Conclusion
REPUBLIC Act (RA) 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997—already considered then as a big step against rapists—should now be amended, according to the Makabayan bloc in the House of Representatives.
Under Article 266, Section C of the law: “Subsequent valid marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed. In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, that the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.”
The offender escaping criminal liability after marrying the victim is tied to a Spanish-era provision in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), specifically Article 344, which states: “In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him.”
The members of the Makabayan bloc—Reps. Antonio Tinio of ACT Teachers; Rep. Fernando Hicap of Anakpawis; Neri Colmenares and Carlos Isagani Zarate of Bayan Muna; Luzviminda Ilagan and Emmi de Jesus of Gabriela; and Terry Ridon of Kabataan said House Bill (HB) 818, which seeks to cure the inadequacies of RA 8353, has been pending at the House Committee on Revision of Laws since July 2013.
Vague on resistance, consent
“Rape is, no doubt, the most horrendous of all forms of sexual violence, and is one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed against a person. Rape causes immeasurable anguish to the victim and his or her family. Simply put, rape ruins the life of the victim and that of his or her family,” the lawmakers said.
While the antirape law—which reclassified rape from a crime against chastity to that of a crime against persons—also did away with the requirement of tenacious resistance, courts still have differing interpretations as to what resistance is.
The lawmakers said the apparent failure of the law in defining consent from the perspective of the victim had paved the way for some judges to rule that the victims have consented to sexual intrusion when they were not able to put up any amount of resistance. With this, they said that there is a need for the law to zero in on the absence of consent as the central element in the crime of rape.
HB 812 seeks to address the inadequacies of the law regarding consent through the following:
- It provides for specific and clearer instances of a form of rape called sexual violation, which is premised on lack of consent;
- It provides for instances when lack of consent is presumed; and
- It addresses the special situation of those who, by reason of their mental or physical state, are unable to give consent.
To be consistent with the proposed definition of consent, Article 266-D, which provides that “any physical overt act manifesting resistance or that the victim is so situated that he or she is incapable of giving consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the crime,” is proposed to be repealed.
The bill also seeks to recognize other forms of unwanted sexual conduct against males, young boys, in particular, as rape. Also, the lawmakers want to stress that hate crimes may be perpetuated against members of the LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexual, transgender) community.
To further highlight the seriousness of the crime of rape, the bill also seeks to repeal Article 266-C, which pardons the rapist if he subsequently marries the victim, or if the rapist-husband is pardoned by the wife.
‘Please be quiet; I’m praying’
While the 1987 Constitution guarantees the practice of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, in the Philippines, a person still faces imprisonment for offending religious feelings.
Article 133 of the RPC said that “the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”
In January a “guilty” decision was issued against Carlos Celdran for “offending religious feelings.”
The court decision against Celdran provides that he will serve a prison term of not less than two months and 21 days and not more than one year, one month and 11 days.
In 2010 Celdran was charged after he interrupted a service at the Manila Cathedral by holding up a placard with the word “Damaso” on it.
Damaso is the character of a bad priest in Jose Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere novel. Party-list Reps. Ibarra Gutierrez and Walden Bello of Akbayan have filed HB 3389, repealing Article 133 of the RPC.
HB 3389 also mandates that all pending criminal cases and accompanying civil cases, if any, for violation of Article 133 shall be dismissed upon the effectivity of this act.
According to the lawmakers, the separation of Church and State (Section 6, Article II of the Constitution) and the nonestablishment clause (Section 5, Article III of the Constitution) prevent the enactment of laws that would favor any or all religions, saying that these constitutional principles should be reconciled with, and should be used to support, the rights of citizens, such as the right to free speech and expression.
They said Article 133 curtails a right protected by the Constitution: The right to free speech.
The solons also cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966. As a state-party, they said the Philippines is bound to uphold the freedom of expression of its citizens and ensure that laws do not enforce unnecessary limitations to this right.