway public opinion for or against certain candidates. He added that it didnt
matter which side youre on, but you just explained the citizenship issue as clear as can be
devoid of bias.
I thank Mr. Lopez for his kind words for me. Indeed, I merely wrote my honest and sincere
opinion without any bias for or against anyone. I met Senator Poe only once during a public
forum where she and I were guest speakers. I have had no other official or personal association
with her.
The tougher question was posed by multiawarded journalist Marites Vitug, Eric Damasing and
others. They explained that while Senator Poe may have acquired natural-born citizenship via
generally accepted principles of international law as I explained last Sunday, she nonetheless
lost it when she married her American husband.
And by executing an oath of allegiance to reacquire it, is she deemed to have performed an act
to acquire or perfect her citizenship that excludes her from the constitutional definition of a
natural-born citizen?
Damasing cited David vs Agbay (March 18, 2015) which explained that, under the Dual
Citizenship Law (Republic Act No. 9225), natural-born citizens who became citizens of another
country before the effectivity of said law shall reacquire their Philippine citizenship after they
take an oath of allegiance to the Philippines, while those who became foreign citizens after the
effectivity of said law shall retain their citizenship upon taking the same oath. Since Senator Poe
belongs to the first category, what kind of Philippine citizenship did she reacquire?
Answer: Her original natural-born citizenship. Her taking an oath of allegiance is not an act to
acquire or perfect her citizenship. She already acquired or perfected her citizenship at birth.
Ineluctably, she reacquired the same original natural-born status.
Why then did the Court have to make the distinction in David vs Aglipay? Because in that case,
the petitioner, Renato David, who became a Canadian before the effectivity of RA 9225,
represented himself to be a Filipino citizen in his application to purchase public land filed before
he took his oath of allegiance.
Not having taken the required oath, he had not yet reacquired his Philippine citizenship when he
executed under oath his said application. Thus, the Court held that he was liable for falsification
of a public document. Had he been naturalized as a Canadian after the effectivity of RA 9225, he
would have been deemed to have retained his Philippine citizenship and would not have been
held criminally indictable.
Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/85997/reactions-to-grace-poescitizenship#ixzz3fHiFV8eH
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Grace Poes residency

12:32 AM June 28th, 2015
The Constitution states: No person may be elected President (or Vice President) unless he is a
resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding such election.
Equated with domicile. In election law, residence is equated with domicile, not necessarily
with a persons home address. A man may have several places of residence but has only one
domicile. Or he may be a nomad or travelling salesman with no permanent home. Nonetheless,
the law recognizes one domicile for him.
There are three kinds of domicile: 1) domicile of originthat is, a child follows the domicile of
the parents; 2) domicile by operation of law; and 3) domicile of choice made freely by a person
of legal age.
Domicile of choice imports not only the intention to reside in one fixed place but also personal
presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a
fixed permanent residence to which, when absent for business or pleasure or for like reasons, one
intends to return. In short, domicile of choice is a question of fact.
Settled jurisprudence recognizes three rules to determine a persons domicile: First, everyone
must always have one of the three kinds of domicile; second, once established, a domicile

remains the same until a new one is acquired; and third, a person can have only one domicile at
any given time.
Applied to Poe. Let us apply these legal concepts to Sen. Grace Poe. As a foundling found in
Jaro, Iloilo, she acquired the domicile (and citizenship) of her parents who, according to
generally-accepted principles of law, are presumed to be Filipinos. So, her domicile of origin is
Jaro, Iloilo.
After she married an American and moved to and worked in the United States, she lost her
domicile of origin and followed the domicile of her husband in America.
When she and her husband moved back for good here after the death of Fernando Poe Jr., she
acquired a new domicile of choice in the Philippines. As to when she acquired it depends, as I
will show later, on her clear intention, conduct and physical presence in the new location.
In Marcos vs Comelec (Sept. 18, 1995), the Supreme Court held that the fact of residence, not a
statement in a certificate of candidacy, [is] decisive in determining whether or not an individual
has satisfied the Constitutions residence qualification requirement.
The Court said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos made an honest mistake in writing seven months
residence in her certificate of candidacy for a congressional seat, a period less than the
constitutional requirement of not less than one year for that position.
Similarly, Poes honest mistake in indicating her residence in her certificate of candidacy for
the Senate to be only six years and six months is not binding proof of the length of her
domicile here.
Recent jurisprudence. Cordora vs Comelec (Feb. 19, 2009) held that residency is not dependent
on citizenship because even a foreigner can establish a Philippine domicile.
More clearly, Japson vs Comelec (Jan. 19, 2009) ruled that a former Filipino who was
naturalized abroad may choose to reestablish his/her domicile here even prior to the reacquisition
of citizenship under the Dual Citizenship Law (for details, see my last two columns).
Said the Court: [I]n order to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur: 1) residence
or bodily presence in the new locality, 2) an intention to remain there, and 3) an intention to
abandon the old domicile
The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time;
the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new
domicile must be actual.
Moreover, Jalosjos vs Comelec (Oct. 19, 2010) ruled that the abandonment of a home in
Australia, renunciation of Australian citizenship, reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and
settling down in Zamboanga Sibugay show an intent to change domicile for good.
Maquiling vs Comelec (April 16, 2013) clarified, though, that the use of an American passport
after a renunciation of American citizenship effectively reverses such renunciation and
disqualifies one who reacquired citizenship under the Dual Citizenship Law from being elected
to a public office.
To sum up, Poes intent to acquire a new domicile of choice (animus manendi) is proven by her
return to the Philippines in the first half of 2005, the enrollment of her children here in June
2005, her purchase of a property in late 2005 and the construction of her familys home in
Quezon City in early 2006.
Her intent to abandon her old domicile (animus non revertendi) is shown by the delisting of her
children from their American schools in May 2005 and the sale of her California home in April
2006.
Her physical presence here is evidenced by entries in her passport (which she said she submitted
to the proper offices where it can be examined) and other authentic documents.
Based on these acts, facts, laws and jurisprudence (unless belied by contravening facts unknown
to me), I believe Senator Poe will surpass the 10-year residency requirement come Election Day,
May 9, 2016.
***
Kudos to Dean Raul C. Pangalangan for his election as a judge of the International Criminal
Court. For over 10 years, I tried to help him land a seat in our Supreme Court. But the Lord did
not will it. Now I know why. Because he was meant for something bigger, loftier and bettersuited to his unique specialization.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/86194/grace-poes-residency#ixzz3fHhlvUcE

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Macalintal: Grace Poes citizenship not an issue

05:56 AM May 23rd, 2015

After renouncing her American citizenship, Sen. Grace Poe has removed any legal or
constitutional impediment to her election as senator and eventually as candidate for President of
the country.
Taking up the cudgels for Poe, who is believed to pose a threat to the 2016 presidential bets,
election lawyer Romulo Macalintal said the senators disclosure of her renunciation of her US
citizenship should stop the media hounding of Poe with questions on her status as a natural-born
Filipino citizen.
All issues pertaining to Sen. Grace Poes status as a natural-born Filipino citizen had been put to
rest when she renounced her American citizenship and took her Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines as required under Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention
and Re-Acquisition Act, when she was appointed to the MTRCB (Movie and Television Review
and Classification Board) and ran for senator in the 2013 elections, Macalintal said in a
statement.
Under Section 3 of RA 9225, she is deemed to have reacquired her Philippine citizenship after
taking her aforesaid Oath of Allegiance and qualified to an appointive or elective position under
Section 5 of RA 9225 after having renounced her American citizenship, he said.
Poe earlier admitted that she used to hold a dual citizenship status as a resident of the United
States for several years.
Macalintal said Poe had reacquired her natural-born Filipino citizenship when she repatriated
to the Philippines under RA 9225. She cannot reacquire something she never had before.
The lawyer said this was the same argument he gave the Supreme Court when he defended
Teodoro Cruz who ran for and won as Pangasinan representative in 1998 against Antonio
Bengzon, who was then running for reelection.

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/693088/macalintal-grace-poes-citizenship-not-anissue#ixzz3fHkUQy1U

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook