By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
News had been up and about relative to the “red-tagging” of some celebrities either for speaking their minds or associating themselves with some organizations that the military deems more inclined to be on the left side of the civil society spectrum. The trending news was followed by the impressive answer by Miss Iloilo City, Rabiya O. Mateo, during the recent Miss Philippines beauty pageant that bagged her the crown of Miss Philippines-Universe. Too, Ms. Mateo spoke her mind when she declared that she wanted to become a Miriam Defensor Santiago who “puts her passion into action”.
These two (2) events that hogged the news of late are a study in contrast although they arose from one and the same act, that is: saying what is on one’s mind. On the one hand, doing so can drag you down that unenviable situation of being a target of suspicion for criminal activity; while on the other, it can propel you to the limelight in a most positive way. Thus the exercise of freedom of expression could be a double-edged sword.
This is not to say that speaking one thing is right while speaking the other is not. For this column had always championed freedom of expression to be freest as to even include statements not to our liking- and should be considered protected speech just the same.
Yet this article is not about freedom of expression, “red-tagging”, nor beauty pageants. Rather, this is about how young minds are harnessed to think one way or the other. This is about the powerful influence that persons exercising parental authority over minor children have in the molding of progressive thinking.
Article 209 of the Family Code enunciates that it is the parents who exercise primary parental authority over their minor children, thus:
Art. 209. Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the person and property of their unemancipated children, parental authority and responsibility shall include the caring for and rearing them for civic consciousness and efficiency and the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being.
Notably, parental authority is two-fold: it is both an authority and a responsibility that includes “the caring and rearing” of the minor children “for civic consciousness and efficiency” as well as “the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being”.
In more specific terms, in the US case of Abbott v. Abbott 560 U.S., I, 8 (2010), the majority decision referred to parental authority as “a significant right relating to his boy’s care and development- he could thus determine the language the child speaks, the identity he finds, or the culture and traditions [he] will come to absorb.” While the dissenting opinion is even more elaborate in saying that parental authority embraces: the “authority to decide whether his son undergoes a particular medical procedure; whether his son attends a school field trip; whether and in what manner his son has a religious upbringing; or whether his son can play a videogame before he completes his homework. These are all rights and responsibilities of … respondent Jacquelyn Abbott. It is she who received sole custody; or ‘daily care and control’, of [the child] when the expatriate couple divorced while living in Chile in 2004. Mr. Abbott possesses only visitation rights) [Internal citation omitted].
But it has to be emphasized that parental authority ends automatically when the child reaches the age of eighteen which is the age of majority. Metaphorically speaking, when the child turns eighteen, his/ her parents cannot hold him or her “grounded” anymore for on the contrary, it would be the helicopter parents whose hovering presence in the child’s life that must be landed for good and locked in the hangar.
In a recent case decided by the Philippine Supreme Court (SC), the parents of a college student who had joined an organization which did not sit well with them, went to court to compel the leaders of the organization to set free their daughter from what they called as “indoctrination” and “brain-washing”. But the daughter had already reached the age of majority and this was what the SC had to say in regard to their petition:
“It also cannot be said that petitioners were being excluded from their rightful custody over the person of AJ. As it was established, AJ has already reached the age of majority and is, thus, legally emancipated. The effect of such emancipation is clear under the law. It meant the termination of the petitioners’ parental authority – which include their custodial rights – over the person and property of AJ, who is now deemed qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life save for certain exceptions provided by law. As she has already attained the age of majority, AJ – at least in the eyes of the State – has earned the right to make independent choices with respect to the places where she wants to stay, as well as to the persons whose company she wants to keep. Such choices, so long as they do not violate any law or any other persons’ rights, has to be respected and let alone, lest we trample upon AJ’ s personal liberty – the very freedom supposed to be protected by the writs of amparo and habeas corpus. While we understand that petitioners may feel distressed over AJ’s decision to leave their home and stay with the Anakbayan, their recourse unfortunately does not lie with the Court through the instant petition. The writs of amparo and habeas corpus were never meant to temper the brashness of youth. The resolution of the conflict besetting petitioners and their daughter AJ is simply beyond the competence of the writs applied for.” (In the Matter of the Petition for Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Favor of Alicia Jasper S. Lucena v. Sarah Elago, et al., G.R. No. 252120. September 15, 2020).
While the law is mostly based on customs and traditions, this is an instance where there is a great divide between what the law is from how Filipino custom and tradition in regard to family is. Filipino custom and tradition where descendants follow the dictates of their parents even to the point of sycophancy knows no time, place or age. We see fully-mature adults still looking to their parents for guidance when they encounter crossroads in their life. But in this recent case, the SC expounded on the legal effect of a child reaching the age of majority. As far as the law is concerned, at that age, the parents can no longer overrule the leanings, associations, let alone the thinking of their children.
The sobering truth then is that parents have only seventeen (17) years reckoned from the birth of their children to nurture their minds; but when cajoled by others after that, the parents would already be legally powerless to countermand their children’s actions.
Khalil Gibran’s words in “The Prophet” would be a fitting ending to this article: “Your children are not your children. You can give your children love but not your thoughts for they have their own thoughts. You can house their bodies but not their souls for their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you may not visit not even in your dreams”.
(Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes, III is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
