Leni’s attack raises eyebrows

Batas Mauricio

NEWSPAPERS and other media outlets carried an item on July 13, 2016 which featured Vice President Leni Robredo assailing what she said was a “growing culture of vigilantism and violence” under the Duterte government which, just the other week, accepted her as a member of President Duterte’s official family as the secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC).

Maybe because of the jubilation brought about by the decision of the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal upholding our country’s right to the South China Sea as against China’s encroachments in the area, the grave implication of Leni’s statement, released by her office officially to the media to make sure it gets the desired exposure, appeared to have been glossed over or unrealized by many.

Yet, there were many, however, who raised their eyebrows with Leni’s statement: was it not an attack against the very government that finally agreed to give her a Cabinet post even if there was no duty on the part of Duterte to give her any position? Was it not treachery to a government that gave her gracious accommodation just a few days earlier? Could she not have just talked to Duterte in private about it, in the first place?

• •

Now, bits and pieces of the menace that is illegal drugs in the Philippines seem to be unraveling right before our eyes, and the biggest piece of this menace appears to be the participation of China in flooding our country with shabu and other dangerous drugs. Two incidents reported in media tend to confirm China’s culpability here.

The first is the disclosure of retired Gen. Dionisio Santiago, former AFP chief of staff, former head of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Authority (PDEA) and also the top official of Bureau of Corrections which has jurisdiction over the national penitentiary in Muntinlupa City, where shabu is said to be manufactured large-scale. Dionisio said there is proof that most of the shabu pouring into the country came from China.

The second is the interception of a Chinese fishing boat off Subic Bay, Zambales, and the arrest of its five crewmembers, on Monday night, July 11, 2016. The boat is believed to be a floating laboratory where illegal drugs were being manufactured. Gen. Ronaldo dela Rosa, chief of the Philippine National Police, himself inspected the boat later.

Indeed, these would tend to confirm allegations that China intentionally flooded the Philippines with illegal drugs, as part of its grand design, initiated with the takeover of the South China Sea, to invade and ultimately occupy the entire country, with the possible complicity of ranking Filipino officials who are of foreign descent. Wow!

• •

Miriam D., a widow who got entangled in an amorous relationship with another woman who is lesbian, sent me a question in reaction to our item about husbands being liable for Republic Act 9262 because of their violent behavior against women. “If the violence is committed by a woman who is living-in with another woman, does RA 9262 apply?” was her question.

The answer is no, the crime of violence against women can be committed only by husbands, or by men. RA 9262 penalizes only the men who commit violence against their wives, girlfriends, or lovers, with 20 year-imprisonment. In a woman to woman relationship, the violent woman can be charged only with the simple crime of physical injuries. What a discrimination, right?

• •

What, if any, is the liability of a woman who agrees to be the paramour of a married man? This is the question of Dionisia P., who said her husband suddenly became violent towards her and their children, refusing even to provide for their daily sustenance after entering into a relationship with another woman.

This is an interesting question, but I am of the view that Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act, already has an answer: the woman lover of the married man–and even her own parents or children or friends who help her pursue her relationship with the man–could also be liable for imprisonment of up to 20 years under this law.

My reason is that, like any other crime, violence against women and children is an offense that can be committed by several persons at the same time, if they all conspired, by their acts or behavior, towards the accomplishment of the criminal purpose. Since an adulterous relationship can be carried out only by a man and a woman, the woman should be equally liable and, if she is aided by others in the illicit relationship, all of them should be held liable, too.