At least eight (8) respondents joined the focus group discussions (FGDs) in Cebu. These respondents are trafficked survivors who are either complainants or witnesses to five (5) actual trafficking cases filed before the Prosecutor’s Office or courts and represented by the Children’s Legal Bureau. The majority of the perpetrators in these cases are foreigners, with some perpetrators who are still detained in the course of the pendency of their cases. All of these cases are pending before Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). They are either private complainants or witnesses in criminal cases, particularly violations of Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, as amended, Anti-Child Pornography Law, and Child Abuse Law. The respondents are residents of Lapu-Lapu and Mandaue cities and Cordova town, Cebu. They were all minors when they were trafficked. At the time of the trafficking incidents, most respondents came from low-income families. Some respondents were abused or exploited online such as the showing of private parts of the survivors while other respondents were personally abused by the perpetrators. However, the trafficking crimes committed against the survivors were prosecuted under the AntiTrafficking in Persons Act, as amended, whether they are committed online or offline. All respondents from Cebu have already reintegrated into their respective communities, with some respondents joining the workforce while others have continued their academic pursuits. 2. Iloilo respondents As for the Iloilo respondents, there were two (2) respondents, all females. They are clients of ATIKHA and Bidlisiw Foundation, respectively. They also both came from low-income families. While both females were subjected to human trafficking, they differ in their experiences. One respondent is a survivor of labor trafficking abroad and was subsequently rescued, while the other respondent stayed in a shelter after she was trafficked. The ATIKHA client is already of age, while the Bidlisiw client is a minor. The former’s case has been closed after reaching an out-of-court settlement, while the latter has yet to file a complaint. The adult respondent, who was trafficked abroad, was subjected to physical abuse. Her employee prohibited her from going back to the Philippines. In the case of the minor female respondent, she disclosed that she was exploited by one of her friends without her knowing about it. She was then rescued during the conduct of curfew monitoring and later placed in the Crisis Intervention Unit in Iloilo City. Both respondents have already reintegrated to their communities. 3. Children’s Legal Bureau There were two (2) respondents for the organization who have shared their experiences in handling trafficking cases. They are Earl Anthony Tapayan, a paralegal staff; and Christine Quinamaque, a social worker. 44