Gender bias

Amidst the recent rumblings to revise the 1987 Constitution, it may be worthwhile to examine other laws which, through the passage of time, no longer reflect reality and/or the evolving social and cultural values of the country. One such law is the Revised Penal Code (RPC) which took effect in 1932. Let me cite a few examples of certain crimes punished therein which exhibit an “old world” mentality and manifest a gender bias. 

 Article 202 of the RPC punishes vagrants and prostitutes. With regard to the latter, the crime is defined as committed by women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct

So for one to be prosecuted as a prostitute, three requirements need to be met: First, habitual indulgence in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. Thus, a woman who engages in such conduct for money or profit only in isolated or sporadic instances is not a prostitute. Second, the habitual indulgence in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct must be for a pecuniary interest. Hence, even if a woman were to sleep with several men “just for the heck of it”, one does not incur any criminal liability. Finally, the offender must be a woman. 

Plainly, this provision is no longer rooted in reality. I have been told (i.e., not of personal knowledge and therefore hearsay) that “boy toys” proliferate to a similar extent as that of “pigeons who fly low.”

Presumably, the evil sought to be avoided by proscribing prostitution is the erosion of the community’s morals. The act of prostitution itself poses a threat, not only to the offending parties’ own consciences, but to the morality of society as a whole as well. Evidently, the “danger” of prostitution arises equally regardless of whether the perpetrator is male or female.

 Let us now compare the crimes of adultery and concubinage. Article 333 provides that adultery is committed by a married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married. On the other hand, Article 334 states that concubinage is committed by a husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place.

Evidently, the two Articles do not treat male offenders who cheat on their wives similarly with that of female offenders who cheat on their husbands. For example, a married woman will be guilty of adultery merely by having sexual intercourse, under any condition and in any place. On the other hand, a man can be prosecuted for adultery only if it is proven that he knew that the woman he slept with was married. Moreover, a married man will be guilty of concubinage only if he commits the same under scandalous circumstances, or keeps her in their home, or lives with her anywhere else. In other words, discreet “one night stands” are not punishable. And even if same sex marriages are recognized in a growing number of jurisdictions in the world, there would be no recourse under Philippine law against a “two timing” same sex partner.

The disparity between the two crimes has been known for some time. Several Congressional bills have been filed to address the matter. So far though, a law has yet to be passed rectifying the matter.

Next week, let me cite a few more provisions that could use some amending as well.

*      *      *      *

Pilipinas Got Bukas: One centavo this week goes to the 600 odd students of Rizal High School in Pasig who formed a “Pilipinas Got Bukas” human mural to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the EDSA People Power Revolution. The event was organized by the low key but very effective Yes Pinoy Foundation led by its founding chair, actor/entrepreneur Dingdong Dantes. Another one centavo project that the foundation is launching tomorrow, February 27 is “Para Paaralan” which aims is to assist in the development of public schools throughout the country.

*      *      *      *

Kaharian ng Araw: After attending a father and son night at the grade school grounds, let me indulge in a bit more nostalgia by allowing my first year high school teacher and uncle, Onofre R. Pagsanghan, founder of Dulaang Sibol, to give his four centavos. Mr. Pagsi writes: “When you ask an Atenean to describe to you what an Atenean is, he will most probably say “man-for-others”. (Given the topic of today’s column and the growing number of female Ateneo graduates, perhaps this should also be amended to “person-for-others”.)

Of course, you can spotlight the presence of something by putting it dead-center; but sometimes it is more startling to spotlight something by its absence.

Kaharian ng Araw explores the more exciting second option. What the play puts on center-stage is not the “man-for-others”; but its antithesis — the “man-for-self”, in his many masks: the man-for-prestige, the man-for-possessions, the man-for-power.

But, at the end of the play, when the “man-for-self” confronts in terror, the void in his life and pitifully screams his hollowness; what the audience sees is not only the shell of the man that is, but also the ghost of the man that could have been, and hopefully in catharsis, the vision of the man, the audience hopes to be.

Kaharian is not a comfortable play to watch; it probes; it disturbs. It journeys through the first four scenes in unabashed fable-fresh simplicity, until it explodes unexpectedly in a shattering final scene.

Kaharian is reminiscent of the morality plays of the medieval ages, particularly, Everyman. Both plays revolve around a journey and centers around the journey’s end. Both plays try to illuminate what in life is truly of value.

And Dulaang Sibol tells this story at its Ateneo High School home, 6:30 p.m. on March 4, 5, 11, with its full, if limited arsenal, in theatercraft, prose threatening to leap into poetry, hopelessly Quixotic; music, a blend of folk and pop, idealistically young; sets and costume, stylistic, bravely Filipino.”

*      *      *      *

“There will come a time when you believe everything is finished. That will be the beginning.”    — Louis Amour

*      *      *      *

E-mail:[email protected]