fact, why are their rights shrouded with conjectures and suppositions?
Respected board of judges,
distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, a pleasant evening to you all.
Contrary to what the negative side
wishes to impress upon everyone this evening, this debate is not only about us natural-born citizens or about our overzealousness to protect and uphold the mandate and integrity of our constitution, but rather this is also about the foundlings whose status we have miserably failed to clearly define. And we should tarry no more, for indeed, a right delayed is a right denied.
As the beneficiality speaker for the
affirmative, I have no doubt in mind that declaring foundlings as non-natural born citizens will be beneficial not only for our system of government but also for the foundlings themselves whose rights, and status we have neglected for so long, like “an elephant in the room”.
The fact of the matter is, neither the
constitution nor existing legislative enactments provide for a manner by which a foundling may be considered a Philippine Citizen This, despite our clear obligation under international law to enable them to do so.
As they are essentially of unknown
parentage, foundlings cannot fall under those who acquire Philippine citizenship by the mere fact of birth to a Filipino mother or father. They cannot also source their Filipino citizenship from naturalization in accordance with the existing law as there is yet no law that has been passed allowing a process for them to acquire citizenship. Republic Act 9139, which amended the Revised Naturalization Act, prescribes that the applicant must at least be above 18 years of age. As a result, until such time the foundling opts and is qualified to undergo the process, he/she is temporarily a stateless person in the eyes of our Constitution.
The 1954 Convention relating to the
Status of Stateless Persons defines a stateless person as one who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law. As such, he/she cannot exercise certain civil and political rights which are especially reserved for citizens of a State.
Through the affirmative side of the
proposition, we will be able to clarify and firmly establish the status of foundlings in a manner that is consistent with the constitution. It is fundamental in our legal system that the rights and best interest of the child is paramount, and it is to the best interest of the foundling to be declared a Filipino. Whether it be achieved through an amendment to the naturalization law, or through an entirely different law to enable foundling minors to be naturalized, the problem of their statelessness is resolved. As a consequence, they become citizens of the Philippines, with all the rights and privileges of a naturalized Filipino.
On the other hand, it also benefits the
State in that not only will the proposition vest upon foundlings the rights of a naturalized Filipino, the State in turn becomes compliant with its obligations under international law. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child, States Parties are required to enable every child to acquire a nationality. It also accomplishes the State interest in that it clarifies where foundlings belong in the category of Filipino citizens, thus preserving the reservation of certain key government positions to natural-born Filipinos as required by the Constitution.
Through the proposition, two interests
are therefore benefited: the interest of the foundling and the interest of the State. A balance is therefore created.
The end of the law, John Locke reminds
us, is not to abolish and restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.