Imelda Marcos residency case different from Grace Poe's —SC Justice

A Supreme Court Associate Justice said Sen. Grace Poe's case is different from that of former First Lady and incumbent Ilocos Rep. Imelda Romualdez-Marcos since the latter did not acquire US citizenship.

During Tuesday's oral arguments on Poe's case against the Commission on Elections' rulings to cancel her certificate of candidacy, Poe's lawyer Alexander Poblador said the Supreme Court's ruling on the Marcos case in 1995 has "superseded" the rule that the entries in one's certificate of candidacy is an admission against interest.

"The present rule now is what appears in the COC is not a decisive factor, but the fact of residence," he said.

In response, Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta quipped, "But there is a difference there because Mrs. Marcos never acquired American citizenship."

"Mrs. Marcos never lost her Filipino citizenship. According to her, she was forced to go to the US because of their condition after the EDSA revolution," Peralta later added.

He also pointed out that Marcos faced a quo warranto case — or one inquiring about a candidate's eligibility — filed before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

"The case against her was quo warranto, on the ground that she failed to comply with the residency requirement because she stayed in the States. But remember, Mrs. Marcos never acquired American citizenship," he said.

In turn, Poblador replied, "But if the issue solely a wrong entry in the COC would bar a candidate from proving her true residence, then the Marcos case applies for Sen. Poe."

Peralta, who said he was one of the justices who voted to uphold the HRET's decision, then reiterated that Marcos never acquired American citizenship.

In its 1995 ruling, the Supreme Court said an individual does not lose his or her domicile even if he or she has lived and maintained several residences in different places.

"The absence from legal residence or domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature does not constitute loss of residence," it read. —JST, GMA News