The Adoptive Parents and Adopted Children Association believe and reiterate that Mary

Grace Poe-Llamanzares is a natural born Filipino Citizen based on the Constitution, local
and international laws.
Sec 1 Art 4 of the 1987 Constitution states who are Filipino citizens:
1. Those who are citizens of the PH at the time of the adoption of the Constitution
2. Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the PH
3. Those born before Jan 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect PH citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with the law law
Sec 2, however, describes who are natural born citizens: Natural born citizens are those
who are citizens of the Ph from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect
their PH citizenship. Moreover, the constitution speaks of 2 kinds of Filipino citizens:
natural-born and naturalized Filipino citizens.
As stated earlier, natural born citizens are those who do not need to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their PH citizenship. This includes the situations stated on Paragraph
1-3 of Sec 1 Art 4 of the 1987 Constitution. A naturalized Filipino citizen, is the opposite
of a natural born, because such person who wants to become a Filipino citizen, should
perform an act to perfect or acquire PH citizenship (RA 9139). As such, foundlings cannot
be considered naturalized citizens because naturalization requires an explicit procedure
required by law. Naturalization is a procedure specifically provided by law based on an
application process. Naturalization can happen through administrative, judicial, and
legislative means. It is not and never has been automatically conferred. Since Grace Poe
no longer needs to perform any act to become a Filipino, it can be concluded that she is
a natural born Filipino citizen.
In the laws of adoption, all expressly refer to ‘Filipino children’ and include foundlings as
among Filipino children who may be adopted. The laws also stated that the adoptee may
only be adopted if he/she is a Filipino. More specifically, the following legislations: 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,"; the provisions in these laws expressly refer to "Filipino children" and
include foundlings as among Filipino children who may be adopted. Provided that the law
includes ‘foundlings’ as persons who can be adopted, it can be concluded that ‘foundlings’
are treated as natural-born Filipinos in the laws of adoption.
In addition to that, under Art 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention, even if the PH has not
ratified it but through generally accepted principles of international law, foundlings are
presumed to have the nationality of the country of birth. Art 14. A child whose parents are
both unknown shall have the nationality if the country of birth. If the child’s parentage is
established, its nationality shall be determined by the rules applicable in cases where the
parentage is known. A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been
born on the territory is the State in which it was found.
In conclusion, we believe that Grace Poe is more than qualified to run as a public official
for being a natural-born citizen. The issue of her being a foundling should not be a
hindrance nor a deterrent for her to serve the country under the Constitution, local, and
international laws.
Furthermore, we would like to stress that to declare that foundlings are stateless has
serious implications. It goes beyond the issue of an individual’s eligibility of running for
public office. It will affect basic human rights of stateless persons because without
citizenship, many civil and political rights will be denied.
As provided by the provisions of the Convention of the Rights of a Child, a State Party
shall ensure the implementation of the inalienable right to a nationality in accordance with
its national law and its obligations under other international instruments, in particular
where the child would otherwise be stateless. Thus, the Philippines must incorporate this
CRC provision in reading its Philippine law on citizenship. Philippine law does not state
that foundlings are not Filipino citizens, especially in the case at bar where there is no
proof of nationality except the fact that the petitioner was found in the Philippines. As
such, in the absence of a provision regarding a foundling’s citizenship, why should we
rule on the contrary and declare statelessness of a child in violation of our duty under the
Convention of the Rights of a Child (CRC)? To say that a foundling cannot be considered
a Philippine citizen is a violation of a child’s and a human being’s basic and inalienable
human right to bear a nationality from birth.

Moreover, not only foundlings will be affected but their families too, including their
adoptive parents and relatives where they have in fact been adopted. Likewise, adoptive
parents will not be able to adopt foundlings because of the complications involved with
respect to their legal status.

In sum, the human rights of Filipinos are at stake and not just the political aspiration of
one politician.