The Supreme Court (SC) has issued rules to expedite court processes for the return of a child who is below 16 years of age and abducted from his or her country of “habitual residence” and taken to the Philippines.
Under the Rule on International Child Abduction Cases, the SC said the prompt return of the child is “based on presumption that, save in exceptional circumstances, such wrongful removal or retention is not in the best interest of the child.”
The SC also said that the rule “also aims to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the laws of the state or country of the child’s habitual residence are effectively respected.”
It said the rule “shall apply to all international child abduction and retention cases in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980 (HCAC).
The Hague Convention, signed by more than 100 countries including the Philippines, “covers international parental child abduction and provides a process through which parents can seek to have their child returned to their home country.”
The adoption of the rule was recommended to the SC as a full court by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro Javier, chairperson of the Committee on Family Courts and Juvenile Concerns.
With the approval by all members of the SC, the rule – under A.M. No. 22-09-15-SC) -- will take effect 15 days after its publication in two newspapers of general circulation.
The rule was published in the Feb. 19, 2023 issue of the Manila Bulletin.
Under the rule, the petition should be filed by the “left behind parent” or any authorized person, institution or any other body claiming that a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in breach of custody rights before the regional trial court (RTC) acting as a family court.
The “left behind parent” is defined in the rule as “any person, institution, or any other body exercising rights of custody or access over the child by operation of law or by reason or a judicial or administrative decision or agreement having legal effect under the law... immediately prior to the breach of such right of custody or right of access.”
The respondent in the case is the “taking parent” who is “any person, institution, or any body who wrongfully removed a child from his or her country of habitual residence, or wrongfully retained the child in another country.”
The case should be filed with the family court where the child is found and if the child’s location is unknown, it can be filed where the “taking parent” is located.
The only pleadings allowed under the rule are the verified petition and the comment. Among the pleadings disallowed are motion to dismiss, third party complaint, intervention, and dilatory motion for postponement.
If the “taking parent” is outside the Philippines at the time the petition is filed and the child is still in the Philippines, summons may still be served abroad or by publication once in a newspaper of general circulation.
Comment on the petition by the “taking parent” should be filed within five days from service of summons. Failure to file a comment will pave the way for the family court to render judgment based on the allegations in the petition and supporting affidavits and papers, but limited to the issues sought in the petition.
Trial on the petition can be done through video conference hearings and the proceedings are confidential and “closed to the public.”
The decision of the family court is final and immediately executory. An aggrieved party may file a special civil action for certiorari (appeal to a higher court on issue of lack or excess of jurisdiction) under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
TAGS: #SC #International child abduction #A.M. No. 22-09-15-SC