Verification and Certification of Petition

I, Alexis John N. Nuguid, of legal age, subscribing under oath, dispose

and state that:

1. A am the petitioner in this case

2. I personally prepared this petition ,and I have read and
understood all its contents. I further attest to the truthfulness of
the facts on the basis of my personal knowledge.
3. I am not aware of any case involving the same issues pending
in any court or tribunal.
Alexis John Nuguid
Affiant

Subscribed and sworn before me this 11 of November 2015,

affiant exhibiting to me his drivers license, a government issued
identification, as complete proof of his identity.

Doc No.
Page No.

________________
________________

Book no

________________

Series No.

Republic of the Philippines

Commission on Elections
Manila

ALEXIS JOHN N. NUGUID

PETITIONER,

-versusFor Cancellation
Of certificate of
Candidacy
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD SONORA
POE-LLAMARES
RESPONDENT.

PETITION

Petitioner Alexis John N. Nuguid, respectfully submits this petition

for cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD SONORA POE-LLAMARES to the Honorable Commission on
Elections, for the respondents failure to comply with the requirements
provided under Article IV section II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Antecedent Facts of the Case

Senator Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-Llamares (Senator Poe,

for brevity) was born on September 3, 1968 in the province of Iloilo
Philippines from an UNKNOWN PARENTS who allegedly abandoned her
in the Parish of Jaro immediately upon birth. In the year 1974, actors
Susan Roces and Fernando Poe Jr. legally adopted her and treated her
as their own. She finished her secondary education here in the Philippines
and went also initially to the University of the Philippines for her tertiary
education. However before she was able to complete her undergraduate
degree, she transferred to Boston University in the United States of
America were she graduated with a degree in Political Science.

After graduation, she lived most of her adult life in the United
States. In the year 1991, Senator Poe married Neil Llamanzares, a dual
citizen of the United States and the Philippines. On October 18, 2001,

Senator Poe became a naturalized American citizen after being

successfully petitioned by her husband. As a condition of being
naturalized, she completely severed her allegiance with the Republic of
the Philippines. In 2004, she went back to the Philippines to attend the
funeral of her father, Fernando Poe Jr.. After sometime, the family of Poe
decided to permanently reside here in the Philippines. Pursuant to R.A.
9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003,
Senator Poe became a dual citizen of the United States and the
Philippines. It is noteworthy, that in the years 2005-2009 she was given
the discretion to use either her US or Philippine passport for her travel
needs. Some news reports even allege that she used her US passport
twenty one times in the span of 2005-2009. In the year 2011, incumbent
President Aquino invited her to become the next chairperson of the Movie
and Television Review and Classification Board. As such, pursuant to the
provision of R.A. 9225 which prohibits dual citizens to be employed in any
government position, Senator Poe renounced her American citizenship.
After her appointment as the chairwoman of MTRCB, she later ran for a
seat in the senate which she won with the most number of votes. In
October 2015, Senator Poe filed her certificate of candidacy for position of
President of the Republic of the Philippines before this honorable
Commission on Elections.

Statement of the Issue

Whether or not Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-Llamares failed

to comply with the requirements for the position of the PRESIDENT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES as provided under Article VII
section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

Arguments

Under the 1987 Constitution, the government of the Philippines is

divided in three co-equal branches, namely; executive, legislative and
judiciary. The executive, headed by the president, has the power of
general administration and to execute the laws of our country. On the
other hand, the legislative branch has the power to enact, repeal or
amend laws. Lastly, the Judiciary has the power to settle legal issues and
to interpret laws. The three branches of the government are highly
regarded under this jurisdiction that even their qualifications are directly
and expressly provided by the 1987 Constitution. It is noteworthy that the
qualifications provided under articles VI, VII and VII for the respective
members of these branches are exclusive. Therefore, even if congress
enacts a law which add or subtract from the qualifications provided by the
Constitution, such legislation will be declared unconstitutional.

In the case at bar, Senator Poe filed her candidacy for President of
the Philippines last October 2015. However the herein petitioner strongly
believes that the respondent failed to comply with the requirements

provided for under the 1987 Constitution. In resolving the presented issue,
first, who are qualified to run for the presidency? Section 2 Article VII of
the Constitution provides that:
No person may be elected President unless he is a
NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN of the Philippines, a registered voter,
able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the
election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years
immediately preceding such election. (emphasis supplied)

Under the cited provision we can deduce that there are five
requirements for a person to qualify for the position of President. The first
requirement is that the person must be a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. Now we come to the next question, who are natural born
citizens of the Philippines? Section 2 Article IV of the Constitution provides
that:

Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the

Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire
or perfect their Philippines citizenship. Those who elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall
be deemed natural-born citizens.

We can note from the cited provision that there are two ways for a
person be deemed as a natural-born citizen. The first class refers to those
who are Filipinos by virtue of birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Under Political Law, the
Philippines adheres to the doctrine of jus sanguinis or by blood
relationship as the basis of Filipino Citizenship. Therefore, a person can
be deemed a natural-born Filipino if he or she has a natural affiliation to
Filipino ascendants. Applying this established principle in the present
case, can Senator Poe be considered as a natural-born citizen under the
first class? The petitioner believes that she cannot qualify since it is an
established fact that she nor anyone can establish her natural ascendants.
Therefore in adhering to the doctrine of jus sanguinis, we cannot
determine whether or not Senator Poe has a blood affiliation to Filipinos.
The petitioner does not also share the view that Section 1 Article IV of the
Constitution, specifically paragraph two includes adoptive fathers. The
said provision provides that:

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

xxx
(2). Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines
xxx

In the case of Tecson vs Comelec, it was held that Fernando Poe

Jr., the adopter of Senator Poe, is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
Can we therefore deem Senator Poe to be a natural-born citizen because

her adoptive parents are natural-born citizens? It is the belief of the

petitioner that citizenship of her adopters could not have vested her with
the status of a natural-born Filipino. Since if we apply such in the given
situation, it would necessarily defeat the doctrine of jus sanguinis. Which
as previously emphasize refers to BLOOD RELATIONSHIPS and not
merely by legal relationships.

We must note however, as argued by the camp of the respondent,

that under 1989 Convention of the Rights of the Child in relation to the
1954 United Nations Convention on Statelessness and 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights provides that:

Article 7. 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. (emphasis supplied)

As argued by the respondent, under international law, a child

should be given by the state where it is found a nationality. Therefore in
this case, if a foundlings citizenship cannot be determined because of the
insufficiency of applicable laws, the child would therefore become
stateless. Thus, the state should grant nationality to such a child as
agreed in the said conventions to avoid stateless persons. Furthermore,
under Section 2 Article 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, it provides
that:

The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national

policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to
the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and
amity with all nations. (emphasis supplied)
The petitioner does not question the application of the cited
provision. In a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court, it established
the doctrine of incorporation. That the Philippines shall adopt generally
accepted principles of international law and such will form part of the laws
of the land. To further illustrate, in the case of Agustin vs Edu, the
Supreme Court dismissed the petition questioning the validity of the letters
of instructions issued by President Marcos in requiring vehicle owners to
procure early warning devices on the principle that it was promulgated on
the basis of the 1968 Vienna Convention to which the Philippines was a
signatory.

However, while treaties and general principles of international law

are generally binding in this jurisdiction, it is not absolute. In the case of
Ichiong vs Hernandez, the Supreme Court held that:

The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines

and the Republic of China of April 18, 1947 is also claimed to be
violated by the law in question. All that the treaty guarantees is
equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals "upon the same
terms as the nationals of any other country." But the nationals of
China are not discriminating against because nationals of all other
countries, except those of the United States, who are granted
special rights by the Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging
in the retail trade. But even supposing that the law infringes
upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to
qualification or amendment by a subsequent law, and the
same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police
power of the State. (emphasis supplied)

Therefore applying this notion at the case at bar, such agreement

must not be in conflict with the Constitution or any statute. In the case of
the a international law versus a statute, the latter should prevail on the
ground of the inherent police power of the state. In the case of Secretary
of Justice vs Lantion, the Supreme Court emphasized that:

The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries,

decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing
with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.
Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect
a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In
states where the constitution is the highest law of the land,
such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and
treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the
constitution. (emphasis supplied)

In this case the respondents argue that on the basis of international

law in relation to the doctrine of incorporation, Senator Poe should be
granted the status of a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. However if
we adhere to such interpretation, we are moving to a position which is
directly against the provision of the constitution on who are deemed to be
natural-born Filipino Citizens. Therefore in effect we are adding to the
exclusive list provided for under the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Premise considered, the act of incorporating the stated

international principle for the benefit of foundlings as part of the laws of
the land would therefore be unconstitutional. The petitioner agrees that a
favorable decision of this petition as feared by many legislators will in
effect deprive millions of Filipinos who are foundlings that cannot identify
their natural blood affiliation. The petitioner further agrees that foundlings
under the same situation as the respondent should be granted the status
as a natural-born citizen in order not to prejudice their rights nor

discriminate them. However such potential issues raised are no longer

justiciable but rather political in nature. In order to resolve such, there is a
need to amend the exclusive list provided for under the Constitution to
make it possible.

The petitioner does not question the citizenship of Senator Grace

Poe. Since the evidences presented would already dictate that she is
citizen of the Philippines pursuant to R.A. 9225 Citizenship Rentention
and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. Therefore even if Senator Poe formerly
renounced her Filipino citizenship in favor of becoming a naturalized
American is no longer an issue. Likewise here in petitioner will no longer
question the other qualifications as provided for under the Constitution of
Senator Poe since even if one requirement is missing, she can no longer
run for the said office.

Prayer

In consideration of the above arguments, the petitioner prays that

the Honorable Commission on Elections to CANCELL the Certificate
of Candidacy of MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD SONORA POE-LLAMARES
for the position of President for failing to satisfy the requirements under
the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically under Article VII section 2.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Alexis John Nuguid

Petitioner