Inside Philippine politics & beyond

I told DZRH radio why Vice-President Binay owes the Marcoses big time

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

By Raïssa Robles

This morning even before I had my coffee, I had a chat with one of the country’s veteran radio broadcasters, Mr. Niel Ocampo of DZRH radio.

It was the first time in a very long time that I had chatted with Niel, who knows the ins and outs of Philippine politics.

He wanted to ask  me about a piece I wrote four years ago entitled Did VP Jojo Binay mislead PNoy on the Marcos burial issue? 

Ordinarily, I would not have agreed to be interviewed that early but this was Niel, a colleague in the trenches. We used to bounce around  gossip and analysis to while away the time in between hearings and sessions at the Senate when we were beat reporters there.

DZRH very kindly sent me an audio clip of the interview.

Here it is below:

Comments

  1. In defense of Grace L. former CJ Panganiban anchored his argument on the following provision of the 1961 UN Convention on Reduction of Statelessness, to wit:

    “Article 2 – A foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born within that territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State.”

    But Article 12 (3) of the 1961 UN Convention provides that Article 2 of said Convention shall take effect only after its ratification by the contracting state.

    “3. The provisions of Article 2 of this Convention shall apply only to foundlings found in the territory of a Contracting State after the entry into force of the Convention for that State.”

    Let us assume that same Convention is a customary international law and is now a Philippine statute. What does this adopted law mandate? It mandates that a foundling found in the Philippines is considered born in the country of Filipino parents only after satisfying certain conditions.

    That the Philippines has ratified or signed the Convention. That the instrument of ratification has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the UN (Article 16-3).

    “3. This Convention shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”

    And that the Convention shall take effect on the 90th day AFTER the deposit of same instrument (Article 18-2).

    “2. . . it shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification . . .”

    Sadly, the requisites laid down by the adopted law have not been satisfied. And the belief, opinion, view or supposition – that the foundling found in the Philippines is born of Filipino parents – does not hold water.

    • The signing, ratification and deposit of the instrument of ratification must be done as follows:

      1. The Philippine ambassador to the UN must sign the Convention in the UN Headquarters.
      2. The Philippine senate must convene to pass a resolution ratifying the UN Convention.
      3. The said senate resolution must be deposited with the UN Secretary General.

      • In the case of ex-SC CJ Panganiban, I feel sad. I was and still is an admirer — but the admiration has dimmed.

        I remember too, an opinion he made (if this old man’s recall is still to be trusted) to the effect — let the people decide on Poe on the citizenship issue. At that time I recall thinking that the legal issue must be unfavorable to Poe, and he sounded as a lawyer for Poe and stating the cheap pedestrian support line for Poe — so unbecoming of a former Justice of SC, a former Chief Justice no less. SAD.

        • That’s the problem with former Justices since they tend to listen to themselves only and create an opinion easily since hindi na nga naman sila opisyal. Kung nakaupo sila ay madidinig nilang mabuti ang magkabilang panig, ang mga punto at argumento.

        • Even Justice Carpio grants that the 1961 UN Convention on Reduction of Statelessness is part of the law of the land. The difference of opinion lies elsewhere.

  3. @raissa na mention ka sa colmn ni Oscar Tan sa PDI ngayon. kayo ni Luna tungkol sa issue ng Citizenship ni GL. Hindi naman masama ang comment sa iyo pero kay Luna, me tama.

  5. It is quite interesting that the detractors of Grace Poe re the natural born citizenship issue are conveniently ignoring the discriminatory aspect of their legal interpretation as represented by Carpio’s stand that the burden of proof lies in the accused.

    • The framers of the 1935 Constitution accommodated foreigners but public officials before the enactment of the 1935 Constitution, which I think were only few–possibly only one in the person of Caram, bestowing them the nationality by right of birthplace/territory (JUS SOLI).

      It is the sole listed exception to our nationality by right of blood/descent (JUS SANGUINIS) according to the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.

      They didn’t provide for the foundlings because foundlings, then Sen. Manuel Roxas stated, are few…and because statutory construction dictates that if (an) exception(s) is/are listed and no reservation given then no other exception EXIST.

      The 1934 Con-con delegates favored one of their own (Delegate Caram, born here of Syrian parents) and NEGLECTED the foundlings even though the Hague Convention, even if we’re also not signatory to, already guided States to employ JUS SOLI doctrine on foundlings.

      They, in a way, discriminated the foundlings and left the foundlings’ right to a nationality to chance.

      The Philippine Government continues to this day in discriminating the foundlings without doing its obligation of providing LEGAL REFORMS in favor of the foundlings.

      • @parengtony,

        I am imploring you to SCREAM and do away with the State’s discrimination:

        RA-TI-FY, RA-TI-FY, RA-TI-FY…

        Baby Marciano will be gratified!

        • I think it will be tackled in the next Congress hopefully what with lots of abandoned babies on the news nowadays, and hopefully Grace would be the one to spearhead that one. Let’s see her mettle as a lawmaker when sponsoring a bill that is close to her heart.

        • she’ll probably do a mar roxas and resigned her job as senator once she filed her candidacy. she cannot be senator and run as candidate at the same time, there would be conflict of interest. when she has the chance, she did not do much about foundling issue, and let it ferment instead. looks like her heart was not on it, could be because she’s not real foundling, and now the issue has come back to bite her. so much for hind sight, americana kasi.

        • law is always discriminatory, it goes after those lumalabag at nagkasala. kasalanan ni grace llamanzares for being so short sighted. for a lawmaker, she did not take into consideration that law can be harsh. that she may not get the justice she wants, for justice can and may swing against her. and so, plug loopholes before she can fall into one.

          grace llamanzares will be judged on what laws we have in current, not on laws yet to be passed and ratified. once foundling law is ratified, the next batch of foundlings will reap the benefits. no more hadlang for them.

        • at gaya ng sinabi ni baycas, parengtony ought to be screaming at the top of his lungs! to have foundling law ratified; petitioning, not just because of grace llamanzares but for the sake of all foundlings in our country.

        • foundling law will not be named grace law. it will be named loren legarda law if loren beats grace in having the law ratified.

        • Even the ‘TEN’ COMMANDMENTS . . . in whole is discriminatory! ‘One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten’. Numbers are rule of creation. ‘Equality’ is unreachable, not even with the ‘zero.’

          Sample na lang: in heaven there are higher angels and lower angels. There is a highest Angel and the lowest angel. Who is the highest Saint? And the lowest saint?

          On earth, many will see extreme discrimination(s) and is existent, allowed or not.

          :-)

      • In the position taken by CJ Art P, Grace Poe’s natural born citizenship is not derived from “jus soli” but rather from the fact that she is a foundling (by definition unable to identify biological parent) and therefore, in compliance with the equality for all principle of the constitution, must be presumed to have parents who are citizens. By extension, putting the burden of proof on a foundling is clearly discriminatory and violative of the constitution.

        • @parengtony,

          1/2

          The Constitution, our Constitution, must be consistent at all times (basic tenet in statutory construction). The alleged “customary international law” granting foundlings as citizens where found is basically a JUS SOLI application of nationality right. It is a remedy for UN Member States signatory to the foundling law to follow as described by the UNHCR in order to prevent statelessness.

          If ever it is enforceable it contravenes the JUS SANGUINIS application of Philippine nationality right as dictated by our Constitution.

          Besides, the foundling law, if ever already incorporated in our nationality laws, does not form part of the Constitution. This means that their so-called “customary international law” will not add new qualifications as citizens of the Philippines.

          You need to propose an amendment to our Constitution. “Let the people decide” if they want foundlings as natural-born citizens of the Philippines thereafter.

        • 2/2

          Mary Grace was found in jus sanguinis Philippines. There is no question to this assertion.

          David has “not even an iota of evidence” that Mary Grace’s parents are foreigners. He only needed to use Mary Grace’s evidence: her Foundling Certificate.

          A Foundling Certificate (FC) is not the same as any natural-born Philippine citizen’s Certificate of Live Birth (CLB) because the nationality by right of blood is already indicated in the CLB by known Filipino parent/s and none in the FC.

          The presumption of citizenship of Mary Grace was effectively overcome by such evidence.

          When the presumption is gone then the claimant, Mary Grace, must prove her possession of a citizenship–a natural-born status at that in order to fulfill a Constitutional requirement for her ambition.

          xxxxx

          The exercise of the rights and privileges granted only to Filipinos is not conclusive proof of citizenship, because a person may misrepresent himself to be a Filipino and thus enjoy the rights and privileges of citizens of this country.(79)

          It is incumbent upon one who claims Philippine citizenship to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he is really a Filipino. No presumption can be indulged in favor of the claimant of Philippine citizenship, and any doubt regarding citizenship must be resolved in favor of the State.(80)

          http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html

          That’s why I wished (and am still wishing) that the FC may eventually be equal to the CLB. By then, Baby Marciano, not adopted by Philippine citizens like Mary Grace, would no longer need his founder’s Philippine passport to obtain his own Philippine passport.

        • Note that a foundling like Mary Grace was perceived or presumed as a Filipino in some parts of her 47 years.

          It’s just unfortunate for her that, now, the restrictive nature of our Constitution pertaining to nationality/citizenship and qualifications for high elective (and appointive) governmental positions burdens her heavily and places her to an extreme challenge.

          Meanwhile, other foundlings in our midst will remain the same: Filipinos…

          Until their citizenship will also finally be put to question sometime in their lives…

          Mary Grace, if really selfless, must act in defense of foundlings and NOT ONLY in defending her own rights. The SC ROUTE she is now experiencing must concurrently be supported by the RATIFICATION ROUTE (with clear retroactive strength) she and her friends and supporters in government should spearhead.

        • My understanding is that CJ Art’s position does not “contravene JUS SANGUINIS application of Philippine nationality right as dictated by our Constitution.” As re-stated in the following news article from ABSCBNews, Grace Poe is deemed to have Filipino parents –

          “MANILA – A former chief justice of the Supreme Court believes Senator Grace Poe is a natural-born Filipino.

          In his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban said Poe is considered a natural-born citizen based on Article 2 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

          The convention states: “A foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born in the territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State.”

          Panganiban said Poe – a foundling who was found in Iloilo, Philippines – “is deemed to have Filipino parents.”

          “Perforce, she is natural-born since her presumed parents, specifically her father, are accorded Philippine citizenship,” he said.

          He also said the 1935 Constitution, which governs Poe’s citizenship, states that the “Philippines… adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation.”

          “Thus, by this ‘doctrine of incorporation,’ customary international laws are given the same force and effect as statutes passed by Congress,” he added.

          He said that while the Philippines is not a signatory to the 1961 Convention, “they have become ‘generally accepted principles of international law’ which, as earlier stated, are as binding as statutes passed by Congress.”

          Panganiban’s opinion runs counter to that of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio who said Poe is not a natural-born Filipino citizen but a naturalized one.

          Carpio has said the Philippine Constitution has the primacy over international conventions and treaties that the senator’s lawyers are invoking.

        • @parengtony,

          Well, one thing is clear in the UNHCR’s guidelines “intended to provide interpretative legal guidance for governments, NGOs, legal practitioners, decision-makers and the judiciary, as well as for UNHCR staff and other UN agencies involved in addressing statelessness” is this statement:

          57. Article 2 of the 1961 Convention establishes that children found abandoned in the territory of a Contracting State (foundlings) acquire the nationality of that State.

          (21 December 2012)

          http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/50d460c72.pdf

        • @parengtony,

          As I anticipated, my second comment of two parts (2/2) went into ‘moderation.’ That’s why I numbered my two-part reply to your latest post.

          Kindly wait for it to be published. I have jurisprudential citation in it.

          Maraming salamat.

        • grace llamanzaers has been asked to undergo dna testing. panganiban ought to be looking into this issue.

        • panganiban should also be screaming high and dry that foundling law be ratified soonest. he may not be able to save grace llamanzares, but he may be able to save and give peace to remaining foundlings yet to make their mark.

        • if SET failed grace, then after foundling law is ratified, grace can try again. this time, nothing will be standing on her way, only voters, and fellow politician going after the same position as grace herself.

      • @Baycas thank you for completely clarifying the situation. I must say that I admire your patience in dealing with the obdurate Parengtony.
        @parengtony take your head out of the bucket of sand and move on. Why expend such effort in support of a woman who cannot even remember her own name.

        • I happen to respect the opinion of President Aquino, CJ Panganiban, Senator Saguisag, Atty Franklin Tan, Teddy Boy Locsin, Atty. Makalintal and many other reputable personalities of proven substance. I also do not believe that Baycas agrees with your manner of debating issues.

        • Sadly the persons whom you list and admire appear to have succunbed to the lure of the mass media and have adjusted their principles accordingly. They write and expect to be believed without question. Baycas and Rene-Ipil do it differently. They write and want to be believed so the quality and quantity of their output far exceeds that of your heroes.
          I have read your heroes and obviously Baycas and Rene. Who do you think convinced me as to the correctness of their argument?
          Are you truly still not convinced by their arguments?
          I’m not sure Baycas cares how I debate and if he did would surely shoot me down.

  6. Let us forget for a while the legal wranglings and just focus on the numbers that will decide Poe’s case.

    Leaning towards the petitioner: 3 SC justices, Cayetano, Binay and Aquino = 6 votes

    Leaning to respondent: Sotto and possibly Legarda = 2 votes

    Poker face: Villar = 1 vote

    As to the En Banc, if the 3 SC justices voted as one voice, why would any Justice undermine the very institution he/she supposedly represent? Yes the GMA 8 proved they could have, but Estelito has no interest in the case so why is he going to pull the string?

  7. nanginginig ako pag naiisip ko na 20 -30 years down the line, pag napayagang malibing si marcos sa libingan ng mga bayani, ang bagong henerasyon ay ituturing na siyang bayani.kawawa yung mga dakilang taong sinakripisyo ang kanilang mga buhay para lamang manindigan laban kay marcos. ako ay handang isakripisyo ang aking career to dedicate myself into passing on the next generations the stories of the horrors of martial law…never again,shall we commit the same mistake!

    • The “Fly in the ointment” is that the 1961 Convention has not been generally accepted into International law.
      The ex-Chief Justice should substantiate his statement to International standards or stop woffling.

    • @parengtony,

      Please read this again…

      http://raissarobles.com/2015/09/18/pagtakbo-ni-senador-grace-poe-nang-walang-partido-mapanganib/comment-page-3/#comment-338405

      Then let’s hope the case will reach the Supreme Court. I am for all the foundlings’ cause for my thesis is that the Philippine Government neglected them and did not put tangible safeguards in their right to a nationality. I wished a Certificate of Foundling equates with a natural-born Philippine citizen’s Certificate of Live Birth.

      Mary Grace is just one of the foundlings. I wanted so much for her to run for higher office in 2016. Her COC come October must also be scrutinized.

      • However, lest she be confident about her popularity, there is also this fact (not a presumption):

        While it is true that petitioner won the elections, took his oath and began to discharge the functions of Barangay Chairman, his victory can not cure the defect of his candidacy. Garnering the most number of votes does not validate the election of a disqualified candidate because the application of the constitutional and statutory provisions on disqualification is not a matter of popularity.

        http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_182701_2008.html

      • Your ‘wish’ baycas may come true IF or WHEN the otso8, in my deep imagination, will rule HOW Poe will be equated as a NBFC, in either of these conclusive presumptions:

        1. only a Filipino mother in Jaro, ILoiLo, will leave and abandon her child. A normal happening everyday in the Philippines. Thus, Grace Poe is conclusively a natural born citizen.

        2. a child left inside a Church by a mother who knew where that Church is located can only be a Filipino mother who resides in the place. An alien mother would have much difficulty to give birth alone by herself and not knowing where to bring her child after delivering it. Thus, Grace Poe is a natural born citizen of a Filipino mother.

        3. if there was conspiracy with the mother in giving birth, the conspirators and the mother must have been all Filipinos who knew many things in the place, including where to secretly bring the child – to the Church, and leave the child there to be secretly/disguisedly discovered by one of the conspirators. Thus, Grace Poe and her mother together with the conspirators are Filipino citizens, giving the child a natural born citizen status. No foreigner(s) would make such a trick on everybody in Jaro, ILoiLo.

        maybe this is a possible LAST variation –

        4. if the child’s mother is an alien or foreigner, staying for days and weeks in Jaro, ILoiLo, in a certain house, not knowing many local people in the area, someone or two or more, would surely have reported to the Barangay officials, or to others, that a foreigner did give birth to a baby girl inside the house/dwelling, and such mother did not know what to do even with the Comadrona assisting her, a word would have rang out about this event that a foreigner, new in the place gave birth. But there was no such ranging out of such event. The story was closed by everybody. In short, those who knew and including the mother are all Filipino citizens. A normal day-to-day event in every town or city. Thus, Grace Poe’s mother is a Filipino or Filipina, therefore – Grace Poe is a natural born citizen.

        baycas’ Wish granted: ruling – Grace Poe is equal with Mr. David and all members of the SET as to status of citizenship, a natural born Filipino citizen, based on – [ either on conclusive presumptions: 1, or 2, or 3, or 4.] So ordered.

        he he he

        • @Leona on:
          “1. only a Filipino mother in Jaro, ILoiLo, will leave and abandon her child. A normal happening everyday in the Philippines. Thus, Grace Poe is conclusively a natural born citizen.”

          In the above Inquirer Link provided by @parengtony, One commenter said:

          “Paano kung negro o puti yung sanggol na napulot?” or something to that effect.

          @Leona, tama ka po na ang mga ganitong pangyayari ay normal saan man panig ng Pilipinas. Halimbawa na lang po sa Angeles City Pampanga at Olongapo City, noong panahon ng mga Base Militar ay marami din po mga “foundlings” na may kakaibang kulay ng balat na hindi mo maaring sabihin na “presumed Filipino” ang kapwa mga magulang subalit mas malamang na ang Ama ay merkano subalit may posibilidad din na kapwa dayuhan ang magulang.

          Dahil ba sa pagiging isang “foundling” ay pwede na natin sabihin na sila ay “presumed born to Filipino parents”, therefore NBFC?

          BTW, until SET issued a ruling on Grace Llamanzares’ case, sa ngayon siguro pwede na muna natin siyang ituring na “Natural Born Ilonggo Citizen”

          U+1F601

        • am sorry dahil isa akong ilonggo at marami kaming kapitbahay na mga militar. WALANG ISSUE na si edgardo militar ay tatay ni GL sa isang estudyante. sino ba namang ordinaryong mamayan ang puedeng mag sabi ng AYAW KO or HINDI KO PUEDENG sundin ang utosduring martial law ?
          hindi sya NBIC- natural born ilonggo citizen LOL

        • My apogogy @kalakala and to all Ilongos, no offense meant nor did I insinuate that “ang tatay ni GL ay si Edgardo Militar sa isang estudyante”. Sa iyo ko lang po narinig yan ganyan ISSUE, kung mayroon man o wala.

          Again, I’m sorry! Peace!

        • no need to say sorry and no offense meant. thankful pa nga sa iyo kasi at least may bago tayong term na tinatawag NBIC- natural born ilonggo citizen ;)

          kawawa naman sya kasi questionable na nga ang kanyang pagiging NBFC ngayon kahit NBIC ay hindi parin aangkop sa kanyang estado.

        • Nakaka tawa ang sabi mo – ‘NBiC’ ! YckiR =[ You’re Citizen Kung iLongo Rin]?

          ha ha ha

          You also said – ‘One commenter said: “Paano kung negro o puti yung sanggol na napulot?” ‘

          ‘N…’black’ – anak ni Binay yan. Thus, natural born citizen. ‘o Puti’ – born in Olonggapoe, father is white. Mother? . . . sigurado ‘Brown,’ thus – Filipino(na), kaya lang lumabas ‘White’ ang color but may ‘Brown’ yan, di la makita. Natural born citizen yun child na ‘Puti.’ [is there ‘a GRO’ woman-American citizen in Olongapoe? I dunno. Ikaw, mayroon ka bang alam?]

          Presume NBFC yun ‘white baby.’ Also the ‘Black baby’ – all born here. What about as far as USA is concerned? Either baby is presumed US citizen by rule of ‘jus sanguinis’ law of blood, born abroad of US parent-Papa Military Man. . . US law citizenship also honor ‘jus sanguinis’ presumption for children born abroad of US citizens-parents: children of US Ambassadors, US Consuls, US Military Personnel, etc., specially if BORN inside US territories abroad [by US Congress Law ito.]

          * * *

        • He he he. I believe the concurring opinion must also be considered in support of a ruling, thus:

          5) If the doubters and kibitzers have advanced the notion that Marcos is a womanizer and as such, Rosemary was reportedly one of his exploits, and by a reasonable stretch of creative imagination Grace is probably the fruit of their liaison, and this rumor caught fire spreading unabated thru word of mouth for years regardless of evidence then Grace is definitely a NBI&IC (Natural Born Ilocano and Ilongo Citizen) and therefore conclusively an NBFC;

          6) If Grace has been so articulate about the issue declaring in public fora that she is a Filipino “sa isip, sa salita at sa gawa” and that she made the declaration without the advice of her friend Sen Escudero, then we should take her word for that and rule that she is conclusively an NBFC;

        • grace llamanzares has already said she is foundling found in jaro, her biological parents unknown.

          at kung talagang anak siya nina makoy at rosemarie at hindi tunay na foundling, dna test will prove that she is indeed product of their loins.

        • sabi nya sya ay isang foundling. sabi ng kanyang senate COC sya ay born to susan and fpj. sabi sabi sya ay anak ni edgardo militar. at ang mga sabi sabi sya ay anak ni marcos kay rosemarie.

          kung talagang FOUNDLING SYA at TOTOONG GUSTO NYANG MALAMAN ang kanyang totoong pagkatao, noong nakita nya at nakilala sina nanay sayong, bakit hindi sya nag pa DNA kaagad?

          gusto ng mga militar mag pa DNA sila para matapos na ang pag uugnay ng kanilang tatay sa issue. pero ayaw ni sheryl. ayaw nyang madamay ang kanyang nanay.

        • <moonie& kalakala. . . If you accept as logical/true Rene-Ipil’s theory, there is actually no ‘foundling’ story. He said it is scripted, etc. I also just added it was or is a disguised/concocted foundling story.

          DNA or not, successful or not, believable or not, there may not be a foundling story at all.

          If you accept my 4 ‘conclusive presumption’ above/or below, G.Llmanpoezares is a NBFC.

          How the SET or SC makes a choice for one from the 4 conclusive presumption, that is their problem. I only say this in all possibility. It can happen soon. By SET or otso8.

          * * *

        • @leona i strongly agree with rene-ipil “logical/true Rene-Ipil’s theory, there is actually no ‘foundling’ story. He said it is scripted, etc. I also just added it was or is a disguised/concocted foundling story.” i can say that it’s true that there is no foundling story. nagkamali lang sila ng twist ng kanilang script. since no foundling story, she is BNFC and not NBIC. am still keeping my fingers crossed that mayroong lalabas na travel document ni rosemarie during that time na hindi na sya active sa movie industry. hopefully in the near future. i have this feeling na mayroon nang nakadiskobre na si mgl ay ipinanganak sa america at inuwi derecho sa iloilo city at doon sinunod ang script/plano

        • Ha? Ha? Ha?

          Inuwi dito? Ha?

          Dinerecho sa iLoiLo ‘o Jaro, iLoiLo? Ha? Ha?

          Baka nag landing yun aeroplano sa loob ng Simbahan? Ha? Ha?

          Share with me that FEELING of yours. . . Rene! Mayroon BAGONG foundling story ni GPL !

          ha ha ha

    • @parengtony,

      Please note also that Panganiban ‘skirted‘ the Constitutional issue on nationality: right of blood or descent versus right of the soil or birthplace/territory.

    • @AMand baycas, maraming salamat for rebutting somebody’s opinion right away in order to stop sowing a tiny seed of confusion to already confused Filipino voters.

    • If you listened intently to the Orals, and you understood fully well the interpellation of Justices Carpio, De Castro and Brion you will realize how ex-CJ Panganiban’s point of view does not hold water.

      The following has essentially transpired or come to the fore during the orals and Poe’s side has the burden to make a case.

      – how and who gave the UN conventions relating to foundlings the status of a customary international law?

      – how can a UN convention become part of the law when the country is yet to ratify it?

      – how can a principle become a “generally accepted” one when only a fraction of the members that were to supposed to adopt has in fact ratified it? Specifically, as Justice Carpio seems to have alluded to, none of the regional countries to which the Philippines have commonality in terms of culture i.e. South East Asia did so? Only some western nations which customs are generally opposite to asian values have ratified them.

      These tough questions only make the DNA evidence the only way out. Nothing else and they are given only 15 days to make a case or come up with a convincing legal fiction A miracle has to happen. That is the ironic reality.

      • Ten ASEAN Member States are NOT signatory to the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and YET…

        Foundlings

        Six ASEAN Member States have established specific provisions on foundlings in its nationality laws, namely Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam (see table 4).

        Lao PDR and Vietnam are the only country which contains a provision on foundlings which fully comply with Article 2 of the 1961 Convention. Lao PDR provides for the grant of citizenship to children found in the territory but also to children whose identity of parents are unknown.

        In Vietnam abandoned newborns and children found in Vietnamese territory, whose parents are unknown, acquire Vietnamese nationality. Nonetheless, a child younger than 15 years can lose its Vietnamese nationality if the person concerned has found his/her parent(s) who hold a single foreign nationality. This means that a child cannot lose his/her nationality acquired through this provision on foundlings if he or she has found his/her parents when older than 15 years of age or if the parents do not hold a single foreign nationality.

        Lao PDR and Vietnam–both party states to the CRC and ICCPR–are through these nationality law provisions not violating the right for every child, including foundlings, to acquire nationality as set out in Article 7(1) CRC and 24(3) ICCPR.

        Partial compliance with Article 2 of the 1961 Convention can be found in Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. In Cambodia the right to a nationality is (only) granted to children born to unknown parents and newborn children found in the territory, and not to all children found in the territory.

        In Indonesia only newborns can be considered foundlings. Malaysia and Singapore only consider newborns as foundlings if they are “found exposed” in the territory.(62) Depending on the interpretation of these provisions, a possibility exists that a group of children can be rendered stateless if they are not “found exposed” in public. Thus, only partial compliance with the Article 2 of the 1961 Convention exists for these 4 states because a safeguard for foundlings is to be applied to all young children who are not yet able to provide information on the identity of their parents or place of birth.(63)

        When looking at state compliance with relevant binding international human rights law, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Singapore are violating the right for every child to acquire a nationality pursuant to Article 7(1) CRC. Additionally, Cambodia and Indonesia are also not acting in compliance with Article 24(3) ICCPR.

        No safeguards on foundlings to prevent them from being rendered stateless can be found in nationality laws/ Constitution of Brunei (64), Myanmar, the Philippines, and Thailand.

        Page 21 in:
        “Statelessness and Transnational Migration: The role of States as duty-bearers to address statelessness in the ASEAN region under international law” by Sangita Jaghai

        http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=136452

        Please see also the table on page 17 (or sheet No. 24) of the document linked above.

        • What I found fascinating on your account, Baycas, is that those countries you mentioned went through a turbulent times, i.e., civil strife, war, killing fields, hence, they have a foundling issue because of the death of the child’s parents. Here, our country have not gone through that route yet. We have only gone through it during the American and Japanese occupation.

        • Countries like Lao and Vietnam have undergone turbulent times that separated the child from his/her parents either by separation or death of both parents with no supporting documents to give their nationality.

        • I suspect that the UN Convention that is most relevant to Poe is the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, because that convention deals squarely and conclusively on the issue of foundlings. In my opinion the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons deal mostly with the refugees. Thus, it states in its introductory note that the definition of “stateless person” is someone “who is not considered as a national by any State under operation of its law.”

          By and large, Grace Poe is a citizen of the Philippines by operation of law. Thus under the law, she is naturalized. In any case, the 1954 Convention did not go beyond the main goal of establishing citizenship as a matter of right. The Philippine Constitution does, but only in terms of the qualification of candidates for the national office not the basic rights and privileges of ordinary citizens. As such, the Philippine Constitution and the UN Convention to be in sync and complementary and not contradictory.

        • @Pickers1368,

          Please be careful in interpreting “under the operation of its law” and “by operation of law.”

          The former has a broader meaning because “law” as used in the context of the meaning of a “stateless person” is not restricted to legislation only.

    • Consider a previous comment by @Rene-Ipil. It is subtle, came from left field but should resonate b’coz foundlings are ‘administratively processed’ by default once registered at the outset.

      “Did she not start her naturalization process when she was registered as a foundling in 1968? Justice de Castro said that one cannot be considered a foundling and receive the benefit of being a Philippine citizen without first proving that she was a foundling found in the Philippines. Meaning that the founder must properly register the foundling with the civil registrar. And it was only upon confirmation by the civil registrar of proper registration that Poe was “naturalized.” Indeed, Poe was reported as a foundling by Militar on September 6, 1968. But such registration was affirmed by the civil registrar only on November 27, 1968.

      “Several naturalization cases were consummated outside the Naturalization Law or CA 473.” – Rene-Ipil

      – http://raissarobles.com/2015/09/18/pagtakbo-ni-senador-grace-poe-nang-walang-partido-mapanganib/comment-page-3/#comment-337673

  9. Bongbong Marcos belies 2016 declaration this weekend (ABS-CBN 9/24/15)

    Bongbong rants against marcos loyalist oliver lozano for spreading stories about his supposed presidential bid in 2016 (Philstar 927/15)

    A sort of good news

  11. I think Imelda’s stubbornness on the Marcos internment at the Heroes Cemetery also pertains to her on wishes to be buried beside him. Imagine the scenario of Macoy being buried there and the Marcos children insisting to have Imelda being buried their as well Perhaps I am just so cynical when it comes to the Marcoses. Raissa, you are correct to say just a simple atonement by the heirs of Marcos and expressing their regrets to all the human rights violations and pillages of the nation coffers that happened during the martial law years will be a really good start for us to move on.

      • baka mandiri pa yong funeral director trusted with imelda’s body,wash and clean to make it presentable, naked as the day she was born.

  12. SALBAHENG IMELDA, OPORTUNISTANG BINAY, MAHINANG RAMOS AT MAPANLINLANG FERDINAND

    Pagkatapos kung pakinggan ulit yung interview kay Raissa, binasa ko ulit ang article ni raissa nuong 2011

    http://raissarobles.com/2011/10/17/did-vp-jojo-binay-mislead-pnoy-on-the-marcos-burial-issue/

    tungkol sa kasunduan ni Imelda at ng Phil Govt sa pagbalik ng bangkay ni Marcos,aba’y salbahe talaga itong si Imelda. Dapat pala nung 1992 pagdating nilibing agad sa Ilocos, pero ginawa ni Imelda ginawang temporarily interred,eto naman si Ramos at Alunan (yung DILG secretary ni Ramos) mahinang klase-pumayag!

    Ngayon nung nanalo si Binay as Bise, dinala siya ng mga Marcoses sa Ilocos ng napakalaking agwat laban kay Roxas. Ngayon parang nagbago na ng tono si Binay, nagrekomenda kay Pnoy na ilibing na sa Libingan ng mga Bayani si Dikatador kasi war hero naman. Hindi niya sinabi kay Pnoy na ang totoo dinala siya ng mga Marcoses sa Ilocos ng napakalaking boto. Ang matindi rito kung war hero nga si Marcos? Peke pala ayon sa New York Times:

    MARCOS’S WARTIME ROLE DISCREDITED IN U.S. FILES
    By The following article is based on reporting by Jeff Gerth and Joel Brinkley and was written by Mr. Gerth.Special to the New York Times
    Published: January 23, 1986
    WASHINGTON, Jan. 22— The Army concluded after World War II that claims by Ferdinand E. Marcos that he had led a guerrilla resistance unit during the Japanese occupation of his country were ”fraudulent” and ”absurd.”
    Throughout his political career, Mr. Marcos, now President of the Philippines, has portrayed himself as a heroic guerrilla leader, and the image has been central to his political appeal.

    Read the rest of the article at
    http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/23/world/marcos-s-wartime-role-discredited-in-us-files.html?pagewanted=all

    Salamat Raissa sa malinaw na perspective tungkol sa nga kandidato ngayon for President.

  13. Off-topic:

    News item: “Erap to run against Mar in 2016 if…

    http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/09/12/1498778/erap-run-against-mar-2016-if…

    If he does run and win, it goes to show only that people deserve the kind of leaders that they voted in. Their government would then be, to paraphrase U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, a “government of, by, and for” the bobotantes.

    Estrada is not only a convicted plunderer:

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/60117/news/nation/erap-guilty-of-plunder-sentenced-to-reclusion-perpetua

    but a self-acknowledged womanizer for having “sired 12 children with six different women”:

    http://www.philstar.com/news-feature/798839/love-consultant-erap-offers-services-noy

    He has a “weakness for grand houses” and his wives and children have a “lavish lifestyle” which he himself cannot explain:

    http://pcij.org/imag/PublicEye/edifice.html

    When he was President, his “other women” were “well provided for” by “other presidential friends such as Lucio Tan and Eduardo ‘Danding’ Cojuangco.

    http://pcij.org/stories/2000/houses3.html

    When he runs for President again, for sure he’s going to resurrect his bobotante-appealing slogan he’d used before: “Erap para sa mahirap”.

    “Erap para sa mahirap”????? TELL THAT TO THE MARINES!

    • Erap is a formidable opponent due to the number of bobotantes – Class AB comprise 1%, C 9%, D 60% and E 30% (SWS) – meaning the intelligent voters (Class A,B % C) comprise only 10% and the rest will go erap way with his slogan “erap para sa mahirap” but this can be countered by massive vote buying of the DE voters.

  14. NIEL: isang batikang journalist, blogger na si Ms. Raiisa Robles. Si Raiisa ay cum laude graduate ng UP, English Lierature major in Imaginative Writing. At nag-aral ng Journalism sa International Institute of Journalism in Berlin. Nasa linya ngayon si Miss Raissa Robles.
    **********************************************************
    NIEL : Alam mo, Raiss, may naisulat ka noon sa iyong website an ang title ay “Did VP Binay misled PNoy in the Marcos burial issue?” At bagamat 2011 pa ito, tanong, eh may epekto ba yan kung bakit hindi pa naipapalibing sa Libingan ng Mga Bayani ang dating Pangulong Marcos.

    RAISSA: Ano naman, hindi naman may epekto yon pero parang namulatan lang sila kung ano yong mga circumstances kung bakit hindi mailibing sa Libingan ng mga Bayani. Tiniingan ko yong , kasi nong sinabi mo sa akin na magkakausap tayo, tinitingnan ko yon at binasa ko ulit yong sinulat ko at tinitingnan ko ang mga circumstances ano.
    Mayroon isang bagay na NAPAKAIMPORTANTE na hindi sinabi ni Binay kay Pangulong Aquino noon. Hindi niya sinabi noonna “ALAM NIYO, MR. PRESIDENT, MAY KOMPROMISO AKO SA MGA MARCOS DAHIL DINALA AKO NOONG ELEKSIYON NONG 2010. Nanalo ako sa Ilocos Norte”.
    Tiningnan ko yong mga figure, no. Si Binay, 120,853 sa boto na 277,204. Ibig sabihin nakuha niya mga 43.5%. Kaya dinala siya talaga ng mga Marcos. Si Roxas ay 18% lang, mga 49,000. So, hindi lang pala out of the goodness of his heart na gusto niya maipalibing si Marcos sa Libingan ng mga Bayani. Kumikilala …

    NEIL: Talagang may kompromiso siya at yong kompromiso niya at yon ang ipinangako niya sa mag Marcos.

    RAISSA : Oo, kumikilala siya ng utang na llob sa mga Marcos. OO, yon pala nangyari katulad ang nangyari kay VP Erap, di ba kinokuber din natin noon? Nanalo din siya sa Ilocos Norte dahil dinala siya ng mga Marcos. Ganon din pala nangyari kay VP Binay.

        • Ma’am chit puede po ba baka po maidagdag nyo po itong sa first part ng introduction. … At partikular na hindi tumitigil sa pagsubaybay sa issueng ito ay ang mga batikang journalists at bloggers kagaya po ng ating IGINAGALANG at sikat na batikang blogger…

    • so, what is wrong with that. thats politics. i don”t like binay too, but i don”t like roxas either becauae he has no backbone. always riding piggy back of penoy. and now comes grace poe, just because she is the daughter of fpj she can run the country. maybe you should look at the people behind her who call themselves advisers and all those trapos who are jumping on her bandwagon. ang kasalanan ng mga magulang ay hindi dapat pasanin ng mga anak.

  15. Mayroon bang written agreement na I derecho nila ang labi ni Marcos sa ilocos at hindi ilibing sa libingan ng mga bayani?