RA 7610: How the Courts Have Interpreted the Law

[Cipro 6,202]

That is not the point. Many here believe that this law was written to target foreigners. 

 

No, it's written to convince foreign funding sources that the PH PTB are 'serious about (mostly sex related) trafficking in minors' and thus to loosen the associated purse strings. 

[smokey 21,914]

That is not the point. Many here believe that this law was written to target foreigners. If only a dozen or so are getting arrested each year that is proof enough that it is not. There are actually close to 200,000 foreigners living full time in the Philippines and more than 4 million visit each year. 

 

Let's say the number of foreigners arrested each year under RA 7610 is 25 (Probably too high). That would make 0.00001% of foreigners arrested under this law in a given year.

 

Now based on the figures posted earlier there are about 10,000 cases on average per year that involve violence against children (Which would include crimes committed under RA 7610). Let's again assume that 25 of those crimes in a year were committed by foreigners. That leaves 9,975 committed by Filipinos. There are around 70,000,000 Filipinos over the age of 18. So the percentage of Filipinos being arrested under for violence against children would be around 0.00014% 

 

While the above calculations are no where near exact and only my personal assumptions, it still shows that Filipinos are more likely than foreigners to be arrested for violence against a child based on the number of news reports we see and the number of actual crimes committed. Some stories may go unreported, but most probably are since news of foreigners breaking the law sells more papers.

 

My math has been proven to be not so good in the past, so somebody may want to double check my figures if they seem off.  

the way it works is after your arrested you pay BEFORE it hits the news... did you ever wonder why arrested people cover their faces ...

[David2 5]

I am told by some Filipino businesspeople I know that, empirically, much depends on whether it is deemed to be prostitution.  If there is money involved, and the girl is under 18, you will be in a world of hurt, period.  But if there is no money involved, and the family blesses it and it's all on the up-and-up, if the girl is say 17 years and 8 months old you're far less likely to end up in That Bad Place.  As should be the case with many things involving justice, the context plays a pretty important part here.  

 

That being said, the prosecutor and judge have every right to lock you up and throw away the key if they can simply show that you were alone ONCE with a girl under 18 -- you could be both have been wearing any amount of clothes and this would still apply -- so by all means keep your wits about you at all times.

[smokey 21,914]

how the law is understood  would depend on the judge hearing the evidence ,,,   much more in the philippines then the west due to lack of jury trial  

[Cipro 6,202]

That being said, the prosecutor and judge have every right to lock you up and throw away the key if they can simply show that you were alone ONCE with a girl under 18 -- you could be both have been wearing any amount of clothes and this would still apply -- so by all means keep your wits about you at all times.

 

Show me where the law says alone. 

 

Remember, many foreigners have been locked up for "looking suspicious in a public place" under this law. 

[That Masked Man 368]

Show me where the law says alone. 

 

Remember, many foreigners have been locked up for "looking suspicious in a public place" under this law. 

 

The problem (well the main one) is that "keep or have in his company" is never defined. "Keep" would seem to imply intent, but "have" doesn't necessarily. And how close does someone have to be to be in one's "company"? If you want to stretch it you could say we are all in each others' "company" in a "public or private place", namely the planet Earth.