A reminder to know the law or risks

[David Q]

20 minutes ago, Jollygoodfellow said:

There have been set ups in this scenario before. Older sister brings along young sister. Young sisters hot and takes a shower. While naked older sister text police cousin not far away. Police enter and bingo, naked underage girl in your company so money is exchanged to help solve the problem.

Not to say that will happen to everyone but there's always the chance.

 

Well, sure but the whole shower thing would be a little over the top, no?  That would be crazy.  But if you're just with an underage girl and her above-age sister, and nothing silly like this transpires, you've not done a doggone thing wrong or actionable unless I'm totally misunderstanding this.  Again, I'm _not_ suggesting you'd want to do this, but for clarity's sake, you could be holding hands with an underage girl and as long as there's someone of proper age present I reckon you'd be fine.  Not so?

[Jollygoodfellow]

Just now, David Q said:

Well, sure but the whole shower thing would be a little over the top, no?  That would be crazy.  But if you're just with an underage girl and her above-age sister, and nothing silly like this transpires, you've not done a doggone thing wrong or actionable unless I'm totally misunderstanding this.  Again, I'm _not_ suggesting you'd want to do this, but for clarity's sake, you could be holding hands with an underage girl and as long as there's someone of proper age present I reckon you'd be fine.  Not so?

Well we can argue the law after the fact but it will be like 5 years before your case is heard so plenty of time to prepare your defence while in jail. If you dont belive these sort of traps happen then fine but there is always a risk and if you were a victim of a set up its hard to defend yourself in those circumstances. Your cell phone will be taken off you, handcuffed to scare the crap out of you so your in a bad situation which ever way you look at it. 

Trust me I have been following the Philippines setups and issues for many years so over the top maybe not. The older sister and her cousin police officer already set their plan into action. The older sister says the bad foreigner forced the girl to shower and his nice shiny camera sitting on the table which he used to to photos of his beach trip could be evidence he was intending to use it for naked pictures. Remember its your word against two plus the long arm of the law.

[Clermont]

32 minutes ago, David Q said:

Well, sure but the whole shower thing would be a little over the top, no?  That would be crazy.  But if you're just with an underage girl and her above-age sister, and nothing silly like this transpires, you've not done a doggone thing wrong or actionable unless I'm totally misunderstanding this.  Again, I'm _not_ suggesting you'd want to do this, but for clarity's sake, you could be holding hands with an underage girl and as long as there's someone of proper age present I reckon you'd be fine.  Not so?

That  senario can happen, maybe not as regular as is made out, but back in your own country do you put yourself at risk by behaving like that, innocent or not, so why do it in a foreign country where it is illegal to be in company of a girl under eighteen. What the advice people are giving you, be careful, don't go out on the edge of the limb, young branches break and it's you that gets hurt, not the girl. I don't know your age but there are plenty of women in their mid twenties if your tendency is towards younger women.  

Personally I enjoy looking at the middle age women but not game to act, I don't think I'd make a good Soprano if the wife caught me. 

[Tukaram (Tim)]

7 hours ago, Rooster said:

The 10 years or more his junior law perhaps was wrote that way to allow subject to interpretation. The reason I say that is I recently heard it was used on an Expat in my area in his late 60's. The woman was of legal age but the difference was too much. They say he was warned but not charged. 

The way the law is written, the 10 years junior only applies to minors. It is worded to let people near the same age still date.  Say you meet in high school but turn 18, she is still 16, it is legal.  If you are both over 18 the law does not apply,  So, 18 and 60 can get you funny looks, but according to the law, you are ok. 

[Rooster]

2 hours ago, Tukaram (Tim) said:

The way the law is written, the 10 years junior only applies to minors. It is worded to let people near the same age still date.  Say you meet in high school but turn 18, she is still 16, it is legal.  If you are both over 18 the law does not apply,  So, 18 and 60 can get you funny looks, but according to the law, you are ok. 

I just spoke to a knowledgeable Filipino and he disagrees and asked for you to provide a legal, lawful example or reference source.

In fact, he pointed out something that I never knew, that in the Philippines, even one older than 18 years of age can be considered a child IAW RA 7610.

Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. -
(a) "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition;

Source:

http://pcw.gov.ph/law/republic-act-7610

I'm now looking for a lawful source to quote at what age it stops where they can no longer claim they are children beyond 18 years of age. He said 23, it used to be 25. 

Not good for anyone involved in one who is older than 18 to the age childhood can no longer be claimed who can claim they are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. Big time opportunity for major set ups.

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Rooster

[David Q]

2 hours ago, Rooster said:

I just spoke to a knowledgeable Filipino and he disagrees and asked for you to provide a legal, lawful example or reference source.

In fact, he pointed out something that I never knew, that in the Philippines, even one older than 18 years of age can be considered a child IAW RA 7610.

Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. -
(a) "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition;

Source:

http://pcw.gov.ph/law/republic-act-7610

I'm now looking for a lawful source to quote at what age it stops where they can no longer claim they are children beyond 18 years of age. He said 23, it used to be 25. 

Not good for anyone involved in one who is older than 18 to the age childhood can no longer be claimed who can claim they are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. Big time opportunity for major set ups.

 

In many countries, such a law would clearly be void for vagueness, but I reckon it's perhaps drafted that way purposefully so as to allow police to have probable cause to intervene in a situation where something appears amiss.  Whether anyone is ultimately convicted of a crime is less relevant than whether they are able to put a hard stop to a bad situation.  It probably gives them way too much authority (and in the PI of all places authority can be and is readily abused).  But it's not hard to understand where the legislators were coming from.

[Rooster]

3 hours ago, Rooster said:

I just spoke to a knowledgeable Filipino and he disagrees and asked for you to provide a legal, lawful example or reference source.

In fact, he pointed out something that I never knew, that in the Philippines, even one older than 18 years of age can be considered a child IAW RA 7610.

Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. -
(a) "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition;

Source:

http://pcw.gov.ph/law/republic-act-7610

I'm now looking for a lawful source to quote at what age it stops where they can no longer claim they are children beyond 18 years of age. He said 23, it used to be 25. 

Not good for anyone involved in one who is older than 18 to the age childhood can no longer be claimed who can claim they are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. Big time opportunity for major set ups.

 

Armchair Lawyers sure are quiet...............

Anyone have a legal response? A legal source?

 

[lobojohn]

15 minutes ago, Rooster said:

Armchair Lawyers sure are quiet...............

Anyone have a legal response? A legal source?

 

all i can say is that freddy aguilar went over to mindoro island and got himself a 16 yr old and although it raised a little stink hes a celebrity and he walked away with her. 

you and i and others.. never be so lucky ..  its very common for older pinoys to have these young girls and have no problems from it. we arent pinoys and we are targets. so regardless of any laws it will be opinions and gossip and accusations and jealousy that will land you in trouble. there are many genuinely innocent people in these jails and prisons. 

[Rooster]

1 minute ago, lobojohn said:

all i can say is that freddy aguilar went over to mindoro island and got himself a 16 yr old and although it raised a little stink hes a celebrity and he walked away with her. 

you and i and others.. never be so lucky ..  its very common for older pinoys to have these young girls and have no problems from it. we arent pinoys and we are targets. so regardless of any laws it will be opinions and gossip and accusations and jealousy that will land you in trouble. there are many genuinely innocent people in these jails and prisons. 

Freddy is a moron. I met him in Hobbit House in the 80's

Not good to use Freddy as a legal defense precedent argument 

[lobojohn]

1 minute ago, Rooster said:

Freddy is a moron. I met him in Hobbit House in the 80's

Not good to use Freddy as a legal defense precedent argument 

Im only using him as an example of duplicity.