ON JURISDICTION OF COMELEC
HELD: COMELEC Has no jurisdiction to decide the qualification or lack thereof of the candidate in a cancellation of COC case
Constitution itself confers the power to rule on the qualifications of Presidents to the SC En Banc, not COMELEC
Article IX, C, Section 2: does not confer upon COMELEC power to be sole judge of qualifications of Presidential candidates
SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.
(3) Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters.
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to elections constitute interference in national affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law.
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
(7) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
(8) Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or decision.
(9) Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.
Cf: Article VI, Section 17 (Congress): Electoral tribunals sole judge of ALL CONTESTS relating to election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members.
Cf: Article VII, Section 4 (Judiciary): SC En Banc shall be the sole judge of ALL CONTESTS relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
*should note that there is no provision for proceedings to declare the ineligibility of candidates for Congress, Senate, VP and President, just question qualifications of these incumbent officials (post-proclamation contests)
Jurisprudence already declared that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction to rule on the ineligibility of candidates
-Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections (318 Phil. 329 ( 1995)), as affirmed in Fermin v. COMELEC (595 Phil. 449 (2008)):'
F: COMELEC amended its Rules to provide proceedings to disqualify candidates who do not possess qualifications provided under the Constitution or laws
H: IMPROPER AMENDMENT
The lack of provision for declaring the ineligibility of candidates cannot be supplied by a mere rule. COMELEC not authorized by the Constitution to rule on the qualifications (age, residence, citizenship) or lack thereof of candidates, and even voters
Disqualification vs. ineligibility
|
|
|
Proceedings: based on Sections 12 and 68 of the OEC, and 40 of LGC
|
Lack of qualifications prescribed in the Constitution/statutes for holding public office
|
Purpose: bar an individual from becoming or continuing to be a CANDIDATE
|
Purpose: remove the incumbent (i.e. elected official) from office
|
Why no proceedings for determining BEFORE ELECTION the QUALIFICATIONS of a Candidate:
No need to determine eligibility for office if a candidate does not win
Vs. if he committed election offenses (vote buying, over spending, commission of prohibited acts), he might win after committing these election offenses. So it would be a prejudicial question which will determine whether he can run for office or not
So effect of disqualification cases:
Candidate will not be voted for
If he was voted for, votes for him would not count
If he was voted for and won, he would not be proclaimed
If proclaimed, his proclamation would be set aside
Disqualification cases/cases re: certificates of candidacy should be summary proceedings
…But proceedings to determine eligibility of candidates takes long, and may even extend beyond the term of the office
…receipt of COC is a ministerial duty of the COMELEC and its officers: law is satisfied if candidates state in their COC that they are eligible, leaving the determination of their eligibility after the election and only in the event they are elected.
It is national policy not to have pre-proclamation cases against President, VP, Senator, HOR
WHY: preserve prerogatives of the electoral tribunals (HRET, SET, PET) to be the sole judges under the constitution of the election, returns, and qualifications of members of congress, President, and VP
Sec. 15. Pre-proclamation Cases Not Allowed in Elections for President Vice-President, Senator, and Member of the House of Representatives. - For purposes of the elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns or the certificates of canvass, as the case may be. However, this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu propio or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it.
Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers may be initiated in the board or directly with the Commission in accordance with Section 19 hereof.
Any objection on the election returns before the city or municipal board of canvassers, or on the municipal certificates of canvass before the provincial board of canvassers or district boards of canvassers in Metro Manila Area, shall be specifically noticed in the minutes of their respective proceedings.
Respecting jurisprudence, COMELEC amended its rules to remove proceeding for disqualification of ineligible candidates
|
|
|
Grounds for disqualification. -Any candidate who does not possess all the qualifications of a candidate as provided for by the Constitution or by existing law or who commits any act declared by law to be grounds for disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a candidate.
|
Grounds. - Any candidate who, in action or protest in which he is a party, is declared by final decision of a competent court, guilty of, or found by the Commission to be suffering from any disqualification provided by law or the Constitution.
A Petition to Disqualify a Candidate invoking grounds for a Petition to Deny to or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy or Petition to Declare a Candidate as a Nuisance Candidate, or a combination thereof, shall be summarily dismissed.
|
So now, before COMELEC can disqualify a candidate:
- There must be a declaration by final judgment of a competent court that a candidate is guilty/suffering from any disqualification…
- Or a law or the constitution declares the disqualification
On false material representation (for petition to deny due course/cancel COC):
-there should be a prior authority or ruling that the candidate is not qualified
-self-evident facts of unquestioned or unquestionable veracity and judicial confessions
(side note: Poe stated under oath in her Senatorial COC that she resided in the Philippines for 6 years and 6 months. Isn't this considered a judicial confession?
Rule 129, Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
In Poe's case, her defense is that she only made an honest mistake in stating her residence to be 6 years and 6 months)
On Natural-born status of POE
-since no prior authority on the status of POE's citizenship and residence, COMELEC was forced to rule on the same
"Clearly, to avoid a direct ruling on the qualifications of petitioner, which it cannot make in the same case for cancellation of COC, it resorted to opinionatedness which is, moreover, erroneous. The whole process undertaken by COMELEC is wrapped in grave abuse of discretion."
COMELEC: POE is a foundling, not recognized as a natural-born citizen of the 1935 Constitution; therefore, they are not natural-born citizens.
-it cannot rule that POE possesses a blood relationship with a natural-born Filipino, and it is certain that such relationship is indemonstrable
-Poe has the burden of proof to establish her natural filiation with a Filipino parent
A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC, Resolution Approving The Proposed Rule on Adoption (Domestic and
Inter-Country), effective 22 August 2002
"a deserted or abandoned infant or child whose parents, guardian or relatives are unknown; or a child committed to an orphanage or charitable or similar institution with unknown facts of birth and parentage and registered in the Civil Register as a "foundling."
Article IV, Section 1, 1935 Constitution:
Sec. I. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(I) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Philippine citizenship may be Jost or reacquired in the manner provided by Jaw.
There is more than sufficient evidence that Poe has Filipino parents and is therefore, natural-born Filipino
Admission as a foundling did not shift burden on Poe of proving that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen
Factual issue: WON POE's parents are Filipinos
Here, collateral evidence induce belief that Poe's parents are natural-born Filipinos:
Statistics:
OSG: reports from PSA
POE: Census statistics from Iloilo for 1960 to 1970
Population (1960): 99.62% were Filipinos
962,532 Filipinos
4,734 Foreigners
Population (1970): 99.55 % were Filipinos
1,162,669 Filipinos
5,304 foreigners
Child producing ages (15-40)
1960:
230,528 Female Filipinos to 730 Female Foreigners (99.68%)
210,349 Filipino Males to 886 male aliens (99.58%)
1970
270,299 Filipino Females to 1, 190 female aliens (99.56%)
245,740 Filipino males to 1,165 male aliens (99.53°/o)
COMELEC never disputed the collateral evidence on the majority of population being Filipinos; Commissioner Lim even admitted it during oral arguments
Factual circumstances surrounding discovery of Poe as foundling:
Rule 131, Section 3 (y): Disputable presumption that things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life:
"All of the foregoing evidence, that a person with typical Filipino features is abandoned in Catholic Church in a municipality where the population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be more than a 99% chance that a child born in the province would be a Filipino, would
indicate more than ample probability if not statistical certainty, that petitioner's parents are Filipinos."
As stated by the OSG: it is contrary to common sense for foreigners to come to the Philippines so they can get pregnant and leave their newborn babies behind:
for raising abandoned children. I certainly doubt whether a foreign couple has ever considered their child excess baggage that is best left behind."
The framers of the 1935 Constitution understood foundlings to be included under natural born citizens, so they did not deem it necessary to expressly include it in the enumeration of natural-born citizens
-legal basis for reviewing the intent of framers: Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (236 Phil. 307 (1987))
-what happened:
Rafols proposed to include children of unknown parentage in the enumeration of natural-born Filipinos
Montinola cited the Spanish Code wherein all children of unknown parentage born in Spanish territory are considered Spaniards because the presumption is that a child of unknown parentage is the son of a Spaniard. So apply same principle in the Philippines.
Rafols stated that there is a need to expressly provide it in the enumeration, since they were talking about Filipinos, not Spaniards
Roxas interjected saying that:
Children of unknown parentage cases are few, Consti need not refer to them
International law principles recognize that children born in a country of unknown parents are citizens in this nation (i.e. Philippines), and this principle is recognized in the Philippines
SO SUM: children of unknown parentage were not included in the enumeration of natural-born Filipinos NOT BECAUSE they are not considered to be so, but ONLY BECAUSE THEIR CASES ARE TOO FEW TO MERIT SPECIFIC MENTION IN THE CONSTITUTION
-OSG: it would have been unfair to impute upon the framers of the Constitution discriminatory intent against foundlings; it is upon private respondents to establish this discriminatory intent
-Court: Constitutional provisions all support finding that foundlings should not be discriminated against, and contradict any finding of intent to discriminate foundlings
Article II, Section 11: "State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights"
Article XIII, Section 1: mandates Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities x x x"
Article XV, Section 3: State to defend the "right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development."
Domestic Laws on adoption support principle that foundlings are Filipinos
-adoption does not confer citizenship upon adoptee
-for Domestic laws on adoption to apply to foundlings, they should first be considered Filipinos!
Article 15 of the Civil Code: "[l]aws relating to family rights, duties, status, conditions, legal capacity of persons are binding on citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad."
Ellis v. Ellis (117 Phil. 976 (1963)): expressly declared that foundlings are citizens of the Philippines; and adoption courts in the Philippines will only have jurisdiction over the adoption if the adoptee is a Filipino
(side comment: considered Filipinos, but does not qualify that they are natural-born Filipinos)
On argument that foundlings are, at the very least, naturalized citizens: NOT CORRECT
2 types of citizens:
Natural born - those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship
Naturalized - those who have to perform an act to perfect their Philippine citizenship
Argument by private respondents: foundlings acquire a foundling certificate; issuance of the foundling certificate is an act which is needed for the foundling to acquire Philippine citizenship
HELD: NO
"having to perform an act" : act must be personally done by the foundling, not by the authorities
Object of issuance of foundling certificate: determination of whereabouts of the parents, NOT confer citizenship upon the foundling (cf: Section 5, RA 8552 - only after location of unknown parents are not determined will the government issue a foundling certificate)
Situation not analogous to naturalization cases, or to cases when the citizen elects Philippine citizenship
PLUS ISSUE MOOT because POE was already legally adopted, and it was declared there that Poe is a foundling (honestly, anlabo ng paragraph na to)
Foundlings are citizens under International Law
"All of the international law conventions and instruments on the matter of nationality of foundlings were designed to address the plight of a defenseless class which suffers from a misfortune not of their own making. We cannot be restrictive as to their application if we are a country which calls itself civilized and a member of the community of nations"
Intro: how International law are introduced in the Philippines (*PIL briefer)
Transformation - international law transformed to local legislation
Incorporation - form part of the law of the land automatically:
Generally Accepted Principles of International Law
International customs as evidence of a general practice accepted as law
Established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States
Opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to the law or necessity) - belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it
General principles of international law recognized by civilized nations
-principles "established by a process of reasoning" or judicial logic, based on principles which are "basic to legal systems generally:"
-these are embodied in several treaties:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
the Convention Against Discrimination in Education
the Convention (No. 111) Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation
-these are likewise embodied in our constitution
Specific Treaties obligate the Philippines to grant nationality from the time of birth and ensure that no child is stateless - can't be established by naturalization wherein applicant must be at least 18 years old:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights - interpreted by SC to be part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State (Rep. of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, 454 Phil. 504, 545 (2003))
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the
right to change his nationality.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) - ratified by RP
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.
1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - ratified by RP
1. Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right, to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.
2. Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name.
3. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality.
Specific conventions, although unratified by RP, presumes foundlings to have nationality of the country of birth
1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws
A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth. If the child's parentage is established, its nationality shall be determined by the rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known.
A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on the territory of the State in which it was found. (Underlining supplied)
1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of 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.
How are these binding??
considered part of the generally accepted principles of international law
-Razon v. Tagitis (621 Phil. 536, 600 (2009))
In this case, court held that even when RP not a signatory to the treaty "International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance," proscription against enforced disappearances in the said convention was a generally accepted principle of international law
Even when the treaty has not come into force (16 out of the 20 required to ratify the treaty), ban on forced disappearances GAPIL
Ban on forced disappearances practiced in several states
-Mijares v. Ranada (495 Phil. 372, 395 (2005)
Even if only 4 countries ratified the 1966 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, many states recognized in their jurisdictions foreign judgments (14 reported, but court nonetheless held that it was a widespread practice)
On 1930 Hague Convention: UDHR's Article 15 (1) effectively affirms Article 14 of 1930 Hague Convention
On 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness: it merely gives effect to UDHR's Article 15 (1)
Poe showed practice of states wherein they passed legislations recognizing foundlings as its citizens:
at least 60 countries in Asia, North and South America, and Europe
42/60 follow jus sanguinis
33/60 are parties to 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the rest (26) are not (side note: pano yung isang state???)
*CJ Sereno likewise noted that 166 out of 189 countries surveyed (87.83%) recognize foundlings as citizens
*Practice in the Philippines:
Ra 8552, RA 8042, and SC Rules on Adoption: "FILIPINO children" includes foundlings
DFA issues passports to foundlings, even when law requires them to issue passports ONLY TO CITIZENS
REPATRIATION already held to confer upon the individual his previous status
COMELEC: Poe did not acquire natural-born status after repatriation under RA 9225; only Filipino citizenship
HELD:
Law and jurisprudence provides that previous status reclaimed after repatriation
Bengson III v. HRET (409 Phil. 633, 649 (200 I)):
Naturalized Filipino citizen restored to prior status as naturalized Filipino
Natural born citizen restored to former status as natural-born Filipino
Sobejana-Condon v. COMELEC 692 Phil. 407, 420 (2012): RA 9225 is an "abbreviated repatriation process that restores one's Filipino citizenship
Parreno v. Commission on Audit (551 Phil. 368, 381 (2007)), citing Tabasa v. Court of Appeals (53 I Phil. 407, 4 I 7 (2006)): repatriation of the former Filipino will allow him to recover his natural-born citizenship
"From birth"
COMELEC: natural born citizenship must be continuous from birth
SC: i. Natural born citizens do not lose their status as such after reacquiring them: no requirement that natural-born citizenship must be uninterrupted and continuous from birth
-RA 9225 was obviously passed for natural born citizens to reacquire citizenship which was lost; COMELEC cannot disagree with the intent of Congress
Ii. Bengson v. HRET: only 2 types of citizens: natural-born and naturalized. There is no third category for repatriated citizens
-natural-born citizen: a person who at the time of birth is a citizen of a particular country
-repatriated citizens are not naturalized citizens
On "BORN TO" in the application for repatriation under RA 9225
-argument against POE: misrepresentation, misled BI to presume that she was a natural-born Filipino when she used the name of her adoptive parents, not her biological parents
-SC: Poe was legally adopted:
So she severed all ties with her biological parents, except when the biological parent is the spouse of the adoptee
RA 8552, Section 14 entitles the adopted child to an amended birth certificate which shall not bear any notation that it is an amended issue
RA 8552, Section 15: all records, books, papers related to the adoption shall be kept strictly confidential
On Residence of POE
SC: Poe's claim that will have been a resident for ten (10) years and eleven ( 11) months on the day before the 2016 elections, is true
1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 2
-a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election
Poe put 10 years and 11 months, which she dated back to 25 May 2005 when she returned for good from the US
When Poe immigrated to US in 1991, she lost her domicile of origin.
To reacquire domicile of origin (Fernandez v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 623 Phil. 628, 660 (2009) citing Japzon v. COMELEC, 596 Phil. 354, 370-372 (2009) further citing Papandayan, Jr. v. COMELEC, 430
Phil. 754, 768-770 (2002) further further citing Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City, G.R. No. 104960, 14 September 1993, 226 SCRA408, 415)
Residence or bodily presence in a new locality
intention to remain there
intention to abandon the old domicile
Domino v. COMELEC, 369 Phil. 798, 819 (1999)
purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time (not temporary)
Change of residence voluntary (not due to circumstances)
Residence chosen must be actual
HERE: Evidence of intent to remain in the Philippines and Abandon US as domicile
US Passport showing arrival on May 25, 2005
US passport showing return to RP everytime she went to US
Email correspondence starting in March 2005 to September 2006 with a freight company to arrange for the shipment of their household items weighing about 28,000 pounds to the Philippines
e-mail with the Philippine Bureau of Animal Industry inquiring how to ship their dog to the Philippines
school records of her children showing enrollment in Philippine schools starting June 2005 and for succeeding years
TAX identification card issue don July 2005
titles for condominium and parking slot issued in February 2006 and their corresponding tax declarations issued in April 2006
receipts dated 23 February 2005 from the Salvation Army in the U.S. acknowledging donation of items from petitioner's family
March 2006 e-mail to the U.S. Postal Service confirming request for change of address
final statement from the First American Title Insurance Company showing sale of their U.S. home on 27 April 2006
12 July 2011 filled-up questionnaire submitted to the U.S. Embassy where petitioner indicated that she had been a Philippine resident since May 2005
affidavit from Jesusa Sonora Poe (attesting to the return of petitioner on 24 May 2005 and that she and her family stayed with affiant until the condominium was purchased);
Affidavit from petitioner's husband (confirming that the spouses jointly decided to relocate to the Philippines in 2005 and that he stayed behind in the U.S. only to finish some work and to sell the family home)
BUT COMELEC and TATAD opined that there was no animus non revertendi BEFORE JULY 2006 when BI approved her application under RA 9225 for repatriation
Jurisprudence held that the stay of an alien former Filipino cannot be counted until he/she obtains a permanent resident visa or reacquires Philippine citizenship, a visafree entry under a balikbayan stamp being insufficient. Since petitioner was still an American (without any resident visa) until her reacquisition of citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, her stay from 24 May 2005 to 7 July 2006 cannot be counted.
Basis:
Coquilla v. COMELEC (434 Phil. 861 (2002)) - only showed CTC + declaration that he was running in the elections
Japzon v. COMELEC (596 Phil. 354 (2009)) - issue there was whether the candidate's acts after reacquisition sufficed to establish residence, not counting of residence prior to reacquisition of Philippine citizenship
Caballero v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 209835, 22 September 2015) - candidate admitted that his place of work
was abroad and that he only visited during his frequent vacations
Reyes v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 207264, 25 June 2013, 699 SCRA 522) - the candidate was found to be an American citizen who had not even reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 or had renounced her U.S. citizenship; on residence, only proof she offered was a seven-month stint as provincial officer
So SC held that because the cited cases contained sparse evidence on the residency of the candidates, they were constrained to use the date of their repatriation as the date when the counting of residence should begin (as it is the only definite overt act of their intent to stay)
Vs. POE'S CASE: " Indeed, coupled with her eventual application to reacquire Philippine citizenship and her family's actual continuous stay in the Philippines over the years, it is clear that when petitioner returned on 24 May 2005 it was for good."
*GADALEJ to disregard evidence of POE's presence from May 2005 in the Philippines just because (1) Senatorial COC stated otherwise; and (2) they were of the impression that her residency should be counted from the time she was repatriated under RA 9225
On argument that Poe entered Philippines Visa-free as a balikbayan during that time (hence, her stay in the Philippines is TEMPORARY - 1 year max stay under RA 6768): RA 6768 does not treat balikbayan as transients:
Law institutes a balikbayan program which provides balikbayans opportunities to avail of the necessary training to enable balikbayans to become economically self-reliant members of society upon their return
The fact that they are offered trainings with the intention of preparing them for their return means that they are not treated as transients
visa-free period is obviously granted him to allow him to re-establish his life and reintegrate himself into the community before he attends to the necessary formal and legal requirements of repatriation
Law did not intend the balikbayans to leave after one year
D. On argument that Poe was barred from claiming contrary to what was stated in her Senatorial COC
COMELEC: based on her Senatorial CoC, she has been a resident of the Philippines only since November 2006
POE:
she reckoned her residency from April-May 2006 when they sold their US House and her husband returned; however, in 2015, her lawyers advised her that she should have reckoned the date of her residency from May 2005
She allegedly misunderstood the question in the form to ask the residence as of the time she submitted the COC
COMELEC changed the question, so SC held that it was a tacit admission on the part of COMELEC that their questionnaire was vague
Mistake justified since Poe was able to show evidence that she was in the country even before the date she alleged in her Senatorial COC
GADALEJ to treat the Senatorial COC as binding admission against POE; it can be presented as evidence, but just disputable and not conclusive
Cf: Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC: Evidence was admitted to establish that the fact of residence, not the statement made in the COC, is the determinative factor to determine whether an individual was able to satisfy the constitution's residency requirement
E. No deliberate misrepresentation
-POE cannot be said that she intended to hide anything re: residency
There was a quo warranto case filed against her in SET as early as August 2015
Her statement in the Senatorial CoC was brought up in the press by UNA spokesperson Toby Tiangco. Poe corrected the same immediately in the Press – so it was public knowledge, and private respondents never contested this allegation
She likewise clarified in her verified answer before the SET that she misunderstood the question in her Senatorial COC. Her verified answer is part of the public records. So when POe filed her Presidential COC, she could not have been hiding her Senatorial COC where she declared that she was a resident of the Philippines for 6 years and 6 months then
Even when there was a discrepancy between the Senatorial COC and the Presidential COC, if NO DELIBERATE INTENT TO MISLEAD, MISINFORM, or HIDE a Fact which would otherwise make her ineligible for office, COMELEC cannot cancel her COC
