Treaties Summaries and Notes1

Choice of Court Convention (2005)

Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters
(2019)
Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts Treaty (2015)
Intercountry Adoption Convention (1993)
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Convention (1980)
Child Support Convention (2007)

Summary of and Notes on the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (2005)

 
The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements was established on June 30, 2005 on
the protocols on “exclusive choice of court agreement”, to which the parties in international
commercial transactions on the onset may designate the court that will decide in case of
disputes to the exclusion of all other courts, unless expressly stipulated by the parties to be
otherwise. Such agreement may be in the form of writing or any communication that will be
available for later retrieval. Primary purpose of this is to respect and ensure that the choice of
parties on their inter-State agreements are followed with regards to the court who will take
cognizance of possible disputes.
 
The Convention applies to international cases where parties have stipulated such clauses for
civil and commercial matters, and for those whose residences are of different contracting
States, and where recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgement is expected. This,
however, does not apply to some matters that are personal or family in nature, and to those
matters where other conventions may apply.
 
The chosen court, by virtue of the agreement of the parties will then have an exclusive
jurisdiction to decide on the dispute unless such agreement is deemed null and void under the
law of that State. Such chosen Court should exercise its jurisdiction and not decline on the
ground that a court in another State should decide on the dispute. It is worthy to note that the
chosen court will need to be a court from a contracting State (or a state of residence of one of
the parties).
 
The other courts that were not chosen but are from the State of the contracting parties are to
suspend or dismiss proceedings in respect to the chosen court which has exclusive
jurisdiction. Below will be the exception:
a. the agreement is null and void under the law of the State of the chosen court;
b. there is defect on the consent from one party to the agreement;
c. the agreement would lead to manifest injustice or contrary to public policy;

1
The summaries were prepared by Introduction to Public International Law students (section PILN21L) of Prof.
Romel Regalado Bagares at the Lyceum of the Philippines University College of Law, namely Jasper B. Jugan,
Althea Gwynne M. Geronilla, Darlene Dancel, Daniel De Guzman, Althea Gwynne M. Geronilla, Jasper Jugan,
and Faith Andaya
 d. exceptional reasons beyond control of the parties where agreement cannot be
performed; and;
e. the chosen court decided not to hear the case.
 
Judgement that is rendered by the chosen court which was designated in the agreement of
the contracting parties shall be recognized and enforced in all the other contracting States of
the parties. A review on the merits of the judgement by the chosen court shall not be
reviewed and the courts of the other contracting States are bound on the findings of fact,
unless such judgement is by default. The recognition or enforcement of the judgment may be
postponed or refused while it is subject to a review or the time allotted for such review has
not expired.

The Convention will only be applicable prospectively after it comes into force in the State of
the chosen court. For cases that have been lodged and have been pending prior, the
Convention shall not apply. States have discretion that its courts may refuse to determine
disputes it is found that there is no connection between that State and the parties of the
dispute. Likewise, a State may declare that its courts may refuse to recognize or enforce a
judgement given by the chosen court if the parties were resident in the chosen court and the
relationship of the parties are only connected with that State. A State may also declare that
certain parts of the Convention be not adopted, relating to that specific matter.

*Information herein are referenced from: Hague Conference on Private International Law - Convention of 30 June 2005 on
Choice of Court Agreements, retrieved 9/30/2022: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=98
For effectivity and monitoring, this Convention will have to be reviewed at regular intervals
and should need for amendments arise. This is done through the Secretary General of the
Hague Conference on Private International Law. 
 
If a contracting State have two or more systems of law applying on its different territorial
units, it is not required to apply this Convention on all its territorial units. Those other
territorial units who were excluded from acceding to the Convention will not be bound to the
decisions or enforcement on sole reason that another territorial unit of the state is bound to it.
However, such State may declare if the Convention will be extended to all its territorial units
or only to a select few at its discretion expressly, and may modify the declaration at a later
time as necessary. If no specific declaration is made by the State, the Convention is deemed
to be extended to all territorial units of that State.
 
In relation with other laws or treaties already in place, this Convention should be harmonized
with all the other treaties already in force between the contracting States whether they were
concluded prior or post the implementation of this Convention. Likewise this Convention
should not interfere with rules already adopted by those of the Regional Economic
Integration Organizations that is party to this convention which may have its own rules for
the member states it is protecting.
 
The Convention on Choice of Courts Agreement may be adopted by States through the
following:
a. by signature of all States
b. by ratification, acceptance, or approval by signatory States
c. by accession by all States

All the instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited by the
States or Regional Economic Integration Organizations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the incumbent depositary. Such action is necessary as
part of the process for a state’s accession to take effect and starts the counter for its effectivity
date.
 
A Regional Economic Integration Organization who has vested rights from its member States
and has competence over the matters in this Convention may accede or ratify this Convention
which will bound its member States. These actions must be expressed clearly, but a member
state of such organization may independently withdraw as required or on its discretion.
 
The effectivity of this Convention will commence at the first day of the month following the
expiration of three months  upon submission of the instrument from those States or Regional
Economic Integration Organization who have ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to it.
 
Declarations that limit jurisdiction, recognition or enforcement, or those with respect to
specific matters being held may be withdrawn or modified at any time by notification to the
depositary. Modifications, likewise, take effect at the first day of the month following the
expiration of three months upon submission or notification. States have the free will and may
denounce the Convention by notification through writing and those with multiple territorial
units but non-unified legal systems may elect to denounce the Convention as a whole, or only
to those selected territorial units at its discretion. Such takes effect at the first day of the
month following the expiration of three months upon notification. If a longer period of
expiration is expressed by the State, the denunciation will take effect upon such expiry
counting from the date of receipt of notification by the depositary. 

*Information herein are referenced from: Hague Conference on Private International Law - Convention of 30 June 2005 on
Choice of Court Agreements, retrieved 9/30/2022: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=98
The Philippines, however, did not sign, accede nor ratify the 2005 Choice of Court
Convention. Further readings point out that there are only a handful of countries that have
signed, acceded or ratified this Convention for various reasons2 – save for the European
Union, which by virtue as a Regional Economic Integration Organization had bound most of
its member countries (with the exception of Denmark, who later on acceded to it
independently).
 
The few other remaining countries have either signed, ratified or acceded to it - China, Israel,
Montenegro, North Macedonia, Singapore, Ukraine, UK, and USA.
 
In our local context while the uniformity of process across the States may be beneficial, some
scholars view that acceding to the Convention will be imposing limits to our courts and in
effect, the exercise of powers by our local courts such as review on questions of law (or even
facts) will not available for those cases decided by a foreign chosen court as there are express
provisions on the Convention that prohibits the same. 3 As of this writing no active push nor
clamor for the country’s accession is being made.

Today, judgements and final orders from a foreign court clothed with jurisdiction have a
presumption of validity although may be contested or rebutted, and eventually be repelled by
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact with evidence under our Revised Rules of Court (last amended in
2019), Rule 39, Section 48.

2
Why States Should Not Ratify, and Should Instead Denounce, the Hague Choice-Of-Court Agreements Convention, Part III, Gary B. Born,
2021, retrieved: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2021/06/18/why-states-should-not-ratify-and-should-instead-denounce-the-
hague-choice-of-court-agreements-convention-part-iii/
3
International Judicial Cooperation Through The Hague Conference On Private International Law Conventions, Prof. Elizabeth Aguiling-
Pangalangan, 2017 Colloqium on International Law Issues, retrieved:https://law.upd.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IJC-The-
Hague.pdf

5
Summary of and Notes on the Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments in
Civil or Commercial Matters (2019)

The Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters

was established to facilitate the effective circulation of international judgments in civil or
commercial matters. The Convention provides a legal certainty and predictability to parties
involved in cross-border transactions, by putting forth common accepted conditions for
recognizing and enforcing, with the agreed grounds for refusal. This allows the recognition
and enforcement of foreign judgements to be cost-efficient and less risk, and speedy
disposition of cases in cross-border situations. Verily, the Convention seeks to strengthen a
more positive sentiment in multilateral trades, investment, and mobility for national and
international transactions.

Through the Convention’s Preamble, it can be inferred that The Contracting Parties present to
the Convention desire a judicial cooperation in order to ease the accessibility of justice for
multilateral trade and investment, and mobility. Such cooperation allows the different
contracting parties access to a uniform set of core rules on how foreign judgments in civil and
commercial matters may be recognized and enforced. Likewise, with a more globalized and
interconnected world, the international legal regime provides for a more predictable and
certain foreign judgments that would complement preceding Conventions, to harmonize and
standardize judgments within the international sphere.4

As such, the Convention provides for principal features wherein its scope is applied to
recognize and enforce judgments in civil or commercial matters as provided for in Article 1,
which covers consumer and individual employment contracts. However, in Article 2(1) of the
Convention, certain matters are excluded as to what may be adjudged such as the status and
legal capacity of persons, family law matters, insolvency, privacy, intellectual property, and
anti-trust matters. Article 2 further provides in its third paragraph, that these may not apply to
either arbitration and related proceedings, nor interim measures of protection as provided for
in Article 3(1)[b] of the Convention. Likewise, under Article 18(1), it provides that “where a
State has a strong interest in not applying this Convention to a specific matter, that State may
declare that it will not apply the Convention to that matter. The State making such a
declaration shall ensure that the declaration is no broader than necessary and that the
specific matter excluded is clearly and precisely defined.”

The Convention emphasizes a uniformity in its judgment and what contracting parties may
bring before the Court to recognize and enforce judgments. The Convention provides for a
uniform framework that provides for one contracting party’s judgments to be recognized or
enforced with another, with certain parameters for its eligibility to be circulated and if the
grounds for refusal provided for under Article 7 do not apply.

With the parameters set forth by the Convention, which courts must use to address whether or
not a judgment will be eligible for recognition and enforcement, such as lack of jurisdiction

4
Desiring to promote effective access to justice for all and to facilitate rule-based multilateral trade and investment, and mobility, through
judicial co-operation,
Believing that such co-operation can be enhanced through the creation of a uniform set of core rules on recognition and enforcement of
foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters, to facilitate the effective recognition and enforcement of such judgments,
Convinced that such enhanced judicial co-operation requires, in particular, an international legal regime that provides greater predictability
and certainty in relation to the global circulation of foreign judgments, and that is complementary to the Convention of 30 June 2005 on
Choice of Court Agreements, Preamble, Convention On The Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments In Civil Or Commercial
Matters. 2 July 2019.

6
or referred to as indirect grounds of jurisdiction 5, it is worth noting that the Convention does
not provide the courts of origin with rules for direct jurisdiction, and that judgments made are
conditioned with the rules set forth by the court of origin or court of a State.

With the foregoing, a judgment is considered and satisfactory, to be eligible for circulation
under the parameters set forth in the Convention under Article 5(1) are met. However, the
Convention provides for exclusivity for judgments rendered on rights in rem in immovable
properties, which would only be eligible for circulation “if, and only if,”6 such immovable
properties are located in the State of origin.

It should be noted that such requirements aforementioned are only minimum requirements for
recognition and enforcement, as such, under Article 15 and 23 of the Convention, these do
not prevent or limit the recognition and enforcement of judgments that were made through
national law, bilateral, regional, or other international instruments with the only exception
under Article 6 which provides for the exclusive basis for recognition and enforcement,
“Notwithstanding Article 5, a judgment that ruled on rights in rem in immovable property
shall be recognised and enforced if and only if the property is situated in the State of origin.”

While Convention notes certain parameters in its establishment and effectivity, alongside
limitations and exceptions in recognition and enforcement, there are also possible grounds for
refusal which are have been listed in the Convention. These however are not mandatory and
therefore, it allows the court that has been addressed, to exercise its discretion on whether it
will refuse the judgment to be circulated. Such grounds have been enumerated in Article 7 of
the Convention which is generally and commonly accepted across the jurisdictions of the
contracting parties and international legal regime, which fall under matters concerning public
policy, due process, and inconsistencies in rendered judgments.

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters was done on the 2nd day of July 2019 at The Hague.

With regard to the Contracting Parties, six countries have signed the Convention, namely
Costa Rica, Israel, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United States of America, and Uruguay.
Twenty-eight contracting parties have submitted to ratification or accession. The States that
have acceded to the Convention are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Estonia, European Union (as an Organization), Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, while Ukraine has ratified the Convention. Of
these accessions’, it the status of the Convention has identified the types of accession made,
such “accession giving rise to an acceptance procedure; accession by the European Union;
and State bound as a result of the accession by the European Union. Further, two contracting
parties have made declarations in the Convention such as Costa Rica and the European Union
as an Organization.

With the Contracting Parties duly ratifying and acceding to the Convention, this Convention
will be entered into force on the 1st of September 2023. It must be noted that with the 33
parties, many States have not yet ratified and acceded. While all States can become parties to
the Convention as well as Regional Economic Integration Organizations such as European
Union, in the Philippine context, while it participated in the discussions, it has yet to accede
5
Outline, HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention.
6
Ibid.

7
to the Convention. Considering the participation of the Philippines however, numerous
jurisprudence have been penned that has been consistent with what the Convention mainly
provides, “that there shall be no review on the merits of foreign judgments in the requested
state.”7 Along with such consistencies of the Philippines to adhere to international
conventions and treatises, it is only a matter of time that the State will have its Philippine
court decisions involving cross-border transactions, to be recognized and enforced and thus
circulated in other jurisdictions.

7
Article 4[2], Convention On The Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments In Civil Or Commercial Matters. 2 July 2019.

8
Summary of and Notes on the Principles on Choice of Law in International
Commercial Contracts Treaty (2015) 

In international commercial contracts, the legal maxim is holding, “pacta sunt servanda '' is a
concept in international law which means “the contract is to be respected” 8. However, a
controversy on which law would govern in resolving disputes arising from international
commercial contracts executed by the parties would then come to mind. Primarily because
these contracts would be executed by virtue of the parties’ domestic laws concerning the
contract. A common concern that arises when disputes over an International Commercial
Contract involving parties from different States is to whom the proper court or arbitral body
may take cognizance and decide on the issue. "Party autonomy", a concept where the parties
themselves are empowered to choose the law that will govern their contract, have sprung and
been adopted, albeit de facto than being a norm. The Principles on Choice of Law in
International Commercial Contracts approved on March 19, 2015 by The Hague Conference
on Private International Law aims to give clear guidance and best practices as to how this
practice may be adopted in a global scale as it has been proven to be effective but yet not
being adopted nor as widespread as it should be.

Choice of law agreements pertain specifically to the choice of the law that will govern parties
to their contract. It should not be interchanged with interrelated concepts of dispute resolution
such as choice of court or arbitration clauses. The principles developed are mere guidance
and are not binding among the states, though at their discretion, the states may choose to
adopt or incorporate the said principles. It is envisioned to be a reference for the lawmakers
in crafting their respective municipal laws on the matter or further enhance existing statues
that may have been operating and is unlike the previous conventions that required
instruments for accession, ratification or signature by the states, for judicial body to be guided
on questions pertaining to such body or clause as may have been agreed upon by the parties
and for the contracting parties themselves to understand their rights and consideration in
doing so. These principles are scoped to focus on contracts that are international (where
parties are not from the same state) and that the parties are exercising its trade or
profession and covers rules when the parties had made their choice of law - not on how to
determine which law should take cognizance in the absence of it.

In this regard, it is worth noting the Survey conducted this 2022 on the HCCH Principles on
Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts 9. The Survey highlighted three
categories on the recorded arbitration centres of Contracting Parties who have filed their
ratification, accession, and/or declaration. The three categories are: 1) Promotion of the
HCCH Principles in Arbitration Centres; 2) Endorsement of the use of HCCH Principles in
Arbitration Proceedings; 3) Reinforcing Party Autonomy on Choice of Law. The key findings
from the 2022 Survey for Arbitration Centres reflect that eighty-eight percent (88%) of
Arbitration Centres consider their rules to be consistent with the principles of HCCH.
Secondly, eighty-four percent (84%) have allowed parties to select the applicable, including
non-State laws, while sixteen percent (16%) have either said it doesn’t or that it is
inapplicable to their State. Finally, with regard to the absence of parties’ choice of law, two
factors have been categorized such as 1) the  provision of approaches to determine applicable
laws to which, sixty-four percent (64%) of the Arbitration Centres have responded in the
affirmative, while thirty-six percent (36%) have either responded in the negative or that is in
8
Mary Jude v. Cantorias. (2007). The Underpinnings of Contractual Relations-when can a promise be broken.
https://arellanolaw.edu/alpr/v8n2d.pdf
9
 HCCL. (2022). Survey on the HCCH Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts.
https://assets.hcch.net/docs/17b587ad-e504-42d9-9bee-0b3ac588b4d6.pdf

9
inapplicable; and 2) those that consider it a necessity to have international legal instruments
in assisting with the determination of applicable law, to which sixty-eight percent (68%)
responding Contracting Parties have affirmed the necessity of international legal instruments,
while thirty-two percent (32%) have responded in the negative or that it is inapplicable to
them.

To further conclude the Survey, the progress of the HCCH on Choice of Law in International
Commercial Contracts, with the conclusion of the third survey on the principles of HCCH,
there has been a forty-seven percent (47%) increase in the number of participating arbitration
centers compared to the survey conducted in 2020, wherein now, there is representation of 22
States that have participating arbitration centres.

The survey results show that the Arbitration Institution of the Philippines, the Philippine
International Center for Conflict Resolution (PICCR), has not made an explicit reference to
the HCCH Principles. Similarly, arbitral tribunals have yet to make an explicit reference to
the HCCH principles in determining applicable law.10 However, existing rules of the country
(such as that provided in Article 21 of the PICCR Handbook and Arbitration Rules) allow the
contracting parties to select the applicable law which would govern their contracts, and
arbitral tribunals generally respect the choice of law whether it is State law or not. In the
same survey, the Philippines recognizes the necessity of an international legal instrument to
assist arbitrators in determining applicable law in the absence of the parties’ choice of law. 

Summary of and Notes on the 1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention

The Adoption Convention was held last May 29, 1993 and was entered into force on May 1,
1995. It was developed to respond to the serious and complex human and legal problems in
intercountry adoption because prior to the Convention, abduction, sale and trafficking of
children were subsisting in the guise of adoption.1 Through the Convention, substantive
safeguards and procedures aimed at ensuring that intercountry adoptions would take place in
the best interest of the child with respect to the principles laid down in the United Nations
Convention of the Rights of the Child were enacted.1

The Convention recognizes that it is of primary importance and essential for the happiness
and healthy development of a child to grow up in a family and seeks to safeguard the child
from abduction, sale, or trafficking in the guise of adoption. It sees that one of the advantages
of inter-country adoption may give a child a permanent and suitable family that cannot be
found in their country of origin. It also establishes a system of cooperation between
authorities of the originating and receiving States of the child to be adopted to ensure that
inter-country adoption takes place under conditions which help to guarantee the best adoption
practices and elimination of abuses. However, it must be noted that the guidelines set forth by
the Convention are only minimum standards and the contracting States were encouraged to
improve the established standards.1

Among the requirements enumerated in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, inter-country

adoption takes place when:

With Respect to Originating States:

1. The child has been deemed eligible for adoption by the child's country of origin; and

10
 HCCL. (2022). Arbitration Institutions Status Table. https://assets.hcch.net/docs/c89ab8b8-6328-4d35-ac01-ee7493d7c5e3.pdf

10
 2. Due consideration has been given to finding an adoption placement for the child in its
country of origin.3

As to Receiving States:
1. The parents have been determined by the receiving country to be eligible and suited to
adopt and have counseled as may be necessary; and
2. The child have been determined or will be authorized to enter and reside permanently
in the receiving State.2

Apart from the requirements mentioned above, the States conforming to the Convention
should also establish a so-called Central Authority which will serve as the State’s primary
point of contact in adoption processes. Among others, the Central Authority is also tasked to
do several checks on the eligibility of the child for adoption which include the verification of
the propriety of adoption under the laws of the originating and receiving States. These
requirements are outlined under the provisions of Chapter 3 which serves as a protective
framework to ensure that the objectives of the Convention are met.2

Lastly, the Convention also provides for post adoption matters wherein its provision would
seek to preserve any information concerning the child and the right to have access to these
information: 1. identity of the child’s parents 2. child’s medical history pursuant to Article 30
Chapter VI.2

To date, 56 States have ratified the Convention, 48 States have accepted the Convention by
accession and 3 States have signed the Convention but have not ratified or acceded to it yet.
According to research, States who have not ratified the Convention were due to the fact that
the originating State does not permit foreign adoptions of their children nor permit the
adoption of foreign children.4

Among the 56 States who have ratified the Convention, The Philippines ratified it through the
enactment of Republic Act No. 8043 entitled, “Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995”, which
was approved last June 7, 1995.5

Pursuant to Section 4 of RA 8043, the law established the Inter-Country Adoption Board
(ICAB) as the central authority on inter-country adoption in the country who then enacted the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 8043 following Section 6 paragraph (a) of
the said law. The IRR was approved last March 13, 2007 and took effect on April 16, 2007.
In June 6, 2022, RA 80436 was amended by Republic Act No. 11642 entitled, “Domestic
Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act”, which re-organized the ICAB into
National Authority for Child Care (NACC) which was approved last January 6, 2022.7

According to Sec. 5 of RA 11642, the responsibilities of the ICAB relating to alternative

child care and adoption were transferred to the NACC and pursuant to Sec. 6, the NACC
shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to alternative
child care, including declaring a child legally available for adoption… xxx and inter-country
adoption under RA 8043.7

Apart from the establishment of the NACC as the central authority, RA 8043 also lays down
the rules and procedures on who may be adopted, who may adopt, where to apply,
corresponding fees, and the penalties to be imposed in case the law is violated. It must be
noted though that based on the Sec 7 Article III of RA 8043, the NACC should set-up

11
guidelines to ensure that steps will be taken to place the child in the country before the child
is placed for inter-country adoption. The same provision also limits the number of foreign
adoptions for every 5 years to not exceed 600 foreign adoptions. These are in line with the
Philippines’ State Policy under Section 2 of Article I wherein it provides that the State shall
exhaust all efforts to place the child with an adoptive family in the Philippines to provide
every neglected and abandoned child with love and care as well as opportunities for growth
and development. Inter-country adoption may be considered if such children cannot be
adopted by qualified Filipino Citizens and shall be allowed when inter-country adoption shall
prove to be beneficial to the child’s best interests.5

It is through these provisions of domestic law that the Philippines conform with and
strengthen the framework established by the 1993 Adoption Convention and its objectives
where the best interests of the child are paramount.

Footnotes:
1 Intercountry Adoption Convention Outline
2 Intercountry Adoption Convention Full Text
3 Understanding The Hague Convention
4 Intercountry Adoption Convention Status Table
5 Republic Act No. 8043
6 Icab Implementing Rules And Regulations Ra 8043
7 Republic Act No. 11642
8 Icab Implementing Rules And Regulations Ra 8043
9 Dswd Intercountry Adoption Requirements And Procedures

12
Summary of and Notes on the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction Convention (1980)

The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was concluded on 25
October 1980 at The Hague, Netherlands and was entered into force on 01 December 1983.
The purpose of the Convention is to protect children internationally from the harmful effects
of their wrongful removal or retention and to protect rights of custody and of access to the
child. It establishes procedures to ensure the prompt return of children who are wrongfully
removed to the State of their habitual residence. 11 Article 4 of the Convention states that it
shall apply to children until the age of 16.

The Convention requires all Contracting States to designate a Central Authority who shall
cooperate with each other to achieve the aforementioned purposes. The Central Authority has
the responsibility to locate the abducted children, bring about amicable resolution of issues,
initiate judicial proceedings, provide legal aid, and facilitate administrative arrangements as
necessary to secure the safe return of the child. The Central Authority of the State where the
child is shall take all appropriate measures to facilitate the voluntary return of the child.

Article 3 of the Convention defines when the removal or the retention of a child is considered
wrongful. First, it must be established that the removal or retention of the child was in breach
of rights of custody under the law of the State of their habitual residence. Second, those rights
were actually exercised at the time of removal or retention, or it would have been exercised if
not for the removal or retention.

The application to secure the return of children is submitted either to the Central Authority of
the child’s habitual residence or of any other Contracting State. According to Article 8 of the
Convention, an application must contain information containing the identity of the applicant,
the child and the person alleged to have removed or retained the child, the grounds for the
claim for return, and all available information relative to the location of the child and the
person with whom the child is presumed to be with. Whenever necessary, the application
must also include an authenticated copy of relevant decisions or agreement, certificate or
affidavit emanating from competent authority concerning the relevant law of the State of
habitual residence, and any other relevant document.

Placing paramount importance on the interest of children, Contracting States are required to
act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children. According to Article 11 of the
Convention, the judicial or administrative authority concerned must reach a decision within
six weeks from commencement of the proceedings. Otherwise, the applicant or the State’s
Central Authority may require a statement of the reasons for the delay.

However, the Convention also provides for exceptions of the return of the children.
Contracting States are not bound to return the child if it was established that:
a. the person or institution having the care of the child was not exercising their custody
rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented or subsequently
acquiesced to the removal or retention; or
b. the child would be exposed to physical or psychological harm or otherwise placed in
an intolerable situation upon his or her return; or

11
Hague Conference on Private International Law Conférence de La Haye de droit international privé (HCCL). (1980). 28. Convention on
the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=24

13
 c. the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at
which it is appropriate to take account of their views; or
d. the State’s fundamental principles relating to protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms would not permit the return.

Meanwhile, for the purpose of organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of
access, an application may also be presented to the Central Authorities in the same manner as
the application for the return of a child. The Central Authorities are responsible to initiate or
assist in the institution of proceedings either directly or through intermediaries. Whenever a
State has two or more systems of law applicable in different territorial units, any reference to
the law of the State of habitual residence in that State shall be construed as referring to the
law of the territorial unit where the child habitually resides.

There are currently 101 Contracting States to the Convention 12, and the Philippines is its 94th
Contracting State.13 The Philippine Senate concurred in the Philippine’s Accession to the
Convention thru Resolution No. 116 dated 01 February 2016.14 On 16 March 2021, the
Philippines’s instrument of accession was deposited to The Hague Conference on Private
International Law. To date, there are seventeen (17) States who have declared its acceptance
of the Philippines’ accession to the Convention.15

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been designated as the Philippine Central Authority for
the implementation of the commitments under the Convention. 16 Hence, on 22 February
2022, the DOJ issued Department Circular (DC) No. 010 which establishes the procedure for
the processing of applications covered by the Convention. Pursuant to Section 6 of DC No.
010, the dedicated Unit is created headed by the Chief State Counsel who shall perform the
functions of the Central Authority. Section 10 and 11 of the same instrument provides the list
of Mandatory and Supplementary Requirements of the application, respectively. The Left
Behind Parent is not prevented from filing the application directly with the appropriate court,
even after refusal of the application. The application may be refused or terminated if:
a. verification with the Bureau of Immigration shows that the Child is not in the
Philippines, in which case, the application shall directly be transmitted to the Central
Authority of the State where the child is believed to be;
b. the application is not in accordance with the requirements set forth; or
c. it has been established that any of the grounds enumerated under Section 14 are met.

Section 8 of the Department Circular states that the DOJ may request the support and/or
assistance of relevant department, agency, instrumentality or bureau of the government to
perform measures necessary to ensure its effective implementation. Towards this end, an
inter-agency coordination mechanism may be formed through a Memorandum of Agreement,
Inter-Agency Arrangement, Data Sharing Agreement or other similar agreements between the
relevant offices.

12
HCCL. (2019). Status Table. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=24
13
Department of Foreign Affairs. (2016). PH Deposits Instrument of Accession to the International Child Abduction Convention.
https://dfa.gov.ph/dfa-news/news-from-our-foreign-service-postsupdate/8818-ph-deposits-instrument-of-accession-to-the-international-
child-abduction-convention
14
Senate of the Philippines. (2016). Legarda; Senate Concurs in PHL Accession to Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.
https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2016/0202_legarda2.asp
15
HCCL. (2019). Acceptance of Accessions, Philippines. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/acceptances/?
mid=1333
16
Department of Justice. (2022). Department Circular No. 010.

14
Summary of and Notes on the 2007 Child Support Convention

Child support according to dictionary definition is the payment for the support of the children
of divorced or separated parents while the children are minors or as otherwise legally
required1. The Child Support Convention was held last November 23, 2007 in The Hague and
it was sought to provide for a framework to facilitate international child support arrangements
required to safeguard the rights and interests of the children left behind by families that are
stretched across borders. As the HCCH said, international relationships become more
common, so does the end of these relationships hence, all the more that international law
should recognize the need to aid family maintenance and in the facilitation of international
child support claims to ensure support is given to the affected children.2

Among others, the Convention sets down the procedures to facilitate the processing and
enforcement of international child-support cases with the main objective to make the
collection of support for left-behind children easier. The other objectives of the Convention
as enumerated in Article 1 also seek to establish a comprehensive system of co-operation
between the authorities of the Contracting States. Also, to help in the facilitation of the
applications of individuals seeking child support or spousal support (to a limited basis) from
foreign parents or spouses, and the enforcement of support decisions to another State even if
the said decision was rendered by a foreign court.3

Articles 5 and 6 of the convention also provides for a system of Central Authorities in States
and imposes certain duties on these authorities, including the following3,4:

1. Cooperating with each other.

2. Transmitting and receiving applications for recognition, enforcement, establishment,
or modification of a relevant decision.
3. Initiating or facilitating pertinent proceedings.
4. Assisting in locating a debtor or creditor or obtaining information about their
resources, fostering amicable solutions.
5. Facilitating enforcement.
6. Collecting and transmitting maintenance payments and assisting in determining
parentage.

As mentioned above, the convention mainly applies to child support cases; however, requests
for recognition and enforcement of spousal support also fall within its scope but this would
only be recognized when it is made in conjunction with a claim for child support.

To date, 13 States have already ratified the Convention, 32 States have accepted it through
accession and 3 States have signed in the Convention but have yet to ratify or accede to it.
Last June 22, 2022, the Philippines have deposited its instrument of ratification to the
Convention.5

Among the 13 States that have already ratified the Convention, the Philippine Supreme Court
have promulgated AM 21-03-02-SC entitled, Rules on Action for Support and Petition for
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Decisions or Judgments on Support which took
effect last May 31, 2021 following the publication requirement as required by law. According
to AM 21-03-02-SC, the rules were established by virtue of possible accession to the Child
Support Convention since the Philippines is a member of The Hague Convention as the
National Government sees that this would benefit many Filipinos. The Rules also provide for

15
an expedited procedure in actions for support and petitions for recognition and enforcement
of foreign decisions within the framework of the Child Support Convention. According to the
National Government, these Rules will serve as implementing guidelines for the Convention.6

Further, on June 28, 2022, the Philippines, through the Philippine Ambassador to the
Netherlands, have formally handed over the instrument of ratification and the Convention
will enter into force in the Philippines on October 1, 2022, three months after the deposit of
the instrument of ratification to The Hague Convention.7

To serve as the Philippines’ Central Authority as required by the provisions of the

Convention, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to discharge the
duties under the Convention.7
Footnotes:
1 Merriam-Webster Dictionary
2 Child Support Convention Outline
3 Child Support Convention Full Text
4 Philippines: Hague Convention On International Recovery Of Child Support And Other Forms Of Family Maintenance Signed
5 Child Support Convention Status Table
6 Dfa: Ph Ratifies Child Support Convention To Facilitate Collection Of Child Support
7 AM 21-03-02-SC

16