Amicus Curiae
By Kimberly Belle Diet
State certification remains mandatory
The State has made the adoption process more expeditious. However, the procedures and requirements provided by law must still be complied with, as the best interests and welfare of the child are at stake.
Republic Act (RA) No. 9523, which amended RA 8552, RA 8043, and Presidential Decree No. 603, authorizes the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to declare a child legally available for adoption through administrative proceedings, upon issuance of the corresponding Certification. The DSWD can make this declaration if: a.) the fact of abandonment or neglect of the child is proven through the submission of requisite documents; or, b.) the child has been voluntarily committed by his or her parent or legal guardian, who knowingly and willingly surrender parental authority to the DSWD, or to any duly accredited child-placement or child-caring agency or institution.
RA 11642, otherwise known as the Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act, repealed RA 9523 and streamlined domestic adoption, making it more accessible by converting it from a judicial process into an administrative one under the National Authority for Child Care (NACC), which is now the agency that issues the Certification.
In other words, even if a biological parent or legal guardian of a surrendered child expressly and voluntarily relinquishes parental authority and consents to the adoption, such consent cannot supplant the requirement of securing the State’s approval through the Certification declaring the child legally available for adoption.
This was emphasized by the Supreme Court in the case of Robiso v. Ibay (G.R. No. 241893, Nov. 3, 2025). In this case, the adopter filed a Petition for Adoption of the minor child whose biological mother freely and knowingly relinquished her parental authority to the adopter. No familial relationship existed between the adopter and the child sought to be adopted. To prove her voluntary surrender, the biological mother executed an Affidavit of Consent to Adoption and Grant of Custody of Child.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition for failure to attach a DSWD Certification declaring the surrendered child legally available for adoption, as mandated by RA 9523. The adopter fervently contended that the Certification was unnecessary since the child was not: a.) abandoned; b.) neglected; or, c.) voluntarily committed to the DSWD, or to a duly accredited child-placement or child-caring agency or institution.
The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The doctrinal clarification of the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, centers on its treatment of a surrendered child. While RA 9523 extends its application to surrendered children, the law itself does not explicitly contemplate the same as a stand-alone term. In fact, the Supreme Court in Robiso acknowledged that it is the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9523 that “defines a surrendered child alongside a voluntarily committed child.”
The Supreme Court clarified that a child is deemed voluntarily committed not only when surrendered to the DSWD or a child-placement agency, but also to an individual. It was recognized by the Supreme Court that “when a parent — often a mother acting under difficult circumstances, as in this case — entrusts her child to another’s care, the child is legally considered voluntarily committed.” In this instance, despite the Affidavit of Consent to Adoption and Grant of Custody of Child evidencing the consent of the biological mother, Robiso affirms that a DSWD Certification remains indispensable.
In fine, Robiso is a discernible manifestation of the Supreme Court placing utmost consideration on the best interests and material welfare of a child, balanced against its caution in addressing the dangers surrounding adoption. As profoundly stated by the Supreme Court, “justice demands equal vigilance in protecting children, who are often the most vulnerable and may become susceptible to exploitation if legal safeguards are disregarded.”
Demonstrably, the Certification requirement in adoption laws cannot be superseded by the consent of the biological parent or legal guardian. Private arrangements between the biological parent or legal guardian of the surrendered child and the potential adopter cannot override the final administrative declaration of the State in adoption proceedings. Formal State acquiescence remains decisive.
All told, while Philippine adoption laws may appear rigid and unnecessarily exhaustive, especially when there is genuine urgency to adopt, such protections are deliberately uncompromising. The ultimate objective is, and shall be, without exception, the assured long-term protection of a child’s best interests and welfare.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion.
Kimberly Belle Diet is an associate of the Litigation and Dispute Resolution department of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW).
(632) 8830-8000
