Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC - J. Velasco, concurring

Focused on the substantive aspect of the decision 

1. Residency 

-yes, residence of the Philippines since May 2005 

1. To establish residence: establish domicile 
   1. Elements of domicile 
      1. Actual residence 
      2. Intent to stay - animus manendi 
      3. Intent not to go back/abandon previous domicile - animus non revertendi 
   2. Here, established by incremental process of transferring from one country to another the intent to stay and intent not to go back - contested since actual presence here in the Philippines from May 2005 NOT CONTESTED 
      1. Cites:  
         1. Mitra v. COMELEC;  
         2. Sabili v. COMELEC 
   3. On July 2006 Repatriation as starting point for counting residence  
      1. This was held in the cases of: 
         1. Coquilla v. COMELEC - only presented CTC + verbal declarations of running for office 
         2. Caballero v. COMELEC - admitted that he only stayed 9 months in Batanes, no proof presented of residency or intent to reside in the Batanes 
         3. Japzon v. COMELEC - no evidence, all evidence re: events AFTER repatriation 
      2. Court explained that considering no other evidence presented, it is constrained to rule that their intent to stay here in the Philippines should be counted from the date when they were repatriated under RA 9225 
      3. But here: Poe presented several evidence of the process of her transfer of domicile from May 2005 onwards 
      4. Jalosjos case should apply: Court held that even before his repatriation under RA 9225, he has been a resident of Zamboanga due to the fact that he stayed with his brother there 
      5. On buying house in 2008 (note that Poe was repatriated 2006): does not negate animus non revertandi: does not require complete and absolute severance of all physical links with old domicile 

2. Citizenship 
   1. Burden of proof on private respondents to establish that Poe is not a natural-born citizen 
      1. Rule 131, Section 1: he who claims shall present evidence to prove truth of his claim 
      2. It would be unfair to the foundling if burden of proof shifts to foundling  
   2. Intent of 1935 constitution framers to include under natural-born foundlings in the Philippines 
      1. Sr. Rafols wanted to expressly include them 
      2. Roxas Sr., however, deemed it not necessary because; 
         1. Only few cases of foundlings 
         2. Spanish law, which they applied suppletorily, recognizes that foundlings are citizens of the place where they were found. Everyone agreed that this should likewise be the case in the Philippines