WHO
are considered Solo Parents
Any analysis or review
should begin with the law’s target or intended beneficiaries. Under RA 8972,
there are ten (10) categories of who qualifies as a Solo Parent, and these are
the following:
1) A
woman who gives birth as a result of rape or crimes against chastity, but
has chosen to keep and raise the child;
2) Parent
left solo or alone with the responsibility of parenthood due to the death
of a spouse;
3) Parent
left solo or alone with the responsibility of parenthood while spouse is detained
of serving sentence for a criminal conviction for at least one (1)
year;
4) Parent
left solo or alone with the responsibility of parenthood due to physical
and/or mental incapacity of the spouse as certified by a public medical
practitioner;
5) Parent
left solo or alone with the responsibility of parenthood due to legal
or de facto separation for at least one (1) year provided he/she is entrusted with the
custody of the children;
6) Parent
left solo or alone with the responsibility of parenthood due to declaration
of nullity or annulment of marriage provided he/she is entrusted with
the custody of the children;
7) Parent
left solo or alone with the responsibility of parenthood due to abandonment
for at least one (1) year;
8) Unmarried
mother/father who chose to keep and rear
her/his child/children instead of having others care for them or give them up
to a welfare institution;
9) Any
other person who solely provides parental care and support to a child or
children;
10) Any family member who assumed the responsibility of
Head of the Family as a result of death, abandonment, disappearance or
prolonged absence of the parents.
Said definitions seem
absolute, but there are still a lot of questions and confusion that have
arisen. Firstly, there was some reference to those who have been annulled or
whose marriages have been declared void ab initio, as well as those who are
separated, either legally or de facto. However, there was no mention of
“divorced” parents who are technically in the same context of “severed”
partnerships. This matter would have significant implications for those who
have been granted legal divorce abroad and for Muslim women in Mindanao who are
covered by Sharia Law and are allowed divorce by Sharia Courts. Hence, the
possible inclusion of divorce as a basis for being a Solo Parent must be duly
considered.[1]
It has also been observed
that the law considered any person providing sole parental care and support to
a child can be considered a Solo Parent. However, the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) limited these “substitute” parents to court-appointed legal
guardians and DSWD-licensed foster parents only. The clear exclusion of
adoptive parents is quite glaring and it has been reasoned that single
individuals become adoptive parents by choice and are not “forced” into the
situation of rearing a child alone unlike the other categories.[2]
However, such is also the case of legal guardians and foster parents; there is
a degree of voluntariness and conscious effort required even if the final
pronouncement comes from a court appointment or a DSWD license. Hence, it has
been strongly opined that adoptive parents likewise be considered as a possible
category of Solo Parents.
(Note
that there is already a Civil Service Resolution granting special parental
leave to a new adoptive parent who is single, although she cannot be deemed a
having given birth under the normal maternity leave benefits.)
Another issue touches on the
length of time; the one-year “waiting” period before one can be considered a
Solo Parent has been criticized as being too long. Solo Parents cannot wait
that long before they are eligible to enjoy benefits.[3]
At the first instance they are left alone to fend for themselves and their
children, assistance must be made available by the government. After a year,
most would have adjusted already and managed to survive by whatever means. In
fact, they may have already “moved on”, so to speak. Nonetheless, this is not
the intention of the law. Single parents need help here and now. The State
seeks to assist the single parent in this life-changing state and must provide
interventions at the soonest available time so that the Solo Parent can
“recover” fast enough. Therefore, one of the strongest arguments for amendments
is on this aspect, reducing the 1 year period to a mere six (6) months. This
would certainly have an impact for those who have detained or incarcerated
spouses, those who are separated or have been abandoned by virtue or
disappearance or prolonged absence.
B. Qualifying for
Benefits: Redefining who is a Solo Parent
We must expand and clarify the
definition of what is a “Solo Parent” in the context of the evolving Filipino
family, especially in the light of labor migration. Previously, there was much
resistance to this suggestion because OFW families are presumed to be “rich”
and “well-off” due to remittances. However, the harsh reality is that a lot of
these families become “abandoned” when prolonged absence lead to eventual
complete and total absence of communication from the OFW spouse because they
have found new partners or have new families abroad. Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) working on Migrant Workers Rights like Kanlungan Centre
Foundation, Center for Migrant Advocacy and BATIS have all reported an increasing
number of abandoned OFW families over the years.[4]
Thus, the issue of “abandoned” OFW
families should be looked into in terms of: a) is there really a need to wait
for a period of one (1) year abandonment to be declared a Solo Parent, or can
it be shortened to three (3) to six (6) months?, b) what can be alternatives to
the legal or documentary requirements of “proving” technical abandonment, and
c) how about those who are no longer receiving regular financial support from
OFW spouses and have completely lost communication with them? Note that this is
especially hard for this kind of single parents and their families because they
were used to receiving financial support for existing and continuing needs like
children’s schooling, and were suddenly cut-off.
On the other hand, termination of
benefits under RA 8972 is dependent on the finding or disclosure that the
single parent now has a new partner. Once more, this presumption that just
because the solo parent now has a lovelife, this translates automatically to
having this new partner support her or him and the kids. A new boyfriend or
girlfriend, albeit even a live-in partner, does not ensure that the kids will
receive financial support or other material benefits from this new household
member. Thus, the termination of Solo Parents benefits should depend upon the
formal and technical effects of being legally married under Philippine law
where mutual financial support can actually be compelled between people whose
family relations are by affinity or consanguinity.
And
what about same-sex couples?[5]
Lesbian and/or gay partners can never marry under Philippine law, and
technically shall never be considered legal spouses bound to provide mutual
financial support. Since same-sex partners never enjoy any of the marital
benefits or legal protections such as tax exemptions, conjugal properties,
mutual social security or insurance benefits, etc., shall they now be precluded
from enjoying privileges under the Solo Parents Act because they are now
considered “partnered”? Hence, it not just an act of liberality on the part of
LGUs who issue Solo Parents IDs to lesbians and gays with kids. It is actually
an act of justice because legally and technically, these LGBT parents DO
qualify under the law.[6]
In
connection with this, we must keep in mind the Filipino “tradition” of becoming
“adoptive” parents in the informal, albeit “illegal” sense. It is a common
practice and an accepted cultural trait to welcome into the family home
abandoned or homeless children, whether they are distant relatives or not. This
is the so-called tradition of “pagkupkop
at pagpapalaki”. Because of the additional legal expense and tedious
process, most parents do not bother to go through the legal proceedings of
becoming either adoptive or foster parents, or legal guardians. Such is the
case for many urban poor folks and not so-well off families, including
alternative household set-ups like LGBT families. Understandably, it is still
in the best interest of the child (and the parent) to have some legal basis for
the proper exercise of parental authority and custody. But can we not “reward”
their good intentions by making them eligible for Solo Parents benefits?
Another
issue pertains to pregnant women who will clearly inevitably become single parents.
Presently, they appear to not qualify because they haven’t given birth yet, but
they already have some immediate material needs. The law seems to require that
the child be born already before the mother becomes eligible. The issue brings us
to the formal definition of a child for purposes of inheritance and other legal
protections. Civil law states that if a child is born alive and survives for at
least 72 hours after its birth, it shall have legal personality and all the
rights it is entitled to. Nonetheless, it has been suggested that pregnant
mothers who are bound to become solo parents should be considered as Solo
Parents eligible for benefits starting from their last trimester at the very
least.[7]
[1] Issue
raised in the 2012 Forum-Workshop on RA 8972 held in Agua Frio Resort,
Koronadal City, Region12
[2] Response
during a discussion on RA 8972 lead by the Social Technology Bureau, Sept 2012
[3] Raised
during the Nov 2012 Forum-Workshop on RA 8972, San Fernando City, La Union,
Region 1
[4]
Proceedings of the Policy Forum on “The Evolving Filipino Family: Emerging
Trends and Related Issues, May 12, 2011
[5]Open
Forum, Policy Forum on LGBT Rights/SOGIE Issues in Social Protection, February
2015
[6] Sharing
of SOLO-QC, East Kamias representative on being inclusive and LGBT-friendly,
RTD, April 2015
[7] Issue
raised at the 2012 Forum-Workshop on RA 8972 held at the DSWD-NCR, Legarda,
Manila
No comments:
Post a Comment