The Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty designed to resolve a specific, high-stakes crisis: the wrongful removal or retention of a child across international borders by a parent, in violation of the custody rights of the other parent.

As Atty. Francesco Britanico explained on DWIZ 882’s Sulong na Bayan, the core mechanism of this agreement ensures that if a child is taken from a member country by one parent without the other’s consent, there is a formal process in place to immediately return the child to the country where they were habitually raised and accustomed to living.

It is crucial to understand that the Convention does not care who the “better” parent is.

It does not exist to settle messy marital grievances or award permanent custody. Its sole, pragmatic purpose is to determine which country has the rightful authority to decide the child’s future.

It demands that the child be returned immediately to their habitual residence and is a civil action to do so.

As Atty. Francesco Britanico clarified on air, although the Philippines signed the international treaty regarding child abduction in 2016, the local implementing rules did not come into effect until 2023.

Consequently, the legal mechanism to file these specific abduction cases in Philippine courts has only been available for approximately three years.

This 2023 activation was achieved through the landmark issuance of A.M. No. 22-09-15-SC (Rule on International Child Abduction Cases), promulgated by the Supreme Court En Banc.

This procedural rule finally gave local family courts a concrete blueprint to handle international removals.

Quick Facts:

• An international treaty between countries to resolve issues where a child is brought to another country by a parent without the other parent’s consent.
• Philippines agreed to this treaty in 2016
• Philippines started to process these cases in 2023, when the implementing rules were released
• The result of the treaty is to decide where the child should live to reduce disruption and psychological stress to the child, and does not resolve custody issues and allows a “left-behind” parent to redeem the child.
• It is a civil action and is not a criminal action

Cross-border situations are governed by the civil mechanism of the Hague Child Abduction Convention, provided that state country is a member of this convention.

The Hague Apostille Convention covers 2 situations:

1. Wrongful Removal
2. Wrongful Retention

Wrongful removal occurs when a parent sole takes a child out of their home country without the knowledge or consent of the other parent who shares custody rights.

For example, Maria and Mark live in Spain with their 4-year-old daughter Kitty and 7-year-old son John. They are married and both parents share equal custody rights. One weekend while Mark is away, Maria packs Kitty and John’s bags, buys one-way tickets, and flies to the Philippines, with the intention of permanent relocating there. Mark returns home find the house empty and learns his daughter and son is in the Philippines. Maria refuses to bring them back.

The Hague Convention applies in this situation because both children’s habitual residence is Spain and Maria’s decision to remove to the Philippines breached Mark’s custody rights.

Because both nations are Hague Convention Members, Mark can file using the Hague Convention to request prompt the children’s prompt return.

Wrongful Retention is slightly different.

This situation occurs when a child traveling abroad with the initial consent of both parents is not returned to his or her home country.

For example, Jayson and Lyka live in Czech Republic with their 9-year-old son Dave. They are not married and live separately but have joint legal custody through a court order, although Dave primarily lives with Jayson. Lyka requests Dave’s company for a vacation in the Philippines, which Jayson grants.

However, at the end of the trip, Lyka announces that she has enrolled Dave in a Philippine school and they will not be returning to Czech Republic.

In this scenario, Hague Convention applies because Dave’s trip to the Philippines for one-month vacation was consented to but the child was wrongfully retained in the Philippines.

Quick Facts:

• When the child is removed from the country of his residence by a parent without the consent of the other parent – for example, the child is taken by one parent to another country without informing the other parent and the child was never returned
• When the child is retained in one country by a parent without the consent of the other parent such as when the child went for a holiday but was never returned

In the Philippines, the law on child abduction is quite distinct because it often separates parental taking from criminal kidnapping.

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code punishes the act of kidnapping where one is forcible transport or abduct of individual against their will.

However, the Revised Penal Code explicitly excludes parents form being charged with kidnapping their own child. This means that if a parent takes their own child, it is generally not classified as kidnapping under Article 267.

Another case that might be possible would be to file a criminal case under special laws like the Violence Against Women and their Children, but these can only be filed against men and requires that there is physical, economic and psychological harm.

Another possible case that can be filed is when a party violates a court order – in this case either the father or the mother can be filed.

Atty. Francesco Britanico has pointed out that the facts of the case are important and the correct case to file depends on the situation.

In other cases, some parents kidnap their own children or hide them from the other parent so that they can facilitate or directly engage in sexual abuse and molestation.

In such instances, the parent may face multiple criminal charges. This includes the crimes previously mentioned and also serious violation of RA 7610.

Quick Facts:

• It does not fall under kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as parents are excluded from that.
• It might fall under RA 7610 or child abuse, depending on the situation.

When a parent takes a child to another country without the other’s parent’s consent, it triggers complex cross-border issues.

To solve this, countries across the globe rely on the Hague Abduction Convention, which is an international agreement between countries.

However, this agreement is not automatically enforceable to all nations who have signed the treaty.

Atty Francesco explained that even though the Philippines and countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada are all members of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the treaty is not yet automatically enforceable between them.

As the Philippines signed the treaty later than these nations, there is a formal process required before the rules actually apply between the Philippines and other countries.

This means that if a child is taken from the Philippines to these countries (or vice versa), you cannot yet use the fast-tracked legal remedies provided by the Hague Convention.

Instead, you are currently required to use the traditional, much slower legal routes to resolve these custody disputes.

The treaty can only be used once both the Philippines, and the other specific country agree that it is officially in effect between them.

There are other requirements.

For instance, you have one year to file from the date of unlawfully removal or retention of the child.

If the left-behind parent files before the local courts in less than one year, the judicial authority of that country where the child is located is mandated to order the return of the child immediately.

The philosophy behind this rule is that if the child’s life has been disrupted, they must be returned. However, if you file the case after one year, you can no longer argue that their life is being disrupted because, they may have already adjusted and settled into their new environment.

Ultimately, as explained by Atty. Francesco Britanico, the law strictly looks at what serves the best interests of the child, and the time frame is a vital part of that calculation.

Atty. Britanico also pointed out another critical factor to consider: the age of the child.

Under the rule, if the child is under 16 years old and the case is filed within one year.

Then the treaty will apply and the entire process must be completed within 90 days. The court will rule wither to have the child returned, or it will state that the facts show the treaty does not apply, and therefore the child can remain.

Additionally, the case stresses that the habitual residence of the child must be determined. The habitual residence of the child is where the child resided for a long time.

Atty. Francesco Britanico clarified that if a child is moved from their home in another country, the parent seeking to prove this must provide concrete evidence, such as school documents, civil records, or hospital history to prove habitual residence.

These records serve as official proof of the child’s long-term presence in a specific location, which is essential for courts to determine if the child was removed from their true home.

Another key requirement is proving a breach of custody.

The left-behind parent must show that he was actively and consistently exercising parental rights when the child is taken. Atty. Britanico emphasized that the parent must demonstrate they were not negligent in their duties and that they were fully involved in the child’s life until the other parent removed the child to another country without his/her consent.

Lastly, to successfully file a case under the Hague Child Abduction, it must be proven that the child was either be wrongfully retained or wrongfully removed from where the child should be.

Quick Facts:

• Countries must both be a party to the Hague Child Abduction Treaty and it must be enforced between them for a left-behind parent to use this remedy
• Filed within one year of the child unlawful removal or detention
• Child is under 16 years old
• The elements that need to be present:
  • Habitual residence of the child
  • Breach of custody rights of the left-behind parent
  • Left-behind parent must have been exercising those custody rights
  • Removal or retention of the child was unlawful

The core difference between domestic Philippine law and the Hague Abduction Treaty comes down to one question: Are the courts deciding who gets the custody of the child or are they simple acting as an emergency button to send the child back home?

The main goal of the Philippine law is that it decides who gets permanent custody while the Hague Abduction Treaty’s main focus is to restore the status quo by returning the child from his/her habitual residence.

Philippine law is deeply rooted on the Tender Age presumption.  The law establishes strict principle that a child under seven (7) cannot be separated from the mother that she is naturally best suited to take care of the child.

On the other hand, the treaty does not consider this, and gender and parental fitness do not matter at this stage. It builds strictly on respecting international borders and returning to the status quo.

As explained by Atty. Francesco Britanico, the treaty applies equally to both parents, unlike Philippine domestic law which heavily favors the mother. That means the legal remedy is available not only when a mother is deprived of her child, but also when a father is deprived of the custody of the child.

As you can see, the Hague Child Abduction treaty has advantages for foreign fathers whose children have been retained or removed from their foreign home without their consent, as it offers a stronger basis for the child to be returned and a much quicker resolution.

Item	Philippines	Hague Convention
Name of Case	Child Custody	Hague Child Abduction
Principle	Tender Years	Habitual Residence ad Best Interest of the CHild
Focus	Which parent has custody?	Which Country should the child remain in?
Length	At least 2 years from filing, likely more	90 days from filing
In Favor of	Mother	Both
Prescriptive Period	Anytime but before age of 18	One year from removal
Impact of Child’s Age	After 7 years, child to choose; below 7 years in favor of the mother	Below 16 years old
Appeals	Can file a Motion for Reconsideration	No Motions for Reconsideration and No Appeal
Documents	Evidence must show to determine the best interest of the child through deep evaluation of parental fitness	Evidence showing that the child was brought to the Philippines even though he resided elsewhere and the left behind parent was exercising his custody rights
Process	a. The pleading Stage b. Case study c. Pre-trial and Mediation d. Trial Stage (typically takes 6 months or more) e. Judgement	a. File with complete evidence b. Other parent must file within 5 days c. Both parents to appear for examination and compromise and testimony d. Decision within 90 days
Country Applies	All	46 countries where the treaty is enforceable with the Philippines
Applicable Law	A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC	A.M. No. 22-09-15 SC

 

Here are the list of the countries where the treaty is enforceable with the Philippines:

Accession accepted by / Entry into force between Philippines and	Date of acceptance	Entry into force
Andorra	5-V-2017	1-VIII-2017
Argentina	6-IX-2017	1-XII-2017
Austria	30-XI-2023	1-II-2024
Belgium	8-VI-2023	1-IX-2023
Brazil	20-VI-2017	1-IX-2017
Bulgaria	2-XII-2024	1-III-2025
Chile	22-II-2017	1-V-2017
Colombia	8-V-2020	1-VIII-2020
Croatia	2-VI-2023	1-IX-2023
Cyprus	2-X-2023	1-I-2024
Czechia	1-VIII-2024	1-XI-2024
Denmark	4-V-2023	1-VIII-2023
Estonia	21-XII-2023	1-III-2024
Finland	22-VI-2023	1-IX-2023
France	12-VI-2023	1-IX-2023
Georgia	28-X-2019	1-I-2020
Germany	19-I-2023	1-IV-2023
Greece	27-I-2023	1-IV-2023
Hungary	19-X-2023	1-I-2024
Iceland	20-III-2026	1-VI-2026
Ireland	26-V-2023	1-VIII-2023
Italy	31-V-2023	1-VIII-2023
Japan	29-III-2016	1-VI-2016
Latvia	24-III-2023	1-VI-2023
Lithuania	17-II-2023	1-V-2023
Luxembourg	25-IV-2023	1-VII-2023
Malta	26-II-2024	1-V-2024
Mexico	27-II-2020	1-V-2020
Monaco	25-I-2021	1-IV-2021
Netherlands (Kingdom of the)	16-XII-2022	1-III-2023
New Zealand	28-IV-2017	1-VII-2017
Peru	14-IV-2016	1-VII-2016
Poland	28-XI-2024	1-II-2025
Portugal	19-I-2023	1-IV-2023
Republic of Moldova	14-VI-2016	1-IX-2016
Russian Federation	22-XII-2021	1-III-2022
Serbia	5-IX-2024	1-XII-2024
Slovakia	10-III-2023	1-VI-2023
Slovenia	21-X-2024	1-I-2025
South Africa	25-IX-2020	1-XII-2020
Spain	29-III-2023	1-VI-2023
Sweden	28-XI-2023	1-II-2024
Switzerland	9-VI-2023	1-IX-2023
Ukraine	26-IV-2016	1-VII-2016
Uruguay	7-VIII-2019	1-XI-2019
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)	16-X-2017	1-I-2018

Reference: Philippine – HCCH| Acceptance of Accessions

https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/acceptances/?mid=1333#:~:text=Convention%20of%2025%20October%201980

Atty. Francesco Britanico emphasized that parental kidnapping across borders is not treated as a crime in the Philippines, but rather as a civil matter under the Hague Convention.

The law’s priority is the child’s best interest ensuring they return to their habitual residence quickly and without trauma rather than punishing the parent. With strict timelines and robust rules, Philippine courts now resolve such cases within 90 days, giving parents a clear and efficient remedy.

Parents must submit complete evidence at filing, and cases must be brought within a one?year window to prevent disruption in the child’s life.

Media:           Radio Interview Transcript
Station:         DWIZ 882
Program:      Sulong na Bayan Interview
Topic:            International Parental Abduction and the Hague Abduction Convention
Guest:           Atty. Francesco Britanico (FCB Law Office)
Host:              Ms. Lolly Acosta
Date:             April 22, 2026

 

FULL TRANSCRIPT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

 

[00:01] LOLLY: Alright mga pagpalang hapon po sa ating mga tagapakinig. Welcome po sa ating programang Sulong na Bayan. At tayo po ay na matatawag kong blessed for today dahil meron po tayong makakapanayang nakakaibang knowledge na ipapabahagi namin sa lahat ng ating mga viewers. Lalong-lalong sa mga nanay, tatay, parents at ang kanilang mga anak. Bakit po? Kasi gusto natin alamin sa kanya kung totoo ba itong parental abduction. Narinig mo na po ba yun? Yung bang pagkuha o kaya pagtago o hindi pagbalik ng isang anak ng kanyang sariling magulang nang walang pahintulot, take note, wala pong consent ng kabilang magulang o ng korte. Yan po ay sasagutin ng ating piling-piling panauhin. Siya po ay…Well, law office in 2018, he founded the FCB Law. Ano po yan? Francisco Británico Law Office. Yan po ay nagsimula noong 2018. At ang kanilang office or ang kanilang… Tanggapan, ang client nila is driven law firm that seeks to understand each client’s needs, syempre, and formulate the most effective and cost-effective solution. Gusto kayong cost-effective. Kasi alam niyo po, nandiyan na tayo sa tension ng oil crisis at lahat nagsitataasan, gusto natin naman medyo huwag tayong mapamahal pag tayo ay kumonsulta sa kanila, di po ba? So, ang three main practices po ng areas niya ay civil law, corporate law and employment and labor law. So meron din at times ng cross-jurisdictional components kasi nga alam po natin na napakarami ng ating mga kababayan. Ayas po rin yan in the Philippines position as a premier outsourcing hub. So without further ado, let’s welcome to our program no less than Atty. Francesco Britanico. Welcome to our program, Atty. Francesco.

(Alright, a blessed afternoon to our listeners. Welcome to our program “Sulong ng bayan”. I called this a blessed afternoon because we will discuss something with someone with unique wisdom—to be shared to our lovely viewers. Especially for mothers, fathers, parents and their children. Why? Because we will learn about Parental Abduction from him. Have you heard about the taking or hiding or refusal to return a child to their parent—take note, without consent of that parent or of the court. This will be answered by our special quest. In 2018, he founded the FCB Law Office—this is the Francesco Celestial Britanico Law Office. The their law firm is a driven firm that seeks to understand each client’s needs. Of course, and formulate the most effective and cost-effective solution. I like the “Cost-effective”, because—you know, we are already facing the tension of oil crises and prices sky-rocketed. Thus, we want an affordable consultation with them, right? So, their three main practice areas are civil law, corporate law and employment and labor law. There is—at times of cross-jurisdictional components because we know most of our fellow Filipinos [are working or residing abroad]. This is also because of the Philippines’ position as a premier outsourcing hub. So, without further ado, let us welcome to our program none other than Atty. Francesco Britanico. Welcome to our program, Atty. Francesco.)

[2:01] ATTY. BRITANICO: Good afternoon, Ma’am Lolly, thank you for having me here, it is very good to be here.
(Good afternoon, Ma’am Lolly, thank you for having me here, it is very good to be here.)

[2:06] LOLLY: Alright. Naku, excited ko na itanong to kasi marami po tayo naririnig at ulat na natatanggap dito sa ating programa sa DWIZ 882. Laging sinasabi, tama ba to? Kinuha ko yung anak ko sa kanya nang hindi niya alam? At saka, anong kaso o anong violation ba ito sa batas? So tell us, ano po ba ang parental abduction? Educate us.

(Alright, I am excited to ask you this because we heard a lot of stories and we have received reports in our program on DWIZ 882. Asking us if this is right? “I took my child from them without their knowledge? What case can be filed against me? What violation did I commit from the law?” So, tell us, what is this parental abduction, educate us.)

[2:31] ATTY. BRITANICO: In this particular context, ma’am, it refers to the international kind of parental abduction. Kasi po sa ating batas dito sa Pilipinas, wala tayo actually parental kidnapping. Ang parental kidnapping po dito ay hindi pinaparusuhan ng revised penal code natin sa domestic law and internationally, wala rin tayong in that form. But meron po tayong international agreement, yung tinatawag na treaty. Okay. Kung saan… Kasunduan. Yes po, kasunduan ng mga bansa, kasama ang Pilipinas since 2016, na ang isang bata na kinuha mula sa isang bansa na miyembro ng treaty na ito, nang walang pahintulot ng isang magulang, kinuha siya ng kabilang magulang, ay binibigyan ng paraan para ipabalik agad yung bata doon sa bansa kung saan siya lumalaki, kung saan siya kinasanayan.                     

(In this particular context, ma’am, it refers to the international kind of parental abduction. Because of our law here in the Philippines, we do not actually have parental kidnapping. Parental Abduction here is not penalized under the Revised Penal Code in the domestic law and internationally, we do not have that in that form. But we have an international agreement, what we call a treaty)

LOLLY: Kasunduan.

(A treaty)

ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes po, kasunduan ng mga bansa, kasama ang Pilipinas since 2016, na ang isang bata na kinuha mula sa isang bansa na miyembro ng treaty na ito, nang walang pahintulot ng isang magulang, kinuha siya ng kabilang magulang, ay binibigyan ng paraan para ipabalik agad yung bata doon sa bansa kung saan siya lumalaki, kung saan siya kinasanayan.

(Yes, a treaty of countries, including the Philippines since 2016—in which a child without the consent of the other parent is taken from a country that is a member of this treaty, is being given a remedy to be returned to the country where they originally grew up in—where the child is accustomed to living.)

LOLLY: Kinalakan, ano?

(Where they grew up in, right?)

ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes, ma’am.

(Yes, ma’am.)

[3:22] LOLLY: So, in other words, pwede pala yun na maibalik sa dati niyang pinaglakihan yung kanyang ama o ina na naiwan na parent.

(So, in other words—it is possible to return the child from where they were previously raised, with the father or mother who was left behind.)

ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes, ma’am. Yung tinatawag na left-behind parent has remedies sa sitwasyon na ganito. Yung nangyayari kasi sa atin ay malimit because nga, yung diaspora, maraming mga Pilipinong, parehong magulang na Pilipino nasa ibang bansa, for example, or isang magulang nandito, isang magulang doon-doon, or nagkahiwalayan sila, tapos may bata na lumalaki sa isang bansa, dinadala ng kabilang magulang o walang pahintulot ng kabila doon sa…bagong bansa, whether its from the Philippines to  another country or from the other country to the Philippines.

(Yes, ma’am, the left-behind parent that we call has remedies in situations like this. What often happens in our situation is because of the diaspora, since there are many Filipinos where both parents are in another country, for example, or one parent is here while the other parent is abroad, or they separated, and then there is a child who is growing up in one country but is taken by the other parent—without the other parent’s consent—to a new country, whether it’s from the Philippines to  another country or from the other country to the Philippines.

[4:01] LOLLY: Pero Atty. Francesco, ito po ba ay matatawag na krimen?
(But Atty. Francesco, can this be called a crime?)

ATTY. BRITANICO: Hindi po siya krimen in the sense na wala po siyang criminal penalties. Although, nasa ilalim po ng ating batas, mayroon siyang force of law yung provisions ng treaty na ito. But the remedies are civil in that magkakaroon po ng order yung ating gobyerno through the court na ibabalik yung bata or pahintuluting manatili yung bata dito sa Pilipinas.

(It cannot be considered as a crime, in the sense that it does not have criminal penalties. Although, under our laws, it has a force of law—the provisions of this treaty. But the remedies are civil in that, it will have an order from our government through the court to return the child or be allowed to stay here in the Philippines.)

[4:28] LOLLY: Pero yung biglang halimbawa tinakas ang bata sa ibang bansa nga, siguro, example, kinuha sa school tapos dinala agad sa airport ng walang kaabog-abog. Hindi nagkaroon ng chance na yung bata na, Ma, papunta kami sa airport o kaya dala ko ni Daddy o ni Mommy. Paano po yun?

(But, for example, the child was taken to the another country. For instance, the child was taken from school and was taken immediately to the airport without any warning. The child did not have the time to inform their parent that they were taken by their father or mother. What should be done in this situation?

[4:46] ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes, ma’am. That’s exactly the sort of thing na yung treaty tries to prevent. Dahil yung treaty looks after the best interest of the child and yung pananaw ng batas natin, pananaw ng pinirmahan nating agreement with these other countries, ay hindi dapat ma-interrupt, hindi dapat ma-matraumatize yung bata in that way. So, that’s exactly the situation na walang pahintulot ng isang magulang kukunin yung bata mula sa isang bansa, dadalhin sa ibang bansa na labag sa karapatan ng naiwan na magulang.

 Yes, ma’am. That’s exactly the sort of thing na yung treaty tries to prevent. Because the treaty looks after the best interest of the child, and perception of our laws, perception of the signed treaty in agreement with these other countries—is that, the child should not be interrupted or traumatized that way. So, that’s exactly the situation of having a child being taken to another country without consent from one parent and in violation of the rights of the left-behind parent.)

[5:16] LOLLY: Pero yung legal na aspeto naman, halimbawa legal siyang kinuha. Kunyari sinabi, magbabaksyon lang kami na anak mo, punta kami Hong Kong lang. Pero nung oras nang ipapabalik sa orihinal na bansa, ayaw na ibalik ng magulang. So may intention talaga siyang ialis na sa left parent, left behind parent.

(But, in the legal aspect of it, for example the child was lawfully taken. For instance, the child was taken for a vacation—”I will take our child to Hong Kong for a vacation”, but when the child returns to its home country, suddenly the taking parent refuses to return the child. Like, they truly have the intention of taking the child from the left-behind.)

[5:37] ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes, that’s also covered by the treaty. For example, gawa tayong sitwasyon na—-may pamilya na base sa overseas. Dalawang OFW, for example, doon po sila nagpapalaki ng kanilang anak. Tapos yung bata ay dinala sa Pilipinas para magbabakasyon lang. Ang sabi raw, after one week, two weeks, babalik po sa, babalik sa eskwela kung saan siya nag-aaral sa kabilang bansa. Tapos sinabi ng isang magulang na nagdala, Hindi na lang niya dadalhin.

(Yes, that’s also covered by the treaty. For example, let us make a situation—there is a family based overseas. Two OFWs, for example, raised their children there. Then, the child was taken to the Philippines for a vacation. It was agreed upon that after one or two weeks, the child would return to the school where he/she was studying in the other country. Then the parent who took the child said that he/she would no longer bring the child back.)

LOLLY: Nag iba isip.

(A change of mind)

ATTY. BRITANICO:Hindi na lang niya babalik. So, that’s also covered by the treaty. So, yung treaty po kasi covers the wrongful taking and the wrongful retention of the child.

(The child will no longer be returned. So, that is also covered by the treaty. The treaty covers both the wrongful taking and the wrongful retention of the child.)

[6:17] LOLLY: Removal and retention. Pareho mali pala ‘yan.

(Removal and retention. Apparently, they are both wrong.)

ATTY. BRITANICO: Pareho po.

(Yes, both)

[6:22] LOLLY: Walang ano d’yan. Exemption. So, balik po tayo sa krimen. So, depende po ba ‘yan sa bansa na batas ng bansang ‘yan?

(In that—there is no exemption. So, we were talking about the crime. Does that depend on the laws of that country?)

[6: 32] ATTY. BRITANICO: Well, that can be the case in that yung kabilang bansa might have their own laws about whether it’s parental kidnapping as a criminal offense. Pero para sa aspeto ng Pilipinas, para sa form that the remedy takes here, sa ating batas po, yung Supreme Court gumawa rin ng ating rule, kinonfirm din po ng ating domestic laws na may remedy tayo under this convention. It’s an international treaty. Pero wala pong criminal penalty. Dahil ang tinitingnan talaga is the best interest of the child at hindi po hinahabol yung parent in the sense na bibigyan siya ng parusang pakukulong or something like that.

(Well, that can be the case, in that the other country might have its own laws on whether parental kidnapping is considered a criminal offense. But in the aspect of the Philippines, with respect to the form that the remedy takes here, under our laws, the Supreme Court also created our own rules, and our domestic laws have likewise confirmed that we have a remedy under this convention. It is an international treaty.However, there is no criminal penalty. Because what is really being considered by the law is the best interest of the child, and the parent is not being pursued in the sense of being given a punishment such as imprisonment or something like that.)

[7:10] LOLLY: So balik tayo sa pagkulong, sabi nyo, the Hague Convention na ito eh. Sa ilalim ng the Hague Convention, ang focus ay hindi agad paparusahan o kukulong ang magulang. Kundi ano pong ibig sabihin nito? Ang civil return, ang priority ng treaty na ito, ay maibalik agad.

(So let’s so back with imprisonment. You said this is the Hague Convention, under the Hague Convention—the focus is that the parent will not immediately be penalized or jailed. What is the meaning of this? Being this treaty’s priority is Civil Return—the immediate return

ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes, Ma’am.

(Yes, Ma’am.)

LOLLY: Civil return.

(Civil return.)

[7:30] ATTY. BRITANICO: Civil po in the sense na, well, to make the distinction from criminal, kung criminal case mayroong prospect of imprisonment or something like that. For a civil case, the remedy is purely to resolve things like saan po ba dapat yung bata ibabalik? Should the child stay here sa Pilipinas or aalis po ba siya?

(Civil in the sense that, well, to make the distinction from criminal. If criminal that has prospect of imprisonment or something like that. For a civil case, the remedy is purely to resolve things like—where will the child be returned? Should the child stay here in the Philippines or should they leave?)

[7:53] LOLLY: Who decides that?

(Who decides that?)

ATTY. BRITANICO:The court po ma’am. But it depends on the facts of the case. The court will apply the rule. It will judge whether the facts…match what the conditions of the treaty provide. Kasi may treaty po tayong pinirmahan. Nandun yung sitwasyon, the Hague Abduction Convention. It’s an old treaty in a sense. It’s 1981 pa po siya. Pero ang Pilipinas—

(The court ma’am. ut it depends on the facts of the case. The court will apply the rule. It will judge whether the facts…match what the conditions of the treaty provide, because we signed a treaty. There was a situation, Hague Abduction Convention. It’s an old treaty in a sense. It’s already there in 181, but the Philippines—)

[8:18] LOLLY: Kelan lang po na pirmihan?

(When was it signed?)

ATTY. BRITANICO: 2016 tayo nagsign ng treaty na ito.

(We signed this treaty in 2016)

LOLLY: Pero… E ano na ngayon, 2026?

(But, it is already 2026?)

[8:27] ATTY. BRITANICO: 2026 ngayon dahil the treaty itself, I mean the implementing rules of the treaty, we signed in 2016 but the implementing rules came into effect dito 2023. So it’s only been about 3 years since available yung pag-file ng ganitong kaso sa korte na’tin.

(It is 2026 now because the treaty itself, I mean the implementing rules of the treaty, was signed in 2016, but the implementing rules only came into effect here in 2023. So it has only been about three years since the filing of this kind of case became available in our courts.)

LOLLY: Parang 7 years pa ngayon. 2016 tapos 2023 lang talaga naka-implement.

(It has only been about seven years now. The treaty was signed in 2016, but it was only actually implemented in 2023.)

ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes. 7 years later.

( Yes. 7 years later.)

[8:53] ATTY. BRITANICO:  It’s been some time but actually the Department of Justice, the Supreme Court, they both issued implementing rules and they are, at this point, they’re rather robust. They’re actually rather robust rules. Maganda po yung rule na binigay nila. Mabilis yung implementation na binibigay nila because ang mandate po sa mga korte, once mag-file ka ng kaso dito for the Under the Hague Abduction Convention, you’re saying na unlawfully retained, wrongfully retained, or wrongfully removed yung bata, the child should be, the court should issue a decision within 90 days.

(It’s been some time but actually the Department of Justice, the Supreme Court, they both issued implementing rules and they are, at this point, they’re rather robust. They’re actually rather robust rules. The rule they provided is good. The implementation they gave is fast because the mandate given to the courts is, once you file a case here under the Hague Abduction Convention, you’re saying that it was unlawfully retained, wrongfully retained, or the child was wrongfully removed, the child should be, the court should issue a decision within 90 days.)

[9:25] LOLLY: Ah, ganda. Panalo. Nako, Jill, dyan palakpakan na’tin ang Supreme Court ba dapat? Kasi, ayan, mabilis-bilis na silang kumulis. In about 90 days, sabi niya, attorney Francesco, ay agad dapat maipatupad. Hindi na ito years ang bibilangin.

 (Ah, that’s good. A win. Jill, should we applaud the Supreme Court for that? Because with this, the process is becoming faster. In about 90 days, as Attorney Francesco said, it should already be implemented. This is no longer something that will take years to resolve.)

[9:42] ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes, ma’am. We normally, well, we often see child custody cases. May magulang nagdi-dispute ng child custody. They will file a case. It will take months or years before the trial courts will have a decision. Pwede pa po i-appeal yan sa Court of Appeal sa Supreme Court. Yes, ma’am.

(Yes, ma’am. We normally, well, we often see child custody cases. There are parents that disputes child cutody. They will file a case. It will take months or years before the trial courts will have a decision. That can still be appealed to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court. Yes, ma’am.)

LOLLY: It takes a while.

(It takes a while.)

[10:03] ATTY. BRITANICO: I understand the process but under the treaty po kasi na pinirmahan ng Pilipinas, ang obligasyon ng bansa natin ay to have a fast implementation. Fast track nga po. And then, ang ginawa ng Supreme Court is exactly that. Once you file a case, the process moves very quickly. Marami pong hindi po pwede mag-file ng pagpapa-extend ng kaso. And then from the time of filing the case until the trial court issues a decision, 90 days lang po. So, mabilis po talaga. At wala po siyang MR, wala po siyang appeal.

 (I understand the process but under the treaty that the Philippines signed. The obligation of our country is to have a fast implementation—fast track. And then, what the Supreme Court actually does is that. Once you file a case, the process moves very quickly. Many people are not allowed to file for an extension of the case. And then from the time of filing the case until the trial court issues a decision, It is only 90 days, so it is really fast. And there is no motion for reconsideration and no appeal.)

[10:37] LOLLY: Wala na. Nako, do away with that. Ang gandang balita yan, Atty. Francesco, not everybody is aware of that. Now, yan po ang good news. Kasi, somehow, alam mo, pag hiniwalay mo yung anak mo, ako nga isang araw ko lang di makita anak ko. Are you married, may I ask?

 (No more. Let’s do away with that. That’s great news, Attorney Francesco. Not everybody is aware of that. Now, that is the good news. Because somehow, you know, when you are separated from your child, even for me, I can only last one day without seeing my child. Are you married, may I ask?)

ATTY. BRITANICO:  Yes, I quite understand the feeling.

(Yes, I quite understand the feeling.)

LOLLY: Do you have children?

(Do you have children?)

ATTY. BRITANICO:  Yes

(Yes)

[10:56] LOLLY: Yung mga minuto, o hindi lang minuto nga lang na babagabag na yung loob ko. Hiniwalay mo sa akin o nagbakasyon kayo with consent. Parang sanay na sanay ako ng pagising ko everyday. Nandyan lang siya. Tapos biglang wala. E, eto pa kaya. Now that the Supreme Court have implemented this kind of ruling, panalo. So, alam nyo na po yan. Kayo pong nanonood ngayon at viewing our program and listening to our program. Lalo na po kayong mga minamahal naming mga tinatawag nating mga modern day heroes, bayaning manggagawa. Wala na po kayong dapat alalahanin kasi ito na po pinapabilis ng ating Korte Suprema yung mga ganitong kaso. Pero ang tanong nga po, maaaring pumasok pa po ba ito sa kidnapping and serious illegal detention dahil sa Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code? Kung may dahas.

(Even just a few minutes, or not even just minutes, already makes me feel uneasy. You separated them [the child] or took them for a vacation with consent. I’m so used to waking up every day and knowing that my child is just there. Then suddenly, they’re gone. So imagine that kind of situation. Now that the Supreme Court have implemented this kind of ruling, it’s a win. So, now you know this. To all of you who are watching and listening to our program, especially our beloved modern-day heroes, our hardworking Filipino workers, you no longer have to worry because the Supreme Court has now made these kinds of cases faster. But the question is, could this still fall under kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, if there was violence involved?

[11:46] ATTY. BRITANICO: Sa… Pilipinas po kasi sa revised penal code natin, we explicitly exclude parents from being charged with that. So if it’s a dispute between parents, may itong treaty na ito specifically covers a situation where a parent takes a child against the will of another parent and brings the child to or keeps the child in another country so if it’s a it’s a parental dispute that’s why civil po s’ya, hindi po s’ya criminal, in the sense that hindi pon s’ya paparusahan in a criminal way but it will resolve the issue dahil ang purpose nito I protekatahan and bata and the best interest of the child and then the reading of the rule is that it’s in the child’s best interest na hindi ma balagabag, hindi po ma disrupt yung buhay ng bata.

(In the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, we explicitly exclude parents from being charged with that. So if it’s a dispute between parents, this treaty specifically covers a situation where a parent takes a child against the will of another parent and brings the child to or keeps the child in another country so if it’s a parental dispute that’s why it is a civil case—-not criminal. In the sense that the parent will not be punished in a criminal way, but the issue will be resolved because the purpose of this is to protect the child and uphold the best interest of the child. The reading of the rule is that it is in the child’s best interest not to be disturbed or have their life disrupted.)

[12:38] LOLLY: Kasi somehow may pumapasok na somehow sasabihin ng mga kaklase paglaki, oh, niwanan ka yung mga bullying, lumalabas yan and then nagkakaroon ng depression yung mga anak natin, mental depression. Dahil, ayan yung naririnig nila sa labas. Kasi napakabilis din kumalat. O, ba’t di mo nakasama si tatay mo? Dati-dati, pag may PTA tayo, nandyan siya. Hahaha. Kasama mo sa lahat ng mga conferences natin. Yung mga tanong ng teacher, kaklase, and then yung bata, his life somehow will really be ruined kasi sanay nga silang…

(Because somehow, things can happen where other people might say things like, “Oh, your parent left you,” or bullying can come up. That can affect our children and may lead to emotional struggles because of what they hear from others. Things spread very quickly. They might hear questions like, “Why aren’t you with your father anymore? Before, when we had PTA meetings, he was always there. He was with you during all our conferences.” The questions from teachers and classmates can affect the child, and their life can really be disrupted because they are used to having their parent present.)

[13:09] ATTY. BRITANICO: The psychological disruption po talaga kasi in-approve po siya mula sa kanyang kung saan siya nag-aaral, kung saan po siya lumalaki, tapos dadahin po siya sa kabila. Kung minsan tinatago pa po yung bata. We can see situations na dahil dinala yung bata somewhere else, nang biglaan, hindi na po nag-aaral for a while dahil tinatago nga po talaga. So it can be really disruptive.

(The psychological disruption is really the main concern because the child is taken away from where they study and where they are growing up, and then brought to another country. Sometimes, the child is even hidden. We see situations where, because the child is suddenly brought somewhere else, they stop going to school for a while because they are being hidden. So, it can be really disruptive.)

[13:30] LOLLY: Laki psychologically ng epekto niyan sa bata kasi meron niya dyan, I remember interviewing a foreign consul, siyempre assigned siya sa ibang lugar. And then, hindi naman sanay-sanay yung mga anak nila kasi every so often, iba-ibang countries ang assignment ng kanyang papa or mama. Yung bang pag-approve mo lang sa isang skwela, nang nakasanayan mo ng araw-araw kasama mong barkada mo dito, mga friends mo dyan, teachers mo dyan, tapos biglang aalisin ka na naman dahil kailangan lumipat kayo sa ibang nation o ibang country dahil doon naman assign yung ambassador. Yun pa lang medyo naguguluhan na yung psychological effects sa bata. Hindi, pag tinanong mo sila, ano, identity mo, hindi ko nga alam eh. Eh, Hindi ko alam kung taga-pilipinas kami o taga-Brazil dahil na-assign yung papa ko doon mamaya. Pero, ang good, well, the other side of it is, linguistic lumalabas yung bata kasi ang dami na niyang alam ng lengwahe after that. But again, balik tayo doon sa paghiwalay. Hindi po pala ganun yun, ano. Just so everybody would know, hindi po pinapayagan ng ating batas sa Pilipinas na sabihin yan ay, ano, krimen. Hindi ko alam kung taga-pilipinas kami o taga-Brazil dahil na-assign yung papa ko doon mamaya. Pero, ang good, well, the other side of it is, linguistic lumalabas yung bata kasi ang dami na niyang alam ng lengwahe after that. But again, balik tayo doon sa paghiwalay. Hindi po pala ganun yun, ano. Just so everybody would know, hindi po pinapayagan ng ating batas sa Pilipinas na sabihin yan ay, ano, krimen.Wala namang magulong na gustong nakawin niya yung sarili niyang anak. Tama po ba?

(There is really a big psychological effect on the child—because there is this person. I remember interviewing a foreign consul who was assigned to another place. And then, hindi naman sanay-sanay yung mga anak nila kasi every so often, iba-ibang countries ang assignment ng kanyang papa or mama. And then, their children are not really able to adjust well because every so often, since their father or mother is assigned to different countries. Just with the approval to enroll in a school where you have already gotten used to being with your friends every day, your classmates, and your teachers, then suddenly you have to leave again because you need to move to another nation or another country because that is where your ambassador parent is assigned. Just that alone already creates some confusion regarding the psychological effects on the child. When you ask them, “What is your identity?” they would say, “I don’t even know. I don’t know if we are from the Philippines or from Brazil because my father was assigned there.” But the good thing, or the other side of it, is that the child becomes linguistically capable because they learn many languages after that. But again, if we go back to the issue of separation. So, that’s not how things work, Just so everybody would know, our laws in the Philippines do not allow that to be considered as a crime. So in actuality, that’s not how it works. Just so everybody would know, our laws in the Philippines do not allow us to say that this is automatically a crime. There is no one who would want to “steal” their own child. Right?)

[14:47] ATTY. BRITANICO: Hindi po siya under a revised penal code. Hindi po siya krimen for a child to be taken by a parent. Pero po, yung sitwasyon specific na pinag-usapan natin, where it’s a cross-borders between countries, meron pong posisyon yung ating batas since we signed in 2016, since the rule was implemented in 2023, that the disruption should not be allowed. Yung best interest po ng bata ay payagan po siyang manatili. Kasi po kung na-violate yung karapatan ng keeping, ng custody ng isang magulang, ay binibigyan po ng solusyon itong sitwasyon na ito.

(It is not covered under the Revised Penal Code. It is not a crime for a child to be taken by a parent. But for the specific situation that we are discussing, where it involves cross-borders between the countries, our law has a position on it since we signed the treaty in 2016, and since the rules were implemented in 2023, the disruption should not be allowed. The best interest of the child is to allow the child to remain. Because if the right of one parent to keep custody has been violated, this situation is given a solution with this.)

[15:30] LOLLY: Paano naman po, Atty. Francesco, yung violation of Public Act 7160  child abuse kung tawagin? Kung yung layunin i-deprive ang kabilang magulang ng custody or abusuhin di umano ang bata?

(How about, Atty. Francesco, the violation of Public Act 761, or what is commonly known as child abuse? If the real intention is to deprive the other parent of custody or allegedly abuse the child?)

[15:45] ATTY. BRITANICO: That can also be an offense but the issue also here po kasi is that this is a different remedy. Yung Hague Abduction Convention, yung ating the treaty that we signed, it provides provides its own solution. And also, it also applies for both parents. So, it’s not just if the mother is deprived of her child, but also if a father is deprived also ng custody or company ng bata.

(That can also be considered an offense, but the issue here is that this is a different remedy. The Hague Abduction Convention, which is the treaty that we signed, provides its own solution. And also, it also applies for both parents. So, it’s not just if the mother is deprived of her child, but also if a father is deprived of custody or company of the child.)

[16:14] LOLLY: So pareho lang?

(So, it’s the same?)

ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes, ma’am. In terms of, wala pong distinction kasi yung if it’s a violence against women and children situation, that would be with respect to one parent. But for this, it applies to both parents. Both parents.

(Yes, ma’am. In terms of that, there is no distinction because whether it is a violence against women and children situation, that would be with respect to one parent. But for this, it applies to both parents. Both parents.)

[16:27] LOLLY: Ayan, malinaw po. Talagang pareho kayong mayroong responsibilidad. Ika nga.

(here, that makes it clear. Both parents really have responsibilities, so to speak.)

ATTY. BRITANICO: May irresponsibilidad, may karapatan. (They have responsibilities and rights)

[16:33] LOLLY: Ayan, we have to siguro expound on that dahil karapatan, napaka-broad na terminology. Anong karapatan talaga ang meron bawat isa? But ito po, sa ibang bansa kasi, like halimbawa sa Amerika, itong United Kingdom, o kaya Canada, yung pong parental abduction, tinuturing na isang serious felony nga or crimen. At agad-agad, binibigan ng warrant of arrest. How do you explain that po?

(There, we probably have to expound on that because “rights” is a very broad terminology. What specific rights does each one actually have? But in other countries, for example in the United States, the United Kingdom, or Canada, parental abduction is considered a serious felony or crime. A warrant of arrest is immediately issued. How do you explain that?)

[17:04] ATTY. BRITANICO: Well, for their own laws, they have their own system. In terms of how the Philippines interacts with those laws, in the specific case of the United States and the United Kingdom, and even Canada at this moment, all these countries, including the Philippines, are treaty members of the Hague Abduction Convention. But since the Philippines po, tayo ay nagpumirma ng treaty after all those other countries, hindi pa po automatically enforced between the Philippines and ang law with respect to the treaty sa UK, US, at Canada. Meaning, in those specific cases, hindi pa po tayo makakapag-avail ng remedies ng rule na ito. If the child is taken from the Philippines and brought to those countries or vice versa, the US, the United Kingdom, and Canada agree that the treaty will come into effect between the Philippines and their countries, we are obliged to resort to the less speedy remedies.

(Well, for their own laws, they have their own system. In terms of how the Philippines interacts with those laws, in the specific case of the United States and the United Kingdom, and even Canada at this moment, all these countries, including the Philippines, are treaty members of the Hague Abduction Convention. But since the Philippines signed the treaty after all those other countries, it is still not yet automatically enforced between the Philippines and ang law with respect to the treaty sa UK, US, at Canada. Meaning, in those specific cases, we are not yet able to avail of the remedies under this rule. If the child is taken from the Philippines and brought to those countries or vice versa, the US, the United Kingdom, and Canada agree that the treaty will come into effect between the Philippines and their countries, we are obliged to resort to the less speedy remedies.)

[18:05] LOLLY: Pero kasi ang talagang layunin, speedy return eh. Kaya nga nagkaroon tayo ng lagdaan at kasunduan sa The Hague. Sa ating pagbabalik, we have to find out more and siguro ma-expound na gusto ni Atty. Francesco na kapag ang bata ay tinangay sa ibang bansa, yung Hague Convention ang highway, quote-unquote, para mabilis na maibalik ang bata sa bansang kinalakihan niya. Yun yung tinatawag na habitual residence. Kasi tatanong natin sa kanya, ano nga ba ang kailangan patunayan para masabing Hague case nga ito at ano ang mga elemento nito sa ating pong pagbalik.

(But the actual goal is speedy return, That is why we entered into and signed the Hague Convention Treaty. In the return of our segment, we need to further explain and expand on this—what Atty. Francesco is saying is that when a child is taken to another country, the Hague Convention becomes, the “highway” quote-unquote, for the swift return of the child to the country where they were raised, which we call the habitual residence. Because we will ask him: what exactly needs to be proven for this to be considered a Hague case, and what are its elements, when we return.

– Commercial Break –

[19:10] LOLLY: Alright, nagbabalik pong muli ang ating programang Sulong na Bayan. Naku, pasulong na pasulong na po ang ating bayan. Bakit po? Ito na po yung mga impormasyon na talagang dapat iniintindi ng ating mamamayan kung ano po yung mga karapatan nila, lalo na ang ating mga magulang, gayon na rin po ang mga anak. this early ay dapat naiintindihan po natin. Pero natutuwa po tayo dahil nakaalam po tayo ng panibagong implementasyon ng Korte Suprema na mabilis na po in 90 days ay pwede nang aksyonan yung mga naiihaing na mga kaso patunay na sila ay talagang nag-expedite na ating tawagin. Dahil with the help of the Hague Convention. So babalikan lang natin ang ating bisita, no less than the founder of FCB Law Firm at syempre ang kanyang expertise is nasa International Child Abduction, the Hague Convention. So ayun nga po, Atty. Francis, kanina before we pause for a break, gusto ko nang maintindihan yung highway, quote-unquote, mabilis na maibalik ang bata sa bansang kinalakiyahan niya, habitual residence. So ang follow up po dito, yung pong apat, apat na elemento. Ano nga po bang kailangan patunayan para masabing The Hague convention ang mga kaso na ito? Una sa lahat, ano po?

(Alright, we are back once again on our program Sulong na Bayan. Oh, our nation is really moving forward. Why? These are the kinds of information that our citizens really need to understand—what their rights are, especially our parents, as well as their children. This early on, we should already understand it. But we are glad that we are learning about a new implementation from the Supreme Court, where cases filed can now be acted upon within 90 days—indeed, cases like this are being expedited, because of the aid provided by the Hague Convention.So we will go back to our guest, none other than the founder of FCB Law Firm, whose expertise is in International Child Abduction—the Hague Convention. So earlier, Atty. Francis, before we went on break, I wanted to better understand the so-called “highway” for the swift return of the child to his or her country of habitual residence. So my follow-up question for this is: what are the four elements? What needs to be proven for a case to fall under the Hague Convention? First of all, what is it?)

[20:25 ]ATTY. BRITANICO: Well, first of all, yung kaso po ay kaso na kina-file sa ating korte, sa ating family courts dito para kung nangyari yung sitwasyon na itong apat na conditions na ito are found, then you can have the child returned from the Philippines, ibabalik po kung sa bansa kung saan siya lumaki or saan siya nasanay. Kailangan po dito is the habitual residence kung yung bata ay siya ba ay talagang nakatira may katagalan sa isang kabilang bansa. And then nagkaroon po ba ng breach of the custody rights ng left behind parent. May magulang po tayong naiwan dun sa kabilang bansa dahil kinuha yung bata ng kabilang magulang, dinala po dito sa Pilipinas nang walang pahintulot. So, that’s the breach of the custody rights and those rights were actually being exercised.

(Well, first of all, The case is one that is filed before our family courts—here in the Philippines. If it is found from the situation that the four elements are present, then the child can be ordered to be returned from the Philippines—where they grew up in or used to live. The requirement here is habitual residence—whether the child has actually been living for a significant period in another country.)

[21:16]  LOLLY: Yun pong, may stop ko lang kayo very quickly. Rights of custody, ang tawag po ba dun?   

(Let me just stop you there very quickly. Is that what you call “rights of custody”?)

ATTY. BRITANICO: Well, custody in that other country po.

(Well, custody in that other country.)

LOLLY: Ah, okay. Under the law of that country.      

(Ah, okay. Under the law of that country)   

LOLLY: At nalabag yun?

(And if it is violated?)

[21:28] ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes, ma’am. Yes. At nalabag yun? Nalabag po yun. Dinala po yung bata dito sa Pilipinas. And then, nang walang pahintulot. And then po yung… There’s the  case must have been filed within one year of the child’s wrongful removal or retention in the Philippines. So, kasi po ang pilosipiya ng patakaran na ito is that kung ang bata ay na-disrupt ang kanyang buhay, dapat ibalik siya. Pero kung mag-file ka after one year ng kaso, hindi mo naman sasabing na-disrupt yung buhay niya dahil nasanay na rin siya dito sa konsensya din nila. So, ang tinitingnan talaga ng batas ay yung  What’s best for the child? And the time frame is part of that calculation.

(If it is violated, and the child was taken here in the Philippines. And then, without permission.  There’s the  case must have been filed within one year of the child’s wrongful removal or retention in the Philippines. So the philosophy behind this rule is that if the child’s life has been disrupted, the child should be returned. But if the case is filed after one year, you can no longer really say that the child’s life has been disrupted because the child may have already adjusted and become accustomed to the situation. So the law really looks at what is in the best interest of the child, and the time frame is part of that assessment.)

[22:15] LOLLY: Ano, kailangan pala action-action nagdana agad, ano? Kasi mabilis din masanay ang bata. Alam mo naman, adaptable.

(Yes, action really has to be taken quickly because children can also adapt easily. As you know, they are very adaptable.)

[22:20] ATTY. BRITANICO: Actually, under the rule, if the child is under 16 years old and the case is filed within one year of the wrongful removal or the retention, then the…the treaty will apply and the rule will mandate. It mandates that you file the court case and then within 90 days po, dapat matapos na po lahat ng proseso ng trial. At magkakaroon ng desisyon yung korte. Whether to have the child returned or it will say that actually the facts show that hindi po nag-a-apply yung treaty and therefore the child can remain.

(Actually, under the rule, if the child is under 16 years old and the case is filed within one year of the wrongful removal or the retention, then the…the treaty will apply and the rule will mandate. It mandates that you file the court case and then within 90 days, all of the processes of the trial should be done already and court should already have a decision. Whether the child should be returned, or it may find that the facts show the treaty does not apply, and therefore the child may remain where they are.)

[22:56] LOLLY: So merong palang pwedeng mangyaring ganun o hindi nag-a-apply yung treaty ng The Hague?

(So is it possible that the Hague Convention does not apply in some cases?)

[23:03] ATTY. BRITANICO: It’s a fact-finding process on the part of the court. Papatunayan po talaga siya dapat sa korte. So ang…Actually, yung proseso magsisimula yan even before the case in that of course, yung naiwan ng magulang, kailangan po niyang maghanda ng ebedensya. Napapakita niya na talagang yung bata ay dinala sa Pilipinas even though meron siyang habitual resident sa kabila. Sa aming karanasan, ang kasama doon ay papatunay mo yung school records.

(It’s a fact-finding process on the part of the court. It has to be proven before the court. So the process actually starts even before the case is filed—in the sense that the left-behind parent needs to prepare evidence. They need to show that the child was really brought to the Philippines even though the child has a habitual residence elsewhere. Based on our experience, this is usually proven through documents such as school records.)

[23:30] LOLLY: Oo, doon makita eh. At saka siguro mga record din ng passport.

(Yes, that can be seen there as well, and also possibly passport records.)

[23:25] ATTY. BRITANICO: Record ng passport, yung medical records. At yung patunayan na yung bata ay dinala dito sa Pilipinas. So kasama dyan po ay pupunta kayong Bureau of Immigration. Kukuha ka ng record na yes, may arrival.

(Passport records, as well as medical records. And proof that the child was brought here to the Philippines. As part of that is going to the Bureau of Immigration. You will secure a record showing that yes, there was an arrival.)

LOLLY: Arrival, departure, kung ano man yun.

(Arrival, departure, whatever that is)

[23:47] ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes, [kung] may arrival tapos nandito pa rin yung bata. So… Ipapatunayan all of that to the court. May affidavit po, magtitistigo po yung magulang kung ano yung naging sitwasyon. So lahat yan iprepare muna before you file. Because po ang sa rules natin now is that you have to prepare the entire case first. and then submit it to the court at the outset. All your evidence, all your documents must be submitted when you file the case. And because this rule is so fast and it’s so strict, nasa rule natin is that hindi mo pwede dagdagan yung ebidensya mo after you submit it.

(Yes—if there was an arrival and the child is still here. So all of that will be proven before the court. There will be an affidavit, and the parent will also testify regarding what was actually the situation. So all of that must be prepared before you file the case. Because under our current rules, you need to prepare the entire case first and then submit it to the court at the outset. All your evidence, all your documents must be submitted when you file the case. And because this rule is so fast and it’s so strict, it is in the rules that you cannot add to your evidence after you have already submitted it.)

LOLLY: Wala na.

(Not anymore.)

[24:23] ATTY. BRITANICO: Wala na. Kaya dapat buo na rin po siya.

(None anymore. That’s why it has to be complete from the start as well.)

LOLLY: Final and executory.

(Final and executory.)

[24:28[] ATTY. BRITANICO: Because the mandate is speedy. In fact, the rule also says that the parent who was left behind and files this case, they submit all their evidence and they cannot add to it after they file.

(Because the mandate is speedy. In fact, the rule also says that the parent who was left behind and files this case, they submit all their evidence and they cannot add to it after they file.)

[24:40] LOLLY: No addition, no subtraction. Nothing. Hindi mo pwedeng bawasan yung mga narratives mo doon. Yun na yun.

(No addition, no subtraction. Nothing. You can’t omit parts of your narrative there. What you submit is final.)

[24:47] ATTY. BRITANICO: That’s it. And also, for the other parent naman po, ang gagawin ng korte is that after receiving this, they’ll examine the documents and then they will move the court will send notice to the other parent and direct that other parent to respond within 5 days.

(That’s it. And also, as for the other parent what the court will do is, after receiving these documents, it will examine them. Then the court will issue a notice to the other parent and direct that parent to respond within five days.)

LOLLY: Sa iba kasi, 15 araw

(In other cases, it’s 15 days.)

ATTY. BRITANICO: 15 sa iba, tapos may extension pa po yung ginagawa

(In some cases it’s 15 days, and then there are also extensions that are granted.)

LOLLY: Ngayon, 5 days?

(Now, 5 days?)

[25:07] ATTY. BRITANICO: 5 days, no extension. And then after that, ipapatawag po ng korte yung mga dalawang magulang doon sa korte para i-examine sila. And then if no compromise can be made, the court will proceed with the trial. And so magtetistigo sa magulang, magtetistigo sa kabila. Pero lahat po yan from the time of filing until matapos yung case. It should all be done in 90 days. The court should have a decision within 90 days. That’s the rule of the Supreme Court.

(5 days, no extension. And then after that, the court will summon both parents to appear in court for examination. And then if no compromise can be made, the court will proceed with the trial. And both parents will testify, and the other side will also present their testimony. But all of that—from the time the case is filed until its conclusion—must be completed within the process timeline. It should all be done in 90 days. The court should have a decision within 90 days. That’s the rule of the Supreme Court.)

[25:38] LOLLY: We salute you for that. Kasi talagang, ang mga bata, we really have to take care of them. Their best interest. Huwag nga natin silang… Ang dami kasi pong reports, di ba? They end their lives. Bakit? Dahil sa mga psychological factors, ano. Pero…baka isa ito. So, talagang maganda ang sinasabi ng Korte Suprema. Tapusin agad yan in 90 days. Ayaw natin magkaroon ng problema ang mga anak natin at maging productive citizen of this country, hindi liability.

(We salute you for that. Because children really need to be taken care of. Their best interest. We really shouldn’t… There are so many reports, right?T hey end their lives. Why? Because of psychological factors, right. But… this might be one of them. So what the Supreme Court is saying is really good—these cases should be resolved within 90 days. We don’t want our children to have problems and instead, we want them to become productive citizens of this country, not liabilities.)

[26:06] ATTY. BRITANICO: Yung Korte Suprema natin has acted on this because, well, they’ve made this efficient tool for the best interest of the child and in fulfillment of our treaty obligations.

(Our Supreme Court has acted on this because…well, they’ve made this efficient tool for the best interest of the child and in fulfillment of our treaty obligations.)

[26:18] LOLLY: Ganda naman, ano? Itong The Hague, bilib tayo. So, actual na exercise of karapatan, yung rights naman po. Dapat bang patunayan nung kinuha ang bata, ang magulang na naiwan ay actual na nag-aalaga o may partisipasyon sa buhay ng bata? Hindi yung bang bigla-bigla ka nalang susulpot after five years?

(That’s impressive, isn’t it? We really recognize the Hague Convention. So this is actually an exercise of rights. Now, as for rights—does the left-behind parent need to prove actual care or participation in the child’s life? Not the kind where you suddenly appear after five years?)

[26:38] ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes, ma’am. Kung wala po na pong exercise of rights, hindi po niya pwedeng i-invoke yung treaty. Kunyari may father or mother na wala sa buhay ng bata, tapos ngayon siya mag-object that the child was taken from the Philippines to elsewhere or vice versa, hindi po siya makakapag-avail. So that is part of it because the best interest of the child, may father or mother na wala sa buhay ng bata tapos ngayon s’ya magoobject na the child was taken from the Philippines or elsewhere, or vice versa, hindi po s’ya makakapag-avail. So that is part of it, because the best interest of the child will not be served by that being in that situation

(Yes, ma’am. If there is no actual exercise of rights, then the treaty cannot be invoked. For example, if a father or mother has not been present in the child’s life, and then suddenly objects that the child was taken from the Philippines to elsewhere, or or vice versa, they may not be able to avail. So that is part of it because the best interest of the child.)

27:06  LOLLY: Ayun, we will pause for another break, pero tatanungin na’tin ang ating panauhin, si Atty. Francesco Britanico. Itong one year window, napaka-critical po nito, please explain further when we return.

(There, we will pause for another break, but when we return, we will ask our guest, Atty. Francesco Britanico, to further explain this one-year window, which is very critical. Please explain further when we return.)

• – Commercial Break –

[27:40] LOLLY: Alright, we are on our last 12 minutes. Napakabilis po ng ating usapin dahil napaka-interesado ang ating mga pinag-uusapan. Lalo lalo na sa kapakanan or welfare or the best interest of our children. Alam naman po natin that children or youth is the future of our society. leaders of this country. So, we have to equip them, we have to arm them, kung ano mga karapatan nila para sila ay magiging productive, hindi destructive citizen of our country. The only one, the Philippines. Before we pause for a break, tinatanong natin si Atty. Francesco Bitanico. Siya po ang founder ng FCB Law Firm. Tungkol dito sa critical na, medyo critical siya, itong one year frame, time frame window. Anong po ibig sabihin yan? Dapat ba ma-file ng kaso sa loob na isang taon mula nung itinakas ang bata?

(Alright, we are on our last 12 minutes. Our discussion is moving very quickly because the topics we are tackling are very interesting—especially those concerning the welfare, or best interest, of our children. We all know that children children or youth is the future of our society. leaders of this country. So, we have to equip them, we have to arm them what their rights are so that they can become productive—not destructive—citizens of our country, the Philippines. Before we take a break, we asked Atty. Francesco Bitanico, the founder of FCB Law Firm, about this critical one-year timeframe or window. What does this mean? Does it mean that a case must be filed within one year from the time the child was taken away?)

[28:30] ATTY. BRITANICO: That’s exactly it, ma’am. One year window means that from the wrongful removal or the retention of the child, the case has to be filed within that window. If you file it beyond that window, you will not be able to avail anymore of this. Because yung philosophy po niya is that the child should not be unsettled. Hindi po dapat ma-disrupt. But if you waited for that long, the assumption is that nasettle na po siya sa Pilipinas, hindi na po available itong remedy na ito. And therefore, if you still want to contest the child remaining here, you need to file a different kind of case under our older procedures.

(That’s exactly it, ma’am. One year window means that from the wrongful removal or the retention of the child, the case has to be filed within that window. If you file it beyond that window, you will not be able to avail anymore of this. Because philosophy behind this is that the child should not be unsettled and should not experience disruption. But if you wait that long, the assumption is that the child has already settled in the Philippines, and that this remedy is no longer available. And therefore, if you still want to contest the child remaining here, you need to file a different kind of case under our older procedures.)

LOLLY: Matagal na naman.

(That’s already a long time.)

ATTY. BRITANICO: Mas matagal po talaga, ma’am. That’s why the expectation is that the courts will act quickly from what you’re asking from them, so you must act quickly as well.

(It really takes much longer, ma’am. That’s why the expectation is that the courts will act quickly from what you’re asking from them, so you must act quickly as well.)

[29:24]  LOLLY: So, ayan, ang linaw. Kasi ang daling mag-settle ng mga kabataan eh. Ang daling adapt, ano nga sila eh, cameleon. Ang bilis makakipag

(So there you go, that makes it clear. Because children settle very quickly—they adapt easily, like chameleons. They can quickly adjust and integrate into a new environment.)

[29:33] ATTY. BRITANICO: Somehow. In our experience, ma’am, that can be so. But in many cases as well, it’s actually very traumatic for them to have been taken in the first place. And even after some time, hindi po sila masaya. Nangyari yun yung sitwasyon nila. At gusto po nilang mabalik sana.

(Somehow. In our experience, ma’am, that can be so. But in many cases as well, it’s actually very traumatic for them to have been taken in the first place. And even after some time, they are not happy in that situation. That’s what happened to them, and they would like to be brought back if possible.)

[29:48] LOLLY: Exactly. So, naniniwala as always, lagi repeatedly, sinabi po niya Attorney Francesco, na best interest of the child. So, hindi to nagsisimula na kung sino ang mayaman o mas mabait na magulang?

(Exactly. So, as always, Attorney Francesco repeatedly emphasized that it is about the best interest of the child. So it doesn’t start with who is richer or which parent is kinder?)

[30:02] ATTY. BRITANICO: Yes, ma’am. This is not a judgment on who is the better parent. This is not a judgment on who even who should have the custody of the child. The ruling of the court in this specific kind of case under the Hague Abduction Convention is which country should the child be allowed to remain in. Yes, ma’am. Whether it’s the child goes back to the country where they’re taken from or to remain in the philippines, and then once that ruling is made that will give you the place also kung saan po dapat mag decide. Anong korte? Korte ng kabilang bansa or korte dito kung saan ba dapat i-address yung questions about custody?

(Yes, ma’am. This is not a judgment on who is the better parent. This is not a judgment on who even who should have the custody of the child. The ruling of the court in this specific kind of case under the Hague Abduction Convention is which country should the child be allowed to remain in. Yes, ma’am. Whether it’s the child goes back to the country where they’re taken from or to remain in the philippines, and then once that ruling is made that will give you the place also where it should be decided. Which court? The court of the other country, or the court here—where should questions about custody be addressed?)

[30:42] LOLLY: Ayan, you talk about custody. Moving on, ang The Hague case ay hindi po custody case, di po ba? So, anong ibig sabihin nung that traffic enforcer rule?

(So, there—when you talk about custody. Moving on, the Hague case is not a custody case, right? So what does that “traffic enforcer rule” mean?)

[30;55] ATTY. BRITANICO: Well, ang ginagawa po ng Hague Abduction Convention as it was implemented here in the Philippines is that it does not make a ruling on child custody. It will not say that the child should remain with this parent and therefore the child should go to the country of that parent. Instead, it will say that the judgment is the child should either be in the Philippines or be allowed to remain in the Philippines or go back to the country kung saan siya kinuha. And then kung sa country na saan siya kinuha, doon na lang i-resolve yung custody questions. Whereas kung sa Pilipinas ay sabihin pwede siyang manatili dito, dito pwede mag-resolve ng child custody questions. But in terms of yung place where the child should be. Yun yung main question na sinasagot ng Hague Abduction Convention.

(Well, what the Hague Abduction Convention does is…as it was implemented here in the Philippines is that it does not make a ruling on child custody. It will not say that the child should remain with this parent and therefore the child should go to the country of that parent. Instead, it will say that the judgment is the child should either be in the Philippines or be allowed to remain in the Philippines or go back to the country where they were taken. And then, in the country where the child was taken, that’s where the custody issues will be resolved. Whereas if the child is in the Philippines and it is decided that the child may remain here, then custody matters can be resolved here as well. But in terms of the place where the child should be, that is the main question being addressed by the Hague Abduction Convention.)

[31:47] LOLLY: So, hindi siya ang judge na magsasabi kung kaninong bata habang buhay.

(So, it is not the judge who will decide who the child will stay with permanently.)

[31:52  ATTY. BRITANICO: In fact, the question of custody is not part of the Hague Abduction Convention. The parents can resolve that among themselves if they wish to. But with respect to the court, yung trabaho po ng huwes ay to determine anong bansa, hindi po anong magulang.

(In fact, the question of custody is not part of the Hague Abduction Convention. The parents can resolve that among themselves if they wish to. But with respect to the court, the judge’s role is to determine which country has jurisdiction, not which parent the child should stay with.)

[32:11]LOLLY: So, in other words, yung courtroom, since nasa kanila ang mga facts at saka records, ebidensya, at records para mag-decide ng tamang custody. Yan ang tabaho ng court.

(So, in other words, the courtroom since they have the facts, records, evidence, and documents needed to make a proper custody decision, that is the court’s job.)

[32:24] ATTY. BRITANICO: I-decide po ng if you file a case under the Hague Abduction Convention as implemented by our Supreme Court, the court will determine whether that child should remain in the Philippines or should be returned to the other country. And then, either the Philippines or that other country after that judgment will be the…where those child custody questions in a subsequent case or in a separate case can be addressed but not in this. Kasi napaka-narrow po ng kanyang focus for the Hague Abduction Convention.

(I-decide po ng if you file a case under the Hague Abduction Convention as implemented by our Supreme Court, the court will determine whether that child should remain in the Philippines or should be returned to the other country. And then, either the Philippines or that other country after that judgment will be the…where those child custody questions in a subsequent case or in a separate case can be addressed but not in this. Because the focus of the Hague Abduction Convention is very narrow.)

[33:00] LOLLY: Medyo masikip, ano? Very focused, very specific. So, yung ilalim po ng the Hague, best interest pa ulit-ulit natin sinasabi, ay ang…Pag-iwas sa self-help. Ano po ibig sabihin yan?

(A little narrow, right? Very focused, very specific. So under the Hague Convention, we keep repeating “best interest”—what it really means is the avoidance of self-help. What does that mean?)

[33:14] ATTY. BRITANICO: Kasi ang nangyayari po is that one parent might decide that they want custody or they want to have the child’s possession.

(What will happen is that one parent might decide that they want custody or they want to have the child’s possession.)

LOLLY:  Kunduminante yung nanay.

(If the mother is domineering) 

[33:20] ATTY. BRITANICO: Kunin po nila yung bata. Kunyari, kung galing sa Pilipinas, dadalhin sa kabilang bansa. Or galing sa kabilang bansa, dadalhin sa Pilipinas. And then if that happens, then the… The law is circumvented kasi kung meron kang questions about who should have the right, hindi dapat dalhin mo muna sa tamang lugar. Hindi ikaw yung mag-decide for everybody.

(They will  take the child. For example, if the child is taken from the Philippines, they bring the child to another country. Or if the child is taken from another country, brought to the Philippines. And when that happens, the law is being circumvented, because if there are questions about who should have the right, you should not just bring the child to another place first. You are not the one who decides for everyone else.)

[33:42] LOLLY: Kasi karamihan natin naririnig, eh nanay, ang favor. Kung custody-custodial lang, dapat below 7 years old sa nanay yan.

(Because what we often hear is that the mother is favored. If it were purely a custody issue, children below seven years old are supposed to be with the mother.)

ATTY. BRITANICO:  That is the tender years presumption.

(That is the tender years presumption.)

LOLLY: So hindi na pala ganun? Anong batas?

(So it’s not like that anymore? What law is that?)

[33:54] ATTY. BRITANICO: In most cases, yung tender years presumption prevails found in the family code but in situations of cases which falls under this, because it is separate from the custody case, it will not—should not play a part with the question whether or not the treaty will applies.

(In most cases, the ender years presumption prevails found in the family code but in situations of cases which falls under this, because it is separate from the custody case, it will not—should not play a part with the question whether or not the treaty will applies.)

[34:14] LOLLY: Ayan, malinaw ano po. That’s why we have to learn this and find out ano nga po ba yung mga talagang nasa batas, ayon sa batas. So hindi pwedeng ikaw na lang basta-basta mag-decide. O, nako Jill John, dito na lang kami sa Pilipinas ha, dahil gusto ko to eh. Hindi pwede yun.

(There you go, that’s clear. That’s why we have to learn this and find out what is really in the law—what the law actually says. So you can’t just decide on your own. “Oh, Jill John, let’s just stay here in the Philippines because I want this.” That’s not allowed.)

[34:40] ATTY. BRITANICO: Hindi po ganun yan.

(That’s not how it is.)

LOLLY: Hindi po ganun yan. Anak ko yan eh. Kasi laging nanay ang nananalo. So ang best interest ng bata ay talagang maprotektahan sila mula sa trauma of abduction. Imagine pinapangalagaan natin ang karapatan ng bata na hindi maging biktima sa gitna ng away ng kanyang mga magulang. Pero ulitin ko lang, Tony Francis, talagang ang mga magulang hindi na maresolba yung ganitong kaso, yung kanilang differences.Kaya nangyayari ito.

(That’s not how it is. “That’s my child”. Because it’s usually the mother who wins. So the child’s best interest is really to be protected from the trauma of abduction. Imagine, we are protecting the child’s right not to become a victim in the middle of their parents’ conflict. But I’ll say it again, Attorney Francesco, parents really can no longer resolve these kinds of cases—their differences. That’s why this happens.)

[34:55] ATTY. BRITANICO: iba po ba yung issue na ‘yon dun sa ano pa ba, they can still be co-parents together even if they are not remaining in a relationship. But of course, every situation is different. Some situations are truly intolerable. There can be real reasons. Kaya hindi naman po yung treaty, hindi po siya inflexible. It will also look at certain things. Like for example, some court can refuse the return of the child if it finds that it would be psychologically or physically dangerous for the child to be returned to another country.

(Is that issue different from what else again, they can still be co-parents together even if they are not remaining in a relationship. But of course, every situation is different. Some situations are truly intolerable. There can be real reasons.  Kaya hindi naman po yung treaty, hindi po siya inflexible. It will also look at certain things. Like for example, some court can refuse the return of the child if it finds that it would be psychologically or physically dangerous for the child to be returned to another country.)

LOLLY: Oh, merong gano’n?

(Oh, is there something like that?)

[35:37] ATTY. BRITANICO: So, yes ma’am, hindi naman po siya basta, oh, you fell within the one year period, there was these other things. It can determine those things also. It can look into the situation and determine if it is to the detriment, to the danger of the child. If it is like that, then yung best interest consideration will still lie.

(So, yes ma’am, it’s not just something that…oh, you fell within the one year period, there was these other things. It can determine those things also. It can look into the situation and determine if it is to the detriment, to the danger of the child. If it is like that, then yung best interest consideration will still lie.)

[35:58] LOLLY: Again, yan ang primordial concern. Siyempre, yung karapatan at saka maging maayos yung pag-iisip ng mga bata. Ang dami kasi lang ngayon, lalo ngayon, attorney, alam natin, AI, nandyan ang high technology. Sasabihin nyo, hindi, dapat doon ka lang sa mama mo. Hindi, dito ka lang sa papo mo, naguguluhan yung mga bata. Now you’re explaining all this, we have to, again, expound on this, siguro magpa-part 2 tayo kasi kulang oras. Andami pang itatanong ng inyong lingkod sa’yo dahil yun din ang gusto natin layunin, mapaintindi sa ating mga kabataan. Dahil sila nga po ang tinatawag natin, future leaders of this, ang pag-asa ng ating bansa. Eh kung pag-asa nga sila pero malikot naman utak nila dahil niya sila naalagaan ng tama, eh hindi po productive ang mangyayari. But itong isa pang tanong bago kita pakawalan, lahat po ba ng bansa applicable sa treaty na ito? Ano po ang reach and scope ng The Hague.

(Again, that is the primordial concern. Of course, the children’s rights and their mental well-being should be protected. There are so many things now—especially today, Attorney, as we know, with AI and high technology. One might say, “No, you should stay with your mom,” or “No, you should stay with your dad,” and the children end up getting confused. Now you’re explaining all this, we have to, again, expound on this, maybe we’ll have a Part 2 because our time isn’t enough. There are still so many questions I would like to ask you because that is also our goal—to help our young people understand these things. Because they are what we call the future leaders, the hope of our country. But if they are the hope, yet their minds are confused because they are not properly guided, then nothing productive will happen. But before I let you go, one more question: is this treaty applicable to all countries? What is the reach and scope of The Hague?

[36:53] ATTY. BRITANICO: The Hague Abduction Convention was signed, was created around 1981. Over time, almost 100 countries are part of it. But with respect to the Philippines, we only joined it in 2016. And because we joined it after these other countries, they would have to individually approve whether or not it will apply between the Philippines and us. When that means that since we signed in 2016 the other countries which are members of the treaty, they will confirm if it will be in effect between us and them. So even at this point, even though almost a 100 counties ang Hague Abduction Convention, but in respect with the Philippines, it is enforced with 35 countries. Marami-raming bansa pero hindi pa po lahat. Hindi pa lahat. Oo.

(The Hague Abduction Convention was signed, was created around 1981. Over time, almost 100 countries are part of it. But with respect to the Philippines, we only joined it in 2016. And because we joined it after these other countries, they would have to individually approve whether or not it will apply between the Philippines and us. When that means that since we signed in 2016 the other countries which are members of the treaty, they will confirm if it will be in effect between us and them. So even at this point, even though almost a 100 counties ang Hague Abduction Convention, but in respect with the Philippines, it is enforced with 35 countries. A considerable number of countries, but not all yet. Not all. Yes.)

[37:39] LOLLY: So what happens kung hindi ka naman signatory pala, non-member ka? Madali po ba yan? O mas matagal ang proseso?

(So what happens if you’re not a signatory, if you’re a non-member? Is it easy? Or does the process take longer?)

[37:45] ATTY. BRITANICO: For example, kung ikaw ay isang magulang galing sa Estados Unidos, kinuha po yung anak ninyo, even though the US and the Philippines are both signatories, the treaty is not enforced between our countries. Ang remedy po ng magulang na yun is to file the traditional child custody case. So yung child custody case where they contested…

(For example, if you are a parent from the United States and your child is taken, even though both the US and the Philippines are signatories, the treaty is not enforced between our countries. The remedy for that parent is to file a traditional child custody case. So yung child custody case where they contested…)

LOLLY: Mahaba ba yan?

(Is that a long process?)

[38:03] ATTY. BRITANICO: Mahaba po. So hindi po siya—dahil hindi available yung Hague rule, Hague treaty, they would have to resort to the other more traditional cases.

(It’s a long process. So it’s not that—because the Hague rule isn’t available. Hague treaty, they would have to resort to the other more traditional cases.)

[38:14] LOLLY: So a close our questions for Atty. Francesco, pero bago kong again pa-alisin at matapos ang kanyang interview natin sa kanya, again, hindi po ito yung fast track ng Hague kasi hindi ka member. Fast track ng dahig. Hindi magagamit.

(So a close our questions for Atty. Francesco, But before I let you go and end his interview, again, this is not the fast track under The Hague because you are not a member. The Hague fast track cannot be used.)

[38:30] ATTY. BRITANICO: If it’s for between the Philippines and the United States or other countries where the treaty is not yet enforced, hindi mo po ma-avail yung fast track. You would have to resort to other things. But if it’s like, for example, if it’s Italy, Japan, or a bunch of other countries, Greece, and all of that, pwede po. Pwede po talaga. And then, as fast as 90 days, mariremedyuhan po yung sitwasyon.

(If it’s for between the Philippines and the United States or other countries where the treaty is not yet enforced, you cannot avail of the fast track. You would have to resort to other things. But if it’s like, for example, if it’s Italy, Japan, or a bunch of other countries, Greece, and all of that, it is allowed. It’s really possible. And then, as fast as 90 days, the situation can be remedied.)

[38:52] LOLLY: Kasi yan ang tantamount to saying ang The Hague treaty is a fast track treaty. Parang ganun.

(Because that’s tantamount to saying that the Hague Convention is a fast-track treaty—something like that.)

[39:00] ATTY. BRITANICO: That’s definitely the idea. Diba? Because it’s structured that way for the benefit ng maliit na bata. Maliit na bata.

(That’s definitely the idea, right? Because it’s structured that way for the benefit of the young child. The young child.)

[39:07] LOLLY: Nako yan, good, good news. Pero bibitinin namin po kayo kasi mas mahaba pa po yung magiging usapin namin sa kanyang pagbabalik. Not this time. We will schedule it. Pero abangan nyo po. But saan po kayo makita very quickly? Ano po ang inyong website? Ano pong numbers? Mandali, nasa FB po ba kayo? Go ahead po.

(Oh, that’s good news. But we’ll have to leave you hanging for now because our discussion will be much longer when we have you back. Not this time—we’ll schedule it. But stay tuned. But where can people find you very quickly? What is your website? What are your contact numbers? Is it easy—are you on Facebook? Go ahead.)

[39:24]ATTY. BRITANICO: We can be found on Facebook, certainly. We can also be found sa aming website, www.lawyerphilippines.org. We have a form there where if you have questions, we will try to answer. And then, hopefully, makatulong po tayo sa nagtatanong or who might find that this situation applies to them or have other concerns like this.

(We can be found on Facebook, certainly. We can also be found on our website, www.lawyerphilippines.org. We have a form there where if you have questions, we will try to answer. And then, And then, hopefully, we can help those who are asking questions. or who might find that this situation applies to them or have other concerns like this.)