How it happens and what can be done to prevent it

- otherwise known as the Inter-country Adoption Act of 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. 8043

-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. Republic Act No. 7610

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, day- care 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 water- tight measures to monitor compliance with the three (3) bi- monthly 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 inter- country 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.