Child Abuse In The Philippines
What the Expat Needs to Know
Another American (Gary Lee Rohn) has been busted on Bantayan Island for having children in his company.. This time, its an older man that has reportedly been living in the Philippines since 2001. He recently had his marriage annulled and he seems to be implying that his ex-wife is involved in this. That may
be true, but that doesn’t change the law. Even if you think a law is unfair, that does not give one the right to ignore it.
He is in the country as a missionary for the Church of Later Day Saints which may prove to be important in his defence.
He’s an old guy, probably lonely and kids come to his door asking for money and wanting to visit. At least that is his claim. A claim that sounds reasonable to me. However he is still alone with minors that are not related to him and that is illegal in the Philippines!
The law that makes it illegal to be alone with children is Republic Act.. 7610 which is quoted, in part, below:
Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the penalty of prison mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00): Provided, That this provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
So if you are 28 years of age or older, the law makes it illegal to be alone with anyone 18 years of age or younger in any place. The law may apply if you’re under 28 but it will always apply if you are older than 28. The exception for “performance of a social, moral or legal duty” would make the law not apply to government agencies, priest and others while performing their official duties. Does it exempt teachers? I would think so but that would be open to interpretation. Would it apply to a missionary? That too would be open to interpretation.
One cannot blame a government agency for enforcing such a law. Government agencies are expected to enforce law passed down to them even when they don’t personally agree with it.
A lawyer for the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) seems to be hinting toward this when he reportedly said:
Lawyer Irene Cabales of the Children’s Legal Bureau said they would want to test Republic Act 9610 that prohibits anyone, especially foreigners, from having minors under their custody.
I can’t find any where in the law that makes foreigners a special class. However, common sense would suggest that foreign men alone with children is more suspicious. It certainly would be with me. Especially when there seems to be a pattern of this behavior.
In this case however, the timing seems odd. It comes shortly after another American was found alone with a 12 year old girl. Rohn, the American implicated in this case, recently ended a marriage which suggest there could be some motive for revenge. Still, he was alone with Children. Their ages ranged from 3 to 15.
One serious problem for Rohn, will be explaining the pictures of children showering that has been discovered on his laptop! I do not know if these children were nude or if they were children in his home. However, those videos are troublesome considering he has a house full of children.
Another mark against Rohn is that a 19 year old witness claims that the American attempted to sexually abuse him. I can find no other details and don’t know who is making this accusation or if Rohn had the ability to do this. One would think it was one of the children that has been hanging out at his home but it also could be a relative of someone that wants revenge.
What does this law mean for blended families? I don’t now, especially for unmarried blended families. If one is planning on coming here, it is certainly you should ask yourself, especially if you plan to join a woman with children.
For an American, the law seems to vague to hold up in court but this isn’t America! I can’t apply my values and limited knowledge of American law to the Philippines. For one, the legal process here seems much more based in common sense . However, to me, such a common sense approach seems open to potential problems.
I understand why the Philippine government would pass such a law. They are trying very hard to put an end to child abuse and how could one, in their right mind, be against that. On the other hand, if you are in your home with a neighborhood child, you are at risk. I would never let that happen intentionally, it just feels wrong to be alone with a child that I don’t know or don’t know very well. However, doors often go unlocked here. Kids will be kids and no telling what they might do or where they may go, including inside your home!
Popularity: 1%
Hi Rusty – I never knew of this law until you wrote a couple of articles about it. There is one thing that I find very curious and interesting here. You keep mentioning in your articles that you cannot be “alone” with a child. However, in the part of the law you have quoted, the word “alone” never appears. It even says you cannot be in the company of a child in “a public place.” So, under the law as I read it (although I understand that the entire law is not quoted here), even if you were out at a restaurant or some other public spot, and there were dozens of other people around, you would technically be in violation of the law if you went and talked to a young child in plain view of all of the people. Can you offer any clarification on this, Rusty? Does the word “alone” appear in some part of the law that is not quoted? Because the way the law reads in the quote, the law applies whether you are alone, or in the company of others.
You can google the republic act number i listed and you’ll find the law.
You’re correct. You don’t have to be alone. I think the key is if you have “custody” of them or control. If you’re alone the law actually increases the penalty significantly.
I THINK your okay if you’re with a family member of the child but who knows, the law is vague there too. I was using common sense and the law doesn’t seem to make that clarification.
The lawyer for DWSD indicated you couldn’t be in custody of the children but the law is clear on public or private place.
I now keep my door locked when Jessie is out of the room. Technically this law could get a yaya busted!
Here is the link: http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1992/ra_7610_1992.html for the law. If your alone with the child things get much worse and prison terms go way up.
There is a guy here in Bogo that is known for hanging out with kids. I don’t know if he is every alone with them.. One second grader claims to be his girlfriend! It all could be very innocent but if so, that guy needs to stop and stop now. I don’t know who he is. I’m sure the authorities in town are all over it though and will handle it if something needs to be handled.
What if these are my Fiance’s siblings and their offspring and we will be married soon?
My fiance has a 2 year son which will be my stepson what about that situation?
Under this law you could meet the defination of child abuser and so could he for allowing it.
I don’t know about after marriage. Ii don’t know the degrees that well. I just don’t know. I’ve wondered the same thing.
There are many of us in that situation.
I would recommend for men in the Philippines not to be alone with the children. As Bob pointed out, that technically doesn’t matter. I think the Philippine common sense will rule in the end.
Here is another Terry but a male…this would be confusing now, thankfully I put my daughter’s soccer pic, so people will know which Terry…the filipina or the one with a step-son and male….LOL Welcome Terry to Rusty’s website!!!!
You will enjoy the banterings here…sometimes we don’t agree on issues but the more arguments, the more fun these are, right Rusty, Christine, Bob, JoeB, Randy, Queenniebee and Tom? And someday, we will be at Rusty’s place to eat together and he is cooking for all of us.
Yeah, its gonna be confusing.
Its okay.
Terry the male, maybe add something to your name, “Terry in Cebu” or wherever might help or the first initial of your last name.
In any case, I’m glad to have you both here!
PS, once Christine noticed I wasn’t up to my normal self and asked me where the fire was. She missed it. So I’ve been trying to get her an extra dose laely. LOL
I have another net nick name that fits me as well as Flritilizer, it is Stormyheart!
I think I did missed something? What fire are you talking about?
hmmm, first knives, now fire? You off your meds again Rusty?
I never hear the fire either…where is this site Rus?
…he’s off his meds…
At least i’ve started mine, what’s your excuse, other than denial.
You want some fire? Come closer…..
Boy Terry! You certainly got me confused with the Filipina Terrry in NY there!. I thought, “what the hell is she talking about?”, LOL!
Maybe put a pic so we know who’s who or use initials so we don’t get confused!
Yeah, certainly welcome “man Terry”- assumed you are a Kano? So maybe we just say, “Kano Terry” as opposed to “Pinay Terry”.
Oh, and don’t hold out for Rusty’s cooking, he can’t cook!
I’m worried I’ll flirt with the wrong Terry.
I can cook spam just fine, thank you.
Yeah, that would be funny if you end up flirting with Kano Terry – ha,ha,
Teach you not to get too flirty. Kano Terry might then run a mile instead of
visiting you in Bogo, he might think you are “Bayot” also, like Bob, ha,ha
Too flirty? Isn’t that like too much money? How could that be possible?
The risk is if you flirt with a Kano – or you don’t discriminate between bloke or sheila??
Yeah, flirting with a kangaroo might be a little strange. I’ll leave that up to the crazy Aussie’s.
Terry if you marry your fiancee then her son will be related to you by affinity so you are an exclusion….same holds true with her siblings and offsprings… and I quote
“Provided, That this provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.”
I meant to look those two words up. Don’t know if they are mostly Philippine legal terms or not, my guess not.
I’m surprised I never ran into them in the law classes or tax work I did. US tax law usually just spells out which relationships are included under some law.
Hi Rusty – I like kids, and I enjoy interacting with kids. Appropriately, of course. I mean, the way that this law is written, if you are out walking around town and beggar kids come to you asking for money, it would seem that you are breaking the law, even though it is the kids who come to you.
For example, yesterday, I went to a restaurant with a friend. When we were leaving, three young kids approached us (probably 5 to 8 years old, I would guess). I talked to them in Bisaya for a while, asked if they are students, where the go to school, etc. When I was driving out, the kids directed me (motioned for me when it was safe to go, how far to backup, etc.). Before leaving, I opened the window and gave each of the kids P5. From the sounds of it, that entire event may have been illegal. I find that concerning, to say the least. I mean, I had no control over these children, but they were certainly “in my company.”
Bob, I think you’re concern is right on target. Though it appears the DSWD has only used the law twice, and in both cases used it when the children were in the custody of the law says in the company of, not custody. The letter of the law seems to rule out children at picnics!
If someone took a disliking to you, especially someone in power, they may use this law to cause you a great deal of problems and possibly prison.
It appears these are the first two times the law has been used. clearly its a handy too. for prosecutors but the potential for abuse is extremely high. Even if a case has no chance of being upheld in court, the cost and stress of such a prosecution would be devastating if “you” were the target of such.
Disgruntled and estranged spouses are likely to try to use this to gain an upper hand in annulment proceedings.
When I used the word alone, I meant without a family member there but even with a family member there you’d still be in the company of. It may be impossible not to be in violation of this law if you walk out of the house.
That’s when we come back to relying on the common sense usually found in the Philippine justice system. I’m going to go read it again, well browse it. Trying to read law may warp one’s brain. ::)
Bob, there was nothing wrong with what you did…you were giving them tips when they helped you. The wrong thing is giving kids money for sexual favors or touching them at the wrong places….besides there were people with you and you were in a public place. there is a big difference between alone with young kids and in a room and the kids are not even related to you by blood or kinship or in the case of Terry, as part of a nuclear family.
Terry, that’s not what the law says.
I certainly don’t think Bob did anything wrong, thing is, it could put him at risk. One would hope that the famous Filipino common sense will remain in full effect but what if someone had it out for you?
It looks like they are using this law when they suspect there is more going on and they just don’t have enough evidence to prove more. That seems to be the purpose of the law.
I will be posting an update on both Kuntz and Rohn later today. There have been new developments and more damaging evidence against Rohn.
Acording to the law you don’t have to be alone with them. Sitting at your table in a resturant would be in violation the way the law is written. Like I said in the other diccussion the law is well written and easy to understand but not well thought out.
You are correct many yayas could be arrested under this law. However enforcement seems to be directed at foreigners. I admit it is a very bad thing for pedophiles to come here and abuse children but this law does nothing to deter the ones who commit the majority of these crimes here. The childrens own family.
When I said alone, I meant without a family member. That was based on thee lawyers statement.
Even with a family member you may be in violation of the law as it is written.
We don’t know how this will be prosecuted, these are the first two cases based on the attorney stating that the law needs to be tested
You’re incorrect that the law doesn’t protect the children from their parents, it certainly does but there is an even stronger law that comes into effect. The parents of the girl involved in the Kuntz case have been changed with that law. This law too though could be used aginst the parents, they just went for onen that includes “the worst” cases of child abuse.
They now have additional evidence against Rohn.
And there are trouble developments regarding Kuntz. I wrote a short update here:
http://heyjoe.ph/living-in-the-philippines/kuntz-leaves-country/2245/