ARRE, Emmanuel Philip

PALMA, Juan Miguel

TOLEDO, Rosabell C.

RESOLUTION
This House supports that foundlings are Filipino citizens.

The Parameters
We take the definition of “foundling” as it is stated in the Rule on Adoption: this refers
to a deserted or abandoned infant or child whose parents, guardian, or relatives are unknown;
or a child committed to an orphanage or charitable or similar institution with unknown facts of
birth and parentage, duly registered in the Civil Register as a “foundling.”
In saying that foundlings are Filipino citizens, we agree with the Supreme Court ruling on
the landmark case of Grace Poe, which states that as a class, foundlings are to be considered
natural-born Filipino citizens.
Thus, we believe that all children found within the Philippine island are presumed to
have Filipino parentage, and are therefore natural-born Filipinos, unless evidence to the
contrary surfaces within the lifetime of the foundling. In that case, when the foundling is to
assume a different citizenship by virtue of confirmed parentage, he or she shall be stripped off
her citizenship and any benefit or privilege he/she may have accrued after being presumed as
such.

A Settled Case
This is actually a case already settled by the Supreme Court, as earlier mentioned, in the
landmark case of Grace Poe.
However, there is a possibility that this ruling might be abandoned the next time a
similar controversy arises. To borrow the words of Ang Probinsyano party-list Representative
Ronnie Ong, “while the Supreme Court ruled in Poe’s favor, the overall legal backdrop was not
encouraging—our present and past Constitutions are textually silent on the citizenship status of
foundlings, hence, legal interpretations differ, Congress has not enacted a law specifically to
address this gap, and worse, the Supreme Court decision can be reversed any time.”
With that in mind, this Government would like to solidify the ruling in the landmark case
of Grace Poe by supporting current bills pending in the Congress for the recognition of
foundlings as natural-born citizens. Senator Lito Lapid has authored one, known as the
“Foundling Recognition Act,” which he says will correct the inequities that beset foundlings in
the aspect of status, condition, and legal capacity. Ronnie Ong over in the lower chamber also
has one.

Foundlings: second-class citizens?

The battle cry in these two proposals are the same: the net effect of not considering a
foundling to be a Filipino citizen is the creation of second-class citizens deprived of certain
rights and privileges no matter how much they contribute to the development of this nation. It
is tantamount to telling foundlings that, even though it’s not their fault they don’t even know
who their parents are, they can never be as important to this State as you and me.
Again, to borrow words from the ponencia in Poe’s case, “Concluding that foundlings
are not natural-born citizens creates an inferior class of citizens who are made to suffer that
inferiority through no fault of their own. If that is not discrimination, we do not know what is.”
The Grounds
International laws and conventions accord foundlings the citizenship of the country
wherein they are found. The Hague Convention says such, and the United Nations has an
existing campaign to ensure that no child is born stateless. Although these international laws
and conventions do not control in the Philippines, we are not precluded from seeing the
commonsensical logic behind these. If not the country wherein they are found, who else can be
expected to confer citizenship to a foundling? No one else. Does this mean we should let a child
wade through life as a stateless being with very limited rights due to no fault of their own? Of
course not.
In fact, in law, the presumption should always be in favor of granting rights and always
against punishing a person when we are not entirely sure that he or she is at fault. In criminal
law, an innocent person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In
civil law, couples living together are presumed to enjoy the benefits of marriage, and for
children, every presumption should be made in favor of legitimacy. In the same vein, foundlings
should be presumed to be Filipino citizens, because an opposite presumption would be
nonsensical, cruel, and discriminatory.
Imagine a scenario where A, a foundling, is denied Filipino citizenship. She lives her
whole life to the ripe age of 60 as a stateless person, divested of protection and equal access to
education, housing, employment, and other rights in the Philippines. Then, as a death-bed act,
A’s parents suddenly shows up and claims A to be their child, complete with papers and
documentation of her Filipino citizenship. What would happen? Then, A would have been
deprived of all the rights she has always been entitled to, but just couldn’t prove—as she has no
capacity to, when she was a baby. What remedy can A take now against the State who refused
to presume on her benefit? Nothing.
Think in fact, if A had wanted to be a lawyer. Then, he could never reach that dream
because only Filipino citizens may be admitted to the Bar. Think of all the unwanted children
left in toilets, garbage bins, and Church doors. Shouldn’t they have the right to dream as big as
we can?
The evil sought to be avoided here is that the State wrongly accuses a child—found on
its soil—to be an alien, not deserving of rights and protection from the entity that brands itself
as parents patriae—parent of the people.
Legal Basis
The Rule on Adoption makes it clear that foundlings are presumed by our law to be
Filipino citizens.
Section 1 of the aforementioned law states the coverage of the rule as such: This Rule
covers the domestic adoption of Filipino children. Section 9 of the same provides the process for
the: Adoption of a foundling, an abandoned, dependent or neglected child.
Abandoned, dependent, or neglected children are natural-born Filipinos, whose parents
basically want nothing to do with them. Obviously, in lumping foundlings together with these
classes of children, the legislature intended to say that indeed, foundlings are Filipino children.
This means to say that foundlings have always been, in law and in practice, considered Filipinos,
otherwise the courts cannot decree their adoption.
Furthermore, Republic Act 8043 or the Act establishing rules to govern inter-country
adoption of Filipino children and for other purposes, should be related to Article 15 of the Civil
Code that states “laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition, and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
Clearly, foundlings fall within the coverage of inter-country adoption of Filipino children.
Another negative effect of withholding Filipino citizenship to foundlings would be that
no one will adopt foundlings on the possibility that the adoption decree will be challenged due
to lack of jurisdiction. So in condemning foundlings to be stateless, we will also be depriving
them of the right to be adopted. We are condemning them to life bouncing around in
orphanages, deprived of the love of family that will otherwise be uncontestedly available to
them if they are to be presumed Filipino citizens.
In conclusion, this House supports the policy to resolve the case of foundlings in the
best interest of the children because their concern should be paramount to the State. The State
should be more willing to be wrong in granting children more rights than to be wrong in
depriving children of the same.
ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS:
1. Burden of proof against citizenship should be against the State
2. Not in the Constitution’s enumeration? Well, The Supreme Court in the case of Grace
Poe already examined the intent of the framers of the Constitution and found that there
was an attempt to include foundlings in the enumeration of who are natural born
citizens in the Constitution. It was not carried out not because there were any
objections to the notion that persons of “unknown parentage” are Filipino citizens, but
only because the number of foundlings were not enough to merit specific mention.
3. The Court couldn’t even find or discern any intent or language permitting discrimination
against foundlings. They instead found that all three Constitutions guarantee the basic
right to equal protection of the laws and exhort the State to render social justice. It cited
provisions in the present Constitution that do not show any intent to discriminate
against foundlings on account of their unfortunate status.