The four disqualification cases filed against Senator Grace Poe, who is running for president in the May 2016 elections supposedly as an independent candidate, currently pending before the Supreme Court, have focused mainly on the status of foundlings in the Philippines. This is expected because Poe is a foundling, and as of this writing, the identities of her biological parents remain a mystery. The latest developments in DNA research have not been very helpful to her.
Aside from the status of foundlings, attention should be given likewise to the status of adopted children, and the legal consequences of adoption to both a person and the State. This is relevant because Poe is not just a foundling but an adopted child as well. As an infant, Poe was adopted by the late Philippine box office king Fernando Poe Jr. and his wife, actress Susan Roces.
Philippine laws and jurisprudence consistently hold that adoption does not confer the citizenship of any of the adopting parents to the adopted child. This restrictive policy was and remains pursued by the State to prevent aliens from using the adoption process as a vehicle for stealthily obtaining Philippine citizenship in circumvention of the pertinent provisions of the Constitution and Philippine statutes on citizenship.
Adoption is a personal matter involving the legal affiliation of the adopting parents and the adopted child. It is a civil relationship. Citizenship, on the other hand, involves the State and its people. It is a political relationship.
The process of judicial naturalization is very expensive by reason of its adversarial nature and the amount of time used up in litigation. Naturalization cases often invite public attention and scrutiny. Moreover, the ruling of a court in a naturalization case is never final, which means that it can be questioned at some indefinite future date, for good reasons.
On the other hand, a petition for adoption filed in court is less expensive. In adoption proceedings, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.
Since adoption does not confer Philippine citizenship on the adopted child, then this indicates that the adopted child remains stateless in the meantime, until he or she reaches the age of majority and applies for naturalization. At that stage in the adopted child’s life, and unless there are good reasons to hold otherwise, naturalization will not be too difficult to obtain from a court of law, considering the circumstances surrounding his or her life as a minor living in the Philippines under the care and custody of Filipinos.
Not all adopted children are foundlings. An adopted child may be a foundling or, in many instances, one whose biological parents are known, and they have freely consented to the adoption of their child. In some instances, as in a child given up for adoption through a charitable institution, the identities of the biological parents may be known to the charitable institution, but kept confidential from the adopting parents and the child.
There is no law which provides that a foundling discovered anywhere within Philippine territory is, conclusively or disputably, presumed to be a Filipino, and it may not be in the best interest of the State if such a presumption became a legal norm. If it were so, then the strict laws governing Philippine citizenship will be easily circumvented by aliens. Aliens who are unable to stealthily obtain Philipine citizenship through adoption, will simply make arrangements to have it appear that their alien infants are foundlings, and as such, the foundlings will be presumed Filipino citizens. That will be a neat way to go around the law.
Getting an infant legally adopted is a far more difficult process than making it appear that the infant is a foundling. If Philippine citizenship cannot be obtained through the difficult process of adoption, it should not be obtained through an easier, fraud-prone process like abandoning a child and having it treated as a foundling. Philippine jurisprudence is very clear —what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.
From the foregoing premises, it certainly is not in the best interest of the State to presume that a foundling discovered in the Philippines is a citizen of the Philippines.
All is not lost for the foundling, though. Upon reaching the age of majority, a foundling can apply for naturalization. Having spent his or her years as a minor in the Philippines in the care and custody of Filipinos, getting naturalized should not be very difficult to do.
Undoubtedly, therefore, since Poe is a foundling, there is no way she may be allowed to run for president, since that office is reserved by the Constitution—the most articulate voice of the people—to natural-born citizens of the Philippines.
Sentimental arguments have been raised in favor of foundlings in general. They posit that a ruling against Poe in her disqualification cases will be prejudicial to other foundlings in the country. That sentiment is beside the point.
The issue is about Poe, not about foundlings. Nobody forced Poe to run for president. One who wants to become president must meet the qualifications set forth by the Constitution for the presidency. The Constitution should not bend to accommodate one individual who happens to be a foundling.
Anyway, not all is lost for foundlings. Upon attaining Philippine citizenship by naturalization, a foundling may run for local elective office, or seek appointment to other high offices which the Constitution does not reserve for natural-born citizens, or practice a profession in the country. In addition, it may be worthwhile to consider that employment in the government is not exactly the ideal for everyone. With so much patronage and intrigue hounding the corridors of political power, many have chosen to stay away from government service, and pursue a career elsewhere—where the attainment of wealth does not necessarily translate to corruption in office, and where one’s employment does not have to depend on the political exigencies of the times.