Poe can never be stateless

As a foundling, the social justice principle that those who have less in life should have more in
law should be applied to Sen. Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares. The state is even mandated to
care for abandoned children under the principle of parens patriae.
The provisions of the 1935 Constitution on citizenship must be interpreted in conjunction
with its Social Justice provisions, which expressly provide that the promotion of social justice
to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people should be the concern of the
State.
Social justice means that the State shall look after the best interest of those who have less in
life, such as abandoned children, should have more in law.
Thus, an interpretation of the 1935 Constitution, which applies to Poes citizenship issue, that
would characterize an abandoned child as stateless certainly runs counter against the States
policy on social justice, and would even be violative of the equal protection rights of said child.
Also, at the time that the 1935 Constitution was enacted, the notion of statelessness was not
yet a recognized international concept. Thus, if we were to look closely at the provisions of the
1935 Constitution (and in the deliberations), nowhere did the framers mention the term
stateless. Under the 1935 Constitution, a person is either a Filipino or an alien.
Back then, there was no such situation as being stateless. In a word, the framers of the 1935
Constitution could not have contemplated an interpretation of the Constitution that would
result in a person being stateless since the said concept was unheard of, at the time.
Furthermore, the trend under international law has been for the implementation of measures
and legislation toward the reduction of statelessness.
Pioneering this trend would be Article 15 of the 1949 United Nations Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UN Declaration) which provides that everyone has the right to a
nationality, and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the
right to change his nationality. The rights contained under said UN Declaration, including

the right to a nationality, are highly considered as peremptory norms or universally accepted
principles.
Thus, local legislation on citizenship should always be interpreted in such a way as to promote
a persons right to a nationality, and should be interpreted against the existence of
statelessness.
International legislation that particularly addresses the issue of statelessness can also be seen
in the 1954 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (to which the
Philippines is a signatory). Also, the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
comprehensively established measures in order to protect children from acquiring stateless
status. It provides, among others, that 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.
While the Philippines is not a party or signatory to the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction
of Statelessness, we can apply the principles enshrined therein in resolving citizenship issues
pertaining to statelessness. Especially, since the Philippines is a party to other international
conventions which promote the rights of individuals to a nationality, such as the 1966
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[1] and 1989 UN Convention on the
Rights of a Child.[2]
Using said instruments, the subject legal issue on the citizenship of Senator Poe must be
resolved to favor her having a nationalitybeing a natural born Filipino citizenrather than
having a stateless status. More so if we consider the fact that the principle or policy that the
state shall act as parents of its citizens in need of guardians under the principle of parens
patriae enshrined in the Constitution.
Finally, in the same case of Tecson, the Supreme Court put to rest any question as to whether
Par. 3, Section 1, Art. IV of the 1935 Constitution indeed made distinction as to the kind of
children who may acquire the Filipino citizenship of their father by ruling:
The fact of the matterperhaps the most significant considerationis that the 1935
Constitution, the fundamental law prevailing on the day, month and year of birth of
respondent FPJ (Fernando Poe Jr., Senator Poes father), can never be more explicit than it is.

Providing neither conditions nor distinctions, the Constitution states that among the citizens
of the Philippines are those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. There utterly is no
cogent justification to prescribe conditions or distinctions where there clearly are none
provided.
Thus, I dare say that the phrase fathers are citizens of the Philippines, should be interpreted
to include adoptive fathers there being no cogent justification to prescribe conditions or
distinctions that it did not refer to adoptive fathers or mothers.
Even on this score alone, Senator Poe is a natural-born Filipino being the adopted daughter of
Filipino parents and, therefore, cannot be treated as a stateless individual.

Mr. Macalintal is a noted election lawyer and also an advocate of the rights
of senior citizens