Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Senator Grace Poe thanks me for baring US gov’t records that she dropped her US citizenship in 2012

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

By Raïssa Robles

Instead of getting annoyed at me – which was what happened when I asked President Benigno Aquino in 2011 if it was true he was playing video games during the 2010 Luneta bus hostage crisis – Senator Grace Poe thanked me for publishing US state records on her American citizenship.

Which, by the way came from “Yvonne” and later “Baycas” – both active members of the Cyber Plaza Miranda who congregate on this site.

Thank you, too, @emmcee79 for calling my attention on Twitter about Senator Poe’s direct mention of my name to Senate reporters.

Abante online mentioned Senator Grace Poe’s comments.

Her office also issued a press release which transcribed the “ambush interview.”

This is a portion of the transcript of that ambush interview with Senator Poe that her office officially released:

Press Release
June 10, 2015 Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services0
GRACE POE AMBUSH INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

On Citizenship

Q: Alam ko nasagot niyo na, pero tungkol sa citizenship ulit. There’s a blog…kay Raissa Robles….

Poe: Oo, sinasabi nga na kinoquote ‘yung aking katapatan. Ako po’y nananatiling tapat. Sa atin pong batas ng dual-citizenship, nakalagay po doon na kailangan mag-renounce ka before public officer. Ako po ay sumumpa doon renouncing–October 2010. Ngayon tungkol dun sa US, nirelease po nila ang aking renunciation 2012. Bakit? Sapagkat sila ay may prosesong napakahaba. Hindi ka basta pupunta sa US embassy para mag-submit…Kailangan doon ang tax return mo doon in the last 5 years, ari-arian mo in the last 5 years. Ang daming dokumento. At isa pa po ang batas lang natin ang babasihan, pwede ko sanang niloko ang ating mga kababayan at nanumpa lang ako sa public officer dito sa pilipinas. Hindi naman nakalagay dun na kailangang pumunta ka sa embassy o sa iba. Ginawa ko po ang nararapat at magmula po noon ang akin pong ginamit ay tourist visa para pumunta sa America. So okay lang po ‘yun. Salamat kay Ms. Robles na inilabas niya ang issue na iyun sapagkat ngayon mas nasasagot ko ng mas malinaw.

Q: So ma’am linawin lang po natin. Kelan niyo sinimulan yung process sa US embassy?

Poe: Sa US Embassy, nagsimula ako ng process, kailangan kong balikan ano, pero parang 2011, kalagitnaan. Bakit? Sapagkat sa batas, complied na ako just by a public officer na Pilipino. Complied na. Pero sabi ko “alam mo hahanapan ako ng butas nito e. Kahit na sabihin nila “if you’re sincere, bakit di ka pumunta ng US embassy?” I did it but before I went there, that’s why it took until the middle part of the year, kinailangan ko munang basahin, nasa internet…Ang laki ng babayaran niyo para mag-renounce, ang dami niyong dokumentong kailangan gawin, hindi ‘to basta basta nagagawa. Kung natatandaan ninyo inappoint ako ni president, magtatapos na ang taon ng 2010, so ang emergency dun ay kailangan ko mag-renounce before a Filipino public officer. ‘Yung sa US Embassy, added bonus na ginawa ko ‘yun pero kinailangan ko ‘yung mga dokumento ipasok talaga lahat.

Q: So it means while you were MTRCB chair, hindi na kayo US citizen?

Poe: And I never used my visa after that and I’m willing to answer it and if they question this in court, ako po ay kumpyansa. Nagsasabi naman po ako ng totoo ukol dito.

UPDATE: @mel found the video of the ambush interview 

The citizenship issue is what her political rivals will use against her. It could even reach the Supreme Court.

As my hubby Alan pointed out , “It’s all going to emerge eventually, anyway. The story could emerge late, nasty and twisted for weaponized use by political spin doctors, or it could emerge early, factual and straightforward in this blog as a subject for rational debate and discussion.”

Another thing Alan mentioned to me: in the end Sen. Grace Poe could use the Fernando Poe Jr. solution.

And what is that, I asked him.

Well, he said, when Poe’s citizenship was questioned before the Supreme Court thousands of his supporters massed before the high court. The justices ruled in his favor.

My many thanks to Getty Images for enabling me to embed these highly evocative images.

My reply to Senator Poe: you’re welcome. :)

But one gentle reminder – you still haven’t answered the four questions I put at the end of my story. In case you forgot, here they are:

ONE – What does she intend to do with the pending cases against the Marcoses? And with the fact that the bulk of their ill-gotten and stolen wealth is still hidden abroad? To begin with, does she even (as evidence overwhelmingly shows) think that the Marcoses did stash ill-gotten wealth and should now return the money to the government?

TWO – What is her stand on the South China Sea issue? Will she enter into joint exploration, knowing full well that China will only agree to it if it is done in the context of their sovereignty?

THREE – What is her stand on the criminal cases of Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Bong Revilla, Jinggoy Estrada and former President Gloria Arroyo? Will the justice department under her watch continue to backstop the pursuit of these cases?

FOUR – What is her stand on any cases that might be filed against President Benigno Aquino once he steps down from office?

 

Comments

  2. from abs-cbn: BEST – Binay- Jinggoy Estrada

    “Hindi na Erap-Binay, Binay-Erap na. ‘Yun, ang tawag doon ‘BEST’. Alam mo anong ‘BEST’? BINAY-ESTRADA,” the vice president said.

    Estrada didn’t find it the best idea. His answer made a lot of sense: “I am done being Vice President. I’ve been there.”

  3. Latest NBI news – ‘More cellular phones, Wi-Fi gadgets, and phone chargers were confiscated from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) detention facility during a surprise raid headed by Justice Secretary Leila De Lima on Sunday.’

    Daming nakaka lusot! How can it be remedied? Isang suggestion:

    Tuwing lalapit sa detention facility PaLUIN ng PALA ng Banca sa buong katawan!

    Sunod ng suggestion: Fully NAKED yun lalapit sa detention facility

    Tatlo: Public view Rectal Examination sa mga lalapit sa detention facility

    Siguro it will stop or restrain PALUSOT of these gadgets.

  5. Rodrigo Duterte + Bong Bong Marcos running in 2016?

    Political adds…..ROBO

    From the movie Robocop….

    Vote us or we shoot you !!!!

    :-)

    • Nanay Soleng was in the forefront of the anti-Marcos movement in Davao before the EDSA revolution. And I don’t think Duterte would let her mother turn in her grave. PDI wrote on February 5, 2012:

      “Nanay Soleng was at the forefront of the Yellow Friday Movement of Davao, which helped fan the February EDSA Revolution that pushed former President Cory Aquino to power.”

      Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/140077/duterte-matriarch-dies-at-95#ixzz3d5QfDmoL

      • Duterte would become a good “P” as he can clean the country of its numerous ills on the same manner he cleaned Davao City.

        Rudy’s problem is logistics which bongbong can easily provide as he is “awash with limitless cash”

        Bongbong’s problem is his mother who wants him to run for “P” and erase the stigma of the family.

        Their tandem is formidable as it can bring either progress or retrogression to Pinas basing on the trademark of the marcoses

        • Exactly BDF….Huh?

          Killer team… :-(

          Both are very law abiding men..not…..

          Bong never lied about his education..

          Rodi never gave order to kill people..

          This is what you want to take care over 100.000.000 humans

          Don’t tell me not to blame the son for what the father did..Bong was active involved in hiding the stolen money..is still using it everyday …..

          ”Poor” Imelda still is Billionaire

          Short memory you have kalahari..

          Time for a new generation lawmakers…Try Sison (DPWH )

          Best thing would be a re-election ban for all politicians now in any position and start with young bright fresh people…And have the governments bookkeeping be checked by a foreign independent accountant to take out the mistakes..
          A lot of countries have their bookkeeping checked in that way..

  6. Re 12.1 Joe America June 13, 2015 at 11:08 am

    joeam as if you’re new to Ph. yakking and yakking is the term used by Trillanes on this kind of sickness. Can’t say for certain they don’t move their butts only their over educated tongues. Yakking and yakking sort of diminished the effectiveness of then sharp Tordesillas blog. It used to be swarming with bees with lots of positive honeys. I guess that’s the way of all good Pinoy blogs. What happened to linsanity of blogosphere?

      • THANKS joe am. Am conscious every time I point at something, my three fingers point back at me so I try to straightened them (my fingers I mean).. It just becomes a habit, remember the handles, scrool at long paragraphs, watch for links and quotes, switch to another blog. Of course I missed lots of gems SOMETIMES. But I am content.

  7. PARANG PIYESTA!

    Ang daming pinalilipad na baloon.

    Iba’t-ibang kulay.

    Kulay Roxas at Robledo.

    Kulay Poe at Escudero.

    Kulay Duterte at Marcos

    Kulay Binay at Binay (walang makuhang kapares kaya sila na lang.)

    Ang saya-saya pag piyesta!

    • Kaya kapag walang nakuha na tumakbo ay malamang si Sen. Nancy Binay ang tatakbong Vice-President ng tatay nya tutal ayaw nya sa anti-dynasty bill hahaha. Sila-sila na lang daw.

      • talaga itong si binay. all he has to do is ask. maraming siyang kakilala sa nga sister cities sa visayas, sa mindanao, sa luzon, ang daming mga politicos under his thumb. innumerable. they prob’ly dont want to appear so eager to bag the 2nd top job in the country, but really would like to give a damn good try. if only binay will let them. they want to be pushed, kunwari ayaw nila. they want to be wanted, needed. binay is looking for running mate at all the wrong places.

  8. Ginoo, patawarin mo siya!

    ‘“I want to be remembered as a president who was not vindictive, someone who will be remembered as a ‘unifying president’,” Binay said during his visit to Polilio Island on Friday.’

    He is speaking as if it is the year 2023 already! “Remembered!’ ‘Who was not vindictive!’ ‘Someone who will be remembered!’ Tapos na ang pag ka Presidente nya! ha ha . . . Get’s Nyo?

    ‘“I was a litigation lawyer.’ So? What about it? You did not even attempt to be one before the Senate hearing. Not once! You did not even also attempt to show the evidence before the Senae hearing that it was faulty or incredible.

    The only thing you did as a litigation lawyer was to DENY and continue to make DENIALS without being a litigation lawyer. A layman can do the same thing.

    VP BInay, you will get back at your political opponents by showing that JPE, Bong Revilla and Jinggoy Estrada did not get fair justice but were victims of selective justice, and that political partisanship was done to them – not justice – as your sole motivation to get back at the opponents.

    Diretso kayo sa tao kasi dyan ma loloko nyo ang mga tao! You will make the people of this country EAT GRASS to support you and your dynasty.

    • BINAY A NON VINDICTIVE PRESIDENT OF BOYS CAWAT OF THE PHILIPPINES!

      Truly presidential, truly inspiring for his cohorts and like minded tribe, A remakable president
      of Boys Cawat of the Philippines-the Philippines foremost aggrupation of Thieves.
      Reelect him,he deserves it. He said he was a litigation lawyer-who became Cawat Master!
      (I think Cawat in Waray means theft.)

      Hail to the Chief!

  10. Anti-Dynasty Bill ni koko…

    So far its only the Binays who openly CONFESS that they are not in favor.
    ————————————————————————————————————–
    obvious naman sila eh

    • lease let me have house arrest..i am SO SICK !!!! — But not so “seek” to seek re-election.

      The same irrational mind that makes Binay say that he is against corruption but “evidence-based” — as if corruption unearthed against him has no evidence.

      Arroyo and Binay: surely birds of a feather.

    • “It is already her colleagues in the House of Representatives, through a resolution, who are pushing that Mrs. Arroyo be put under house arrest instead of continuing to confine her in the hospital.’

      House arrest. A resolution by her colleagues. The House of Representatives.

      Bayan! That is our kind of justice for the big shots in society. Malambot ang lederato sa gobyerno natin. Walang selda sa kulunggan. Hospital detention puede. Ngayun, house detention.

      Politika lang ito lahat. Sa ordinaryong suspect sa selda ka pupulutin. Justi-is lang tayo!

      Just leading us to purgatoryo. Papunta impiyerno tayo. Salamat sa mga dasal ng Tao Bayan.

      Salamat haring Dim . . . nyo!

      • At kapag nanalo pa? Anu n itatawag ntin s mga botante ng distritong nasasakupan nya? Hehehe…

      • leona, he, he, he, dasal ng mga tao, lord let gloria arroyo rot in veterans. salamat po, lord, for your kind consideration at kinarma mo si arroyo. where once she enjoyed a $20K dinner in new york, now she can no longer eat top class american food, only local food and only if pureed, else she chokes. salamat po, lord, for showing her she ought to respect her body, but did not. right after operation was done to her batok at st luke’s, she was told to rest. but no less than 2weeks after operation, she took long distance flight to spain at nabinat. naumpog yata, bad air turbulence, I presume. well, damn the batok, she has to go to spain and be there in person to check on her ill gotten wealth and make sure it cannot be traced, there I’m presuming again.

        at the 1st instance, she did not give chance for her batok to get well.. 2nd corrective surgery did not work, sabi. at veterans, it was noted she is functioning as well as anyone in her condition can do. only, not everyone is as good as playing the sick role as gloria arroyo is. each time she has visitors, lumala daw and condition niya, sabi ng mga visitors. time and again, palagi raw lumala ang condition niya. if that is so, she would have been dead by now, buried and eaten by worms.

        gloria arroyo ought to tell amal clooney to move her butt, drop everything and forward her case.

  12. Inevitable Supreme Court review if ever it reached the Supreme Court…

    INTERNATIONAL “Nationality of Place of Birth” (jus soli principle) versus DOMESTIC “Nationality of Parents” (jus sanguinis principle)

    NATIONALITY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW FROM THE PHILIPPINE PERSPECTIVE
    Irene R Cortes and Raphael Perpetuo M. Lotilla

    1. Constitutional and international factors with relevance on the law on nationality of the Philippines

    The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines itself defines who are Filipino nationals.[1] Treaties and the generally accepted principles of international law concerning citizenship or nationality, while they are considered as part of the law of the land,[2] can not prevail over the provisions of the Constitution on nationality in cases of conflict with the latter. This is to be inferred from the power conferred on the Supreme Court of the Philippines to

    Review, and revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in –

    (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, executive agreement, law…is in question.[3]

    • Footnotes to the citation above:

      [1] Art. III (1) Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines of 1973 [hereafter referred to as the 1973 Constitution]. — Art. IV (1) 1935 Constitution

      [2] Art. II (3) 1973 Constitution. — Art. II (3) 1935 Constitution

      [3] Art. X (5) (2) 1973 Constitution. — Art. VIII (2) (1) 1935 Constitution

    • The cited paper above written by Cortes and Lotilla was later on published in…

      Chapter 8 of “Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective”
      Edited by Swan Sik Ko
      Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990 – Law – 506 pages

      NATIONALITY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW FROM THE PHILIPPINE PERSPECTIVE
      Irene R. Cortes and Raphael Perpetuo M. Lotilla

      1. Constitutional and international factors with relevance on the law on nationality of the Philippines

      Note that the footnotes in the book already cited the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

      • Former CJ Panganiban justified his conclusions by citing “widespread practice” among many nations of granting nationality to foundlings.

        “True, the Philippines is not a signatory or a “Contracting State” in this treaty. However, 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.”

        With due respect, I disagree. In the book “Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective” edited by Swan Sik Ko in page 296, the effect of the 1961 UN Convention on reduction of statelessness to Asian nations is modest or not widespread. And States are exhorted to double their efforts.

        “As far as customary international law is concerned, there is no rule for the avoidance of statelessness with the possible exception of discriminatory denationalizations. Even the direct effect of the 1961 Convention on Reduction of statelessness (to which the ROK is not a party) appears to be modest. States should therefore make every effort to reduce statelessness by themselves as far as possible.”

    • @sir Baycas – IMPRESS [email protected] – all your researched and postings on this blog were all laid down NEUTRAL and HONEST.. mabuhay po kayo sir……But let us go back to what ex Chief Justice Panganiban comments- Grace was born on 1968 and does the Constitution of 1935 will guide us if there was a conflict between our National Law and the Constitution before…

      ” however the framers of the 1935 Constitution explained that expressly providing citizenship rulles foundlings was UNNECESSARY since that coulb be determined from International Law .”

      It is safe to say that when Grace was born on 1968 , since there was NO CONFLICT between the 1935 Constitution and the UNITED NATION CONVENTION on the year 1961, GRACE was a Natural Born Filipino.

      • Specific provisions in the Philippine Constitution of 1935 with some explanation DENOTING, as it turned out in years to come, the conflict from international law…

        E. 1935 Constitution

        In the 1935 Constitution, Filipino citizenship was defined, classified and regulated by Article IV, which stated that:

        Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines

        xxxxx

        (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

        xxxxx

        As can be seen from the previous citizenship laws, the principle of jus sanguinis was not applicable prior to the 1935 Constitution. Before Section 1, which considered citizens those whose fathers were Filipino citizens, the prevailing doctrine had been jus soli.[21]

        By recognizing the principle of jus sanguinis, it was recognized that a blood relationship would serve “as a better guarantee of loyalty to the country of one’s parents”[22] than jus soli.

        As written by Cortes and Lotilla and edited by Swan Sik Ko in Chapter 8 of the book “Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective,”

        Treaties and the generally accepted principles of international law concerning citizenship or nationality, while they are considered as part of the law of the land, cannot in cases of conflict prevail over the provisions of the Constitution on nationality.

        • @Victinluz,

          Beyond this whole issue of nationality, citizenship, and statelessness in an individual such as Grace Poe is the bigger responsibility that international conventions had placed on the Philippine State…

          The dire need for ratifications, accesions, adoptions, legislations, amendments, etc. to safeguard human rights.

          Sino ba dapat ang kakalampagin???

          http://raissarobles.com/2015/06/12/senator-grace-poe-thanks-me-for-baring-us-govt-records-that-she-dropped-her-us-citizenship-in-2012/comment-page-1/#comment-307453

        • Foreign Afffairs office , the Un Ambassador of the Philipppines for the ratification of UN CONVENTION ….Congress THRU Leon Guerrero for the Law on Foundlings that must harmonize with the UN CONVENTION…..HOY GISING kayo dyan…

        • @baycas

          your point well taken.

          My point of view is this. In the interpretation of laws (ie. (Treaty/ Convention v Constitution) The first rule is to find an interpretation that will harmonise both laws if there is a perceived conflict. In the case at bar, there is no conflict at all because the jus soli principle is interpreted as complimentary to the jus sanguines principle observed in the constitution.This is the best course to prevent a person from being stateless if his/her nationality is unclear under the laws of the state the person was born.

        • Although pinas is not yet a party to th 1961 convention on the reduction of stalessness one can reasonably advance the proposition that Article 1 therein is an international custom codified in the convention. Article 1 provides for the state of birth to give a stateless or a foundling its nationality at birth of the said person. The use of the word SHALL in the law impress the mandatory nature of the rule.
          If we take a review of all international laws applicable to a foundling or stateless person as I did when I took my Master of Laws in UCL London, most of them simply say the right of person to a nationality ( ex in ICCPR Section 3 Art 24. Every child has a right to acquire a nationality; other provisions say (Art 14 Hague Convention on Conflict of Nationality confers the nationality of the state of birth to a foundling or stateless person). But these laws do not tell us when or which nationality the person shall possess or guarantee the nationality conferred is from birth EXCEPT Article 1 of the 1961 convention.

          Under Article 1 thereof, Grace Poe acquired philippine nationality from birth. Therefore she is a natural born citizen of the phil because she did not do any act to acquire or perfect her citizenship/nationality , the very definition of a natural-born citizen under the 1973 or 1987 constitution.

        • I do apologise for any spelling or grammatical failings. Im pressed for time and using a tablet that is not speedy enough to keep with my fingers.

        • Article 2 of the 1961 Convention on the reduction of statelessness relied upon by CJ
          Panganiban, affirmed by Dean La Vina, impliedly by Atty Tan is with utmost due respect, not applicable to grace poe because its grant of nationality presumed to be the nationality of the biological parents is effective or applicable to foundlings FOUND AFTER THE CONVENTION SHALL INTO FORCE IN THE CONTRACTING STATE.

          As intimated earlier, Pinas is not a party to the convention. More so with the factthat the convention entered into force on 13 December 1975 a good 7 years when grace poe was born (1968) HONESTLY I HAVENT GOT THE FOGGIEST IDEA WHY THEY MISSED THIS OUT. IT IS BASIC AND A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW SUFFICES.

        • Tsk…. shall come into force in the contracting state.

          I need to use my laptop next time. This bloody tablets (sorry for the expletive) is not keeping up with the speed of my fingers..

        • Cf. Article 12 paragrah 3 1961 convention on reduction of statelessness

          The provisions of article 2 of this convention SHALL APPLY ONLY TO FOUNDLINGS FOUND IN THE TERRITORY OF THE CONTRACTING STATE AFTER THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE CONVENTION FOR THAT STATE.

          That is crystal clear.

        • Granting in arguendo that is applicableto grace poes case, the legal proviso does not state at what period of time shall the conferred nationality attaches to the foundling. From birth, upon petition, or age of majority?

          The commentators relying on this law presumed it is from birth, BUT that is still a presumption and a rigorous acrimonious debate could spring it as the alternatives are equally feasible. Dont they see that?

          That is why I was completely taken aback when I read comments about art 2 being the basis of poes nationality, with due respect, of course.

        • You see, it is imperative that the international law provision granting to grace poe the nationality of the philippines must expressly state that she acquired it FROM BIRTH OR AT BIRTH to qualify her as a national born citizen of pinas.

          now when she reacquired ( not retained ) her Phil citizenship under RA9225, she reverted back to her old citizenship-ergo- natural born citizenship.
          as held in the case of BENGSON V CRUZ, the repatriation of cruz to philippine citizenship under RA 2630 (similar procedure to RA9225) reverted back his nationality to his former self- a natural born citizen of pinas. That is so because under the 1987 constitution controlling at the time (not 1935) there are only classes of pinas citizens, naturalised or natural born. Since cruz or grace poe for that matter reacquired pinas citizenship NOT through naturalisation laws of the phil, then cruz is a natural born citizen of pinas. so is grace poe.

          That is the law as pronounced by the SC and shall persist until reversed bythe Supreme Court holding court en banc.

          So if it pleases all, let me go eat my lunch its 3pm where I am and if you had the patience to read this far, thank you very much…

        • “At birth, by operation of law” written in Art. 1 of the 1961 U.N. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. “Law” here means nationality law of a country.

          We are a jus sanguinis country. There lies the conflict between international principles and that of our domestic law.

          As an example of what you are pointing out about “complementary” we can refer to:

          Nationality Law of Japan
          Article 2.

          A child shall, in any of the following cases, be a Japanese national:
          (1) When, at the time of its birth, the father or the mother is a Japanese national;
          (2) When the father who died prior to the birth of the child was a Japanese national at the time of his death;
          (3) When both parents are unknown or have no nationality in a case where the child is born in Japan.

          They followed the 1961 U.N. Convention on Statelessness and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, both international, by creating a domestic law.

          Jus sanguinis country complemented by jus soli principle governing the exceptions to the jus sanguinis. The right to a nationality is granted at birth, by operation of Jaoan Nationality Law.

          Baby Andrew, now a grown-up, received this Japanese birth right despite purportedly a natural-born Filipino.

        • [TRIVIA]

          In the 1890s, George D. Collins tried to inject jus sanguinis principle to U.S. jus soli nationality law.

          He failed.

          Well, SCORP is unique…for they are the final ‘orbiter’ in matters of conflict…if ever the ‘conflict’ reaches the SCORP.

    • thanks for this @bayas.

      —

      this is good material @baycas, thanks for sharing.

      —

      Many Filipinos (1970s thru 1980s) DO NOT consider the 1973 Constitution as truly representative of the people’s genuine sentiments and aspirations of the Phils. since the country was under Marcos Martial Law when it was passed.

      I remember in one of my Subject (PH Constitution) classes for AB Poli Sci Deg during my college heydays, my Consti professor lectured on the 1935 & then recent 1973, constitutions. And class debates always ensued, the Prof was always under the intel surveillance for ‘radical’ teachings for ‘inciting … students to think’.

      Here is one brief narrative regarding that era.

      “The 1935 constitution seemed to serve the nation well. It gave the Philippines twenty-six years of stable, constitutional government during a period when a number of other Asian states were succumbing to military dictatorship or communist revolution. By the late 1960s, however, many Filipinos came to believe that the constitution only provided a democratic political cloak for a profoundly oligarchic society. A constitutional convention was called to rewrite the basic law of the land.

      “The delegates selected to rewrite the constitution hoped to retain its democratic essence while deleting parts deemed to be unsuitable relics of the colonial past. They hoped to produce a genuinely Filipino document. But before their work could be completed, Marcos declared martial law and manipulated the constitutional convention to serve his purposes. The 1973 constitution was a deviation from the Philippines’ commitment to democratic ideals. Marcos abolished Congress and ruled by presidential decree from September 1972 until 1978, …“

      Source: http://www.photius.com/countries/philippines/government/philippines_government_constitutional_frame~861.html

      Bold emphasis mine

    • As of now, the thinking and characer of our judges in courts is so holistically nationalistic.

      Strict interpretation. Rigid at that. Literally at most. All on the issue of citizenship. More so on ‘natural-born citizenship’ issues.

      It will be probably be 99.999% straight-jacket rule. Immovable. Immobilized. Unfoundilized.

      Always because of the rule of/on ‘loyalty.’ A foundling being gauged for ‘loyalty’ at birth. In this country. No parents identity. Unknown. So, it is ‘No Loyalty.’

      Speaking of loyalty, many millions are natural-born citizens. How many are disloyal AFTER BIRTH?

      Even ‘unto death’ still disloyal. Denials and Denials at that. How many commit KAWATS after BIRTH?

      How many got crookedly RICH after BIRTH? How many CHEAT others AFTER BIRTH? How many STEAL and STOLE the coffers of the State AFTER BIRTH? How many? How many?

      Loyalty. Nothing for foundlings it will be. No good foundling will ever be a national elected leader in this country like a President, Vice President. Maybe it will include all other high posts in the government. Why?

      Becuse their birth records shows they are FOUNDLINGS. With no loyalty. Not even presumed or assumed.

      In short, all ‘foundlings’ are DISLOYAL. Declared at BIRTH. It may show or not at their respective Birth Certificates. Foundling = Disloyal . . . to country of birth.

      Foundling ONE pray to be born in Japan. Foundling TWO pray to be born in Pakistan. Foundling THREE pray to be born in a United Nations Agency.

      Pray but not here.

      • This whole talk on the issue of Natural Born Citizenship is getting ridiculous if not cruel. I’m not defending the lady but for Pete’s sake she was not found in Angeles City, Olongapo or NAIA so as to let one’s imagination goes wild. I think the residency and the dual citizenship issues have more meat on it.

  13. Panganiban weighs in.

    Detailed as expected from a seasoned ponente:

    Since the Constitution requires natural-born citizenship “from birth” and since Senator Poe was born in 1968, the governing law would be the 1935 Constitution. Neither that Charter nor any statute as of that year expressly conferred citizenship on foundlings.

    However, the framers of the 1935 Constitution explained that expressly providing citizenship rules for foundlings was unnecessary since that could be determined from international law. Note that under the same Charter (and also under the present one), “the Philippines … adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation.”

    Applicable international law. Mijares vs Ranada (April 12, 2005) held that “generally accepted principles of international law … even if they [are] not derived from treaty obligations… [have] two elements: the established, widespread and consistent practice on the part of states; and a psychological element known as the opinio juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity) … a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it.”

    Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/85819/grace-poes-citizenship

    • Her presumed citizenship can become indisputable if her paternity is established by deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence. Under existing jurisprudence starting with Tijing vs Court of Appeals (March 8, 2001) and People vs Vallejo (May 2, 2002), a DNA test is a conclusive way of proving filiations.

      ex-Justice Panganiban titillated us with this last paragraph. We may never know the truth about GP because in his opinion, a foundling is a natural born citizen, therefore DNA testing is not obligatory or mandatory or even required to validate status of citizenship.

      • Maganda rin naman ang DNA testing. Not only because of some political issues but also as a foundling you have questions about your roots. Knowing your real biological parents will make you complete but it won’t matter anymore in terms of your upbringing especially in the case of Sen. Poe. in her 40s already. She was raised by two good and respected people, FPJ and Susan Roces-Poe.

        • tama, vihn, the framers of the 1935 const, and constitutionalists dating back to the 80s did not foresee the advances in medical science, namely dna test. now, they have to take that into consideration.

          if grace know her roots, she may find out that she has half siblings and relatives she did not know existed. that she may have been living within kilometers of them, passed them across the streets, strangers without exchanging greetings.

        • Maybe, require by law that all pregnant mothers 7 months up to nine months must register at every Health Office of the Dept. of Health to have a DNA test taken, in every local town and cities.

          To minimize ‘foundlings’ abandoned at the doorsteps of churches, garbage cans, etc.

        • @leona:

          Maganda rin naman yan pero suntok sa buwan dahil sa laki ng gastos.Very disorganized pa ang system ng gobyerno. Mas maganda yata na masimulan yung National ID like sa US na bawat isa ay may SS Number kase mas realistic if isasagawa for the purpose of social services na rin. That way ay identified ang bawat Pinoys and all records go with it. First step na yan to have a system and everything will follow.

        • [email protected] – – – Magastos? ‘O, sigue. . . tattoo na lang sa bandang puit – ‘NB’ [Natural born] Name: Felicia. Nanay: Garcia. Taga Brgy: Happy Village.’

          Identified na! Menos gastos. he he

          :-)

        • May problema. . . kung ‘di pa lumabas yun Bata! Yun Nanay tinatago buntis sya. Ha Ha

          Yun kay moonie ‘system’ – nga – – – puede siguro ma check and recorded yun mga buntis. Any foundling found can initially be traced from the ‘records’ with Brgy people’s help/assistance. Etc.

        • leona, I think, there is a system in place. all pregnant women na nagpa-prenatal care are checked and followed up. told when next check up is due. past partum, that is after birth, mothers of new borns are to report to have their babies vaccinated. then, they will be given freebies like baby kits with baby powders, lotions, baby food and milk formulas, comb, etc.

          hospitals usually send report of live births to registry of births, deaths and marriages, telling who gets born and to which parents. there are records. I think, in country towns and villages where there is no hospital, comadronas and hilots who assisted live births send reports to munosipyos and town halls.

        • incidentally, if grace poe was born in jaro, there should be record of her birth in the town hall, record of a baby girl (militar?) born to such mother on the date grace said she was born, presumably 1968.

        • sometimes, nasunog ang town hall and lost most of their records. paminsan may typhoon at baha at natangay ang mga papeles pati ng yong mga filing cabinets napunta saan-saan. and could not be retrieved.

          these days, they have computer files and keep back up.

          as much as possible, townships keep records of the population for census, statistics, to show growths and progress, etc. if not, they may lose government funding at baka mabawasan pa ang allocated budget nila sa fiscal year.

    • former Chief Justice speaks —–International Law’s as part of the law of the Philipppines…

      Under the 1935,1971 & 1987 Phil. Constitution – there was no EXPRESS PROHIBITION for the Congress to pass a supplementary law on citizenship for us to adopt the principle of JUS SOLI including other features or circumstances of a FOUNDLINGs. That UN CONVENTION of 1961 and being a member of the United Nation is now the supplemental Law needed that placed Grace Poe in the category of Filipino Citizen from Birth….TAMA si @ CALIPHMAN — Sir @Caliphman please come to the site. ONLY a former Chief Justice was on our side and other CPMERs too.. But CJ Panganiban might rule against POE with regards to her residency if POEs intent and domiciled are not to be ascertained properly..

      • @caliphman– try to read also about the DNA test… You were right again and it was very clear that the said test will be PERSONAL for POE if she want’s to know HER bilological parents ,but since she decided to stay calm and silent it was because of WITH DUE RESPECT to HER adopted parents FPJ and SUSAN and also to her biological mother especiallly kung si ROSEMARIE nga…

        Napakaganda ang desisyon ni GRACE @Caliphman –tama si Grace, bakit naman nya isasama sa sigalot ( just to proved DISHONEST sya ng contra kay Grace ) ) ang nanay nya na piniling manahimik o nanahimik na tunay nyang INA …. DNA test to proved filliation but JUS SOLI principle can be adopted thru UN CONVENTION of 1961…@CALIPHMAN –please come back to this blog

        • We have to admire GRACE POE @caliphman–SHE rather be disqualified on the isssue of being not a Filipino born citizen than to have a DNA test but to DISRESPECT her biological mother who choiced to live and maybe die with peace and silence . And wit DUE RESPECT also of SUSANand FPJ who brought up ,and nurtured Grace to be HONEST and LAW ABIDING NATURAL BORN FILIPINO CITIZEN…

          And because of the voice of the greater Filipino People, Grace should RUN for P or VP next 2016 election.

        • Bad news @caliphman —totoo ba na dyan daw sa inyo ngayon sa USA ay marami daw lumalabas na MAASIM na UBAS? react ka naman dyan oh.

    • It is worth noting that in Panganiban’s article he mentioned that the Philippines must finally accede to and be a Party to the 1961 U.N. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness…

      Parenthetically, it is high time the Philippines acceded to and joined the 1961 Convention on Statelessness for the benefit of all Filipinos, especially illegitimate children whose parents are unknown, not just of Senator Poe. After all, it is not their fault that their parents have abandoned them.

      Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/85819/grace-poes-citizenship

      To the Executive branch: “Hoy, gising!“

      • While in @Oscar Franklin Tan’s column, he mentioned the need for legislation as accomplished by international best practices…

        UN discussions note that many countries have enacted the above rule for foundlings in legislation to preclude the cruel result, and did so out of a sense of great legal obligation.

        Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/85594/is-grace-poe-a-martian

        “Out of a sense of great legal obligation,” @Oscar Franklin Tan carefully spelled out for a State to fulfill.

        To the Legislative branch: “Hoy, gising!“

      • While in @Oscar Franklin Tan’s column, he mentioned the need for legislation as accomplished by international best practices…

        UN discussions note that many countries have enacted the above rule for foundlings in legislation to preclude the cruel result, and did so out of a sense of great legal obligation.

        Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/85594/is-grace-poe-a-martian

        “Out of a sense of great legal obligation,” @Oscar Franklin Tan carefully spelled out for a State to fulfill.

        To the Legislative branch: “Hoy, gising!“

      • Tadyak!, GISING! . . . like waking up new military recruits in camps.

        . . . not ‘Hoy!’ . . .

    • I agree with the former Chief Justice and also with the earlier column of Prof. Tan.

      Citizenship of foundlings could be determined by legislation (as suggested by Prof. Tan), international law (as opined by CJ Panganiban) and decision of the Supreme Court.

      The delegates of the 1934 Constitutional Convention knew about the potential problems with regard to foundlings that may arise from the adoption of jus sanguinis as the sole source of Philippine citizenship. However, delegates reached a consensus that case relating to foundlings were too few to warrant the inclusion of a specific provision in the Constitution, and should be governed by statutory legislation, the principles of international law, and the decisions of this Court. Reference : Jose Aruego – The Framing of the Philippines Constitution”.

      • If they only knew the draft of the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Law…

        AND/OR

        if they only knew the potential statelessness that will cause by having Children of unknown parents, Children of stateless persons or of parents whose nationality is unknown, Children who have not received their parents’ nationality here in the Philippines…

        then they could have inserted a provision for such a dilemma. Well, notch one again for hindsight bias…

        :-)

        • @Manresa,

          Please look at the Nationality Law of Japan.

          They responded well to the international call of preventing statelessness by creating domestic law specifically designed to address:

          (1) Children born with unknown parents in their jus sanguinis territory, and

          (2) Foundlings.

          Walang legal presumption…very much compliant pa sa Convention on the Rights of Children.

        • @Victinluz,

          Why didn’t they mention about the nationality by birth rights?

          “Right of blood” (jus sanguinis) and “right of the soil” (jus soli) doctrines.

    • When the FPJ case was promulgated in 2004 former CJ Panganiban was on leave. That’s probably why he missed the import of the case which categorically declared that the 1935 constitution finally erased any doubt on the applicability of jus soli doctrine by adopting, once and for all, the jus sanguinis doctrine as basis of Philippine citizenship. The Supreme Court declared in the FPJ case:

      “While there was, at one brief time, divergent views on whether or not jus soli was a mode of acquiring citizenship, the 1935 Constitution brought to an end to any such link with common law, by adopting, ONCE AND GOR ALL, jus sanguinis or blood relationship as being the basis of Filipino citizenship.” (emphasis mine)

      Former CJ Panganiban rationalized that international law could compliment the 1935 constitution insofar as the citizenship of foundlings is concerned. This may be true if the international law does not contravene the constitution. The international law he is referring is that which grants citizenship to foundlings by jus soli or place of birth. And the Supreme Court en banc, which included him, ruled that as of 1935 Filipino citizenship would be based on blood relationship.

      • I admire your argumentation.

        In the book of Jose Aruego (“The Framing of the Philippine Constitution”), the 1934 Convention delegates reached a consensus that the nationality of foundlings could be determined through legislative enactments, principles of international law and decisions of the Supreme Courts. Since the case of foundlings is a rarity, they deemed it unnecessary to include the rule in determining the nationality of foundlings in the 1935 Constitution.

        You advanced the view that the international law cited by CJ Panganiban cannot determine the nationality of foundlings because the same contravenes the 1935 Constitution. if a law is enacted which determines the nationality of foundlings based on jus soli (in conjunction with international law), would such new law be also deemed constitutionally infirm as it also contravenes the Constitution? I guess so. If so, then only the decision of the Supreme Court can determine the nationality of foundlings and even if the SC rules that foundlings are natural born citizen based on jus soli, no one can declare that such ruling contravenes the Constitution.

        • Panganiban mentioned the 1930 Hague Convention:

          This affirmation is important because under the 1930 Hague Convention on the Conflict of Nationality Laws, “[i]t is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals.”

          (From: opinion.inquirer.net/85819/grace-poes-citizenship)

          I may now think, “Thus, under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, it was spelled out that the “right of blood” should be enforced on its nationals.” [DOMESTIC]

          And yet in the same 1930 League of Nations Convention (titled [Hague] “Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Law,” Entry into force: 1 July 1937), its Article 14 states:

          Article 14.

          A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth. If the child’s parentage is established, its nationality shall be determined by the rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known.

          A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on the territory of the State in which it was found.

          (From: refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b00.html)

          So, the Hague Convention spelled out that the “right of the soil” should be enforced for special cases of unknown parentage. [INTERNATIONAL]

          I guess it’s no wonder that in 1940, the Secretary of Justice back then had the opinion of conforming to the international directive regardless of ‘conflict’:

          Although the Philippines has not ratified the various international conventions on statelessness, a foundling whose parents were unknown but who appeared to be of alien parentage was nevertheless considered a national of the Philippines. (Op. of the Sec. of Justice No. 277, s. 1940.)

          (From: NATIONALITY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW FROM THE PHILIPPINE PERSPECTIVE
          Irene R. Cortes and Raphael Perpetuo M. Lotilla          )

          Supreme Court review is inevitable…if ever this issue will reach the Supreme Court.

        • Panganiban mentioned the 1930 Hague Convention:

          This affirmation is important because under the 1930 Hague Convention on the Conflict of Nationality Laws, “[i]t is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals.”

          (From: opinion.inquirer.net/85819/grace-poes-citizenship)

          I may now think, “Thus, under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, it was spelled out that the “right of blood” should be enforced on its nationals.” [DOMESTIC]

          And yet in the same 1930 League of Nations Convention (titled [Hague] “Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Law,” Entry into force: 1 July 1937), its Article 14 states:

          Article 14.

          A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth. If the child’s parentage is established, its nationality shall be determined by the rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known.

          A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on the territory of the State in which it was found.

          (From: refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b00.html)

          So, the Hague Convention spelled out that the “right of the soil” should be enforced for special cases of unknown parentage. [INTERNATIONAL]

          I guess it’s no wonder that in 1940, the Secretary of Justice back then had the opinion of conforming to the international directive regardless of ‘conflict’:

          Although the Philippines has not ratified the various international conventions on statelessness, a foundling whose parents were unknown but who appeared to be of alien parentage was nevertheless considered a national of the Philippines. (Op. of the Sec. of Justice No. 277, s. 1940.)

          (From: NATIONALITY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW FROM THE PHILIPPINE PERSPECTIVE
          Irene R. Cortes and Raphael Perpetuo M. Lotilla          )

          Supreme Court review is inevitable…if ever this issue will reach the Supreme Court.

        • May our State eventually solve this particular issue in accordance with the remedy proposed in 1950:

          (5) To grant every person stateless by birth (children of unknown parents, children of stateless persons or of parents whose nationality is unknown, children who have not received their parents’ nationality) the right to obtain, by means of a simple declaration, the nationality of the country on the territory of which they were born, foundlings being presumed to have been born in the country on the territory of which they were found;

          http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68c250.html

          “Children of unknown parents, children of stateless persons or of parents whose nationality is unknown, children who have not received their parents’ nationality” are exceptions to our jus sanguinis country.

        • We came here in your discussio not a lawyer but an ordinary citizen in order not to be IGNORANT of the LAW on Filipino Citizenship.

          The Supreme Court decided the FPJ citizenship issue having a known parents of known natinality and SC used the 1935 Constitution – which adopted the principle of JUS SANGUINE .

          Had it been the case of Grace POE was on the deliberation at that time with/of UNKNOWN parents , CJ Panagniban could have stated before;

          however, the FRAMERS of the 1935 Constitution EXPLAINED ( nag uusap sila kung papaano at kung paano bigyan ng citizenship ang mga foundling noong 1935 bago isulat o ilathala ang ating saligang batas ng 1935 at wala tayong makita sa mga argumento nila na pabayaan ang foundling na maging stateless pag mayroon man ) that EXPRESSLY providing citizenship rules for foundling ( noong nag uusap sila maaring gusto ng ibang FRAMERs ay lagyan ng exception o diritsahang isulat din sa ating saligang batas na ang fiundling ay Filipino citizen from birh or JUS SOLI ) was UNNECESSARY ( hindi na kailangan ) since that could be determined from an International Law.. Also CJ Panganiban also stated that generally accepted priciples of International Law as part of the Law of the land , coupled by the PRIMARY CONSIDERATION on Human Rights Internationally – citizenship to every individual…..NASAAN po ang UNCONSTITUTIONAL kung gagamitin natin kay Grace ang UN CONVENTION of 1961….

          akala po namin kayong mga lawyers ay pinag aralan ninyo ang mga maraming doktina ng ating saligang batas….like ” doctrine of necessary implication , liberal interpretation, harmonization of other laws with our Constitution, suppressing the mis interpretation of the constition, thet the our constituion was brief and to be interprted in favor to the opress at marami pa ….but in the end any action with ragards to FOUNDLING as they started when they were born ( as a child ) a PRAMOUNT CONSIDERATION shall be given to them..

          @manresa’s comment for us none lawyers was true , kahit pala ang Supreme Court ang magsabing natural born si Grace will be also UNCONSTOTUTIONAL if the interpretation of CJ Panganiban is wrong…..

        • Di nila sukat akalain na magkakaroon ngayon ng problema.

          Maaaring ideklara ng Supreme Court na natural-born Filipino (NBF) ang mga foundlings. Legal presumption ito gaya ng condonation doctrine.

          Kaya I predicted that Grace will be judged as NBF by the SC in order to actively portray avoidance or prevention or elimination of statelessness here in PH as far as foundlings are concerned. Kung aabot ang kaso sa SC.

        • [email protected] sabi nilang mga lawyer’s ay kung malabo ” VAGUE ” daw ang isang nilalaman ng ating saligang batas ay ating BALIKAN ang ” INTENTION ” of the framers..

          Hayan mga po ” The Framers DO NOT NEED EXPRESSLY to rule on the citizenship of foundling because it can be handled or interpreted by an INTERNATIONAL LAW …ang linaw po……sila po na gumawa ng saligang batas ang tamang patutunguhan ang kanilang mga isinulat at inilathala…. Nasaan po ang ” VAGUNESS ” nito ngayon ,, WALA NA DI PO BA…NO NEED to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court as CJ Panganiban said o kayong mga LAWYERs said—may narinig ako noon na term ng mga lawyers dito someting na ang meaning ay ay wag paulit ulit o uulitin pa , kapag ang saligang bats ay malinaw na naiitindahan na lalong lalo na kung ang mga ORDINARY CITIZEN na ang nag bibigay ng kahulugan..

          Sa pagkaintindi namin na ordinaryong mamayang Filipino ay dapat na bigyan namin din ang mga kahulugan ng ating saligang batas kasi kami mismo ang gagamit/gumamit at maaaapektuhan ng mga kahulugan nito kasama ang ating kapwang kababayan…..

        • Sa tinuran ni CJ Panganiban — kung mayroong maghahain ng reklamo laban sa Citizenship ni Grace — karapatan nila o natin iyon bilang mamayang Filipino pero by just adopting the said article of CJ Panganiban sa RTC or COMOLEC palang ay DENIED by adopting the arguments of CJ Panganiban at itoy gagamitin nila hanggang dumating sa SC…ito kung saka sakali na gagawin ni Cong. Paras ay MALIWANAG na MALIWANAG na POLITICAL HARRASMENT na . Hindi kagaya ng kaso ni BINAY na mayroon tayong batayan laban sa kanya….

        • Please read my comment here which you might have missed because it underwent moderation…

          http://raissarobles.com/2015/06/12/senator-grace-poe-thanks-me-for-baring-us-govt-records-that-she-dropped-her-us-citizenship-in-2012/comment-page-1/#comment-307623

          @Victinluz,

          I am trying to move away from “foundlings” as exemplified by GP (the past) alone. I already gave a scenario of Baby Marciano (a foundling in the present time) and a Baby Rojing (a child born here also recently but with stateless parents). How are their ‘right to a nationality’ being safeguarded by our existing laws?

          Contrast our nationality laws to that of Japan which I pointed out before…

        • Agree. Only the Supreme Court could declare a foundling as a Filipino citizen, whether natural-born or otherwise. Statutory legislations could not. And the principles of International law could not. In her dissenting opinion in FPJ case former SC Justice Carpio-Morales cited the deliberation of the 1935 constitution on citizenship particularly about foundlings and illegitimate children.

          “This view is reinforced by an examination of the record of the proceedings of the 1934 Constitutional Convention, particularly the session of November 26, 1934 when the provisions on citizenship were taken up by the plenary. The proceedings of the Constitutional Convention reveals that the delegates were acutely aware of the possible problems with respect to illegitimate children and foundlings that could arise from the adoption of jus sanguinis as the exclusive source of Philippine citizenship. Nevertheless, the consensus of the Convention delegates was apparently that such cases were too few to warrant the inclusion of a specific provision in the Constitution, and should be governed by statutory legislation, the principles of international law, and the decisions of this Court. (146)”

          But such Supreme Court decision would be applicable only to foundlings born under the 1935 constitution. Under the 1973 and 1987 constitutions all Supreme Court decisions regarding foundlings must follow the letter and intent of latter constitutions.

          Meantime that the the Supreme Court has not determined the citizenship of foundlings, whether natural-born or otherwise, does Grace Poe remain STATELESS or is presumed a Filipino citizen?

          In the Opinion of Secretary of Justice No. 277, Series of 1940, foundlings who appeared to be of ALIEN parentage was considered a national of the Philippines. It seems that there were no foundlings who appeared to be of Filipino parentage in that period of our history. In page 70 of “Nationality and International Law – Philippine perspective 1985” written by former SC Justice Irene Cortes, it says:

          “Although the Philippines has not ratified the various international conventions on statelessness, a foundling whose parents were unknown but who appeared to be of alien parentage was nevertheless considered a national of the Philippines. 3. Secretary of Justice Opinion No. 277 Series of 1940.”

        • Ano rin ang katayuan ngayon ni Baby Rojing (new hypothetical scenario) na isinilang dito sa Pilipinas noong ika-7 ng Hulyo 2015 din?

          Ang mga mgulang ni Baby Rojing ay parehong stateless.

        • Halimbawa na si Rojing ay isinilang sa Pilipinas nuong Hunyo 7, 2015 sa mga magulang na parehong NONE o kaya ay N/A ang nationality ayon sa kanyang birth certificate, e di ganun din ang kanyang nationality – NONE or N/A. Hindi tulad ni Graciano na foundling certificate ang batayan. Si Rojing ay may certificate of live birth. Kasi hindi siya pulot. Kilala ang mga magulang niya na ang nationality ay NONE o N/A ayon sa civil registry.

        • So, tingin ko kasi same effect:

          “Stateless.”

          Unless proven otherwise by the SC esp. sa foundlings.

          Dapat ipakita ng Estado ang mga safeguards in concrete terms to prevent statelessness as a whole…

          General principles of international law dictates so.

          Isoli dapat ang jus soli kahit doon lang sa mga piling kapapanganak lang.

        • Ewan ko. Tanungin natin ang SC. Kasi hindi natin alam kung si Graciano ay anak ni Egay, o ng isang intsik, o rohingya. Subalit tiyak ako na hindi Martian si Graciano. Tiyak yun.

      • We all know that the Barangay Chairmen and Councillors and other barangay workers are either local in nature, hence, they are subservient to the local politicians who is reigning in their locality.

        So I don’t think that they will really listen to his pronouncements because of this factor. Local politics still rules supreme in each barangay.

        • free food is always welcome though. ngayon na alam ng karamihan pera pala ng bayan ang ginastos, they will eat out binay and get their ounce of flesh.

        • Aside from the local officials, his, organizers see to it that senior citizens are invited in the boodle fight.

          Wala nga lang cake, he he he.

    • VP Binay has been preparing since 2010!

      He overlooked in 2010 to get a candiate for vice president!

      How many candidates for P will be without a vp? BInay. Lacson? Duterte? Baka si Duterte for VP alone without a partner for P?

      NPC – Poe and Chiz? Liberal Party – Roxas and WHO? PNoy tells Poe – ‘Be ready.’ Poe says: ‘I’m ready for P!’ he he Kung ako kay Bong2 Marcos pa VP na siya ni Roxas! Ayaw ni Poe! . . . ha ha

      PNoy asks Sen. Marcos ‘Are you finished with your BBL draft?’ Better be ready Mr. Marcos Bong2 for that!

      NP – who and who?

      Trading and bartering horses and donkeys!

    • The Manchurian Candidate Binay would need 10 Billion Pesos to distribute an average of P5,000 to each barangay official. It’s loose change for Binay. The Philippines has over 7000 islands, what would a few matter. Just cede some to China!

  15. @raissa,

    Include other potential candidates in answering all your questions please.

    Ask them also about their stand on Lito Lapid’s (and/or others) bill to help end statelessness please.

      • Akala ko Judiciary lang ang passive…at hindi makatutugon ng cue sa mga nagdaang araw mula sa mga usapin ukol sa statelessness…

        Nariyang may SOCIAL INJUSTICE daw, nariyang may HUMAN INDECENCY daw, nariyang may DISCRIMINATION daw…

        Bakit parang wala namang gumagalaw at tila naghihintay pa sa passive na Judiciary para aksiyunan ang laban para wakasan ang statelessness?

        Buti na lang may Leon Guerrero pa ring maaasahan…

        • Hoy!

          Mga hoy!

          Maantig naman ang mga damdamin niyo’t magsikilos kayo…

          A baby
          A FOUNDLING
          Unwanted
          LOOKING
          Unloved and unblessed
          FOR
          Left on a doorstep
          HOME
          An unbidden guest
          WANDERS
          A shivering shadow
          THROUGH
          A child with no name
          DARKNESS
          Severed
          AND
          Surrendered
          TRAVELS
          Sinking in pain
          ALONE

          Conceived in the gale of a ruinous storm
          Partially killed, partially born
          Abandoned, abandoned, falling through space
          With nobody’s eyes and nobody’s face
          A foundling

          A child disconnected who no longer dries
          With a prisoners stare and an orphans eyes
          A free floating phantom held together by skin
          A small helpless stranger, a sign in the wind

          Washed into this work in fever and flood
          Tears remorse, sorry and blood
          Abandoned, abandoned left at the gate
          Cut loose un-tethered tattooed by fate

          A Foundling.

          (Mary Gauthier — The Foundling lyrics)

        • nuns and priests beware, baka maging inadvertent parents pa kayo having found an unwanted foundling, he, he, he. be careful with damput ng damput. transgenders, mga bading, lesbians, beware. you could end being parents and chewing more than you can chew.

          not all foundlings are normal, some come with baggage like babies born to drug addicted mothers; naturally, these babies are also addicted at birth and may suffer withdrawal symptoms. some foundlings may look cute and adorable as babies pero paglaki nila, merong kapansanan, autistic, retarded, kulang ang faculties gaya ng hearing problem, cleft palate, etc. some may even have inherited mental problems gotten from their biological parents.

          it would not matter, though, kung mahal ma yong bata. just be prepared to put in the hard slog.

        • “Hi o silver!”

          Oops, Lone Ranger pala ‘yun.

          Ito na lang…

          “Mabuhay si Leon Guerrero!”

        • ‘A child with no name
          DARKNESS‘ – si Dinay yan! ‘With a prisoners stare’ ‘Abandoned’ by vice presidents !

          he he :-)