Legal Question/ Pinoy Logic / Outcomes

[Tatoosh]

Not sure what the outcome of the case was, but 2009 was a great year for nabbing pedophiles (according to authorities) in Bantayan Island. Here are two cases of men arrested for being in the company of children. One claimed to be a missionary and the children he was taking care of did not show signs of sexual abuse. The guy did have claims by others against him, but that may just be individuals looking for a "pay off", not quite so damning as the first guy I mentioned. Note that in case, the parents were facing potential charges too for allowing their underage daughter to be with him unsupervised.The Latter Day Saints MissionaryThe Expat with Unsupervised AccessOne of these links is to a different "forum" so it may be removed if it offends the rules. I am linking only to the story that details the actions of law enforcement and cites the law involved in terms of being in the company of any underage child that you are not related to. I was home alone the other day and my young sister-in-law wanted to bring a girl friend over for lunch. I said no, sorry, not unless your sister (my wife) is here too. All expats, regardless of the purity of their intentions should be aware of Article VI of Republic Act 7610.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Dave Hounddriver
Rules are very clear about no links to other blogs or forums so had to break that one link

[Steve & Myrlita]

I read about one guy that was arrested for having an underage girl in his room at a resort in Cebu. He checked in with her. She was accompanying him with the consent of her family. He was a "trusted" family friend and they had no problem with her spending her time unsupervised with him and even sharing his bed, I'm guessing, though they denied he was abusing her, as did the guy himself, of course. He was arrested and charged regardless.There is a law requiring resort/hotel staff to report cases where an underage girl is cohabitating with an adult (read foreigner) that is not related to them.

If memory serves me, there is a law in the Philippine Family Code that basically states that a it is illegal and punishible by jail if a person is in a room alone with a child who is age 12 or under and the said child is 10 years or more their junior except when that child is related to you. Keep in mind that the above exception may only apply to blood relation not marital, especially if that person is a foreigner which would mean the only exception for a foreigner is if that child was theirs biologically (Son or Daughter). Since this country is very nationalistic, I myself, would not take that chance. JMHO. YMMV.

[Tatoosh]

The law you are referring to is Article 6, Section 10b of Republic Act 7610, and the provision that applies here is:

(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.

Note that the provision does NOT apply to any with "...any bond recognized by law, local custom..." which would include marriage, but not cohabitation.

[Jake]

The law you are referring to is Article 6, Section 10b of Republic Act 7610, and the provision that applies here is:

(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.

Note that the provision does NOT apply to any with "...any bond recognized by law, local custom..." which would include marriage, but not cohabitation.

OK guys, I have read and understand the above article VI but when I got down to the punch line:That this provision shall not apply to any person who......is recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty. I'm sorry but my reading comprehension failed me there. Any ideas what this legal speak is tryingto convey to a typical tricycle driver or a visiting foreigner?Respectfully -- Jake

[Bruce]

Seems geard to mostly children 12 and under. Understandable. Probabally a reactionary law after some long ago forgotten incident.As for a prior post mentioning the mormons... here in Catbalogan in one of the 'close but not in town' barangys, there is a young blue eyed brown haired boy.I, being me, (insert comment from Tom and Dave here______________) HAD to ask questions. Turns out it is a MIRACLE! Yes a true miracle! Upon FURTHER questioning, I discovered that in the year or so before the birth of the boy... a mormon missionary lived with the family. However this has NOTHING to do with the blue eyed brown headed boy........ He is a miracle......

[Bruce]

The law you are referring to is Article 6, Section 10b of Republic Act 7610, and the provision that applies here is:

(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.

Note that the provision does NOT apply to any with "...any bond recognized by law, local custom..." which would include marriage, but not cohabitation.

OK guys, I have read and understand the above article VI but when I got down to the punch line:That this provision shall not apply to any person who......is recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty. I'm sorry but my reading comprehension failed me there. Any ideas what this legal speak is tryingto convey to a typical tricycle driver or a visiting foreigner?Respectfully -- Jake

Custodial care, members of the clergy.... social program officers....

[JJReyes]

Europeans and Americans assume they have the right to impose their morality on others and that this right was God given. It is the Divine Right Theory. This is how colonialism or land grabbing on a global scale got started. With the consent of parents, 14 years old can get married in the Philippines, but George W. Bush felt it is morally wrong and since then the Americans have been applying pressure for the Philippine government to change the law. The Christian right wing movement is continuing George W's "crusade" by pointing out that sex with anyone under eighteen is simply wrong, even within the context of marriage. The laws cited earlier in this topic discussion may have been a result of the on-going moral crusade.The Filipinos have a more liberal interpretation. In this hypothetical situation, the relationship is contractual. The foreigner provides their daughter with implied economic benefits including three meals a day, clothing, shelter, security, and possibly an education. Otherwise, the daughter might starve. It is no one's business, except when there is a complaint or public expose. the community is outraged. The sense of moral outrage may even include the girl's parents. "We didn't know what the foreigner was doing to our daughter." As soon the publicity has died down, there is an exchange of money, and everything returns to normal. The moral imperative is on the surface only.The law states the parents do not have a right to make such a contractual arrangement between an older foreigner and a girl who is not yet 18 years. The practice goes on anyway.

Edited February 22, 2012 by JJR

[Bruce]

Europeans and Americans assume they have the right to impose their morality on others and that this right was God given. It is the Divine Right Theory. This is how colonialism or land grabbing on a global scale got started.With the consent of parents, 14 years can get married in the Philippines, but George W. Bush felt it is morally wrong and since then the Americans have been applying pressure for the Philippine government to change the law. The Christian right wing movement is continuing George W's "crusade" by pointing out that sex with anyone under eighteen is simply wrong, even within the context of marriage.The Filipinos have a more liberal interpretation. In this hypothetical situation, the relationship is contractual. The foreigner provides their daughter with implied economic benefits including three meals a day, clothing, shelter, security, and possibly an education. Otherwise, the daughter might starve. It is no one's business, except when there is a complaint or public expose. the community is outraged. The sense of moral outrage may even include the girl's parents. "We didn't know what the foreigner was doing to our daughter." As soon the publicity has died down, there is an exchange of money, and everything returns to normal. The moral imperative is on the surface only.

Well said! I just wish there was a awy to remove the emotions and stick to the facts and let business be transacted.I have worked for years with sex workers in my capacity as a nurse. I don't give a rats ass about the politics. UNLESS the government is willing to pay (sometime huge amounts of money) to a sex worker to STOP working, the government has no right to impose man made laws on how these women make money.So far, I have YET to see any study done on the negative side impact to a family when the wife / daughter is stopped from using her body for income.Sure it might not sound nice. But bills have to be paid, school fees paid and food to be bought! Stop the wife/ daughter from working in the sex trade and what happens to the family unless the government is handing out checks? The do-gooder goes to bed at night thinking what a GOOD job was done in protecting those poor poor poor women from those nasty men and their evil money.... while the girl's family starves and the other kids are out of school.Like I said in a different post, the current crusade to stop under age sex trafficing is a failure by the stats. Most underage sex workers are BOYS! The more you dig into the facts, the more it looks like publicity stunts and a money grab for a very small (number wise) problem. Edited February 22, 2012 by Bruce

[Tatoosh]

Well, I bristled a bit at JJR's view that Europeans and Americans are the only ones telling the world how to run itself. Not all that long ago, Japan wanted to be the first among equals in their "Co-Prosperity Sphere". They, of course, grabbed young local women to service the needs of their occupying troops, as the saga of the "Comfort Women" has made clear. China wants to run things their way too as the locals in Tibet have seen for some time. China itself, was created by war and occupation, just as Europe was. Russian had its run on exporting a lifestyle and political agenda for quite awhile too. It depends on if you see the Soviet Union as European or Asian, since it is something of both, though to me a bit more of one than the other.The Christians, particularly the Born Again group, do very much want to control the actions of their members and anyone their members might happen to run into. I grew up in the Bible Belt and and came to despise Born Again Christians. I've tried to overcome that attitude with only partial success. So my apology for any of the practicing Christians here. I really do want to have tolerance toward different religions, but it comes hard for me sometimes.I agree with Bruce about the Do Gooders and Unintended Consequences. Like women saved from brothels or whatever, if there is not a viable choice for them to feed and clothe not only themselves but others that rely upon them, what "good" has been done? Allowing their children or family (parents/grandparents/siblings) to go hungry, to do without medicine or care? Big win for the "hate the sin, not the sinner group" but the following consequences are due to God's will.Take a young woman who gets a job in Cebu's economic enterprise zone. She'll work 10 hours a day for the Koreans, be yelled at for resting or sitting down, be informed she will often be working 2 hours overtime without pay, and maybe take home 240 pesos for the days work. The alternative is to wear a skimpy outfit, share drinks, tell jokes, laugh a lot, and sometimes make up to a months pay in one evening. Which sounds better to you? Twelve hours of toil, being yelled at, for minimal wages or party at night, sleep late, laugh and joke, with the downside of having sex but the upside of getting paid a week or two's wages for it? Maybe a months if you get an expat with a thick wallet.I do not want to promote GRO as a good choice for a career, but when the choices are limited, it is not always the WORST choice compared to starving, watching family members die from lack of medical attention, or less dramatically ... simply spending time at a job you have fun at versus one you hate.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Tatoosh

[Bruce]

Hear! Hear! Well said.......But since ewe mentioned the born agains... at least they don't want to kill me like SOME religions because I am viewed as an infidel! Some what (but not much) lesser of multiple evils?