INTRODUCTION:
Online abuse and exploitation of children (OSAEC) was an emerging problem in the Philippines when the use of the internet became widespread. Sometime 2008-2009 the Children’s Legal Bureau (CLB) Inc. already learned from members of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC) about the issue of online sexual exploitation of children in some barangays in Cordova, Cebu. However, there were no cases reported yet and the communities were silent about it.
It was like a “community livelihood program” and community members were not receptive to awareness-raising activities on the issue. What was worse was that parents were exploiting their own children. They were earning money and thought it was harmless.
The law on Anti-Child Pornography was passed only in 2009. During CLB’s first awareness-raising activity in the area, only a few people attended. The succeeding awareness raising activities conducted by the Child’s Rights Protection Unit (CRPU) of Cordova were then disseminated as a spiritual recollection of parents and children. It was during this activity where children disclosed that they were being forced to do the “shows” by their parents. Yet, it is understandable that they refused to file cases against their very own parents.
Eventually, three children reported being made to do the online “shows” by their neighbor to the social worker who referred them to the CLB. CLB assisted them in filing a case against the perpetrators. A similar case was reported to the social worker by a concerned citizen which was also reported to CLB and led to the rescue and filing of another case. These two cases were filed sometime in 2010 to 2012 primarily to test the law on Anti-Child Pornography which has just been passed in 2009 and to deter other community members from doing such illegal acts since it had already become a sort of community livelihood in the area.
THE OSAEC CASES:
Modus operandi of OSEC was disclosed.
The children alleged that their neighbor XXX had invited them to their house and there they were enticed to perform a “show” in front of a computer with a web camera. They described the show as showing their private parts such as breasts, genitals, buttocks, breasts, pubic area and/or anus. They are also asked to insert a “toy” (dildos) inside their anus or genitals and lick each other in those private areas. The foreigner who is watching on the other side of the web cam pays through local money transfer. The operators are usually paid $50-$200 depending on the length of the show. That is around P1,200-P8,000, which is quite a lot of money for a single day’s work. The children are paid P50-200.00 by the operator.
The second case had a similar modus operandi. The first case was filed after the children reported the incidents to the social welfare office.while the second case was filed after a rescue operation after a report from a concerned citizen.
First case was the first reported case of Online Sexual Abuse and Expoitation of Children.
The first case was significant because the complainants voluntarily reported and decided to file a case against the perpetrators. There were reports from BCPC regarding these incidents for a long time already but it seems that no one was willing to come out and file a case. This might be because they gained money out of it and second, the children were not “touched” by the perpetrators so they did not find anything wrong.
Being the first reported case, this was also the first case filed for violation of the Anti-Child Pornography Law as said law was passed only a year before. The case was filed to test the new law.
Before the law was passed, the only law concerning “child pornography” was RA 7610 on obscene publications and indecent shows. However, this law covered live, photo or video production and was silent about the online mode through webcams. It also punished only the one who employs the children for the production but did not include the ones watching. This time RA 9775 already covered these gaps in RA 7610.
The second case was a result of the reports that followed after the filing of the first case. This time it was a rescue operation.
After the first case was filed, reports regarding possible OSAEC cases in one barangay of Cordova followed. This led to an investigation and rescue operations to get the minor victims out of the situation. Before the rescue, a search warrant was secured and it was in the service of the warrant when the victims were rescued and the perpetrators including the mother of one of the victims were caught in the act. Inquest followed and immediately the case was filed in court.
It turned out that the minors were “willing” victims and they hated the police and social workers who rescued them. They were uncooperative in executing complaint affidavits against the perpetrators. The affidavits submitted to the prosecutor’s office were those of the rescue team who caught the perpetrators in the act, not those of the victims themselves.
The second case also highlighted the fact that parents themselves could be the exploiters of their own children through online sexual exploitation.
With this circumstance, the victim was unwilling to testify against her own mother who was a person with disability (PWD). She had confused feelings for her mother who she hated for exploiting her but at the same time she also felt pity on her being a PWD and struggling to make both ends meet. Her father had neglected them for a long time and was the sole breadwinner with her two children. Even with the services and psychological support the child received from different agencies, she refused to testify against her mother. According to her it was of her own accord and she voluntarily engaged in the online “shows” and her mother had nothing to do with what happened. Thus, just to appease the child and since the mother had already suffered more than three years in jail, the case ended with a plea bargaining agreement.
Both cases experienced delays with different causes of delay and both ended up in a plea bargaining agreement but for different reasons.
For the first case, the plea bargaining came up due to the delays in the case dragging on for ten years, the victims already got married, had children and wanted to move on. The plea bargaining put an end to the case at the shortest time. Furthermore, they were pressured since the perpetrator owned the land they are occupying
For the second case, it was the refusal of the victim to testify against her own mother despite all the psychological support extended to her when plea bargaining became an option. The decision came about after deliberations of the team on what was the best interest of the child, the team found that this could be the best option. The other perpetrator was included in the compromise even if she was not the parent so the case can be terminated. Both mother and daughter received services from the LGU.
IMPACT OF THE FILING OF THE CASES:
Similar reports followed the first case and children were rescued and cases were filed against the perpetrators including parents.
With the filing of the case which was covered by the media, this type of child exploitation was exposed and as a result, more reports followed and it is not only in Cordova but other places as well. In the next cases that followed reports were coming from concerned citizens who witnessed similar incidents. Rescue operations followed and cases were filed against perpetrators.
The cases raised the awareness of the community that such problems exist and may prevent them from engaging in these illegal practice as they could be arrested for the violation. Other concerned groups also became interested in the issue which CLB helped to expose when it filed the case.
LGU of Cordova became active in the Campaign against OSAEC and shared their experience to other LGUs
Because of the media coverage of the cases, Cordova became known as the OSAEC capital. This encouraged the LGU to do something on the issue. They actively campaigned against OSAEC reaching barangay and sitio levels. Schools were mobilized for advocacy and awareness raising. To discourage communities in engaging in OSAEC, the LGU passed an Ordinance regulating Money Transfer Agencies in Cordova. Cordova has also shared their experience to other LGUs not only in Cebu but also in other areas as well.
Because the modus operandi was discovered, specifically on the money trail, money transfer agencies became more careful in the transactions of their clients.
The money transfer agencies were made aware that their agencies are being used in OSAEC and become more careful like requiring more information from the sender of the money such as their relationship with the receiver and the purpose of the transaction. They also learned the “red flags” so that they can report them to the authorities.
In the long term, victims rescued recovered from their traumatic experiences.
After the victims were provided with psychosocial services, education and other services to cope with the trauma, most of them have moved on, some already have families and are working. Some have become experiential advocates where they help in raising awareness of the community on the issue and tell their stories of hope.
Some would say a rescue operation should not be done because it appears that children are more traumatized during rescue than when they are victimized through OSAEC. However, waiting for these children to report and file a case against perpetrators may not be for their best interest since the longer they are victimized, the longer would be the recovery process. In the first case, the perpetrators were not related to the children thus it was less difficult for them to report and file the case. However, in cases where their own parents or relatives are the perpetrators, they would not voluntarily report or file the case. Thus, the need to rescue them from the exploitative situation and to undergo psycho-social services.
LESSONS LEARNED
Law can be used as a tool to protect children against OSAEC by filing of cases and arresting perpetrators.. When victims are rescued, perpetrators are arrested and cases are filed, it will deter other persons from exploiting children. More people are also encouraged to report cases as they know something will be done about their reports.
However, case filing has its limitations and should be done with other interventions such as awareness raising, capacity building and policy advocacy.
Many problems may be encountered after case filing. One of the major problems encountered in the first case is the delay in the trial. From filing, it took more than ten years only to be terminated through a Plea Bargaining. Causes for delay include dismissal at the prosecutor level, resetting by the counsels and even the court and the turnover of CLB lawyers because of the “project” term employment as it takes time for the new lawyer to gain rapport with the client and to study the case as well as to get authority to prosecute from the Prosecutor’s office.
Aside from the delays, another problem is the insensitivity of the system itself. In this case, the victim articulated that she is afraid when the accused is sitting next to her while awaiting for their cases to be called. Even with the SC Child Witness Rule, many courts do not have waiting areas for the child. Although CLB lawyers try to shield them from the accused, this cannot be done 100% of the time as they are also concentrated in the legal aspect.
With its limitations, litigation should not be the only intervention in solving the problem of online sexual exploitation of children. Thus, aside from the litigation aspect, CLB also provided venue to empower its clients such as participating in trainings on children’s rights and became a part of the Child’s Rights Advocates (CRAs) organized by CLB so they will have deeper understanding on their cases and help advocate for children’s rights…
Furthermore, CLB engaged in policy advocacy at local and national levels for the improvement of laws. In fact, CLB was part of the TWG on the Anti OSAEC Law, At the local level, Cordova became the first LGU to pass an Ordinance regulating the Money Transfer Agencies where the money passed from the ones watching the “shows” to the local operators of OSAEC.
..
Capacity building and networking with the Local Government Units (LGUs) and the different councils to advocate against OSAEC also continued.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Prevention is better than cure. Advocacy and awareness raising on the issue of OSAEC should be sustained to prevent children from being exploited.
Even if cases are filed and perpetrators are arrested, advocacy and awareness raising of the issue of OSEC should be sustained to prevent more children from becoming victims. Children should be aware of the dangers of the internet and should be informed how to keep themselves safe online. Parents should be informed of the negative effects of such activities on their children although there is no touching being only online. In Cordova, all sectors including the schools and communities have continued awareness raising on the issue of OSEC.
To address its own inherent weakness, CLB needs to explore ways to make its lawyers more permanent and not project-based so they can handle the case in the long term. Another option would be to train volunteer lawyers who can handle even one or two cases on a long-term basis. Partnership with the prosecutors is another option but they are also swapped with many cases and most would welcome private prosecutors to handle the case.
There is a need to institutionalize the CASA/GAL Volunteers as provided in the SC Rule on Child Witness so that apart from the private or public prosecutors, somebody appointed by the court can focus on the other needs of the child and may make recommendations to the court to issue appropriate orders for the best interest of the child.
Regarding plea bargaining, it should be done on a case-to-case basis and depending on the situation. The basis in entering into a plea bargaining agreement should always be for the best interest of the child. Plea bargaining might be a solution to the different problems encountered in the trial of the case. One of the reasons to opt for plea bargaining is the delay in the process. With plea bargaining, the process is cut short as the prosecutor does not anymore need to present witnesses if this happens early on in the case. Delays in the case for many years can also pressure the victims to agree to plea bargaining just to move on with their lives, especially if they already have families of their own. In the case of the children refusing to testify against their own parents despite all the support extended to them, plea bargaining could also be an option.
However, this option should not be the general rule but only an exception. Prosecution should not be the one encouraging for plea bargaining especially if their cases are weak. The weaknesses in gathering and preservation of evidence should be addressed. Besides, the Compromise Agreement should serve the best interest of the child including its execution and should be fair to all concerned. It should be ensured also that the complainants are not forced by circumstances to agree with the compromise.
In the first case, it turns out that one of the victims is not satisfied with the Compromise Agreement and was pressured to agree especially that the other two complainants will lose their homes. Besides, she already wanted to move on as the case had been pending for ten years already. Also, since the compensation agreed was not paid in full, every time she asks for the balance, she is blamed for being only after the money.
As for the other case, it turned out that the plea bargaining served the best interest of the child considering that her mother the perpetrator was a PWD and a single parent, Still, when her mother was released she still felt angry. but later on was able to reconcile with her. Both of them received services from the local government unit and are now moving on with their lives.
Services and aftercare for the victims is imperative
The victims themselves should be given not only legal but also psycho social interventions and eventually be empowered to know their rights and protect themselves from revictimization. Given the appropriate services and opportunities for education, they can still achieve their dreams. Furthermore,.they can become experiential advocates so that other children may be prevented from being victimized. With their own personal experience they can persuade more children and parents not to become victims of OSAEC.
The demand side (the perpetrators who were watching the shows should also be addressed.
The two cases filed did not include the ones who were watching the shows and who gave the money, There is a need to address this because the victims and operators will be enticed to do the shows because of the money. This may be done by networking with law enforcement in other countries where the demand side is.
Lastly, In order to address the problem of OSAEC, a holistic approach is needed from prevention, protection as well as rehabilitation. All actors from the community, children themselves, law enforcement, prosecution, local government and other concerned should act together to address OSAEC. Only then will this problem be addressed and OSAEC eliminated.