Adapted Article
Written by Ma. Corazon A. de Ungria, PhD
04 October 2012
Photo credits: Philippine Genome Center |
There is an urgent need to familiarize stakeholders from the
executive, judicial and legislative branches of government regarding the
significance and limitations of DNA technology. For example, local
government units should include forensic training in their mass disaster
management strategies, if these exist. In disaster situations such as
typhoons, flashfloods, fire and vehicular accidents, the identification
of the dead has become a very expensive, time-consuming and drawn-out
process due to the inability of governments to allocate resources to the
identification of the dead during the early phases of rescue. However,
after some time, the identification of the dead becomes a primary
concern because the persons who survived the disaster need to find their
missing kin in order to achieve closure, in the process of
rehabilitation. In addition, legal concerns such as the issuance of
death certificates for insurance and death claim benefits, inheritance
issues, and re-marriage of surviving spouse, will continue to afflict
the survivors, thus aggravating their suffering, if the remains of their
missing relatives are not located. In a country that experiences an
average of 20 typhoons per year, could we not formulate strategies for
efficient and cost-effective identification of recovered bodies, for the
sake of the living?
In the case of the judiciary, the Rule on DNA Evidence that serves to
govern Philippine courts in cases when DNA evidence exists, was
promulgated by the Supreme Court in 2007. Based on this Rule, a court
order may be issued for DNA testing provided that: 1) a relevant
biological sample exists; 2) the biological sample was not tested
previously; and 3) that the DNA tests may generate new information that
may help in the resolution of the case. However, given this Rule, family
courts have not maximized the utility of DNA technology in routinely
requiring this evidence to provide support or negate allegations of
relationships. With the development of highly discriminatory DNA tests,
it is now possible to exclude a man with absolute certainty from being
the biological father of a child as well as provide a Probability of
Paternity far greater than the 99.9 percent provided for by the Supreme
Court to presume paternity. With DNA evidence assisting courts for the
early resolution of disputed parentage cases, one expects the courts to
better manage their caseloads in a more efficient manner.
About the Author
The author received the NAST Outstanding Young Scientist Award in 2003
for Molecular Biology. She is the current head of the DNA Analysis
Laboratory, Natural Sciences Research Institute of UP Diliman and the
director of the Program on Forensic and Ethnicity of the Philippine
Genome Center. She Ungria has appeared as expert witness in cases
involving disputed parentage issues and in relation to criminal cases.
She provided her technical assistance during the formulation of the Rule
on DNA Evidence and her opinion on different bills regarding forensic
DNA technology. The UP-NSRI DNA Laboratory continues to offer its
parentage testing and DNA profiling expertise as part of its commitment
to serve the community.
0 Comments