Position Paper on the Issue of Whether or Not Grace

Poe-Llamanzares, a Foundling, is a Natural-Born

Filipino Citizen
Submitted by:
Group 1 3B
Bautista, Jan Patrick A.
Gayya, Lorenzo Luigi T.
Lucero, Dyan Marie A.
Ollero, Juan Paulo Maurino R.
Tali, Sarah Jean A.
October 5, 2015
Considered as one of the favorites to win the upcoming 2016 presidential
election, Grace Poe-Llamanzares was born under peculiar circumstancesshe was
found as a new-born infant in the Parish of Jaro in Iloilo City on Sept. 3, 1968 with
her parents unknown. She is, in other words, what is commonly referred to as a
foundling. While Poe has never considered being a foundling a badge of honor,
she certainly has not let it stop her from rising above expectations and pursuing her
ambitions. But trust her political rivals to take this as an opportunity to eliminate
Poe even before the election begins. In doing so, they would have everyone believe
their theory that foundlings, whose only fault was the indiscretion or otherwise of
their parents over which they have no control over, has no right to be called
Filipinos in their own motherland.
Defeated senatorial candidate Rizalito David, who claims to have been
moved by the civic duty to uphold the Constitution, filed a quo warranto petition
against Poe, seeking to unseat her from the Senate. Implicit is the fact that the true
intention of the petition is to prevent her from running for the presidency, because
it impugns her status as a natural-born Filipino citizen. Under the 1987
Constitution, only natural-born Filipino citizens are qualified to run for president,
vice-president, senator, and house representative. Stripped of minor and incidental
issues, David's petition chiefly contends that as a foundling, Poe is stateless and
hence not a Filipino citizen. During the oral arguments on Davids petition,

Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, acting as chair of the Senate Electoral
Tribunal, said that Poe may be considered a Filipino citizen under international law
but only as a naturalized citizen and not as a natural-born citizen.
Issue
The question this position paper will deal with is whether or not Grace Poe
is a natural-born Filipino citizen.
Position
The answer to the above question is a resounding yes. Both domestic and
international law support the conclusion that Poe is indeed a natural-born citizen
for the following reasons, each of which will be discussed herein:
I.
II.

III.
IV.
V.

VI.

The 1935 Constitution considers foundlings as naturalborn citizens by adopting generally accepted principles of
international law;
The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
establishes the presumption that foundlings found in the
territory of a state are born within that territory of parents
possessing the nationality of that state;
The 1990 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
protects a child's right to nationality and from statelessness
from the moment of birth;
There is no conflict between the Constitution and
International Law;
The Constitution classifies Filipino citizens as either
natural-born or naturalized, and nothing in between..
Proceeding from the premise that foundlings are Filipino
citizens, there is no doubt that they must be natural-born
citizens, because they cannot be considered naturalized
citizens;
In approving Poe's application to run for senator in 2013,
the State, through COMELEC, is deemed to have
considered Grace Poe as a natural-born citizen, because of
the presumption of regularity; and

VII.

Burden of proof is on the petitioners to show that Poe is not

a natural-born citizen.
I

The 1935 Constitution considers foundlings as natural-born citizens by

adopting generally accepted principles of international law
Since Poe was born in 1968, the primary governing law in determining her
citizenship is the 1935 Constitution. And Sec. 1, Article IV of the 1935
Constitution provides:
The following are citizens of the Philippines.
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine
Islands at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution.
(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.
Evidently, Article IV or any provision of the 1935 Constitution make no
mention of foundlings. But by no stretch of imagination could this be interpreted to
mean that foundlings were meant to be considered stateless. In fact, such
conjecture could not be any farther from the truth. The framers of the 1935
Constitution opted not to include a provision on foundlings, because they believed
it was superfluous no longer necessary. The deliberations of the 1934
Constitutional Convention on what eventually became Article IV is instructive:
Sr. Roxas (former President Manuel Roxas): Mr.
President, my humble opinion is that these cases
(referring to foundlings) are few and far in between, that

the constitution need [not] refer to them. By international

law the principle that children or people born in a country
of unknown parents are citizens in this nation is
recognized, and it is not necessary to include a provision
on the subject exhaustively.1 (Emphasis supplied)
As can be seen from the deliberations, the framers thought of putting into
text the status of foundlings in the Philippines but opted not to, because cases of
foundlings are too rare to warrant a need for a specific provision in the
Constitution, and rights of foundlings are already well-protected by international
law, and rightly so. After all, a sovereign's constitution is an organic law not meant
to be specific in all matters, as that is what statutes are for.
The aforesaid legislative intent was presumably carried over to the 1971 and
the present (1987) constitutions as there was no attempt to add a provision
clarifying the status of foundlings. Had there been a desire at one point to classify
foundlings as stateless persons, the framers of the 1971 and 1987 constitutions
could have easily done so, albeit cruel, by adding a provision to that effect.
From this discussion, the following can be concluded: (1) There was every
intent to consider foundlings as Filipinos; and (2) even during that time, around 30
years before Poe was born, the right of a child to a nationality was already
considered a generally accepted principle of international law.
Lest the probative value of these deliberations be questioned, the Supreme
Court, in the case of People vs Muoz2, had the occasion to rule in this wise:
[W]here the intent does not decisively appear in the text of the provision as it
admits of more than one construction, reliance may be made on extrinsic aids such
as the records of the deliberations of the body that framed the law in order to
clearly ascertain that intent. It is admitted that while a members opinion
expressed on the floor of the Constitutional Convention is valuable, it is not
necessarily expressive of the peoples intent, meaning the Constitution does not
derive its force from the convention which framed it but from the people who
ratified it.3 It should then be asked: Is it not an expression of the peoples will the
1 Records of the deliberation of the 1934 Constitutional Convention as culled from
http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/104731-grace-poe-citizenshipresidency-timeline-arguments
2 170 SCRA 107
3 Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs Zamora, 338 SCRA 81

fact that Poe garnered the highest number of votes during the 2013 senatorial
elections and is one of the frontrunners in the next presidential race?
And to be sure, this legislative intent not only considers them as Filipino
citizens but also natural-born citizens, as will be discussed in the succeeding
arguments.
II
The 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness establishes the
presumption that foundlings found in the territory of a state are born within that
territory of parents possessing the nationality of that state;
It is said that international law considers foundlings as citizens of the state
where they are found. Discussion of pertinent international laws is thus inevitable.
But at the onset, it is important to discuss the binding effect of international
law on states. Sec. 2, Art. II of the Constitution provides: 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. This provision, known as the incorporation clause has the effect of
declaring that international law has the force also of domestic law, which means
that Philippine courts may use international law to settle domestic disputes as if
they are part of the countrys statute books without the need for domestic
legislation.4 The incorporation clause applies to customary law and to treaties
which have become part of customary law.5 It does not apply to treaties that are
already ratified by the Philippines, because as a contracting state, it is bound by its
obligations in the treaty, pursuant to the principle of pacta sunct servanda.6
Article II of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
provides:
A foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State
shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be
4 Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ. An Introduction to Public International Law. Rex Bookstore
(2009).
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.

considered to have been born within that territory of

parents possessing the nationality of that State.
(Emphasis supplied)
It should be noted that the provisions point of reference in determining the
citizenship of foundlings is not only the place where foundlings are found but also
their parents. It presumes that foundlings are born of parents possessing the
nationality of that state where they were found. And it should be remembered that
Philippine nationality is based on the principle of jus sanguinis (right of blood).
Applying the cited provision in Poes case, it is clear that she is a natural-born
Filipino citizen, because as a foundling, she was found in Iloilo City. Since, there is
no evidence proving that she was found in another state, she is considered to have
been born of parents possessing Filipino citizenship. This in turn, qualifies her to
be a natural-born Filipino citizen under Sec. 1 (3 & 4), Art. IV of the 1935
Constitution.
While it is true that the Philippines is not a party to the Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness, the same is of no moment, because it is based on a
generally accepted principle of international law.7 Former Supreme Court Chief
Justice Artemio Panganiban supports the same view. In his Philippine Daily
Inquirer column last June 14, 2015, he said the treaty possesses the two elements
of a generally accepted principle of international law because the grant of
nationality to a foundling is an established, widespread and consistent practice of
many states since 1961 to the present. Hence, it is deemed a part of the law of the
Nation.
The Philippines is also rich with jurisprudence wherein the Supreme Court applied
international law to settle domestic cases. In the case of Kuroda vs. Jalandoni8, the
Supreme Court applied the Hague Convention even if the Philippines was not a
signatory thereto as well as the Geneva Convention even if the Philippines became
a party thereto only in 1947 in upholding the jurisdiction of the Philippine Military
Commission over war crimes committed in violation of the two conventions prior
to 1947, ruling that jurisdiction over war crimes form part of customary law. In
Mejojf vs. Director of Prisons9, the Supreme Court applied the Universal
7 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Geneva. Information
and Accession Package: The 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless
Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. (1999)
http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ae6b3350.pdf
8 83 Phil 171, 178 (1949)
9 90 Phil 70 (1951)

Declaration of Human Rights in ordering the release on bail of an alien of Russian

descent who had been detained pending execution of the order of deportation. And
in JBL Reyes vs Bagatsing10, the Court ruled that the doctrine of immunity from
suit of a foreign state is a principle of international law and thus recognized a
states duty to protect foreign embassies.
From the foregoing, there is no reason why the Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness should not be applied to the case of Poe or any foundling for that
matter. In fact, no less than the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Right itself,
of which the Philippines is a party thereto, provides that Everyone has the right to
a nationality.
III
The 1990 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child protects a child's right to
nationality and from statelessness from the moment of birth
There is an argument to the effect that since the Constitution does not confer
Filipino citizenship on foundlings, application of international law should be
treated as a process of naturalization. This does not hold any water. As already
discussed in the first argument of this position paper, the Constitution (since 1935
till the present) considers foundlings as Filipino citizens based on the presumption
that it is already long-standing principle that foundlings are indeed citizens of the
state where they are found.
Furthermore, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child protects a child
from statelessness from birth. And this time, the Philippines is a contracting state
thereto. Art. 7 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides:
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.
10 G.R. No. 65366, Oct. 25, 1983

By a reading of the first paragraph of Article 7, it is clear that a foundlings

right to nationality and right from statelessness is protected from birth. There is
thus no period of statelessness within which an alleged process of naturalization
would kick in.
The phrase in accordance with their national law in the second paragraph
should not be understood to mean that a domestic enabling law is a condition sine
qua non for the operation of the rights under the first paragraph. But rather, it
merely refers to procedural rules, the absence of which in no way should affect the
rights granted under the first paragraph which are independent in nature.
Although this convention was ratified on Jan. 26, 1990, a little over 20 years
after the birth of Poe, it can nevertheless be applied to her case. Art. 28 of the
Vienna Convention on Treaties, to which the Philippines is a signatory, provides:
Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its
provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any
situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty
with respect to that party. (Emphasis supplied.) Stated in the inverse, a treatys
provisions apply to an act or fact which prior to the entry into force of the treaty
but continues to exist thereafter. In Poes case, she was born before 1990, but her
right as a foundling continues to exist, hence, the Convention on the Rights of the
Child applies to her.
IV
There is no conflict between the Constitution and international law.
In an attempt to prevent recourse to international law which leans heavily in
favor of Poes being a natural-born Filipino, there is an argument that the
Constitution enjoys primacy and trumps international law. This is true. However,
the relevance of this argument presupposes that there is conflict between the
Constitution and international law, which in this case there is none.
It is contended that international law which considers foundlings as naturalborn citizens contravenes the Constitution in so far as the latter is silent in that
regard.11

11 Diola (2015, September 22). Poe a naturalized citizen, argues Justice Carpio.
Philippine Star. Retrived from http://www.philstar.com/newsvideos/2015/09/21/1502392/listen-poe-naturalized-citizen-argues-justice-carpio

At the risk of being repetitive, it should be emphasized that there is a

legislative intent to allow international law to make up for the omission of a
provision in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution has the incorporation
clause, which, again, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law
as part of the law of the land. Ergo, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principle of international law that foundlings are considered citizens of the state
where they are found.
A law, whether international or domestic, is considered unconstitutional if it
violates one or more provisions of the Constitution. This begs the question: Does
the generally accepted principle of international lawwhich considers foundlings
as natural-born citizens of the state where they were foundviolate any provision
of the Constitution? No, it does not, neither does it add or supplant the enumeration
of who natural born citizens are. The truth is that the Constitution itself gives life to
such international law precept, by virtue of the incorporation clause.
V
The Constitution classifies Filipino citizens as either natural-born or naturalized
and nothing in between. Proceeding from the premise that foundlings are
Filipino citizens, there is no doubt that they must be natural-born citizens,
because they cannot be considered naturalized citizens.
At this point, it should already be clear that at the very least, and to which
some of Poes opponents are reluctant but willing to agree, she is a Filipino citizen.
The question then left is what type of citizenship she possesses. And it is here
where Poes opponents insist that she can only be considered a naturalized citizen,
because as a foundling, Poe was stateless and was granted Filipino citizenship by
operation of law through the application of international law.
Under the Constitution, a Filipino citizen is either natural-born or
naturalized. There is nothing in between. Inevitably, Poe, a foundling and if
conceded to be a Filipino citizen, is only either a natural-born or a naturalized
citizen.
Natural-born citizens generally are those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine

citizenship.12 On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have become
Filipino citizens in accordance with law.13
The Constitution is thus clear: to be a naturalized citizen, one must have
gone through the process of naturalization in accordance with law, which pertains
to Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization
Law, or Republic Act No. 9139. It does not pertain to international law. There is no
naturalization by operation of law.
There is no more need for an extensive discussion of the two naturalization
laws, because Poe in fact owes her Filipino citizenship neither to C.A. No. 473 nor
R.A. No. 9139.
If Poe was never naturalized in accordance with law, as required by the
Constitution, can she be considered a naturalized citizen? No, she cannot. To hold
otherwise would be unconstitutional.
So, if she is not a naturalized Filipino, what is she then? It is at this juncture
that Poes opponents are left with no choice but to address the elephant in the
room: If Poe, a foundling and a Filipino citizen, is not a naturalized citizen, the
only conclusion is that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen.
The case of Bengson vs HRET14 is on point:
It is apparent from the enumeration of who are citizens
under the present Constitution that there are only two
classes of citizens: (1) those who are natural-born and (2)
those who are naturalized in accordance with law. A
citizen who is not a naturalized Filipino, i.e., did not have
to undergo the process of naturalization to obtain
Philippine citizenship, necessarily is a natural-born
Filipino. Noteworthy is the absence in said enumeration
of a separate category for persons who, after losing
Philippine citizenship, subsequently reacquire it. The
reason therefor is clear: as to such persons, they would
either be natural-born or naturalized depending on the
reasons for the loss of their citizenship and the mode
prescribed by the applicable law for the reacquisition
12 Sec. 2, Art. IV, 1987 Constitution
13 Sec. 1, Art. IV, 1987 Constitution
14 G.R. No. 142840, 7 May 2001.

thereof. As respondent Cruz was not required by law to

go through naturalization proceedings in order to
reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce a natural-born
Filipino. As such, he possessed all the necessary
qualifications to be elected as member of the House of
Representatives.15
VI
In approving Poe's application to run for senator in 2013, the State, through
COMELEC, is deemed to have considered Grace Poe as a natural-born citizen,
because of the presumption of regularity
No less than the Philippine government has already recognized Grace Poe as a
natural-born citizens. That Poe is an incumbent senator is proof of this, according
to Atty. Mel Sta Maria, dean of FEU institute of Law.16 The Constitution requires
candidates for senator to be natural-born citizen. Hence, when Poes application to
run for 2013 senatorial race was approved by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), there is a strong presumption of law that official duty has been
regularly performed, meaning it had diligently examined and deliberated Grace
Poes qualification, particularly with regard to her citizenship, and found it legally
compliant to what the Constitution requires.17 And when she got the most number
of votes in the senatorial race, she was sworn in also by COMELEC, which
signifies the final affirmation of regularity.18 The necessary implication of this,
according to Atty. Sta Maria is that the State, represented by the COMELEC,
considered Grace Poe as a national in line with the operation of its law in
accordance with the Convention on the Status of Stateless Person.19
15 Ibid.
16 Atty. Mel Sta Maria, Dean of FEU Institute of Law (2015, June 5). Grace Poe's
biological parent must surface to answer all doubts on her citizenship. Interaksyon.
Retrived from: http://www.interaksyon.com/article/111826/mel-sta-maria--gracepoes-biological-parent-must-surface-to-answer-all-doubts-on-her-citizenship
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.

Even more than 50 years ago the Government already had the opportunity to apply
international law in favor of a foundling. Atty. Katrina Legarda, in the news
program ANCs Headstart, cited the 1951 case of Anthony Hale, a foundling in the
Philippines who lost both parents in World War II. Legarda said that the he was
granted a Philippine passport pursuant to a Department of Justice opinion stating
that a foundling is presumed to have assumed the citizenship of the place where he
or she is found.20
VII
Burden of proof is on the petitioners to show that Poe is not a natural-born
citizen, and not the other way around
Is it not absurd to advance the theory that unless and until Poe can prove that her
biological parents are Filipino citizens, she is not a natural-born Filipino? Common
sense would dictate that such demand is harsh and unreasonable, precisely because
it is extremely difficult if not impossible for foundlings to locate their biological
parents. In fact, they would not even be called foundlings if they knew who and
where their parents were. The reason why international law relies heavily on
presumptions in determining the citizenship of foundlings is because there are no
other means to do so.
Hence, unless and until there is proof that Poes biological parents are not
Filipinos, which in this case there is none, the presumption that Poe is a naturalborn Filipino stands, taking in consideration of the precepts previously discussed in
this position paper.
Conclusion
The Constitutionwhether the 1935 or the present oneconsiders Grace
Poe-Llamanzares a natural-born Filipino citizen by adopting the generally accepted
principles of international law, under which foundlings are presumed to be born of
parents possessing the nationality of the state where they are found. This is
supported not only by the deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention but
20 Dizon (2015, August 7). How 1951 case proves Grace Poe is Filipino. ABS-CBN
News. Retrived from: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/focus/08/07/15/how-1951-caseproves-grace-poe-filipino

also the will of the people, the overwhelming support of whom catapulted Poe in
the Senate and might do so once again in 2016 for the presidency.
Foundlings cannot be considered stateless persons, because international
law, which the Philippines adopts, abhors the status statelessness especially on
children. Thus, she is a Filipino citizen. And if she is a Filipino citizen, she cannot
be considered a naturalized citizen, because she was never naturalized in
accordance with law, pursuant to the Constitution. And since there are only two
types of Filipino citizensnatural-born and naturalizedif Poe is not a
naturalized citizen, then she must be a natural-born citizen.
The foregoing leads to the inevitable, reasonable and logical conclusion that
Poe is a natural-born Filipino citizen.