Wrong remedy

A LAW EACH DAY [KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY] By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)
| Updated August 2, 2017 - 12:00am

This is another interesting case where a mother initially conceded to have her child adopted only to
change her mind later on. The issue resolved here is on the proper remedy that the mother should bring
to recover her child. This is the case of Rona.

Rona is a single mother who had an illegitimate son with a man who abandoned him already. Despite her
status, she remained quite attractive until he met Nap, a loveless bachelor. Eventually Rona had an
amorous relationship with Nap and became pregnant again without the benefit of marriage. To avoid
placing her family in a potentially embarrassing situation for having a second illegitimate son, she tried to
hide her pregnancy. She misled Nap into believing that she had an abortion with the intention of having
her child adopted by a Home for Children.

And so, when she was able to complete her term of pregnancy, she gave birth to a baby boy whom she
named “Baby Ronnie.” The Home for Children shouldered all her medical and hospital expenses. About
three weeks later, she voluntarily surrendered Baby Ronnie to the DSWD by way of a Deed of Voluntary
Commitment.

Four months after she gave birth, Nap suffered a heart attack and died without knowing about the birth of
his son. During Nap’s wake, Rona disclosed to Nap’s family that she and Nap had a son which she gave
up for adoption due to financial distress and initial embarrassment. Nap’s family was taken aback by the
revelation and sympathized with Rona. So they vowed to help her recover and raise the baby. The
following day however the DSWD Secretary already issued a certificate declaring Baby Ronnie as
“Legally Available for Adoption.” After two local matching conferences were held, Baby Ronnie was
already “matched” for supervised trial custody with the spouses Leni and Mario, members of a Bahay
Foundation.

Thereafter, about three months later, Rona who had changed her mind about the adoption, wrote a letter
to the DSWD asking for the suspension of the adoption proceedings, claiming that she wanted her family
back together again.

But the Legal Service Division of the DSWD informed Rona that the certificate declaring Baby Ronnie
legally available for adoption had attained finality three months after Rona signed the Deed of Voluntary
Commitment which terminated her parental authority and effectively made the baby a ward of the State.
The DSWD even refused the request of Nap’s brother for a DNA testing of Baby Ronnie because the
procedures followed relative to the certification on the availability of the child for adoption and the child’s
subsequent placement to prospective adoptive parents were proper, and that the DSWD was no longer in
the position to stop the adoption process. They further told Rona to file the necessary petition in court if
she wanted to reacquire her parental authority over Baby Ronnie or halt the adoption process, as the
period for her to regain her parental rights had already lapsed under Section 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9523.

So Rona filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of Amparo before the RTC of Quezon City to obtain
custody of Baby Ronnie from the DSWD. She accused the DSWD officials of “blackmailing” her into
surrendering custody of her child and utilizing an invalid certificate of availability for adoption to
misrepresent that all legal requisites for adoption of the minor child had been complied with; and that they
had acted beyond the scope of their legal authority thereby causing the enforced disappearance of said
child and depriving her of custodial rights and parental authority over him.

The RTC thus initially issued a Writ of Amparo commanding DSWD officials to produce the body of Baby
Ronnie at a scheduled hearing which was complied with. But after hearing of the petition on the merits,
the RTC dismissed said petition. It said that Rona should have filed a civil case for custody of her child as
laid down in the Family Code with the corresponding Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus if there is
extreme urgency to secure custody Baby Ronnie for being illegally detained.
 a writ of amparo covers
This ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court (SC). The SC said that
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. “Extralegal killings”
are “killings committed without judicial proceedings.” On the other hand, “enforced
disappearances” consist of the arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a
government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or
indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or
whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of
liberty which places such persons outside the protection of law.
In this case however, the DSWD officers never concealed Baby Ronnie’s whereabouts. In fact, Rona was
informed by the DSWD that he was in the custody of Mario and Leni. There is therefore, no
“enforced disappearance.” Rona is not searching for a lost child but asserting her
parental authority over the child and contesting custody over him. Rona should thus file
the necessary and appropriate petition for custody and recovery of parental authority
over Baby Ronnie (Caram etc. vs. Segui et.al. G.R. 193652, Agust 5, 2014).