Lady solon seeks more equality in penalizing adultery, concubinage
By AJ Siytangco
Published Oct 25, 2019 05:21 pm
By Ben Rosario
A senior member of the House Committee on Justice wants cheating husbands to be penalized for committing adultery or concubinage, which are crimes of marital infidelity that are currently separately punished under the Revised Penal Code.
(PIXABAY / MANILA BULLETIN)
Quezon Rep. Aleta Suarez, a senior member of the House Committee on Justice, also sought to prohibit the victim of marital infidelity from filing charges against his or her cheating spouse if the complainant has also been found guilty of committing adultery.
These two proposals were contained in House Bill 3989 which Suarez filed. HB 3989 has been referred to the House Committee on Revision of Law and on Family Relations.
Suarez said HB 3989 will address a serious flaw in Articles 333 and 334 of the RPC or Republic Act No. 3815 that imposes stiffer penalty on a wife found guilty of committing adultery by having sexual intercourse with a man other than her legal husband.
Article 333 provides that adultery can only be committed by a married woman who cheats on her husband. The wife and her paramour face a maximum of six years in prison if found guilty.
On the other hand, Article 334 of the same law defines concubinage as a crime of marital infidelity committed only by a husband. It punishes convicted persons with a maximum of four years of imprisonment while the concubine will face a penalty of destierro or will be prohibited from entering a designated area within a certain period of time.
“Given its continuing nature and the particular conditions required, concubinage is more difficult to probe,” noted Suarez.
She said the distinction between the two offenses clearly discriminates against women.
“This is even being used by husbands to blackmail the wives for filing complaints especially when both parties have ground for action under Article 333 and 334,” said Suarez.
‘According to her the bill seeks to uphold the constitutional mandate of the state and the policies enumerated in Republic Act No. 9710, or the Magna Carta of Women ensuring equality of women and men and “abolition of unequal structures and practic es that perpetuate discrimination and inequality.”
Under the bill, adultery is defined as a crime committed by any married person who shall have sexual intercourse with a person other than his or her spouse.
Also guilty of adultery is a person who has “carnal knowledge” of the married man or woman and is fully aware of the civil status, his or her civil status, even if the marriage is subsequently voided.
ON the other hand, concubinage is defined as a crime committed by a husband who keeps a mistress in the conjugal dwelling or shall “cohabit with her in any other place.”
The concubine will also be penalized with a minimum imprisonment of six years to eight years.
Suarez’s proposal stresses that the offended party cannot initiate criminal charges if he or she is likewise guilty of adultery.
A married person who has abandoned his or her spouse without just cause for a period of not less than one year is also barred from instituting criminal action against a cheating partner.
(PIXABAY / MANILA BULLETIN)
Quezon Rep. Aleta Suarez, a senior member of the House Committee on Justice, also sought to prohibit the victim of marital infidelity from filing charges against his or her cheating spouse if the complainant has also been found guilty of committing adultery.
These two proposals were contained in House Bill 3989 which Suarez filed. HB 3989 has been referred to the House Committee on Revision of Law and on Family Relations.
Suarez said HB 3989 will address a serious flaw in Articles 333 and 334 of the RPC or Republic Act No. 3815 that imposes stiffer penalty on a wife found guilty of committing adultery by having sexual intercourse with a man other than her legal husband.
Article 333 provides that adultery can only be committed by a married woman who cheats on her husband. The wife and her paramour face a maximum of six years in prison if found guilty.
On the other hand, Article 334 of the same law defines concubinage as a crime of marital infidelity committed only by a husband. It punishes convicted persons with a maximum of four years of imprisonment while the concubine will face a penalty of destierro or will be prohibited from entering a designated area within a certain period of time.
“Given its continuing nature and the particular conditions required, concubinage is more difficult to probe,” noted Suarez.
She said the distinction between the two offenses clearly discriminates against women.
“This is even being used by husbands to blackmail the wives for filing complaints especially when both parties have ground for action under Article 333 and 334,” said Suarez.
‘According to her the bill seeks to uphold the constitutional mandate of the state and the policies enumerated in Republic Act No. 9710, or the Magna Carta of Women ensuring equality of women and men and “abolition of unequal structures and practic es that perpetuate discrimination and inequality.”
Under the bill, adultery is defined as a crime committed by any married person who shall have sexual intercourse with a person other than his or her spouse.
Also guilty of adultery is a person who has “carnal knowledge” of the married man or woman and is fully aware of the civil status, his or her civil status, even if the marriage is subsequently voided.
ON the other hand, concubinage is defined as a crime committed by a husband who keeps a mistress in the conjugal dwelling or shall “cohabit with her in any other place.”
The concubine will also be penalized with a minimum imprisonment of six years to eight years.
Suarez’s proposal stresses that the offended party cannot initiate criminal charges if he or she is likewise guilty of adultery.
A married person who has abandoned his or her spouse without just cause for a period of not less than one year is also barred from instituting criminal action against a cheating partner.