MAILBOX: No kidnapping

We write on behalf of our client, Benjamin John S. Defensor, in reference to the column written by Vic Agustin, published in your newspaper (page B6) on July 1, 2013.

We welcome this opportunity to answer the issues.

At the outset, contrary to the mandated tenets on responsible and fair journalism, it should be pointed out that Defensor was not afforded the opportunity to be heard on matters raised against him in the subject column. The statements are malicious and one-sided statements, and the writer made it generously convenient to unjustly malign our client, in clear transgression of his rights and interests.

There is definitely no kidnapping.

Defensor and his children being Filipino nationals, Philippine Laws have exclusive jurisdiction over their persons and family rights, to the absolute exclusion of any other foreign jurisdiction.

Under Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines - “Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad”.

Consistent with the settled rule on jurisdiction relating to family rights and pursuant to the valid Philippine court issuances and legal processes (subpoena and custody order/decision), Defensor and his children simply submitted themselves to Philippine jurisdiction, with the end in view of resolving custody rights with finality.

On these legal premises, it cannot be said that Defensor has knowingly, willfully and feloniously committed international parental kidnapping and has no intention intention to commit a wrong other than the recognition of jurisdiction of the Philippine Laws and Judicial System over their persons.

The submission of the Defensor children under jurisdiction of the Philippine courts is nothing arbitrary and with legal justification on the part of  Defensor. It was done under legal and jurisdictional compulsion of Philippine Laws over his persons and that of his children.

As it now stands, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Philippines, in the custody order/decision dated June 30, 2005, granted Mr. Defensor sole custody over his children, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“Wherefore, the herein petition is hereby granted. Accordingly sole custody and authority over his three minor children namely: Charles Adrian, Jhoane Audrey and Isabel, all surnamed Defensor are awarded the herein petitioner Mr. Benjamin John S. Defensor.

So ordered.”

Defensor cannot be a valid subject of extradition.

While international parental kidnapping is a statutory felony under the laws of the United States, the same is not recognized as a felony under Philippine criminal laws. As such, conflict of laws on the exercise of jurisdiction arises and extradition is not a recognized procedural remedy.

The US court cannot just unilaterally enforce an extradition against Defensor without first effecting a prior notice to the Philippine government and/or coordination with Philippine embassy or consulate’s office. It is then expected that our Philippine Embassy, further to its given mandate, will intervene to protect Defensor, anchored on jurisdictional issue and his constitutional rights. Defensor was merely following Philippine court orders.

In the final analysis, international parental kidnapping, not a recognized crime under Philippine criminal laws, is not an extraditable offense.

As for the perjury cases filed by his ex-wife, Defensor denies he committed perjury and will answer each point in court proceedings.

Defensor has not committed or has been convicted of any crime.

We express our deep concern on the timing and the reason of the column, considering that  the foregoing legal issues have long been judicially settled.

Facts – Defensor sent notice to his ex-wife and even offered to pay for the travel expenses of his ex-wife just so she can participate in the Philippine custody proceedings, which offer was refused without tender of any explanation.

When his ex-wife finally arrived in the Philippines many years ago, Defensor was utterly shocked on the discovery that his ex-wife was pregnant with another man’s child. Such revelation, when put to issue in the court proceedings, prompted his ex-wife to unceremoniously leave the Philippines.

After participating in Philippine court proceedings, his ex-wife pursued a custody case of their children in America to which Defensor could not participate and be properly represented because he lives in the Philippines and he is pre-occupied in supporting the needs of his children in the Philippines.

For the record, Defensor, his ex-wife and children are all Filipinos and all carry Philippine passports.

As it was later on confirmed, his ex-wife was the one who left Defensor and their children to be with another man who subsequently got her pregnant.

To this day, after many years, his ex-wife has not come back even just to see their children. This has baffled Defensor and has affected the children negatively.

Defensor has been solely supporting all the needs of his children with the help of his family from the very day they were born. His eldest son is almost finished in college. Now that the children are all beyond seven years of age, they have all made a conscious decision to be with their father.

Defensor and his family have moved on from this domestic issue a long time ago and are happy and content with their life.

Regrettably, motivated by extreme bitterness, the ex-wife of Defensor has resorted to desperate means, such as using the media, to malign, embarrass and pressure him to give in to her outrageous and unbelievable demands.  

We trust that the foregoing explanation sets straight the baseless, malicious and one-sided statements made against Defensor in the subject column.

In the primordial interest of responsible and fair journalism, at the very least, kindly allow our side to see the light of print.

Very truly yours,

Rudel H. Panganiban

Lawyer