The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) on Wednesday reminded the Supreme Court that Philippines has the obligation to see to the welfare of a child, including foundlings like Senator Grace Poe.
In a Memorandum submitted to the Supreme Court, CHR explained that by nature, a foundling鈥檚 right to Philippine nationality at birth is self-executing鈥攎eaning, there is no need for Congress to pass a law before a foundling can be considered a Filipino citizen.
鈥淚n line with judicial decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the opinions of most highly qualified publicists in international law, the State has the obligation to grant them Philippine nationality even absent an enabling local law since it is an obligation erga omnes (toward all) to prevent statelessness among foundlings,鈥� the CHR said.
鈥淏y its nature, the right to a nationality of foundlings is an independently enforceable human right,鈥� the CHR added.
A foundling is a child whose parents were unknown. Poe was a foundling, as she was abandoned at a church in Jaro, Iloilo in 1968. She was adopted by celebrity couple Fernando Poe Jr. and Susan Roces.
Her qualification to run for President is being questioned for not being a natural-born Filipino because of her unknown parentage. Under the Constitution, being a natural-born Filipino is one of the basic qualifications to become President.
Her critics said Poe is stateless because the nationality of her parents were unknown. For foundlings like Poe to be considered Filipino citizen and natural-born at that, there should be an enabling law.
But the CHR said to say that an enabling law is needed for a foundling to claim Filipino citizenship would be absurd.
It pointed out that such a situation would create a 鈥済reat injustice and persecution鈥� to the helpless foundlings.
CHR warned that for a foundling, even if at a minor would be required to resort to legal action just to exercise or be accorded the most basic rights, would have a 鈥済rand and far-reaching鈥� consequences.
Meanwhile, Atty. Manuelito Luna, counsel for former Senator Francisco 鈥淜it鈥� Tatad, denounced the CHR for raising its position to the Supreme Court.
鈥淭he CHR cannot just join in the fray without leave of court; it鈥檚 contemptuous. Besides, no human rights issue is involved in Poe鈥檚 cases; the matter has to do with the political privilege of a disqualified candidate to run for President. It is not even a right, much less fundamental. CHR should better attend to human rights cases instead of dipping its fingers into the cases [involving Poe],鈥� Luna said.
But CHR lawyer Francis Temprosa said their focus is on the issue of foundlings, albeit a collateral one.
鈥淭he CHR is here to protect foundlings. In the motion, we cited previous cases wherein the Supreme Court accommodated the CHR in allowing it to comment in amicus. It [CHR Memoranda] did not delve into the issue of the citizenship of Senator Poe, but on the right of foundlings to a nationality,鈥� he added.