EN BANC DECISION, PEREZ, J:

G.R. Nos. 221697 March 8, 2016

MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES v.

COMELEC AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO

FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioner, Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares(Grace Poe) was found as a

newborn infant in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo in 1968. She was found by one
Edgardo Militar and transfers the babys custody and care to his relative Emiliano
Militar. The latter registered the baby as a foundling and subsequently was issued a
Foundling Certificate and Certificate of Live Birth which contained petitioners given
name and Militar as her surname.

When petitioner was five (5) years old, she was adopted by the Spouses Ronald Poe and
Jesusa Poe and changes her surname to Poe. When petitioner reached the age of
eighteen (18) in 1986, she registered as a voter in San Juan City, two years after she was
issued a Philippine Passport.

In 1988 she went to the United States to continue her studies, and graduated in the year
1991. At that same year she married Teodoro Llamanzares, who is both an
American and a Filipino citizen. Petitioner stayed in the United States with her husband.

1991 - She was naturalized as an American citizen and subsequently was issued a U.S.
Passport.

2004 - Petitioner returns to the Philippines to support her fathers candidacy. After the
election, it was not long when she eventually returned to the Philippine because of the
health condition of her father.

2005 - Petitioner and her husband decided to permanently reside in the Philippines in
order to help her grieving mother.

May 24, 2005 - Petitioner came home to the Philippines.

July 7, 2006 - petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
pursuant to Republic Act 9225. Eleven (11) days after she takes her oath, the Bureau of
Immigration declared that she reacquired her Philippine Citizenship.

2010 - she was appointed by President Aquino as Chairperson of the Movie and
Television Review and Classification Board. Because of that, petitioner executed an
Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States of America and
Renunciation of American Citizenship before a notary public.
July 12, 2011 - Petitioner executed before the Vice-Consul of the U.S. Embassy in Manila
an Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of the United States.

Months later, she was issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States.

2012 - Petitioner ran and was voted as a Senator in 2012.

October 15, 2015 - She files her Certificate of Candidacy as President of the Republic
of the Philippines, which is the subject of the petition.

G.R. No. 221697 - Estrella Elampara argued that petitioner cannot be considered as a
natural-born citizen Filipino on account of the fact that she was a foundling. And
because of this she cannot be qualified under reacquisition of citizenship under
R.A. 9225 since it is only reserved to natural-born citizens. And even assuming that
petitioner was a natural-born Filipino she is deemed to have lost that when she was
naturalized as an American citizen. She argued that natural-born citizen must be
continuous from birth.

G.R. Nos. 221698-700 - Tatad et.al theorized that since the Philippines follows the
principle of jus sanguinis, persons of unknown parentage cannot be considered natural-
born Filipino citizens since blood relationship is determinative of natural-born status.

He also argues that as a rule in statutory construction, what is not included is excluded,
a foundling cannot be considered as natural-born since it was not expressly included in
the 1935 Constitution.

He also argues that petitioner cannot rely on international laws since these are not self-
executory and that legislation is needed for it to take effect. No such legislation exists in
the Philippines.

And just the same as Elampara, he argues that Grace Poe cannot avail of R.A. 9225 and
that assuming she can, it only bestowed her Philippine citizenship but did not revert her
original status as a natural-born citizen.

ISSUES:

I. Whether or not a foundling is considered a natural-born citizen.

II. Whether or not repatriation under Republic Act 9225 will result in reacquisition of
natural-born citizenship.

RULING:
I. Petitioner may be considered natural-born citizen under 1935, 1973, and 1987
Constitution

In the three Constitutions, citizens include citizens of Philippines at the time of adoption
of the Constitution. This includes even those who did not have a single drop of Filipino
blood. Constitution is meant to advance fundamental values of the Filipino people. Thus,
the Court should not construe citizenship provisions in a manner that is unjustly depriving
on the part of foundlings just like considering them as stateless. The principle of natural
justice was utilized to avoid unfair outcome.

The requirement of natural- born citizenship should serve to deny certain privileges to
those who acquired and perfect their citizenship through naturalization. The concept is
meant to distinguish the natural born from the foreign born. The term natural born was
lifted from US Constitution. The US Constitution does not define the term but cases
decided indicated that those born in United States, even born to alien parents, are natural
born US citizen. In 1935 Constitution of the Philippines, the term was not also defined.
However, deliberations of 1935 Constitution framers reveal that natural citizen is person
who is a citizen by birth and not by naturalization or further declaration of law. The term
was define in 1973 Constitution and it excludes only those who are naturalized. As ruled
by the Court in Roa v Collector of Customs, natural born citizen is a person who has
become such at the moment of birth.

Foundling is not naturalized in accordance with law. The contention was when foundling
is registered in relation to administrative proceeding, the process amounts to
naturalization in accordance with law. The contention is unacceptable. First, the phrase
naturalized in accordance with law refers to naturalization process provided under
naturalization statutes. Second, registration is not attributable to the foundling. Foundlings
do not perform any act equivalent to acts required in naturalization proceeding. Third, it
is possible to register a foundling even without administrative proceeding.

II. Yes. Grace Poe satisfied the requirements of animus manendi coupled with
animus revertendi in acquiring a new domicile.

Grace Poes domicile had been timely changed as of May 24, 2005, and not on July 18,
2006 when her application under RA 9225 was approved by the BI. COMELECs reliance
on cases which decree that an aliens stay in the country cannot be counted unless she
acquires a permanent resident visa or reacquires her Filipino citizenship is without
merit. Such cases are different from the circumstances in this case, in which Grace Poe
presented an overwhelming evidence of her actual stay and intent to abandon
permanently her domicile in the US. Coupled with her eventual application to reacquire
Philippine citizenship and her familys actual continuous stay in the Philippines over the
years, it is clear that when Grace Poe returned on May 24, 2005, it was for good.
Respondents argue that only Philippines citizenship and not the natural-born status is
deemed reacquired under RA 9225. Such contention is contrary to established
jurisprudence. In Bengson III v. HRET1, the Supreme Court held that repatriation results
in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost
his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen and on
the other hand a natural-born citizen will be restored to his former status as a natural-
born Filipino. R.A. 9225 is a repatriation statute and has been described as such in
several cases.

Additionally, respondents contention that natural-born citizenship must begin at birth and
remain uninterrupted and continuous from birth is also rejected by the Court. In the
Bengson Case2, the Court has ruled that there are only two types of citizens, natural-born
or naturalized; there is no third category for repatriated ones. The determination of
citizenship depends on the reasons for the loss and the mode prescribed by the applicable
law. Since in repatriation, a person need not go through the process of naturalization to
reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce a natural-born citizen.

CONCURRING OPINIONS:

J. MARVIC LEONEN CONCURRING OPINION

Justice Leonen said that an interpretation that foundlings are not natural-born
Filipino citizens would mean that we should teach our foundling citizens to never
aspire to serve the country in any of the above capacities. This is not only
inconsistent with the text of our Constitution's citizenship provisions, which
required only evidence of citizenship and not of the identities of the parents. It
unnecessarily creates a classification of citizens with limited rights based on the
circumstances of their births. This is discriminatory. Our Constitution provides that
citizens shall have equal protection of the law and equal access to opportunities
for public service. Further, inasmuch as foundlings are citizens of the Philippines, they
are human beings whose dignity we value and rights we respect. Thus:

Article II, SECTION 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights.