Gender bias (II)

Last week, we started identifying “gender insensitive” crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). I received a kind text from former Cadiz City Mayor Bing Guanzon congratulating me for writing about the issue. She said this was timely given the 100th anniversary of the International Woman’s Day which we will be celebrating on Tuesday, March 8. She asked me whether I chose the topic on purpose? My answer to her is “serendipity Mayor Bing.”

That said, let me identify another interesting crime. Article 247 of the RPC is known as the “caught in the act” offense. This Article contemplates a situation wherein one spouse catches another in a compromising situation with his or her lover or where a parent should catch his or her under-age daughter having carnal knowledge with another while the former is still living under their roof. Note that the “killing” must occur during sexual intercourse proper, not before or after. In such a situation the offended spouse or parent may kill the other spouse, daughter and/or lover and suffer only the penalty of destierro (which is a form of banishment). Any injury inflicted which is less than death is exempt from punishment.

At first glance, the provision may seem ambiguous as to whether the “benefit” only applies to husbands who catch their wives in bed with another man. For while the provision pertains to “any legally married person”, it goes on to qualify the phrase with references to “his spouse” and “if he shall inflict, he shall be exempt from punishment.” However, this ambiguity has been clarified in the case of People vs. Corazon where the Supreme Court ruled that the article applies to either spouse provided they are legally married. 

Yet, the Article is still discriminatory against women in that it applies only to the daughter, not the son, who is chanced upon by the parents having sexual intercourse while living under their roof. Moreover, the article does not cover same sex partners who are “caught in the act.”

This is perhaps a good example of the zeitgeist during the period of this Article’s drafting. It was considered an affront to the parent’s honor, should they catch their daughter in bed with another man in their own home so much so as to excuse the killing of their daughter and her paramour. However, query why there is no similar exception should the same act be perpetrated by their son? Is it because it was culturally accepted (perhaps even expected) at that time for the boys to “do it” but not the girls? Have our values and mores as a people since then changed?

Outside of the law, I stood as a sponsor to a wedding recently and one of the vows professed is related to the issue at hand. We are all familiar with the part in the marriage ceremony where the husband-to-be gives the arrhae “as a pledge of my dedication and constant concern for your welfare and that of the children that may be given us” while the wife-to-be “accepts them with the promise to share with you the building of a Christian home.” In this day and age, the rule is slowly changing so that both husband and wife are now responsible for providing the needs and sharing the chores of the family. In fact, the concept of a “house husband” is becoming more culturally acceptable for families where the wife is enjoying a more financially lucrative career. So my four centavos to our church leaders is that the wedding script for the giving and receiving of the arrhae should be correspondingly modified.

Truly, our laws (and traditions) should reflect the evolving cultural and moral landscape of the community. The more specific a law is, the more “frozen” it becomes to a certain frame of morality existing at the time it was enacted. When the community standards for morality no longer adequately reflect those existing at the time of a law’s enactment then changes should be made. And so even before we tinker with the Constitution, perhaps it would be easier to cast a scrutinizing eye upon the other provisions of law which also need to be amended.

* * *

Pass-salubong 2: Our short blurb a few weeks ago regarding “pass-salubongs” or the practice of providing VIP passes to meet arriving passengers at our international airports drew a generally positive response. Apparently, our airport and immigration authorities have tightened up on the issuance of these passes. And rightly so. We seem to be the only country in Asia that allows this practice for non-diplomatic visitors. In this regard, an innovative suggestion brought up by Shangri-la hotel Philippines area general manager Reto Klauser is worth looking into. Rather than tolerating “under the counter” payments that are used to line the pockets of unscrupulous government employees, Reto suggests that the airport authorities themselves provide properly trained and well groomed airport greeters for those who wish to avail of this extra service (for a reasonable fee of course). This will generate additional employment and could also mean added revenue for the airport which should, in turn, be used to improve its shabby facilities and spruce up its tired interiors. Sounds like a win-win suggestion to me that deserves one centavo. 

* * *

Birthday greetings: In line with this column’s policy to greet only those whose birthdays fall on a Saturday, let me extend three centavos worth of good wishes to San Miguel Properties’ General Manager, UCPB Director, and lawyer-for-all-seasons, Karlo “Sir K” Estavillo, who shares his mother Elvie’s positive, “can do” attitude, Edsa Shangri-La’s Allan Lero and DLSU Makati campus’ Roma Marcelo.

* * *

 “Politeness is to human nature what warmth is to wax.” — Arthur Schopenhauer

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]