Intention of The Framers of 1935 Constitution

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 4

1.

Intention of the framers of 1935 Constitution


It was not the intention of the framers to the intention of the 1935
Constitution to exclude or discriminate foundlings when it comes to natural-born
citizenship
While the 1935 Constitution's enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is
no restrictive language which would definitely exclude foundlings either.
As pointed out by petitioner as well as the Solicitor General, the deliberations
of the 1934 Constitutional Convention show that the framers intended foundlings
to be covered by the enumeration.
2. Accordance of social justice for the foundlings in the Philippines
The Solicitor General makes the further point that the framers "worked to
create a just and humane society," that "they were reasonable patriots and that
it would be unfair to impute upon them a discriminatory intent against
foundlings." He exhorts that, given the grave implications of the argument that
foundlings are not natural-born Filipinos, the Court must search the records of
the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions "for an express intention to deny
foundlings the status of Filipinos. The burden is on those who wish to use the
constitution to discriminate against foundlings to show that the constitution
really intended to take this path to the dark side and inflict this across the board
marginalization."
We find no such intent or language permitting discrimination against
foundlings. On the contrary, all three Constitutions guarantee the basic right to
equal protection of the laws. All exhort the State to render social justice. Of
special consideration are several provisions in the present charter: Article II,
Section 11 which provides that the "State values the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights," Article XIII, Section 1
which mandates Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of measures
that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities x x x" and Article XV, Section 3 which
requires the State to defend the "right of children to assistance, including proper
care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse,
cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development."
Certainly, these provisions contradict an intent to discriminate against foundlings
on account of their unfortunate status.
3. Burden of proof is on the respondent to prove that the petitioner is
not a natural-born citizen
The private respondents should have shown that both of petitioner's parents
were aliens. Her admission that she is a foundling did not shift the burden to her
because such status did not exclude the possibility that her parents were
Filipinos, especially as in this case where there is a high probability, if not
certainty, that her parents are Filipinos.

The Solicitor General offered official statistics from the Philippine Statistics
Authority (PSA)111 that from 1965 to 1975, the total number of foreigners born
in the Philippines was 15,986 while the total number of Filipinos born in the
country was 10,558,278. The statistical probability that any child born in the
Philippines in that decade is natural-born Filipino was 99.83/o. For her part,
petitioner presented census statistics for Iloilo Province for 1960 and 1970, also
from the PSA. In 1960, there were 962,532 Filipinos and 4,734 foreigners in the
province; 99.62/o of the population were Filipinos. In 1970, the figures were
1,162,669 Filipinos and 5,304 foreigners, or 99.55o/o. Also presented were
figures for the child producing ages (15-49). In 1960, there were 230,528 female
Filipinos as against 730 female foreigners or 99.68/o. In the same year, there
were 210,349 Filipino males and 886 male aliens, or 99.58/o. In 1970, there
were 270,299 Filipino females versus 1, 190 female aliens, or 99.56%. That same
year, there were 245,740 Filipino males as against only 1,165 male aliens or
99.53/o. COMELEC did not dispute these figures. Notably, Commissioner Arthur
Lim admitted, during the oral arguments, that at the time petitioner was found in
1968, the majority of the population in Iloilo was Filipino.112
Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of petitioner's parents are the
fact that she was abandoned as an infant in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo
City. She also has typical Filipino features: height, flat nasal bridge, straight black
hair, almond shaped eyes and an oval face.
There is a disputable presumption that things have happened according to
the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life.113 All of the
foregoing evidence, that a person with typical Filipino features is abandoned in
Catholic Church in a municipality where the population of the Philippines is
overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be more than a 99% chance that
a child born in the province would be a Filipino, would indicate more than ample
probability if not statistical certainty, that petitioner's parents are Filipinos. That
probability and the evidence on which it is based are admissible under Rule 128,
Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
To assume otherwise is to accept the absurd, if not the virtually impossible,
as the norm.
4. Domestic Laws also provide for the status of a foundling
Domestic laws on adoption also support the principle that foundlings are
Filipinos. These laws do not provide that adoption confers citizenship upon the
adoptee. Rather, the adoptee must be a Filipino in the first place to be adopted.
The most basic of such laws is Article 15 of the Civil Code which provides that
"[l]aws relating to family rights, duties, status, conditions, legal capacity of
persons are binding on citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad."
Adoption deals with status, and a Philippine adoption court will have jurisdiction
only if the adoptee is a Filipino.
The Court cited the case of Ellis and Ellis v. Republic on which it stated that:

In this connection, it should be noted that this is a proceeding in rem, which


no court may entertain unless it has jurisdiction, not only over the subject matter
of the case and over the parties, but also over the res, which is the personal
status of Baby Rose as well as that of petitioners herein. Our Civil Code (Art. 15)
adheres to the theory that jurisdiction over the status of a natural person is
determined by the latter's nationality. Pursuant to this theory, we have
jurisdiction over the status of Baby Rose, she being a citizen of the Philippines,
but not over the status of the petitioners, who are foreigners.
Recent legislation is more direct. R.A. No. 8043 entitled "An Act Establishing
the Rules to Govern the Inter-Country Adoption of Filipino Children and For Other
Purposes" (otherwise known as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995"), R.A.
No. 8552, entitled "An Act Establishing the Rules and Policies on the Adoption of
Filipino Children and For Other Purposes" (otherwise known as the Domestic
Adoption Act of 1998) and this Court's A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC or the "Rule on
Adoption," all expressly refer to "Filipino children" and include foundlings as
among Filipino children who may be adopted.
5. International Law
The Court stated that foundlings are citizens under international law.
Under the 1987 Constitution, an international law can become part of the
sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. The
transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a
domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation.124
On the other hand, generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue
of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land
even if they do not derive from treaty obligations.
Generally accepted principles of international law include international
custom as evidence of a general practice accepted as law, and general principles
of law recognized by civilized nations.125 International customary rules are
accepted as binding as a result from the combination of two elements: the
established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; and a
psychological element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to
law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the practice in
question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it.
"General principles of law recognized by civilized nations" are principles
"established by a process of reasoning" or judicial logic, based on principles
which are "basic to legal systems generally," such as "general principles of
equity, i.e., the general principles of fairness and justice," and the "general
principle against discrimination" which is embodied in the "Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, the Convention Against Discrimination in Education, the
Convention (No. 111) Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and
Occupation." These are the same core principles which underlie the Philippine

Constitution itself, as embodied in the due process and equal protection clauses
of the Bill of Rights.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("UDHR") has been interpreted by this
Court as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and
binding on the State.130 Article 15 thereof states:
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
The Philippines has also ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC). Article 7 of the UNCRC imposes the following obligations on our
country:
Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the
right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and as far as
possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in
accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant
international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would
otherwise be stateless.
In 1986, the country also ratified the 1966 International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 24 thereof provide for the right of every child
"to acquire a nationality:
1. Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex,
language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right, to such
measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of
his family, society and the State.
2. Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a
name.
3. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality.
The common thread of the UDHR, UNCRC and ICCPR is to obligate the
Philippines to grant nationality from birth and ensure that no child is stateless.
This grant of nationality must be at the time of birth, and it cannot be
accomplished by the application of our present naturalization laws,
Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended, and R.A. No. 9139, both of which
require the applicant to be at least eighteen ( 18) years old.

You might also like