Jump to content

Underage/minors


Recommended Posts

BTW when they got the video and sworn testimony evidence that they couldn't possibly have committed the crime from NBI, that was the time they was released, they didn't have that early or from the start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 384
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • HTM

    91

  • SkyMan

    32

  • Cipro

    31

  • USMC-Retired

    31

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Why all this interest in Underage/Minors ? As I see it, the law may not be well written (very few are) but it is quite clear So it puzzles me why so many mature aged guys are getting all worked up o

I think it's important to keep a sense of perspective here.   Contrary to what a lot of posters seem to believe, the Filipinos are not out to get us.   Perhaps over consumption of cheap alcohol ca

We have three kids of our own, 3.5,8.10..all boys,also raise the wife's two younger siblings girl 13..boy 19.....the house is always full of their friends...almost never a time during the day, especia

Posted Images

ozboy, on 28 Nov 2016 - 11:17 AM, said: Very often i had to ''Baby Sit'' my wife's grandkids including those of her friends, while they went downtown to shop or whatever..... Living on the edge..

 

 

Probably..guess i was ''lucky then''.......did it for 6 years and only time i ever got questioned briefly was at SM while I had lunch with my grand kids while the missus shopped.....Just a fat security type gestapo looking woman who asked the kid's a few questions n that was it.....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, if you, me and smokey are with children without their parents or family members over 18 then WE can be in serious trouble and WE may also have done a criminal act according to Philippine law. But i use ALONE as an example, and "alone" can meaning "alone" with them in a mall or Joly Bee.

 

Where does it say it's OK if the parents are also there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it say it's OK if the parents are also there?

 

 

The laws do not state what is legal

it states what is illegal

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The laws do not state what is legal

it states what is illegal

 

Right, it says an adult can't be in the company of a minor, period; Where is the exception for the parents being present HTM alluded to?

Edited by Cipro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, it says an adult can't be in the company of a minor, period; Where is the exception for the parents being present HTM alluded to?

For then the minor is company by the parents, not you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For then the minor is company by the parents, not you.

 

Um, no, everyone else is actually still there buddy. You have to count higher than 2 is all. 

 

 

EDIT: 

 

Here's a little help for any ESL types:

 

Definition of in the company of
  1. :  together with :  around

Edited by Cipro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, it says an adult can't be in the company of a minor, period; Where is the exception for the parents being present HTM alluded to?

 

No

 

(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.

 

 

 

If the minor is with their parents, then they are in company of there parents  no matter who else is there

 

Do you think you can/will be charged if you are sitting at next table to that family at McDo ??

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

Right, it says an adult can't be in the company of a minor, period; Where is the exception for the parents being present HTM alluded to?

 

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

 

Section 6. Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution. – There is an attempt to commit child prostitution under Section 5, paragraph (a) hereof when any person who, not being a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

 

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1992/ra_7610_1992.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Here's a little help for any ESL types

No this is not how to define the use and meaning of a law.
Come with a specific case from the courts or prosecutors here in Philippines

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how we define the law, a person is stupid if he has in his company a boy or girl under 18 years old. Especially if they are alone and if he allows the minor to stay there overnight, he is really stupid.
(As long as the exceptions listed in the law are not met.)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If the minor is with their parents, then they are in company of there parents  no matter who else is there

 

So when I was on the jeepney and a bunch of 15 year old schoolgirls boarded it was just too late for me, I was a criminal. Do you see where this is a completely f*cking stupid thing for a law to say yet?

 

 

You see this is one of the many problems with this act; they only half-assed it when they defined their terms. Don't say they don't need to, because if you look up at the top they define some terms, and then they get bored and have a wank before f*cking of to a coffee shop while the janitor writes the rest of the act. 

 

Examples:

  • Alone. I know what this word means, but I'm pretty sure people have been picked up for being with multiple minors. I'm also pretty sure adult couples have been arrested for being with one or more minors. Words mean things motherf*ckers. Write what you mean or hire someone literate.
  • In the company of. Again, I know what this means and so does Merriam-Webster. It means to be around someone. Nearby. The "with parents" thing is a red herring. If you go to the mall and some teenagers sit beside you without their parents ... well connect the dots.

 

Just because the act is enforced with some discretion doesn't make it a good act, in fact it makes it a worse act. The penultimate example of this would be where the act empowered law enforcement to just act with discretion and use their own judgement. Which is pretty f*cking close to what it actually does. 

 

A legal document like this has to either define the terms, or delegate some rulemaking to an appropriate enforcement body. For an example of how it works in a place not run by corrupt assholes looking to score a human rights handout one can look at any decently written US law; for instance the NFA, or the California assault weapons laws. I don't like those laws and I don't agree with them, but they clearly define what, for example, a pistol grip is even though colloquially people sort of know it when the see it. That's not sufficient. It has to be defined.

 

Additionally every civilized country has a couple legal doctrines in common. First, they always have law and/or case law that says a citizen must have a reasonable and precise way of determining whether any specific conduct is legal or not. Second, they have a similar edict that says any ambiguity in the law must be resolved in a way that is most favorable to the defendant. The second one, the less dense reader will notice, sort of requires or at least strongly encourages the first one.

 

Any place that doesn't have this standard is run by savages. 

 

Pretty sure that's not done w/ this act. 

 

 

 

No it doesn't.

 

" Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place .... shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine ...."


No matter how we define the law, a person is stupid if he has in his company a boy or girl under 18 years old. Especially if they are alone and if he allows the minor to stay there overnight, he is really stupid.
(As long as the exceptions listed in the law are not met.)

 

Tell that to the guy who got picked up for giving his GF little sister a ride on his motorcycle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tullioz

So when I was on the jeepney and a bunch of 15 year old schoolgirls boarded it was just too late for me, I was a criminal. Do you see where this is a completely f*cking stupid thing for a law to say yet?

 

 

You see this is one of the many problems with this act; they only half-assed it when they defined their terms. Don't say they don't need to, because if you look up at the top they define some terms, and then they get bored and have a wank before f*cking of to a coffee shop while the janitor writes the rest of the act. 

 

Examples:

  • Alone. I know what this word means, but I'm pretty sure people have been picked up for being with multiple minors. I'm also pretty sure adult couples have been arrested for being with one or more minors. Words mean things motherf*ckers. Write what you mean or hire someone literate.
  • In the company of. Again, I know what this means and so does Merriam-Webster. It means to be around someone. Nearby. The "with parents" thing is a red herring. If you go to the mall and some teenagers sit beside you without their parents ... well connect the dots.

 

Just because the act is enforced with some discretion doesn't make it a good act, in fact it makes it a worse act. The penultimate example of this would be where the act empowered law enforcement to just act with discretion and use their own judgement. Which is pretty f*cking close to what it actually does. 

 

A legal document like this has to either define the terms, or delegate some rulemaking to an appropriate enforcement body. For an example of how it works in a place not run by corrupt assholes looking to score a human rights handout one can look at any decently written US law; for instance the NFA, or the California assault weapons laws. I don't like those laws and I don't agree with them, but they clearly define what, for example, a pistol grip is even though colloquially people sort of know it when the see it. That's not sufficient. It has to be defined.

 

Additionally every civilized country has a couple legal doctrines in common. First, they always have law and/or case law that says a citizen must have a reasonable and precise way of determining whether any specific conduct is legal or not. Second, they have a similar edict that says any ambiguity in the law must be resolved in a way that is most favorable to the defendant. The second one, the less dense reader will notice, sort of requires or at least strongly encourages the first one.

 

Any place that doesn't have this standard is run by savages. 

 

Pretty sure that's not done w/ this act. 

 

Have you ever heard of someone getting arrested for riding in a jeepney with a bunch of 15 year old schoolgirls? Neither have I. 

 

Read this post I made earlier in this thread. Maybe it will help.  http://www.livingincebuforums.com/topic/98812-underageminors/?p=1305282

 

It's a good law and it allows authorities to remove minors from dangerous situations without having to wait for something bad to happen. This law hasn't been abused to date, so unless you are planning on abusing a minor or are already doing so, there is no need to start worrying about it now. 

Edited by Tullioz
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good law and it allows authorities to remove minors from dangerous situations without having to wait for something bad to happen. 

 

That's actually what makes it a bad law. It outlaws behavior that in and of itself is harmless on the chance or suspicion that a person who has not yet done any wrongdoing (notice I didn't say unlawful) is about to do so. If it limited itself to intimate and private scenarios it would make a little more sense, but it does not, as can be seen by the motorcycle example I gave. Man gives the little sister of his GF a ride on motorcycle, finds himself charged with violation of this act. Whether he was convicted or not is irrelevant. 

 

Child abuse evokes a visceral reaction that makes some people become irrational, I get it. 

 

 

Imagine the law was instead that you couldn't buy two bottles of whiskey at a time because you might get drunk in public later. Asinine, assumes bad intent, and all sorts of other bullsh*t. Or maybe make it illegal for people who own cars to also have drinks with dinner. Because you can't be too safe. Right?

 

 

More to the point, imagine the law said "the police can arrest and charge anyone who looks like they're up to no good". If the police then used good judgement and discretion this wouldn't make it a good law, it would still be a sh*t law. 

Edited by Cipro
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

 

 

So when I was on the jeepney and a bunch of 15 year old schoolgirls boarded it was just too late for me, I was a criminal.

 

Silly try for a different scenario.

 

 

 

which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..