Marital Infidelity… for a law student taking a college course

Leveling Men and Women on Marital Infidelity

Mr. Asawa had sexual intercourse with Ms. Dalaga. Knowing her husband’s unfaithfulness, Mrs. Asawa was able to find a new lover with whom she had sexual intercourse. Who are liable for a crime, if any?
This is an example of a typical question in a Criminal Law exam. It is plain to see that in the situation, the husband and the wife did the same thing – they had sexual intercourse with another person other than their own spouse. However, the answer to the question is that only Mrs. Asawa can be prosecuted for a crime – adultery – upon a complaint filed by Mr. Asawa. Mr. Asawa, on the other hand, is not liable for any crime at all. Yes, he did the same thing as his wife and both have been unfaithful to each other. Dura lex sed lex. The law may be harsh but, it is still the law. Laws, however, can be repealed.
The Revised Penal Code was enacted 1930, based on the penal laws of Spain. Some articles have already been repealed and amended (Agpalo). Some articles have become obsolete, but still remain in the Code (Reyes). Other articles still manifest the bias against women which our society today has started to eliminate.
Title Eleven, which enumerates the definitions and penalties of crimes against chastity, includes on its first chapter, the crimes of Adultery and Concubinage. A married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband is guilty of adultery (Art.333 Revised Penal Code). As simple as that. Sexual intercourse and the identity of the other man are the only elements that need to be proved by the prosecution. Furthermore, a wife can be prosecuted for as many acts of sexual intercourse. On the other hand, the man who is prosecuted for concubinage should be proven to have kept a mistress in the conjugal dwelling or cohabited with her in any other place; the sexual intercourse of the infidel husband with another woman should be proved to have been under scandalous circumstances (Art. 334 RPC).
The very definitions of the crime are distinct. So in reality, there is no law punishing adultery on the part of the husband. The husband should be unashamed enough to let his paramour live in the family home or in any other place before he gets to be punished for his infidelity.
Article 919 (3) of the Civil Code of the Philippines further exhibits the discrimination reflected by the penal laws on adultery and concubinage. The article identifies sexual infidelity as one of the causes of disinheritance between spouses. It defines sexual infidelity as adultery for women and concubinage for men; this is, unmistakably, a double standard. Why it is that adultery is not considered sexual infidelity for men? The implication of this law is that wives are more prone to disinheritance than husbands. This reveals the pernicious discrimination against women that still afflicts our legal tradition and society.
Familiarity with laws on adultery and concubinage would leave a socially conscious individual wondering, “Are men and women really equal under Philippine law?” The legislator who aims to capture the female sector would typically answer that we are on our way to making ways to promote such equality. However, no law has yet been passed by our male-dominated law-making body regarding the inequality apparent in the law on concubinage and adultery.
The law, aside from being lenient on men’s infidelity, imposes stiffer penalties on unfaithful women. Adultery carries a penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, equivalent to 8 years and 1 day to 12 years of imprisonment (Art. 333 RPC). A man guilty of Concubinage, on the other hand, is punished with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or 6 years and 1 day to 8 years of imprisonment (Art. 334 RPC).
The law on concubinage should be repealed and the law on adultery should be amended so as to include men. Consequently, both can be classified as “infidelity of the spouse”. This new law should impose the same penalties; the same elements would be required to be proved to establish the guilt of the offending spouse. This way, the discrimination and equality of men and women on family and social relation would subside.
Infidelity is the breaking of marital vows. In Philippine culture, infidelities or extramarital relationships range from casual relationships to the keeping of a querida or paramour. In Filipino marriages, the husband’s infidelity is a major concern. Male infidelity can be the most frequent reason for marital separation (internet source).
Adultery and concubinage are both acts of infidelity. Until men and women are made to suffer on the same grounds and the same penalty, the principle on gender equality embedded in our 1987 Constitution can never be fulfilled. The constitutional mandate that the state recognizes the role of women in nation building and the fundamental equality of men and women is not being fully upheld. Constitutional provisions are general and need implementing laws. After almost two decades, these implementing laws have yet to be passed.
With the equality provision of the Constitution as well as a number of significant laws that have been passed for the benefit of women, the Philippine Government has committed itself to the advancement of women. In spite of these small successes, so much more remains to be done before de facto equality for women is actualized. This includes the eradication of unfairness of laws, most especially penal laws, among women.
Why is it that a law such as this, directly dealing with family relations, which is very important in a predominantly Catholic society, has not been given much priority? Is it because of the double standard type of morality we have in our society? More men are engaged in extramarital relations. But a husband is less tolerant or less forgiving when his wife becomes unfaithful. This should not be reflected in our laws, though. What is customarily or conventionally accepted should not mean that it is right in the eyes of the law. Husbands and wives should never be tolerated, by the law, in any circumstance to commit acts of infidelity by being lenient with them. Thus the need for the consolidation of the adultery and concubinage laws into one single law – infidelity of the spouse.
Adultery, in its general definition, seemed more unconcealed, almost natural for husbands. Males commonly court and seek out their extra-marital female partners. This may be because there is actually no law punishing adultery or sexual infidelity of men. Females, however, tended to feel more guilty, keeping it a secret. Unlike the males who actively court, the females’ affair are more happenstance, situation-bound, such as meeting an old boyfriend, or being closely thrown together by circumstances.
The gender issue behind infidelity is well-entrenched in Philippine culture (internet source). The excuse given is that men are expected to be material providers or breadwinners. Pure and simple. Men only needs to work hard to provide and protect, give their lives to their work, find respite in their beers, and in many cases, in their women, and generally kept their hearts to themselves. Parenting is considered primarily a mother’s responsibility. So whatever happens to the marriage, which as a result, would affect the children, is left in the hands of the mother. The mother will tend to do anything to save the marriage, remain faithful despite her husband’s infidelity.
The burden, then, is on women. The tolerance of our laws on infidelity of husbands results in the continued increase of unfaithful husbands and eventually, legal separation cases. The emotional trauma inflicted on the “victim” wife is worse than the physical abuse. It results in humiliation, hurt, rejection and loss for the injured partner since it attacks the person’s self-worth and ego. But why is that the laws have stiffer penalties for female unfaithfuls?
Our society seems to still consider many gender problems as trivial and marginal. This has to change. A small step such as amending the law on adultery and repealing the law on concubinage could count. This legal framework for women is quite impressive but the challenges of implementation and cultural shift remains. The interplay of culture and institutions like the bureaucracy, political offices, and the church makes the discourse on gender issues very animated and usually polarized.
All forms of discrimination against women should be eliminated through social and legislative reforms. There should be a general gender perspective in all legislation, public policies, programs and projects. The problems of enforcement and implementation may be many but popularizing them so that they become tools of empowerment could elucidate these problems. Information campaigns and dissemination mechanisms to promote and explain the workings of these laws need to be strengthened. Moreover, there is some resistance to the actual implementation of these laws because of deep-seated sexist attitudes and practices. Given this resistance, it has been difficult for bills on women to be enacted.
It is true that more is required than legislation. We cannot legislate a change in culture. The inequality of men and women is deeply embedded not just in our laws but in our everyday lives. Changing this is a slow process that requires the education as well as the economic and political empowerment of women as well as men. It’s a long road, but we will get there. We have to take a step. Reduce discrimination by making men and women suffer the same for their infidelities. Eliminate the distinction between adultery and concubinage for both are just acts of infidelity

The Starbucks Experience: My Way of Explaining it

I chanced upon a website – www.ihatestarbucks.com – where people from all over America rant about their abhorrence towards Starbucks. Then I thought to myself, “If there would be a www.ilovestarbucks.com, a Filipino would have been its web designer and Filipinos would flood its boards about their fascinations with Starbucks.”
The “Starbucks experience” is distinctively perceived and enjoyed by Filipinos. We had allowed Starbucks to transcend such time and space. Though Starbucks is primarily foreign, it has undergone the process of “indigenization”. This process deals with the link of external influences and our own culture. Starbucks, a Seattle-based company had its way of blending with the Filipino culture. This is why Starbucks became popular among Filipinos. The ambiance, the customers, the baristas’ performance, the taste of the coffee and the architecture of Starbucks has an impact on the whole Starbucks experience. These features reflect the Filipino culture.
The Starbucks experience here in the Philippines can be described as “masarap”. The term, however, is not confined to taste. Our culture is very rich and we are keen to nuances. We are very particular of the quality that points to an inherent element that arouses happiness, fulfillment, and thrill. This is perceived by differentiation, by contrasts and comparisons of inherent distinctiveness of food or event that becomes part of the totality of the experience.
Since 1997, when the first retail location was put up in Makati, the country’s leading financial district, the cafés have multiplied and have become ubiquitous in Metro Manila. These can be found inside malls, near the big universities and colleges, and near gimmick places. We can easily find a Starbucks Coffee retail outlet in Metro Manila. We could go to one depending on our purpose. We drink Starbucks in outlets within the malls after a long tiring day of window shopping to refresh ourselves with iced coffee.
The Starbucks outlets are remarkably located in areas where their target customers hang around. The outlets near the universities and colleges are for those students who are not comfortable enough to cram in their own dormitories or apartments and who need to keep themselves awake to study. Mall outlets are for teenagers who go to malls in the afternoon because they are not yet allowed to stay out at night. For those who are already licensed to party and drink all night, Starbucks has become an extension of the gimmick places where they could drink coffee to overcome the effects alcohol and keep them awake on their ride home.
The kinds of people differ inside each Strabucks outlet, the baristas are different, and the couches, too. However, each outlet has been known to have constant patrons – students of UP Diliman and Ateneo go to the Katipunan branch, while the La Sallians go to Vito Cruz, UP Manila students and Bedans go to UN branch, Makati yuppies go to 6750, and the gimikeros hang out in the outlets in Malate, Libis, Timog and Alabang.
The customers who have frequented the outlets too much, they already have their own space – it may be the couch they find comfortable enough to stimulate them to study, or the al fresco seats where they’ve puffed a number of cigarettes and where they’ve seen a number of cute passers-by. Filipinos may call it their “own” space. Space is merely an expanse but it acquires a human feature once it has been claimed for one’s own use – to stay, sit, and take pleasure in. The transformation becomes cultural and becomes a part of that person, his ways, his experience. Each space, in every little way, provides a different experience.
Other people though go to Starbucks to “tambay” or pass time off while hanging out with friends. Filipinos are used to surrendering their time for the enrichment of their social relations. This is the consequence of a society whose organizational structures contain “ego-centered networks” We usually don’t care about time. A cup of coffee that could be sipped for less than a minute at home can take us hours to consume in Starbucks. We think only of the moment and the amount of money as the givens in which we exist and we master such givens up to the highest extent that we can. We believe that it is really the only way to taste the flavors of life. As a result, Starbucks stores are usually full of people, relishing the cool air-conditioned breeze, relaxing on the cushioned seats and couches to make the most out of their Starbucks expenses.
One of the most important parts of the experience is of course, the element of drinking. Why else would a typical Filipino spend almost or more than a hundred pesos for coffee? Starbucks must really taste good. Taste prevails in our choice of drinks. But it is not all taste. Filipinos are lovers of anything “masarap.” One of the main domains of our appetite is food. We love tasting new foods and drinks. Filipinos have long been instant coffee drinkers and have long been limited to drinking warm coffee. The varieties of Starbucks cold drinks gave them the chance to experience something innovative.
The hot beverages in Starbucks are not that popular. Starbucks offers drinks made of a Filipino variety of coffee, grown in our own lands, to promote our very own coffee culture. This, however, is not that popular among Filipinos. A Filipino favorite would be mocha Frapuccino topped with whipped cream, which Filipinos often mistake for ice cream, much like the ones on top of our traditional cold dessert, the halu-halo.
The usual customers of Starbucks range from the middle class to the upper class because of the price of their products. A 150 peso average expense for coffee is quite luxurious as compared to an instant coffee that ordinarily costs 11 pesos only. The customers apparently choose to spend more because of the perks they could get from it. It is evident that those who come from the same classes feel most secure among people from the same status; there is immediately the same bond of language, food and preferences. The upper class would definitely prefer staying in Starbucks than spend time in fast-food chains where the majority of the people are not of the same class. Conversely, the middle class people feel they are part of the upper class as they hang out in Starbucks. The experience adds up to the feeling of economic well being because otherwise, one has no other business inside the store other than visiting the comfort rooms or drinking water readily available to anyone.
Starbucks has been a gathering place that could be described as something in between formal and informal. It is a place formal enough for a date yet one could dress down and be more relaxed. Starbucks has become, apart from being a café, a gathering place. Filipinos tend to kompol-kompol or form clusters. Group formations are based on affinity, on friendship, on common membership in group, and lastly on issues. Filipinos rarely go to Starbucks alone. However, if one goes there alone, it is not anymore surprising to see familiar faces around and share tables with them. It’s like a networking of relationships, which is an important component of Philippine life. Filipinos accomplish this with whatever resources and interests are available to them. In this case, Starbucks is used as a vehicle for widening one’s social networks.
Each Starbucks store is worth–visiting because each is unique in its own way unlike fast-food joints that are standardized. Real differences have been made from one location to another – not just in size, shape and furnishings, but in the experience you get from each. This is clearly part of the company’s formula: unlike Jollibee, venturing into a Starbucks you haven’t tried before offers the hint of adventure.
Starbucks puts a double shot of hometown flavor into every store. It has different architectural designs for each country. Culture, of course, is taken into consideration in devising one. In the Philippines, coffee bars that feel grounded in the scene lure Filipinos to hang out for a wide spectrum of reasons, and that somehow make us think “Starbucks” for refreshment or conversation. A distinctive feature would be its being inter, intra-connected with other spaces as the window walls connect the inside from the al fresco. The non-smoking friends usually stay inside while the others prefer the outside seating, but the sharp division between the indoor and outdoor is blurred. In such a way, the life of the store is integrated with the street and vicinity, literally and symbolically. The manongs and manangs selling cigarettes are, in one way or another, becomes part of the whole experience.
Parts of the experience too, are the baristas. A barista’s job typically comes down to blending the coffee with the right flavoring. The baristas are entitled to a discount on all drinks, a free bag of roasted coffee beans every week, and two coffees for their shift each day. Baristas here in the Philippines are college-graduates, often good-looking, and sometimes English-speaking. They are more presentable and pleasing to deal with unlike other waiters or crews in restaurants and fast-food chains. They cheerfully greet the customers and ask their orders while maintaining sincere-looking smiles on their face. They get personal with the customers by asking their nicknames and calling them to hand in their ordered drinks. They usually bid jolly farewells as the customers go to their tables. This must be the reason why Filipinos are drawn to Starbucks against its rivals – its near maniacal pursuit of providing customers a friendly and efficient buying experience. Once in a while, it is commonplace for Filipinos to give out weird names so that the baristas would amusingly call out “For Ever!” or “For Bearance!” Even this simple yet unique Filipino humor makes the Starbucks experience worthwhile.
Filipinos’ appreciation is something non-material; “we value the intangibility of the tangible”. This is how we enjoy Starbucks. We enjoy being there. We enjoy the company we are with while we are there. We enjoy the individuality of Starbucks and the individuality we get from it. We enjoy the sentiments and sensations of each moment spent there.
The Starbucks experience and our fascination for it may be rooted to our own culture and value system. For the most part, it is foreign but our culture had its way of transforming it into something only we could enjoy this way.