Willie's boy
What's child abuse?
If a child doesn't think he's been abused, do we as a society accept that at face value? If his parents don't think their child has been abused, do we step away and leave the parents to their own devices?
That is the essence of the defense proffered by Willie Revillame, the popular tv host, who has been accused of committing child abuse against a 6-year-old boy. No, nothing like rape or sexual assault. Revillame's source of trouble is the fact that in one show, in a segment intended to be hilarious, he requested the child to gyrate and perform the macho dancing moves that we typically see in films on male prostitutes. And oblige Revillame, the child did, to the delight or horror of the televiewers, depending on where they fell within the humor spectrum.
Public outcry, authorities investigate, and a criminal information is filed against the tv host. Tactical moves to have the case dismissed have been denied, even by the Court of Appeals, and it is now time for trial. What can we expect?
Counsel for Revillame, Atty. Leonard de Vera, was interviewed last Friday night, and he gave us an inkling of where they will go. The attorney told interviewers that the parents of the child were very happy with Revillame, and very grateful, and do not believe their child was abused. Thus, it would not look like someone would testify against Revillame. Without a complainant to go up on the stand, counsel was confident that there would be no evidence presented against his client.
Of course, that scenario where no witnesses surface have been the favorite tactic for criminal defendants. This is one of the surest ways to have one's case dismissed, much like what happened to the criminal case against the son of a popular general busted for drug dealing. No witness, no case.
However, Revillame runs right smack onto legal principles that might derail his defense. First is, is the principle of parens patriae. This is where the State acts like a big brother and protects those who cannot fend for themselves. Like the way some parents see online sex as a lucrative way for their children to earn a quick buck, and then stick their kids in front of a videocam. Or the way some parents will go and pimp their kids to foreigners.
These are exactly the situations when parents cannot turn to government and say that as parents, they have the absolute freedom to decide on their children's future (or ruin their children's future, more like). In these scenarios, the State can step in and override the parents' rights to decide what's best for the kids.
Maybe the macho dancing boy thought his dancing skills weren't so bad, after all (even if he had tears in his eyes when he was being cajoled into dancing). Or the parents, after having been introduced to Revillame, a famous television personality with the earnings power beyond most executives in the professional world, were star struck and wanted nothing more than to be in the good graces of this ultra generous friend. But would these be enough for the State to grant a dismissal?
This is where we turn to objective evidence. The recording of that infamous segment, where the boy is egged on to sway his body and please the rapacious audience wanting nothing more than to satiate their base appetites, of being pleasured, is still available.
That recording can still be produced as evidence against Revillame. It can be used by the judge to evaluate what happened, and whether or not cajoling and requesting that boy to do what he did, is constitutive of child abuse.
That is the more interesting question, actually. Up to what extent is conduct, that doesn't exactly please the sensibilities of the moral majority, constitutive of child abuse? Spanking used to be an accepted tool for child discipline. Now, some parents get into hot water for spanking their child. Forcing kids to stand in a corner was de rigeur for most families. That has been questioned as abusive. Forcing kids to wear a Halloween costume or to play the piano is a normal hassle for parents in the course of child rearing. Will that suddenly become child abuse when the child is crying and obviously not enjoying the experience?
Conversely, if a child experienced something.as enjoyable or pleasurable, is that still abuse? If psychologists evaluate him and conclude that he's not scarred for life, indeed, far from it, is that no longer abuse? If society is divided as to whether it is abuse, and in fact, half the Filipino population found it a scream, a hoot, is it then up to the judge to use his scruples to decide whether it is abusive, and disagree with that half?
Many interesting questions here, although I am sure Willie does not like having these academic questions in such close proximity with his personal liberty. The parents don't, either, as they in fact have sued a blogger and a psychologist who dared come on record and opine that what they saw was constitutive of child abuse.
It has now been four years since this happened. The boy is now 10. Will the boy become a man before we get answers? The wheels of Philippine justice, indeed.
- Latest
