The Problem Of Child Protection Structure in the Philippines

The child protection system in the Philippines at national, regional and provincial level and the systems, mechanisms and institutions established are generally considered to meet international standards for child protection law and policy.

The aim and objective of the Filipino child protection system and the various child protection laws is to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination and other conditions prejudicial to their development; to impose sanctions against those who commit such acts; and ensure programmes for prevention and deterrence of, and crisis intervention in, situations of child abuse, exploitation and discrimination are available and implemented.

The child protection system relies upon two national bodies. One of these is the Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC), created by the Child and Youth Welfare Code. It is the focal inter-agency body of the Philippines for children’s concerns and is chaired by the DSWD. Its priorities are:

• Integration of children’s development agenda in national and local development plans;
• Putting in place a fully operational and highly effective management information system, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for national plans of action and the implementation of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) and other international conventions as well as resource bank on children;
• Heighten advocacy and social mobilization for an effective and wide scale implementation of the UNCRC within the Philippine social and cultural context
• Legislative and policy review and revisions to harmonize national and local laws with CRC and other international conventions.

Underneath the Council are the Regional Subcommittees for the Welfare of Children, which guide the development and implementation of CWC policy and directives, and below that the Provincial, municipal and city local child protection councils and then the barangay child protection councils.

There are potential problems with this approach. There is a risk that it may lead to child protection by committee rather than by dedicated, skilled social workers within a well-managed child protection service. This is especially so when there is a general lack of social workers on the ground.

Few of the Council membership will have received training on or have experience of working in child protection, yet they may need to reach decisions on referral and protection of a child or the provision of specialist services.

Second, members of the Council for Protection of Children have other jobs and other responsibilities apart from child protection. Many of them will be on the other Councils that the child protection laws require to be established at local government level, including the Municipal Interagency Council Against Trafficking and Violence Against Women and Their Children (under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Law) and the Interagency Council Against Child Pornography (under the Anti-Child Pornography Act).

The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Law, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children, the Anti-Pornography Law and the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law between them require about 16-17 regional sub-committees or interagency committees, totalling at least 64 regional bodies composed more or less of the same government agencies. This has led to coordination bottlenecks, duplication of functions and fragmented and reactive interventions, all of which have to be implemented by LGUs, who lack the resources and capacities.

The role of the barangay councils for the protection of children is to raise awareness and respond to child protection issues, usually by reporting them to the social worker in the LGU. By the end of 2010 only 36 per cent of provinces, 56 per cent of cities, 44 per cent of municipalities and 34 per cent of barangays had functioning local councils for the protection of children.

Where barangay councils do exist, they often lack resources for the protection of children, limiting the work they can do. Quite frequently they also lack power to engage effectively with the formal system.

Where there is no local child protection council and little access to LGU social workers, informal systems appear to operate in some locations, which identify, prioritise and address child protection. Although informal systems can resolve some child protection issues, some practices, for example marrying off a girl who has been raped to the perpetrator in order to save face may be positively harmful. Without training and supervision there is also a risk that discriminatory and non-participatory decisions may be made.