Christopher M.

Alcantara
1-D
LEGAL WRITING
Justice Jose P. Perez - Main Decision
FACTS:
Grace Llmanazers-Poe (herein would be referred as Poe) was abandoned in Jaro Cathedral in Iloilo
City in 1968. Poe was found by Edgardo Militar who later passed parental care to his relatives. His
relatives thereafter reported Poe to the proper authorities and had her registered as a foundling
within the Civil Registrar of Iloilo. At that time, Poe was named and referred to as Mary Grace
Militar. The child was then later adopted by Fernando Poe Jr. and Susan Roces in 1974. Annotations
were placed in the childs foundling certificate, however, it was only in 2005 where Susan Roces
discovered that their lawyer failed to secure a New Certificate of Live Birth indicating the childs
new name and as well as the name of the adoptive parents. Subsequently upon founding out, Susan
Roces filed an affidavit. In 2006, a Certificate of Live Birth in the name of Mary Grace Poe was
released by the Civil Registry of Iloilo.
At the age of 18, Poe registered as a voter in San Juan. She was issued a Philippine passport in 1988
and in 1991, she married Teodoro Llmanazares and directly went to the United States of America.
She bore her eldest child in the said country and in 2001, was naturalized as an American Citizen
which she obtained an American passport within the same year.
Poe came back to the Philippines to support Fernando Poes candidacy for President in April 2004.
During this period, she gave birth to her youngest daughter. Thereafter she returned to the US in
July 2004 bringing along her two daughters. She then came back in December of the same year
when she learned of her fathers deteriorating health. Poes father died and stayed in the country
until February 2005 to manage the funeral arrangements.
In 2005, Poe and her husband came back to the Philippines. They prepared for resettlement
including notification of their childrens schools and coordination with property movers. Poe stated
that she already quit her job in the US in 2004. On May 24, 2005, Poe secured a TIN while her
husband stayed in the US. They were later able to purchase a condominium in San Juan in February
2006. On February 14, 2006, Poe went back to the US to dispose their other assets. In 2006, Poe
and her husband acquired a property in Corinthian Hills in Quezon City where they built there home
their.
On July 7, 2006, Poe took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to
R.A. 9225. On July 10, 2006, she filed a sworn petition to reacquire Philippine citizenship together
with petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her three children. The Bureau of Immigration
granted their petition in July 18, 2006. Poe and her children were then considered as dual citizens.
Poe thereafter registered as a voter in the Philippines and secured a Philippine passport. On October
6, 2010, Poe was appointed as Chairperson of the MTRCB but before assuming her post, she
executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the US before a notary public in Pasig City
on October 20, 2010. The following day, she submitted the affidavit to the Bureau of Immigration
and thereafter took her oath as MTRCB Chairperson. Poe stated that she stopped using her
American passport from then on out.

On July 12, 2011, Poe executed an Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of the US

before the Vice Consul of the US Embassy in Manila. On December 9, 2011, the US Vice Consul
issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the US effective October 21, 2010. In October 2012,
Poe decided to ran for Senator which she then filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) with the
COMELEC, stating that she had beed a resident of the Philippines for a period of 6 years and 6
months before May 13, 2013. She won in the election and was proclaimed a Senator. On October
15, 2015, Poe filed her COC for the Presidency. She stated that she is a natural born citizen of the
Philippines and her residency up to the day of the May 2016 elections would be 10 years and 11
months counting from May 24, 2005.
There were various petitions filed against Poe with them primarily focusing on how she committed
material misrepresentation in her COC for the Presidency when she stated that she is a resident of
the Philippines for at least 10 years and 11 months up to the day of the May 2016 elections and how
she is not a natural born citizen considering that she was a foundling, which by virtue, is not
qualified to apply for requisition of Filipino citizenship under R.A. 9225. Also, for arguments sake,
that Poe was indeed a natural born citizen, she has lost the said status when she officially became a
citizen of the US.
The Commission on Election (COMELEC) ruled in favor of the petitioners in both issues that were
presented.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to disqualify POE. NO
2.) Whether it can be concluded that Poes parents are Filipinos. YES
3.) Whether as a foundling, Poe is a natural born Citizen. YES
4.) Whether Poes repatriation resulted to reacquisition of natural born citizenship. YES
5.) Whether Poe is a resident of the Philippine for 10 years. YES
RATIO:
1.) The COMELEC itself does not have the jurisdiction to decide whether or not a candidate is
qualified. It is only within cases that involves misrepresentation of the certificate of candidacy that
gives rise to the jurisdiction of the COMELEC. The COMELEC can only disqualify a candidate
only after a declaration by final judgement by a competent court that the candidate was sought to be
disqualified. This is line with Article VI, Section XVII, which such powers are given to the
Electoral Tribunal (HRET, SET) and also to the Supreme Court (PET) under article VII, section IV
of the Philippine Constitution.
Rule 23 and 25 of the COMELEC rules, does not authorize them to determine the qualification of a
candidate. The facts of qualification must first be established in a prior proceeding before an
authority vested with jurisdiction. Prior determination of qualification may be by statute, by an
executive order or by a judgment of a competent court or tribunal as stated above. Without this prior
determination the COC of Poe, the COMELEC cannot cancel Poes certificate of candidacy lacking
prior determination of her qualifications by a competent body.

2.) The Supreme Court ruled that it was quite apparent that Poe has a blood relationship with a
Filipino Citizen. It is stated that presumption regarding paternity is neither unknown nor
unacceptable in Philippine Law.
In Poes case, the burden to prove that she was not a Filipino citizen was on the part of the private
respondents as it seems that it was very apparent that Poe has Filipino parents due to the evidences
that were presented. Hence, Poe is a natural born Filipino.The fact that she admitted that she was a
foundling does not in any way shift the burden of proving such to her. The Solicitor General even
offered statistics from the Philippine Statistics office that from 1965 to 1975, which declares that
the total number of foreigners born in the Philippines was roughly around 16,000 while the Filipino
children that were born in the country measured in the 10 millions. Relying on the aforementioned
report, there is a 99% chance that the child born in the Philippines would be a Filipino which in
turn, would indicate more than ample probability that Poes parents are Filipinos.
3.)Foundlings are as a class, natural born citizens. Though the 1935 Constitution is silent regarding
foundlings, it does not explicitly say that it excludes them either but because their is silence and
ambiguity in the enumeration, there is such need to analyze the intent of the framers.
During the amendment of the Constitution in 1934, one of the framers proposed to include
foundlings as natural born citizens but, however, was not carried out, not because there were
objections, but only because there number was not enough to merit the specific mention. Never in
the Constitution did it intended to discriminate foundlings which is why all three Constitutions
guarantees the basic right to equal protection of laws.
It is also noteworthy, that domestic laws on adoption supports the idea that foundlings are in fact
natural born Filipinos. These laws do not provide that adoption confers citizenship upon the
adoptee, rather, the adoptee must be Filipino in the first place to be adopted. Recent legislation all
expressly refer to Filipino children and include foundlings as among Filipino children who may be
adopted.
Also, under International Law, it is generally accepted that foundlings are citizens of the state they
are found. The common thread of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on
the Rights of the Child and the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights obligates the
Philippines to grant nationality from birth and to ensure that no child is stateless. These are binding
to the Philippines despite the fact that we are not signatories to these conventions.
4.) Case law has held that repatriation results in the recovery of ones original nationality. A natural
born citizen after losing his/her Philippine nationality will be restored to their former status as
natural born Filipino citizens after repatriating. This is well established in case law whether the
COMELEC clearly neglected to acknowledge. When R.A. 9225 was passed, Congress saw it fit to
decree that natural born citizenship may be reacquired even if it has been lost. COMELEC is not in
the position to disagree with Congress intention of the said law.
It is also good to note that repatriation is not an act to acquire or perfect ones citizenship. In Case
law, the Court pointed out that there are only two types of citizens under the 1987 constitution:
natural born and naturalized. There is no third category for repatriated citizens. The COMELEC
cannot reverse a judicial precedent
5.) The court stated that there are three requisites that must be concurred in order for a person to
acquire a new domicile. The first being residence or bodily presences in a new locality. The second

is the persons intention to remain (animus manendi). Lastly, that there is intention to abandon to old
domicile (animus revertendi). The person hoping to acquire a new domicile must have the purpose
to remain in his/her domicile of choice for an indefinite period of time, the change of residence
must be voluntary and that the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.
It is clear in the above mentioned facts, that there is evidence that Poe and her family has
completely abandoned their domicile in the US in order to permanently transfer in the Philippines.
These were also supported by her former US passport that she came back in May 24, 2005 which
she claims started her period of her residency, her various travels coming back to and from the
Philippines and abroad, email correspondences with freight companies for the shipment of their
belongings and as well as proof that her children started going to school in the Philippines. Thus,
the Supreme Court concluded that she had the intention to stay in the Philippines and has
completely abandon her previous domicile in the US. Poe was able to prove that her statement in
her 2012 COC was only a mistake in good faith. Such a mistake could be given in evidence against
her but it was by no means conclusive considering the overwhelming evidence submitted by Poe.
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno - Concurring Opinion
Chief Justice Serreno had three primary issues of discussion which is first on the COMELECs
jurisdiction, second on Grace Poes residency and lastly, regarding her citizenship.
On the first issue, she mentions Section 28 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) stating that the
said law does not allow the COMELEC to rule on the qualifications of candidates. She mentioned
that during the deliberations of Section 78 of the OEC, the lawmakers emphasized that the fear of
partisanship on the part of the COMELEC makes it imperative that it must only be for the strongest
of reasons, i.e., material misrepresentation on the face of the COC, that the COMELEC can reject
any such certificates. This is also to uphold the and preserve the prerogative of the Electoral
Tribunals as the sole judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of those running as given to
them by the Constitution.
In regard, to Poes alleged falsification of her COC, assuming that the COMELEC may go beyond
the what it is allowed of it to judge, its decision to cancel the petitioner's COC must still be
reversed. The factual circumstances surrounding the petitioner's claims of citizenship and residency
show that there was neither intent to deceive nor false representation on her part.
In relation to Poes residency, continuing the line of argumentation from above, the COMELEC
failed to prove the element of deliberate intent to deceive, which is necessary to cancel certificates
of candidacy under Section 78 of the OEC.
On the second issue regarding her residency, CJ Serreno firmly believes that the petitioner was able
to prove her residency in the country which started in May 24, 2005. CJ Serreno states that the
petitioner has concurred the three requisites in order to acquire her new domicile here in the
Philippines. To reiterate, they are: Residence or bodily presence in the new domicile, the intention
to remain in the said domicile and to abandon the old one. Her intention to remain was proven by
various evidences which were discussed in the main opinion.
On the last issue which is about her citizenship, though Poe admitted that she was a foundling,
there was still the presumption that despite such fact, she is still deemed as natural born Filipino
citizen. This is in line with various International laws and conventions that treats foundlings as
natural born citizens of the state they are found. Though the Philippines are not signatories of these
conventions, they are still binding. Same line of argument with the main opinion when she

addressed the arguments regarding domestic adoption laws, and R.A. 9225. CJ Serreno believes in
all accounts that Grace Poe is eligible to run for Presidency as she is qualified.
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. - Concurring Opinion
Justice Velascos opinion focuses on two issues in the case, her residency and citizenship. In his
opinion he stated that Poe has complied with the three requisites in order for a person to acquire a
new domicile. He stated that Poe has presented evidence of her intention to stay and abandon her
old domicile in the US. Regarding her bodily presence in the country, he stated that the evidence
that support her claim was sufficient that she actually stayed in the country to warrant the
concurrence of such requisite. The evidences he mentioned to support his arguments were the same
as the ones mentioned in the main opinion. He also did mention that Poes change of domicile was
not accomplished by one act but rather to an incremental process which started since 2005. These
acts indicated that she had an intention to stay. It is good to note that Justice Velasco wrote in his
opinion that there is no rule that says intent to stay can only be re-established from the moment Poe
swears allegiance to the country under the Dual Citizenship act.
Regarding the issue on citizenship, Poes status as a foundling does not discredit the possibility that
both or one of her birth parents are actually Filipino. The respondents did not prove that Poes
parents were not Filipinos since the burden was on them and not on Poe.
Justice Velasco noted that foundlings should be protected as the judiciarys role as parens patriae.
He mentioned that if the 1935 constitution would be construed in a way that foundlings would be
found to be stateless, he disagrees with it whole-heartedly.
Justice Francis H. Jardeleza - Concurring Opinion
Justice Jardalezas opinion tackles on four separate issues addressed in the case, which is in regard
to the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, the usurpation of the power of the electoral tribunal and on
Poes citizenship and residency.
On the issue of the COMELECS jurisdiction, Justice Jardaleza agreed that the COMELEC indeed
had jurisdiction. He mentions if the intent to deceive to deceive is a constitutive element for the
cancellation of a COC on the ground of false material representation, and decided that in Case
law it is controlling wherein misrepresentations that concern eligibility for public office does not
need intent. Basically, the COMELEC can discuss about the truth and falsity made in the COCs of a
candidate but the electoral tribunals should be the ones deliberate and judge when it is regarding
electoral contests.
On the issue of usurpation of power, Poe contends that if COMELEC is allowed to rule on the
eligibility of the candidate regardless of intent, that would be encroaching on the powers of the
electoral tribunal. Justice Jardelza replies by saying that election contests relates only to statutory
contests in which the contestant seeks not only to oust the ineligible candidate, but also to
have himself inducted into the office. Thus, an election contest can only contemplate a postelection or post-proclamation scenario.
On Poes citizenship and residency, Justice Jardeleza stated that the presumption of the COMELEC
that since Poe is a foundling which makes her stateless violates the equal protection clause that
should be enjoyed by everyone within the country. They clearly aimed to deprive her of citizenship,

them with such citizenship she is deprived of her rights. On her residency, Justice Jardaleza just
reiterated the arguments in the main decision.
Justice Marvic F. Leonen - Concurring Opinion
The primary focus on Justice Leonens opinion is establishing that Poe has complied with the
residency requirement. His opinion contained the sequence of events that lead to the eventual
approval of her residency which started in April 2006. The requisites for the acquisition of a new
domicile is apparent in his opinion as it foreshadowed his line of argumentation. The argument on
evidences that supports Poes claim was reiterated in his opinion but he did state where the
COMELEC made a mistake and is ultimately wrong.
The COMELEC is neither constitutionally nor statutorily empowered to enunciate new legal
doctrine or to reverse doctrines laid down by the SC. The COMELEC cannot properly enforce and
administer election laws when there is any suspicion that it favors or disfavors a candidate. In the
case at bar, Poe did not show that she should be disqualified or is ineligible to hold such office. As
made mention in other opinions and in the main decision, the intention to deceive is a necessary
requirement for material representation which would give the COMELEC jurisdiction of the case.
The burden on evidence was yet again another issue that is mention in this opinion, as reiterating
the previous arguments that such burden is given to the respondents and not the duty of Poe to
prove as she is presumed to be a Filipino citizen born of Filipino parents or at least one of them is.
Their only line of argument to disprove Poes citizenship is her foundling status but was given the
presumption that she is probably a natural born Filipino at the time of her birth.
Justice Alfredo S. Caguioa - Separate Concurring Opinion
The opinion of Justice Caquioa thematically focuses on the lack of jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
The COMELEC misrepresented the case law requirements of the cancellation of COCs under
section 78 of the OEC which are:
1. That the representation is made with respect to a material fact.
2. That the representation is false; and
3. That there is intent to deceive or mislead the electorate
It was ruled that there was clearly no intent to deceive on the part of Grace Poe during the filing of
her COC. COMELEC banks on the argument regarding her apparent misrepresentation in her COC
but since there was no intent to deceive as stated above, the her COC cannot be cancelled. Then the
issue on her citizenship was just reiterated that despite Grace Poe being a foundling, it does not give
rise to the presumption that she isnt a natural born Filipino but rather its the other way around. The
burden of proof falls to the respondents to prove otherwise, however, they did no such thing with
their foundling argument being their lone stance in the said issue.
In relation to her residency, reiterated the same arguments from the other opinions and of the main
decision which it was her acts that proved that she was a resident by various evidences provided in
the main decision.
Justice Arturo D. Brion - Dissenting Opinion

Justice Brion engages the other potencies first on the issue about the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC. Justice Brion directly explained the consequences if the claims of the ponencia would
be followed. He stated that if it is ruled that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction to review Poe s
eligibility, then the court itself would have nothing to review and cannot judge upon her eligibility.
He then opined that the framer of the Constitution did not meant for foundlings to be included as
part of their intent rather it should have been a law or statute that should have been passed in order
to cater for them. Justice Brion also stated that the burden of proof in regard to her citizenship does
not rest with the respondents but rather with Grace Poe herself. It was also maid mention that the
government documents that touched on Poe's birth origins had been tainted with irregularities and
were issued before Poe ran for elective office strongly indicate that at the time she executed her
COC, she knew that her claimed Philippine citizenship is tainted with discrepancies, and that she is
not a Philippine citizen under Article IV, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution. It was held by the
Supreme Court that citizenship cannot be presumed but only when there is proper presentation of
evidence can she be given such presumption and acceptance. In this case, Poe did not gave any
while the petitioners made an actual effort though only limited to their foundling argument which
Brion gave merit.
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo - Dissenting Opinion
In Justice Del Castillos opinion, there was first a reiteration of on the requisites to deny a COC,
which includes the representation pertains to a material fact, it is in fact false, and there was a
deliberate attempt to deceive, mislead, misinform, or hide a fact, which would otherwise render the
candidate ineligible to run for the position. In the third requisite, the deceit must be such as to lead
the electorate to believe that the candidate possesses the qualifications for the position he/she is
running for, when in truth the candidate does not possess such qualifications, thus making him/her
ineligible to run.
In the one of the requisites in acquiring a new domicile, Animus Manendi or intention to remain is
necessary. The fact that Grace Poe secured a Tin is, however, the concrete proof that she indeed
have the intent to remain in the Philippines considering that fact that everyone is genuinely required
to acquire a TIN whether youre a citizen or not. If anything, the procurement of a TIN is just
showing your intention to pay your taxes. Poes acquisition of properties like condominium units
and other properties does not mean that she has intent to stay in the Philippines for good
considering the she still had a house in the US which she bough in 1992 and subsequent acquisition
of another house in 2008. Failure of petitioner to secure an ICR was clear and positive evidence of
her intention or ambivalence not to become a permanent resident of the Philippines.
Justice Del Castillo was also not impressed with Poes argument that it was an honest mistake when
she misrepresented her COC in 2012, when she did not know the procedure on how the filing words
in regard to the residency requirement. Justice Del Castillo claims that there was deliberate intent to
deceive.
Justice Antonio T. Carpio - Dissenting Opinion
The opinion of Justice Carpio starts with him stating that Poe is a Filipino citizen, however, she is a
not a natural born citizen because the current state of laws of our country do not grant natural-born

status if the parentage is unknown. The 1935 Constitution did not grant natural-born status to
foundlings. He mentioned that the constant claim of the petitioner referring to their deliberations to
support her argument were shot down by the same deliberations. The deliberation brought up by
one constitutionalist was considered but eventually rejected. He mention that there were talks about
this issue regarding foundlings in the past but up till now, no long has been passed.
Justice Carpio states that since petitioner cannot claim citizenship by reason of her birth, she can
only fall under the fifth classification of Filipinos under the 1935 Constitution those who were
naturalized in accordance with law. Since the definition of natural born reflects that only birth
should be the positive event that determines ones citizenship, a naturalized Filipino can never be a
natural-born Filipino. The international laws couldnt also help her claim because there international
treaties presented do not require the Philippines to grant citizenship to foundlings at birth. What the
international law require is just children have the right of nationality. But again, the question is
which nationality?
He also stated for arguments sake, that what if we were signatories to the conventions these
conventions only recognize that the foundling is presumed to be born at the place where he or she is
found. There is no requirement for a contracting state, to grant citizenship on such foundling. It is
also noted that these international conventions cannot supersede our constitunional mandate of jus
sunguinis. Since international laws and treaties are only of the level of statues and the Constitution
is the highest law of the land.
Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe
To refute the arguments made by the ponencia, Justice Perlas-Bernabe on the issue regarding the
issue of the COMELECs jurisdiction stated that the Constitution expressly grants the COMELEC
authority to enforce, administer and decide all laws and questions relative to elections. This includes
the power to determine whether a Presidential candidate like Grace Poe possesses the qualifications
prescribed by law for office. The quasi-judicial power of the COMELEC embraces the power to
resolve controversies arising from the enforcement of election laws, and to be the sole judge of all
pre-proclamation controversies. If we were to agree with the majoritys ruling then we would be
emasculating the COMELEC of its powers invested to it by the Constitution which would make it a
pointless constitutional commission that does not have real powers.
On the issue that Poe was in good faith when she misrepresented her COC, Justice Perlas-Bernabe
stated a candidate's eligibility is determined by law, not by his good faith. It is enough that the
persons declaration of a material qualification in the CoC be false. Intent is immaterial and is not
an element of the offense. As for her residency, Poe did not meet the requirement as her intent to
change her domicile was only apparent in July 2006 and not May 2005. She explains this by
reiterating the requirements for acquisition of domicile, that animus manendi and non revertendi
were not complied with. Lastly, on her citizenship, the Justice stated Poe, as a foundling, is not a
natural-born citizen, not being included in the enumeration of those who are considered as Filipino
citizens under the Constitution. Exlplaning that we follow the jus sanguinis principle which she
cannot prove that her birth parents are Filipino citizens.
Justice Teresita J. De-Castro - Separate Dissenting Opinion

Justice De-Castro started her opinion by saying that the opinion of the seven Justices that concurred
with the main decision would amend the 1935 Constitution to add "foundlings found in the
Philippines whose parents are unknown" in the enumeration of natural-born citizen.
Justice De-Castro disagrees as well that the COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction as it usurped the
powers of electoral tribunal. However, the jurisdiction of the tribunals only comes into play once
the candidate has won the election or is about to be proclaimed. Before such event transpiring,
jurisdiction to judge the eligibility of the candidates rest with the COMELEC. This power was
given to the COMELEC by the Constitution itself.
On the citizenship issue, Justice De-Castro stated that Poe's representation that she is a natural-born
Filipino citizen, hence, eligible to run for and hold the position of President, is false. Poe being a
foundling, does not come within the purview of this constitutionally ordained principle. Her
argument, same with those that dissented, is that we follow the jus sanguinis principle and such
application of such principle will make it improbable for Grace Poe to prove that her birth parents
are Filipino Citizens or at least one of them is.
Lastly, on the issue regarding International law and conventions, she stated that since we are not
signatories of such conventions and these treaties were not ratified, therefore we are not bound by
them. For arguments sake that they are bound to us, the Constitution is still above them as they are
just treated as statutes while the Constitution is, basic enough, the highest law of the land. These
conventions and laws mentioned by Poe are not self-executing which does not giver her merit in her
arguments.
My Opinion
Inlightoftheargumentsofboththeconcurringanddissentingopinions,Iwouldhavetosidewith
themajorityopinion.Theyhaveastrongcaseandthelikelinessofitbeingoverturnedisvery
unlikely.Especially,sinceGracePoeisatthepeakofherpopularity.JustafewthingsIdliketo
pointoutregardingthecase:
1.)TheCOMELECdidinfactexceededtheirjurisdictionastheycreatedtheirownstandardin
judgingtheeligibilityofGracePoeinregardtohercitizenship.Thistaskisclearlyupforthecourts
todecide,particularlyontheissueofherstatusonwhethersheisanaturalborncitizenornot.Their
jurisdictionislimiteduponthecomplianceofthecandidateoftherequirements.Itisnotuptothem
torulewhetherornotsuchcandidateisqualifiedtorunornot.
2.)Onherresidency,shecompliedwiththethreerequisitesandclearlystartedherresidencyon
May24,2005.
3.)Lastly,sheisanaturalbornFilipinocitizen.Tomakefoundlingsasstatelesspersonswouldbea
completeviolationoftheirrightsandtheequalprotectionclausewhichIfirmlybelieveisagains
whattheframersoftheconstitutionclearlyintended.
Inlinewiththese,Iurgeyou,sir,tofinanceGracePoewithconfidenceassheclearlyiswhatthe
peoplewantsandhasthelawandthemajorityofJusticestobackherclaim.