Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC - Arguments

CITIZENSHIP	RESPONSE
Material misrepresentation when POE said she is a natural-born Filipino citizen  POE is a foundling SO since her parentage cannot be determined, her status as natural-born citizen is likewise undeterminable  We follow jus sanguinis principle - nationality followed by the nationality of parents  Since POE does not have any known biological parents, her status as a natural-born citizen cannot be determined  1935 Constitution does not include foundlings as natural-born citizens - statcon rule that what is not included is excluded: if framers wanted to include foundlings, they could have done so  International law does not confer upon POE natural-born status and Filipino citizenship of foundling; if there are any, International Conventions/treaties not automatically binding:  Not self executory; local legislations necessary to give it effect in the Philippines  No standard state practice that automatically confers natural-born status to foundlings  So POE is not qualified to apply for reacquisition of Filipino Citizenship since there is nothing to reacquire - not a natural born, not a filipino citizen, and it doesn't apply to foundlings  Assuming that POE is natural-born, she lost it when she was naturalized as an American Citizen (natural-born citizenship MUST BE CONTINUOUS FROM BIRTH) - she should not perform any act to acquire citizenship for it to be natural; otherwise, she is a naturalized citizen  Granting she is qualified to reacquire citizenship, she only reacquired Filipino citizenship - not natural-born status (Valdez)	PRESUMED TO BE NATURAL-BORN  Burden of proof not with her  Customary International Law dictates that   foundlings are entitled to nationality  Foundlings are citizens of the country where they are found  Petitioner is consdered natural-born citizen under Customary IL  Since she is a natural-born citizen, she has right under RA 9225 to reacquire her status as natural-born citizen  Official acts of state confirming her "natural-born citizenship of the Philippines" enjoy presumption of regularity:  18 July 2006 Order of BI declaring her as a natural-born citizen  Appointment as MRTCB Chair  Issuance of decree of adoption by RTC San Juan
Material misrepresentation when POE said that she is a resident of Philippines for at least 10 years and 11 months from May 2005  Senatorial COC of POE indicated that she was a resident of the Philippines for 6 years, 6 months as of May 2013 Elections; So assuming POE is natural-born, she still fell short of residency requirement (Elamparo, Valdez)  Residency should be counted from July 2006 when she reacquired citizenship under RA 9225 (Elamparo, Valdez, Contreras) vs. 2010 or 2011 (tatad) when she renounced US Citizenship in 2010-2011  POE failed to establish domicile in the Philippines   -she cannot establish domicile prior to reacquisition of Philippine citizenship - so did not establish 10 year residence requirement  lack of intent to abandon domicile: (TATAD)  Frequent trips to the US  Stays at US	As early as 1Q of 2005, she already began reestablishing her domicile in the Philippines as her domicile of choice:  Transfer of schools of her children  Purchase of San Juan Condo  Construction of house at Corinthian Hills  She can reestablish her domicile of choice even before she reacquired her Philippine Citizenship (before she was repatriated under RA 9225) and renounced US Citizenship  Renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a requirement for the acquisition of new domicile of choice  Senatorial COC is a mistake she made in Good faith