Adultery, Concubinage
When you move to a new country you know there are going to be moments when you think things should be done a certain way. That their way of doing things is, well, different. That your way of doing things is right. Like, for instance, waiting your turn in line. Or being forewarned that you will be giving a speech. Or splitting the bill. or starting the semester on schedule.
Most of the time I've been able to understand the reasons behind the cultural differences. And most of the time, understanding is enough.
Like the time I was walking with another American through my adopted hometown, Tacloban. We came to a stoplight. She began to cross the red light. I had to remind her that we needed to wait--traffic cops here were known to give jaywalking tickets. She humphed.
"But you're from New York," I joked. "You know all about stoplights."
"Come on. They don't need a stoplight here," she exclaimed. "Just look at the condition of the sidewalk." She gestured at the crumbling concrete at our feet as if it were somehow evidence that the stoplight was superfluous. "It's just not right."
"Here," I reminded her, "these sidewalks are standard. For people here, this is what they're used to."
"But I know better," she said. End of conversation.
Other times you can't understand it. You try to convince yourself that what you think is right is simply cultural relativism, but it just doesn't work.
Like the time I found out that, in the Philippines, adultery is a crime for women but not men.
Specifically, according to Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, adultery is a "carnal relation" (psst: sex) betwen a married woman and a man who is not her husband.
There's this other thing for men (Article 334). It's called "concubinage." This is when a married man keeps a mistress within his household and/or has sex under "scandalous circumstances" with a woman not his wife. What is a scandalous circumstance, you ask? According to a frequently cited legal precedent, even if a man is proved to have fathered a child by another woman, that is not considered a "scandalous circumstance."
Oh. The penalty. Adultery is punishable by imprisonment. The maximum punishment for concubinage is destierro: the man is banned from within 25 km of the "residence of the accused for a specified length of time."
You try. You really do. You try to accept your objection as cultural relativism. To believe that your sense of "equality" is simply colored by the culture in which you were raised.
But then you keep reading. You read about a woman who separated from her husband because he'd fathered a child out of wedlock. But he still returns to her and "enters the conjugal dwelling". According to the Penal Code, she has no legal right to stop him.
It gets better (or worse). Article 247. You read that "any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro".
Meaning: a man catches his wife in flagrante delicto, kills her and the lover? He cannot be tried for murder. He can only be prohibited from within 25 kilometers of the residence of the accused for a specified length of time.
I respect cultural values. But in this case I draw the line. I think the Revised Penal Code should be re-revised. Either adultery is illegal for woman and man, or for neither. This is my personal view and does not reflect the views or opinions of the United States Peace Corps.
Realistically speaking, I realize this issue may be moot. Most countries' penal codes contain outdated laws. The Philippine Penal Code was instituted in 1932 (under the American imperial government, no less). Besides, my guess is that, in practice, few women are charged with adultery. Nevertheless, it reflects a cultural gender bias against women. And I feel that's wrong.
To my Filipino readers: if you agree, I urge you to publicize the inequity and lobby for change.
References:
The Philippine Penal Code: Breaching Human Rights
"That the accused is really the father of the child, alone, and by itself, is not sufficient to prove the offense charged." People vs. Benlot, et al., 16 CA Rep 539
"The married man must be "so imprudent and wanton as to offend modesty and that innate sense of moratlity and decency of the people in the neighbourhood" or must "appear together in public and perform acts in sight of the community which give rise to criticism and general protest among the neighbours." pp. 857-8, Luis B. Reyes' Revised Penal Code Annotated, 2001 ed.
"Ano it akon pwede himuon? Nagbulag na kami hit akon asawa kay mayda niya naanakan. Pero danay la gihap hiya nauli ha balay. Ini in nakakalipong ha akon. Pwede ko ba hiya dire pasudlon ha balay? Ngan pwede ko ba hiya ireklamo hin adultery tungod na mayda nira anak han iya babaye?" Published in Gahum Weekly, Oct 17-23 2011 (Vol. 2, No. 23)
Get Mark's words & pictures by email