ON April 29, I attended on behalf of the National Coalition for the Family and the Constitution the consultative hearing of the committee on the welfare of children on the proposed Magna Carta for Children under House Bill 3137.
One provision immediately drew concern.
Section 5 of the bill declares that the State shall be the “primary duty bearer” of child rights, tasked to respect, protect and fulfill those rights.
At first glance, this may sound harmless, even noble. But words matter in law. And this particular wording reflects a dangerous inversion of constitutional order.
Under our constitutional framework, the State is not the primary steward of children. Parents are.
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution provides that: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.”
That phrase is not decorative. It is foundational.
The family is not an arm of the State. It is not a subdivision of the government. It is an autonomous institution, preceding the State itself.
Our Family Code echoes this truth: “Parental authority and responsibility shall include the caring for and rearing of children for civic consciousness and efficiency, and the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being.” (Article 209, Family Code)
Parents are therefore not assistants to the government in the raising of their children. Government is the assistant.
To be sure, the law recognizes the doctrine of “parens patriae,” by which the State may step in as guardian of those unable to protect themselves. When a child is orphaned, abandoned, abused or neglected, the State properly intervenes.
But “parens patriae” is an exceptional power. It is a backstop, not a replacement.
The State becomes guardian only when the natural guardians fail.
That is why precision in defining abuse is critical.
The State must protect children from real abuse. But it must not redefine abuse so broadly that ordinary parental discipline becomes state suspicion.
Under Republic Act (RA) 7610, child abuse includes: “The maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment.” (Section 3(b), RA 7610)
Yet not every physical act of discipline constitutes abuse.
In XXX v. People (GR 268457, July 22, 2024), the Supreme Court clarified:
“Disciplining children, even if it results in physical injuries, does not automatically amount to child abuse. For such to be considered abuse, there must be clear intent to harm a child’s dignity.”
That is an important clarification in our time.
Why? Because many now seek to equate all physical correction with violence. Some would classify even all traditional corporal discipline as abuse per se, regardless of context, intent, proportionality or parental motive.
Whatever one’s personal view on spanking may be, the law does not at present adopt such an absolutist position.
Still, legality is only part of the discussion.
The deeper question for parents is not merely, “What can I lawfully do?” but “What is righteous, wise and effective?”
Biblical discipline begins with an understanding modern culture often rejects: that children are not morally neutral beings needing only affirmation and self-expression. They are image-bearers of God, yes, precious and dignified, but also inheritors of a fallen nature.
Scripture says:
“Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of discipline will remove it far from him.” (Proverbs 22:15)
This does not authorize parental anger or brutality. It teaches that discipline is necessary because formation is necessary.
Children do not naturally drift toward virtue. They must be taught, corrected and trained.
Hebrews 12:11 explains the purpose of discipline: “No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.”
The aim of discipline is not pain. The aim is righteousness.
Not control, but character.
Not fear, but formation.
This is where many misunderstand biblical discipline. They reduce it to punishment alone.
But biblical discipline is far more than consequences. It is correction with instruction. Justice with mercy. Accountability with restoration.
Scripture therefore places limits on discipline as much as it commands it.
“Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.”
(Ephesians 6:4)
“Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.” (Colossians 3:21)
Biblical discipline then can never be cruel, impulsive, humiliating or vindictive.
It must be measured.
It must be purposeful.
It must be loving.
And it must be restorative.
The child must understand what was wrong. The child must know why correction was necessary. The child must be reassured of love. The relationship must be restored.
Discipline without restoration becomes resentment.
Correction without love becomes oppression.
Grace without discipline becomes indulgence.
Wise parenting holds all three together: truth, justice and mercy.
Even our criminal justice system recognizes this principle. We do not punish lawbreakers merely to inflict suffering. We punish because wrongdoing requires accountability, and accountability is part of moral formation and social order.
How much more should parents understand this in the home.
The erosion of discipline in the household does not produce freer children. It produces undisciplined adults.
And a nation that undermines parental authority in the name of child protection may soon discover that it has weakened the very institution most responsible for producing responsible citizens.
Yes, the State must protect children from abuse.
Yes, the State must intervene where parents become predators instead of protectors.
But the State must never presume that it is the primary parent.
Strong nations are built by strong families.
Strong families are built by faithful parents.
And faithful parents understand that loving discipline, rightly administered, is not contrary to love.
It is one of love’s clearest expressions.
