NO COURT ORDER. NO LEGAL CASE. NO JUSTIFICATION

Table of Contents

🛑 NO COURT ORDER. NO LEGAL CASE. NO JUSTIFICATION.

Documented Proof of Systemic Evasion, Concealment, and Violation of Due Process

⚠️ This page contains the most up-to-date legal paper trail and documentation for an ongoing illegal child concealment and kidnapping case involving my son, Adri’el Degillo Peterson. He was taken without a court order, complaint, or case — and has been kept from me for over three months since Feb 17, 2025, with full protection from local authorities (Barangay, DSWD, and police) acting in violation of nearly two dozen Philippine laws. This article consolidates the clearest evidence of systemic failure, parental alienation, and abuse of power. If you’re looking for the truth — this is where to start.

🛑 NO COURT ORDER. NO LEGAL CASE. NO JUSTIFICATION.

This article exists to publicly document all official confirmations and non-responses that expose the truth: There has been no court case, no custody ruling, and no legal justification for the removal and concealment of my son, Adri’el Degillo Peterson.

These are not wild claims. These are proven, timestamped facts supported by official documents—or the blatant absence of them. This record is my safeguard. If anything happens to me, let this speak for me.

1. Superior Court – Ongoing

⚖️ Superior Court Correspondence (Ongoing as of May 24, 2025):
In May 2025, I initiated correspondence with the Superior Court to seek clarification on the legal standing and potential misuse of the Barangay Protection Order (BPO) issued against me. The discussion focuses on whether the BPO is being utilized beyond its intended scope, potentially serving as a tool for legal shielding without proper judicial oversight. This ongoing dialogue aims to shed light on the broader implications of BPO applications and to advocate for clearer guidelines to prevent potential abuses of such orders.

May 19, 2025: Superior Court Email Inquiry to oca@judiciary.gov.ph, UNDELIVERABLE via external emails:

“I am writing to respectfully request review and oversight regarding potential attorney misconduct and improper judicial coordination surrounding a custody-related matter involving Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs) issued in early 2025.“

“UNDELIVERABLE: The group oca isn’t set up to receive messages from justice4adri@gmail.com,” and/or from the public.

May 19, 2025: Superior Court Email Inquiry to pio@judiciary.gov.ph:

Subject: Request for Public Email Channel or Access to OCA Group (oca@judiciary.gov.ph)

“The nature of my request involves possible attorney misconduct and procedural circumvention affecting parental rights via Barangay Protection Orders. I believe this matter warrants proper judicial review.“

May 23, 2025: Superior Court Email Response from Lilian C. Barribal-Co, Office of Assistant Court Administrator Co oaca1.sc@judiciary.gov.ph,
CC: Roy Daniel N. Avendaño rdnavendano.sc@judiciary.gov.ph:

“May we be clarified of your request considering that upon perusal, your email message contain several requests? And may we also know your exact request in asking for “Judicial oversight” for the alleged misconduct committed by a lawyer in connection with Barangay Protection Order?“

May 23, 2025: Superior Court Clarification Email to Lilian C. Barribal-Co, Office of Assistant Court Administrator Co oaca1.sc@judiciary.gov.ph,
CC: Roy Daniel N. Avendaño rdnavendano.sc@judiciary.gov.ph, chiefjusticehelpdesk@judiciary.gov.ph, piortiz.sc@judiciary.gov.ph, justice4Adri+oca@gmail.com:

I respectfully seek judicial oversight on two interrelated issues concerning possible legal misconduct and procedural abuse involving my child’s custody and the use of a Barangay Protection Order (BPO):

To be clear: the actual custody change was not executed via the BPO. It was carried out by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) on February 17, 2025, without: Any court-issued custody order, Any verified complaint against me, Any lawful hearing or due process.

2. Regional Trial Court — No Cases Filed

✅ May 20, 2025: RTC OCC Email Response:

“As per verification, there are no court cases filed under the name of Anngeneth Maylan Degillo Peterson (a.k.a. Anngeneth Maylan Degillo), nor are there any records of legal proceedings or attorney representations on her behalf.”

📌 Meaning: There is no legal custody case, no restraining order, no ruling – nothing that justifies hiding my son from me under Philippine law.

3. Sacsac Barangay — Refusal to Mediate, No Acknowledgment of Transparency Request

February 20, 2025: Sacsac Barangay involving 3 officials serve me 1st BPO from Anngeneth Maylan Degillo to have me remove Social media post searching for my son and exposing her past infidelity and child neglect, causing her trauma. I didn’t sign it. My landlord as witness, 1st BPO.

March 08, 2025: Sacsac Barangay serves me 2nd BPO from Anngeneth Maylan Degillo for not apologizing for the first BPO, continuing to chat her for the wear-abouts of my son, and does so at the recommendation of her attorney to get control of the child (now in question if legal). Both BPOs had my child’s name on them, 2nd BPO.

May 2, 2025: Transparency Request Submitted with proof of delivery:
📍 Delivered to: Barangay Captain Corazon Tindog and Secretary Karen Liano (with photo and video documentation)

📍 Status:

No written reply or acknowledgment
15-day legal response window under FOI Law has expired
Multiple mediation attempts prior to this were ignored or refused

📌 Meaning: Sacsac Barangay not only refused to mediate fairly — they are now in violation of transparency law, making themselves part of the concealment and cover-up.

4. DSWD — Failure to Provide Records and Evasive Transparency Tactics

April 11, 2025: Transparency Request Response Email reply to Swad Team Negros Oriental FO 07 swad-negor.fo7@dswd.gov.ph:

SUBJECT: Re: RESPONSE RE: REQUEST FOR TRANSPARENCY OF RECORDS INVOLVING CHILD CUSTODY AND PARENTAL RIGHTS

“I must express my concern that the proceedings to date have been both unclear and lacking the necessary legal transparency. Firstly, the letter makes no reference to a formal case file or case number associated with this matter. For me to fully understand the legal standing of this process, I require that an official case number and case file be provided as per due process. Without such documentation, I cannot move forward with this case with any sense of clarity or assurance that the actions taken are in accordance with the law.”

April 11, 2025: Transparency Request Response from DSWD Unofficial Backroom Meeting & Detail to Swad Team Negros Oriental FO 07 swad-negor.fo7@dswd.gov.ph

“This is to inform you that the purpose of our meeting/ case conference is to discuss your concern on the request for transparency of records involving child custody and parental rights. Also, a case number you are requesting cannot be provided since there was no case filed from any court. If there is, we are not the right agency to disclose it since it is a confidential matter.”

April 14, 2025: DSWD Transparency Request Response Email from Swad Team Negros Oriental FO 07 swad-negor.fo7@dswd.gov.ph
CC: Office of the Regional Director FO 07 ord.fo7@dswd.gov.ph, Office of the Assistant Regional Director for Operations FO 07 oardo.fo7@dswd.gov.ph, Office of the Assistant Regional Director for Adminstration FO 07 oarda.fo7@dswd.gov.ph, Protective Services Unit proserv.fo7@dswd.gov.ph

“Please see the attached file for your reference.”

📤 Formal Requests Sent to:

DSWD Field Office 7 (Dumaguete)
DSWD Central Office (Manila)

📩 Response:
A backdated two-line reply was issued, referencing only a timeframe after the child was already concealed — completely ignoring the full scope of my request and failing to disclose any lawful documents or case basis.

📌 Meaning: DSWD evaded the transparency request and has provided no case number, no authority, and no lawful justification — confirming that no due process was followed.

4. Bacong Police Station — No Case, No Action, and Misrepresentation of Legal Authority

📤 Blotter Attempts: I attempted to file three reports for child concealment. Two were refused outright, and the third, along with citations of Family Codes were rejected by the chief of police directly in an in person meeting.

⚠️ Despite this, a female officer repeatedly referred to a DSWD official as “the Prosecutor” — implying false legal authority where none exists. This was said unprompted, and without basis in law or court record.

📌 Meaning: The police acknowledge no case exists, yet still failed to act on repeated reports — while one officer used misleading language that gave the illusion of judicial action where there was none.

April 9, 2025: Request for Records, Reports, or Actions Taken Involving My Son Adri’el Degillo Peterson to Bacong Ps Bacongps@yahoo.com

“I am writing respectfully to request information and clarity regarding any blotter entries, complaints, or police actions that may have involved me in connection with my son, Adri’el Degillo Peterson…. And the Family Code of the Philippines, Articles 211–213, which provides that both
parents share equal parental authority unless modified by court order.”

April 12, 2025: In person visit with the Bacong Chief of Police PMAJ VANN JOEL C TINGSON presenting formal request to follow lawful procedures

I came presenting a formal letter addressing the laws and requirements for filing blotters against kidnapping and upholding Philippine Family Codes Art. 211 maintaining the father’s right of decision in custody disputes, hoping he’d see the law clearly to pursue the kidnapper and block further concealment of my son. I was met with heavy rejection of lawful procedure no longer due to ignorance.

April 17, 2025: Received Transparency Response email from Bacong Police Chief Tingson from BacongPs@yahoo.com

“We would like to inform you that no reports, complaints, blotter entries, or police coordinated actions involving your name or relating to custody issues, domestic disputes, or parental concerns have been recorded or filed at Bacong Municipal Police Station as of date. Furthermore, we have not participated in, been associated with, or facilitated any actions related to the removal, transfer, or concealment of your son.”

📚 Final Note

Taken together, these documents and non-responses prove that there has been no lawful authority behind the actions taken against me:

❌ No court case
❌ No custody ruling
❌ No blotter complaint
❌ No Barangay mediation
❌ No response to lawful transparency requests

What exists instead is a pattern of obstruction, complicity, and silence — from Barangay to DSWD to Police — while a mother with a documented history of abandonment, infidelity, and psychological manipulation has concealed my child for over 3 months without contact, legal basis, or accountability.

This record is my shield.
🕯️ If anything happens to me — let this be known: the truth was already written.

Category: Uncategorized