It wasn’t until the Anti-Rape Law took effect in 1997 that the Philippines finally acknowledged that there is such a thing as marital rape. I used to think that the government should have done that much, much earlier. Actually, I still do. That’s why I was more than a bit surprised to read that in Singapore, to this day, the husband actually enjoys legal immunity from marital rape.
The Singaporean government proposes a change in the criminal law which will partially destroy that immunity.
The proposal in Singapore now is to lift the husband’s immunity in three circumstances: Where the wife is living separately under a judgment of judicial separation or interim judgment of divorce not made final; where there is an injunction restraining the husband from sexual intercourse with his wife; and where a wife has a protection order against her husband.
This would mean the wife must take legal steps to terminate her husband’s marital immunity - she has to go to court to apply for judicial separation, a divorce, an injunction, or a protection order. Anything short of this will not do. [Channel News Asia]
That makes the proposal kind of a mere lip service. You know, like there is a law saying that marital rape is bad and, therefore, puunishable BUT for the victim to actually benefit from the law, she has to go through a lot of legal processes which, in effect, practically negates the usefulness of the law.
Ouch.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
eric 11.14.06 at 8:10 pm
I think the marital rape law in the State applies even to a couple living under the same roof. Not sure about the local version; that is, if there’s even one.
Connie 11.14.06 at 8:22 pm
The 1997 Anti-Rape Law is general. Includes everyone. However, “In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty…”
If the couple is not married, subsequent marriage extinguishes criminal liability and/or penalty.
Weird, no? Who would want to marry a man who raped her? It reinforces the “kahihiyan” mentality once more.
rhodora 11.15.06 at 12:46 am
Yes, the first time I encountered this in the RPC, that subsequent marriage extinguishes criminal liability of the rapist, I felt upset. It’s adding insult to injury, or like - salting an open wound. Even if the guy is your boyfriend or fiancé, if he violated you and betrayed your trust, I don’t see how you could let that pass.
d0d0ng 11.15.06 at 3:09 am
Most of the laws are written by men. It is unfortunate that victims (women) are not given the proper choices or options including minor by the law.
Rape or marital rape is a repetitive aggression and the law appears condoning such male aggression just because the woman fears more retributions from the man or has given up on coercion.
d0d0ng 11.17.06 at 12:50 am
In Pakistan, the rape victims can be prosecuted for adultery under Hudood Ordinance. The victim has to come up with 4 male witnesses.
Mas grabe eto……
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/new-rape-laws-to-halt-adultery-charges-for-victims/2006/11/16/1163266712695.html
Connie 11.17.06 at 12:12 pm
Thanks for the link, d0d0ng. Grabe nga. Na-rape na, kakasuhan pa ng adultery…. Argh! But at least, there’s a new law that changes it.
Trosp 11.19.06 at 4:38 pm
Just recently, if I’m not mistaken, there was a deliberation(?) in Pakistan’s Parliament regarding this law on rape. Progressive minded Muslims proposed that it should not necessary anymore to have 4 witnesses in order to have a probable cause to prosecute the accused (rapist). (This requirements of having 4 witnesses - up to what would they have witnessed in order for them to be credible…). What happened was those muslim fundamentalist parliamentarians just walked-out of the parliament instead of deliberating.
The above isssue, I could only think that it will be only in movies or tv series where you can encounter them.