Adultery As Seen In Other Places
Written by Major Tom
Filed under: Law & Society
September 2, 2006
I HAD DISCOVERED this first-rate section from a famous news agency’s website some months ago and ever since that time, I have been coming to it every now and then, at times on successive days. Reuter’s Oddly Enough News section always gives me that transcendent leisure of reading news that are funny or extraordinary and often being both funny and extraordinary. It’s like discovering Ripley’s Believe It Or Not for the first time all over again with Jack Palance hushing that proverbial end-program quip, “Believe it…or not…”
I had long wanted to blog about so many topics from Oddly Enough before but I resisted for so long because at times the topics there were too funny for comfort and therefore lacking that amount of seriousness that I am always looking for in a blog post. Not that I consider myself as a very serious blogger, far from that. But you know, I feel that I can’t be so very funny lest I’d be bookmarked as a jokester blog, which I am not and shouldn’t be. Oddly Enough items could really be so funny and since these are based on true occurrences, they can be so extravagantly hilarious.
But finally now, there’s this Oddly Enough item that I think I could blog about. Apparently, how we see morality and marital unfaithfulness here in our country is not what is generally appertaining in the so-called “western world”.
In Cambodia for one, legislators there were at odds over the issue of whether or not the crime of adultery should be penalized as a crime. Now that’s odd considering that for so long, I have always knew for a fact that the act of adultery is something so grave and wrong; where even in the Ten Commandments, sins based on marital unfaithfulness where pronounced twice like “Thou shall not commit adultery” and “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife”. I have seen in many a-local movies how some Vilma Santoses spanked for countless times the faces of some Edu Manzanos after the latters were caught walking by in some downtown leisure place with some other women in toe. How some Sharon Cunetas threw a lot of plates and saucers into the wall out of extreme outrage of their husbands’ infidelity. We know this thing as a social stigma like an unsightly mark on the face, something so highly deplorable. But who would have thought that in Cambodia for example, politicians there keep mistresses in the open and there’s nothing the law could do about it because the law does not prohibit it in the first place. And even if the government plans to criminalize it, or has in fact criminalize it already, the penalty for such misconduct would be exceedingly low, like up to one year in jail. In our country, any person caught cheating on their spouses in explicit manners could be sentenced to at least six years in jail. Maybe many of our politicians could be thinking of moving north to Cambodia for there, adultery is not even a crime. Consider this particular provisions from our Revised Penal Code:
Art. 333. Who are guilty of adultery. — Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void. Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the offended spouse, the penalty next lower in degree than that provided in the next preceding paragraph shall be imposed.
Art. 334. Concubinage. — Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
And then there’s some thought that had just flashed in my mind some moments ago. I realize now that in most of Europe actually, adultery is also not a crime and in fact the European Union was once protesting Turkey’s proposed legislation against adultery that it had threatened not to accept Turkey into the union any time within this decade. And in America mind you, it is merely a misdemeanor in some states (punished mostly by paying a fine instead of serving jail terms) and it is not even one in most of the other states there. Like you could go on a sexual rampage even if you were married in America or Europe and even if you were caught cheating on your spouses there, you could just slipped in your American Express to the court cashier and be scot-free the minute the card confirmation says “A-OK”.
Apparently, in places like America, marital unfaithfulness is merely a moral question and not anymore a legal one. This astounds me somehow for in my estimation, laws are instituted to keep social order and peace in the community most especially. One might argue that if an individual commits disloyalty against his or her spouse, it is merely of his or her own concern and the consequences from such would be his or hers to bear. The state therefore takes a backseat and let the individual decides for his or her own the moral consequences of his or her act. This line argument proclaims that it is not anymore the concern of the state to intervene in one’s own moral convictions since the act of adultery does not entirely affect society’s peace and order. I digress on this theory for I believe that discouraging acts of marital unfaithfulness like adultery or concubinage would render the social order in a more ideal form, preserving its integrity and encouraging normality in life. Whereas on the other hand, encouraging or not minding such licentious acts may most probably untangle the fabrics of our society—slowly but surely. There are health hazards to be taken in consideration for example, especially the spread of grievous diseases like AIDS and other communicable afflictions. Then there’s the social cost to the family (the most basic component of the society) where marital unfaithfulness often leads to broken homes and kids not having to have lived a robust youth thru the guidance by both the father and the mother. Studies have shown that misspent youths are often caused by dysfunctional family structures, where young adults often verge into drugs and various misdemeanors as a coping mechanism for insecurities in their family life. And if you multiply the number of affected families over the years, across the width of every society, there should be a slow but certain degradation of the social order, untangling the fabric of community life and civil existence, bit by bit until one day, the social order becomes one that is far from ideal and the effect becomes irreversible. In my mind, the aim of every law should be the keeping of order in the society and if acts that clearly undermine the social fabric are allowed to go on unhindered, then the aim of the law is defeated.
We should be feeling fortunate then that in our country, legislators have not yet became that foolish to think of decriminalizing adultery (or concubinage for that matter). If that day would come, that could be disastrous to say the least.
I’m not really aware of that provision in our law perhaps it’s seldom taken seriously, judging from what I see and hear. Or is it because officials themselves taking in the front seat of establishing love nests somewhere else with some hot, young ladies. Did they go unpunish? Some are even starting 2nd families.
Yes, they’re lucky perhaps because our society is tolerant of this set-up?
Comment by ipanema — September 3, 2006 @ 1:41 am
The Philippines should legalize divorce. Victims of spousal abuse should have the right to free themselves from further bondage. Marriages that have already broken apart (for whatever reason) should be dissipated and the partners allowed to have marry their newly-found partners.
Comment by beatrice — September 3, 2006 @ 4:06 am
I do not think that our lawmakers would introduce any such law because the one that we have about this matter is still favorable to Filipino male.
If I am correct, this law was from spaniards.
Comment by myepinoy — September 3, 2006 @ 4:29 am
What I hate about the REvised PEnal Code is the inequality between men and women. Pag adultery (for women), one single act of marital infidelity is a ground for conviction. Kung maraming beses na-commit, maraming counts of adultery. For men, kelangan ma-satisfy pa any of the 3 conditions: brings a mistress to the conjugal dwelling, under scandalous circumstances or cohabitation. Andaya…pag isang continuous periof of cohabitation, isang count lang of concubinage. I agree, though, that divorce should be legalized since only the Philippines and Malta are the only countries left that don’t allow divorce.
Comment by ladybug — September 3, 2006 @ 9:45 am
Art. 334. Concubinage. — Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse, UNDER SCANDALOUS CIRCUMSTANCES….
those three words tell you about the inequality of our laws about the affairs of men and women. It means men just have to be discreet.
In the late 90s Angara did try to change it. He said he was confident about his personal record on the matter. (I don’t know if he can still claim that, after rumors of an affair with a fellow legislator)
Anyway, I just hope we move on to modern times and realize that the biggest reason for divorce is MARRIAGE. Let’s get off our moral high horse and allow people to live together before they get married. It saves people on annulment fees.
Comment by atticus — September 3, 2006 @ 10:01 am
We all know that only one institution is standing in the way for the legalization of divorce in this country. Yes, it’s the catholic church and its outdated mindset.
Comment by snglguy — September 3, 2006 @ 10:49 am
I agree, divorse should be legalized in the Philippines.
I know of some local married men who keep second families, as well as those with girlfriends.
Comment by eric — September 3, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
Madaya nga Ladybug. It’s better to legalise divorce.
Comment by ipanema — September 3, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
Do we really need laws for everything?
Comment by Sidney — September 3, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
What’s the difference between annulment and divorce anyway? It’s exactly the same! Let’s thank the legislators. They still have some values/morals in them.
Comment by JV — September 3, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
To Ipanema: Very well said Ipanema and that’s what is really happening. It’s a situation where the law becomes toothless and where there is no complainant, there is no crime.
To Beatrice: To this effect, I am incline to encourage divorce since some relationships are just deleterious. Maybe if our lawmakers should do that, they can enumerate quite properly the
sufficient grounds for such and one of this ground is spousal abuse.
To myepinoy: If my memory serves me well, indeed the Revised Penal Code was coded from the old spanish law. I think its time our lawmakers should
re-check it and make so some improvements and modifications.
To ladybug: Glad you have noticed that since I felt that way too. Maybe if this aspect of the Criminal Code would be revised, it should be more uniform and fair.
To Atticus: I really hope that this provision could be reworded, in order to be fair.
To snglguy: That seems to be the case and you know in this country, its the politics of numbers. We can’t really go against that easily.
To eric: Under certain circumstances, I do agree too that divorces should be allowed.
To sydney: Actually our laws are so pervasive that there seems to be a law for every aspect of every day life. Kaya lang most them are not
being effected as they should be.
To JV: Annulment actually requires stricter conditions like habitual alcoholism or sexual incapacity while divorce could be had even if there is really no defect in marriage when it was acquired, like physical abuse and disloyalty. In America,
the general ground is the so-called “irreconciliable diffrerences”, an encompassing ground that may include even just merely the dislike of ones attitude.
Comment by Major Tom — September 3, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
I think it is ironic that we use the Church as an excuse for not making divorce legal in the Philippines. How come in Italy where the Vatican is situated, they have divorce? It is just unfair really.
Comment by Daphne — September 4, 2006 @ 1:36 am
To Daphne: That’s really ironic bout Italy’s case Daphne; but you know many could not resist thinking that the Church is behind the longstanding failure of our Congress to pass a law on divorce since it (the Church) has been very vocal against it. Of course, there seems to be no direct evidence to this assumption and you’re right, it might be unfair. But somehow the general view tends to see the Church as so against any divorce law that it is expected to influence our government concerning such.
Comment by Major Tom — September 4, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
When the divorce law was put in place, most western govts left the job of settling relationship issues between husband and wife. If the rift cannot be healed, a spouse can always invoke his rights in accordance with the divorce law and seek a settlement. Many western countries have therefore decriminalized adultery.
I happen to think that jailing an errant spouse does nothing to fix a relationship problem. Jailing a spouse can wreck a family esp those with little children. In some way the divorce law gives spouse the chance to start anew, esp if the marriage is marred by adultery, spousal abuse, extreme neglect or incompatibility.
Comment by bw — September 5, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
To BW: In my mind, if ever a divorce law may be instituted in this country, there should be a stricter framing and application of it in order that divorce may not be had on matters of whims and caprices; only if it is absolutely necessary.
You’re right about the idea that punishing an erring spouse does not solve the problem of relationships, it in facts make it worst for the family.
Comment by Major Tom — September 5, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
I do question the effectivity of these laws to deter adultery. In the first place, it’s the lawmakers who break such laws.
It boils down to personal character. A person with integrity will not be unfaithful to his/her spouse. Adultery, after all, is a moral issue.
Comment by Jayred — September 6, 2006 @ 8:53 pm