How it happens and what
can be done to prevent it
Republic Act No. 8043
- otherwise known as the Inter-country
Adoption Act of 1995.
- defines inter-country adoption as the
socio-legal process of the adoption of a
Filipino child by a foreigner or a Filipino
citizen permanently residing abroad, with
the end in view of providing every neglected
and abandoned child with a family that will
give that child love and care as well as
opportunities for growth and development.
Republic Act No. 7610
-otherwise known as the Philippine
Anti-Child Abuse Law
- defines child trafficking as the act
of “trading and dealing with children,
including … the act of buying and selling
a child for money, or for any other
consideration, or barter.
There is an attempt to commit child
trafficking
x x x x x
(c)
When
a
person,
agency,
establishment
or
child-caring
institution recruits women or couples to
bear children for the purpose of child
trafficking; or
(d) When a doctor, hospital or clinic
official or employee, nurse, midwife, local
civil registrar or any other person simulates
birth* for the purpose of child trafficking;
or
(e) When a person engages in the act of
finding children among low-income
families, hospitals, clinics, nurseries, daycare centers, or other child-during
institutions who can be offered for the
purpose of child trafficking.
Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
2003, Republic Act No 9208 further
refined and expanded the concept of
trafficking by criminalizing the domestic
or
trans-national
“recruitment,
transportation, transfer or harboring, or
receipt of persons”, consensual or
otherwise, by force, coercion, abduction,
fraud, deception, abuse of power or
monetary inducement, for the purpose of
sexual or labor exploitation, “or the
removal or sale of organs”.
Senate Bill No. 2625, seeking to expand
the Anti-Trafficking Act of 2003 is currently
pending before the Senate. One of the more
significant provisions is the proposal to exert
extra territorial-jurisdiction, wherein the
Philippines may prosecute trafficking
committed outside the Philippines, and
whether or not such act or acts constitute an
offense at the place of commission, if the
suspect or accused (i) is a Filipino citizen; (ii)
is a permanent resident of the Philippines; or,
(iii) has committed the act against a citizen of
the Philippines.
1990 Report on Inter-country
Adoption prepared by our distinguished
Secretary General, J.H.A. (Hans) Van
Loon characterizes abducting, buying,
or selling children for inter-country
adoption as a form of child trafficking
even where the intention and result was
that children would be adopted into
families.
Mr. Van Loon notes that “[i]n
order for the trafficking to be
successful, it is essential that the child
leave the country of origin in a legal or
seemingly legal way.”
“child laundering,” which is the
process of obtaining children illicitly,
falsifying their status into properly
relinquished
or
abandoned
“orphans,” and then processing them
through the inter-country adoption
system. (David M. Smolin)
Smolin claims that “processing
children in intact families into paper
orphans” through illegal means to
separate them from their families or
breaking the original child-birth
family relationship also constitutes
trafficking.
How do we move further?
1. A central authority, accredited
adoption agencies and an
inter-country adoption system
under domestic laws and The
Hague Convention will not
suffice to prevent child
trafficking.
2. The Philippines observes a “Closed
Adoption” Policy.
The ICA laws
specifically prohibit any contact
between the Prospective Adoptive
Parents and the child and/or the
child’s
parents,
guardians
or
custodian.
Only when it is
demonstrated that the child’s best
interests will be served, under the
most exceptional circumstances, will a
pre-identification
adoption
be
allowed.
3. The ICAB, as the central authority
of inter-country adoptions in the
Philippines,
has
established
accreditation procedures meeting
the highest standards set by the
Hague Permanent Bureau under
Section 213 of the Guide to Good
Practices
of
the
Hague
Convention
of
1993,
viz.:
“The process of accreditation of
adoption agencies is one of the
important safeguards in the Convention
for the protection of children. The
requirement for authorisation by both
countries for the accredited body to
operate in the country of origin is an
additional safeguard.
The receiving
State and the State of origin should take
joint responsibility for the supervision
of the authorised accredited body.”
4. The ICAB has implemented watertight
measures
to
monitor
compliance with the three (3) bimonthly post-placement report
requirement. It is also looking into
other post-adoption safeguards, i.e.
to determine and keep in check the
protection of child’s rights and
interests after placement.
5. To curtail the practice of using
inter-country adoption as a means
to traffic, both the sending and
receiving countries must dovetail
and update the safety mechanisms
in their pre-adoption processes and
post-adoption
monitoring
procedures.
6. Finally there may be a need for the
receiving countries to revisit their
policies and procedures in intercountry adoptions.
The Philippines is attempting
to do its part. Its Congress is
constantly updating its laws to
keep pace with global trends in
trafficking.
In a position paper for Terre des Homes
International Federation (TDHIF) Isabelle
Lammerant
and
Marlène
Hofstetter
presented these proposals to curb trafficking:
1. For the Central Authorities, in receiving
countries, to take an active role in
changing the “erroneous ideology” of
prospective adoptive parents that they
are the ones entitled to a child not the
child being entitled to have a family.
2. Central Authorities should approve
adoption applications coursed through
accredited bodies; restrict or even
prohibit private adoptions and ban any
form of contact between the prospective
adopters and the parents or child’s
guardian. For adoption through private
adoption procedures provides a breeding
ground for abuse. It does not only exert
pressure on the biological parents, but
the
procedure
encourages
the
kidnapping of children, and other
procedural illegalities.
3. For the receiving country to impose
on its diplomatic representatives in
the sending countries the specific
mission of reporting bad practices
and suspected child trafficking or
violations of their rights to the
Central Authority, in cooperation
with diplomatic representatives of
other receiving countries.
4.
Conversely, for the receiving
countries’
diplomatic
representatives to strengthen ties
with sending countries’ Central
Authorities in curbing illegal
entries and circumventions of the
adoption processes facilitated by
the receiving countries’ nationals.