WHILE the House Committee on the Welfare of Children and the House Committee on Revision of Laws should be commended for approving the bill against online sexual abuse and exploitation of children (OSAEC), its latest action to remove the term “online” in the title and body of the bill takes the focus away from the purpose of the bill — ending crimes committed using information and communications technology (ICT).
We should focus on passing a law that addresses the nuanced issue of OSAEC — an issue that has benefited from extensive consultations with stakeholders, including children and young people, victim-survivors, family court judges, duty-bearers, internet service providers, tech and social media companies, and civil society organizations.
The bill at hand should retain the essential term “online” in its title and body, as omitting the word without considering the grave repercussions is tantamount to haphazardly bulldozing the concerted efforts of many experts and advocates who helped Congress draft the pending bills.
We understand that the intention of the legislators in removing the word “online” in the title is to potentially cover even “offline” crimes against children. However, the bill at hand clearly stipulates that as long as ICT is involved in any stage of the commission of a punishable act, even if the act leads to an offline offense or crime, it will still be considered a form of OSAEC and thus punishable by the draft legislation.
More so, the move to expand the coverage of the draft bill to all sexual crimes against children even without the use of ICT – albeit a noble act – was not extensively discussed during consultations and technical working group meetings. The provisions of this current bill specifically address the nuances of OSAEC and the same provisions are not comprehensive enough to cover the other complex issues of sexual abuse and exploitation of children. Therefore, transforming the current bill, which focuses on the online dimension of these crimes, into a more encompassing law might prove to be a futile move in the long run, as such action is bereft of deeper inquiries and consultations.
Yes, there must be a comprehensive child protection code against sexual abuse and exploitation that holistically fills the gaps, harmonizes, expands, and further strengthens extant child protection laws. Yet this great task requires further studies, consultations, and investigations. We call on our legislators to draft such a landmark legislation judiciously, and not resort to changing the focus of the current bill on OSAEC.
We are heartened that legislators and child rights advocates have a common goal: the expansion of the mantle of protection for Filipino children, and this could be achieved without encountering dangerous pitfalls upon maintaining close coordination, collaborative consultations, and open dialogue.
