Jump to content

Underage/minors


Recommended Posts

  • 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

This is certainly quite correct, but it is cases like with Douglas Slade who really creates storm in the media. He was the founder of the vilified Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1970s and was repeatedly arrested for taking nude photos and abusing kids.

 

And story like this make some foreigners think that Philippines is "haven for touring pedophiles"

 

Philippines is now the no. 1 source in the world for child p*ornography.  Production of child p*ornography starts with acts of pedophilia.  Some people must still have that opinion, unfortunately.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
rainymike

 

 

I have to disagree, and i think that this comes up so often is that it is not clear enough.  Any law which has such draconian consequences for any offender must be made abundantly clear and not open to conjecture . It is not at all hard to word something so that there is no possible misinterpretation.  And in laws such as this I think that is absolutely necessary

 

I find the intent of the law to be pretty clear. As with most laws, there are gray areas in terms of how they are interpreted. I don't need gray at this point in my life so avoid the gray areas. Because I have a reasonably clear idea of the intent of the law, I'm not so paranoid about having children around me or being alone with them. I'm often with kids at beach resorts and the like. Parents allow me to watch over their kids at times. I don't hesitate to do so. But I'm never in a situation where I'm groping, fondling, kissing, or doing anything along those lines with the kids. I don't take the kids into a room alone with me. I'm never in a situation where I would be found naked in bed with a child. 

 

Our neighbor sometimes asks us to drop off their kid at school. I don't hesitate to do so. But I would never be caught traveling from city to city with someone else's child and staying alone in hotel rooms with them. 

 

I take naked baby pics of my kids. I don't take naked pics of other people's children. I don't sell naked pics of kids. I don't keep a library of naked pics of kids on my computer (except my own kids). I don't put them up on pedophile sites. I don't visit child p*orn sites. I don't visit dating or chat sites where kids are online.

 

If I can't tell that a girl is over 18, I wouldn't touch her with a 10-foot pole. Wouldn't chat with her online. Wouldn't meet her at a mall. If a young girl smiles at me, I smile back, but keep on walking. I've had young girls try to start up conversations with me, I just smile and keep on walking.

 

Gray areas can arise that we can argue about until kingdom come. But if it's that gray I just avoid it. I'm guessing for day to day situations in my life, the decisions described above fall within the law. We can argue about the language of the law, but I have a reasonably clear idea in my head what the law is saying and can avoid the gray areas without too much effort.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Scotsbloke

Users of child p*orn are scum and deserve all that the law throws at them.

 

Providers of child p*orn, too, are scum and are often parents/guardians who make the usual 'poverty' excuse.  I don't believe them.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
sugbu777

 

 

And story like this make some foreigners think that Philippines is "haven for touring pedophiles"

 

Unfortunately, most of SE Asia, is a haven for "touring pedophiles", as well as other economically challenged countries worldwide.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyMan

The intent of the law is noble, however, the letter of the law is disaster and as Ian said, it needs to be written carefully to protect the innocent and not just cover everyone.  I would be more comfortable if the law simply stated "We can arrest you if we think you're up to no good with a minor."  At least in that case there has to be some sort of indication of inappropriate behavior.  The law as written could be used to ruin anyone's life and therefore could be used to extort anyone.  I do not give a flying feck if it there has been no case of this reported, that does not mean it hasn't happened.  Even if it hasn't happened, it could, and I have no desire to be the first case nor do you.  So I cannot in good conscience advise anyone to do anything with minors other than stay the hell away from them.  Telling people it's all fine and wonderful and unicorns and puppies is irresponsible.  All we can do is point to the law (read it yourself) and warn people.  After that, what they do is what they do.  If you're fine with your interpretation of what the intent of the law is then great.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The intent of the law is noble, however, the letter of the law is disaster ......

 

Very well put Skyman - concise, to the point and absolutely correct. Thank you.

 

Anyone who chooses to ignore the actual wording of the law, does so at their peril.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tullioz

The intent of the law is noble, however, the letter of the law is disaster and as Ian said, it needs to be written carefully to protect the innocent and not just cover everyone.  I would be more comfortable if the law simply stated "We can arrest you if we think you're up to no good with a minor."  At least in that case there has to be some sort of indication of inappropriate behavior.

 

It does say this, just not in those exact terms. You can not take a single clause out of context when it comes to written law. In law there is a rule called statutory construction which means that all text contained in it must be consistent with the wording of the law in it's entirety. Each article and clause has to be consistent with the law it is applied to. 

 

Below is an excerpt from a Supreme Court ruling that shows this:

 

It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. Because the law must not be read in truncated parts, its provisions must be read in relation to the whole law. The statute's clauses and phrases must not, consequently, be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts in order to produce a harmonious whole. Consistent with the fundamentals of statutory construction, all the words in the statute must be taken into consideration in order to ascertain its meaning.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/183517.htm

 

This means that when Article VI Sec. 10b states that "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"; it must also be taken in context with the entire law (Statutory Interpretation). So in addition to having a minor in one's company,  according to the law there must also be the impression that the person the minor is with is intending to harm them under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the minor is about to be abused.

 

In short under RA 7610, "a person can be arrested if it appears they're up to no good with a minor."

 

 

Below are the locations in the law where this is covered. I taken out the relevant portions of the law and have highlighted "Other acts of abuse/sexual abuse" to show how it flows throughout the law and how everything is tied together:

 

Republic Act No. 7610             June 17, 1992

 

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

 

 

 

ARTICLE II

 

Program on Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination

 

to protect children against child prostitution and other sexual abuse; child trafficking, obscene publications and indecent shows; other acts of abuse; and circumstances which endanger child survival and normal development.

 

ARTICLE III

 

Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse

 

Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

 

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.

 

ARTICLE VI

 

Other Acts of Abuse

 

Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. –

 

(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.

 

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

 

So as can be seen, this is not only a good law, it is a well written law.

 

The law as written could be used to ruin anyone's life and therefore could be used to extort anyone.

 

This could be said about many laws that are on the books. This law has been around since 1992 and there is no evidence to suggest that it has been used more than any other law to extort anyone. Unless a person is abusing minors, then there's no need to live in a state of paranoia because of this law. 

Edited by Tullioz
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many interesting answers and evaluations of the law and its meaning, my experience is that the law really is quite simple and straightforward, I have not seen abuse of the law from PNP or NBI
And the laws  intention and use is not to have one way to blackmail innocent foreigners or create problems for other innocent people.
Therefore also, for example, RA 7610 has many exceptions that protect innocent families:
"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."

Situations in which you probably don't violate this law and you are safe:
You are a teacher, minister, politician or equivalent, and this is part of your job.
You are married with children and live a normal life here. And like other families here have you visit your child's friends and family members.
Also if you and your wife decide to adopt one of the family members to help. (Adoption may be voluntary placement with written agreement)
This all may be covered by the exemption "local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty."

But you are guaranteed violate the law and may have problems is when you:

As a single man have persons under 18 in your house / apartment(girls or boys) without their adult family members also there
the entire time the kids are there.

Traveling with children alone, also including shopping mall, hotel,  resort
and such.

 

For this is not a part of Filipino culture and that will NOT be covered by "local custom and tradition"

A little stereotypical but...
Single Filipino men don't take responsibility for children alone, not even for their own children, he usually include his mother sister, etc.

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyMan

 

 

"We can arrest you if we think you're up to no good with a minor."

 

It does say this, just not in those exact terms.
No, it doesn't say that.  It says...

 

 

"We can arrest you if we think you're up to no good with a minor."
That's it.  We can arrest you if you're with a minor you aren't related to or have reasonable reason to be with such as a yaya.  Your idea that the entire statute has to apply is utter hogwash.  Look at sections 5 and 6.  Section 5 covers Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.  While Section 6 covers attempts to violate section 5.  Section 5 is detailed as....

 

Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
That seems to be pretty detailed and covers all the bases.  Do you think you could violate section 5 without violating section 10?  Could you prostitute a child or perform some other abuse without being in the presence of the child?  I can't think of such a situation.  So why is Section 10 necessary?  What does it add?  The law is junk.

 

 

 

Situations in which you probably don't violate this law and you are safe:
Probably?  If that makes you feel safe I guess.

 

 

 

But you are guaranteed violate the law and may have problems is when you: As a single man have persons under 18 in your house / apartment(girls or boys) without their adult family members also there the entire time the kids are there.
What does being single or married have to do with anything?  I see nothing about that in the law.  
Link to post
Share on other sites
What does being single or married have to do with anything? I see nothing about that in the law.

No it is not specified in the law, it is also unnecessary for if you are not married to the woman you do not in family(family by marriage) with her or her family/kids. (That this provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity)

And pleas read my "stereotypical" comment.

Edited by HTM
fixing
Link to post
Share on other sites
Davaoeno

 

 

for if you not married to the woman you do not in family with her or her family.

 

Harry - maybe you could reword this because im not sure what you are saying 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tullioz

Your idea that the entire statute has to apply is utter hogwash. ..

It's not my idea, it is a rule in the the way laws are written (Statutory Construction), I thought when I shared the explanation given in the Supreme Court ruling I linked to that this would clear things up. Here it is again with different parts highlighted.

 

It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. Because the law must not be read in truncated parts, its provisions must be read in relation to the whole law. The statute's clauses and phrases must not, consequently, be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts in order to produce a harmonious whole. Consistent with the fundamentals of statutory construction, all the words in the statute must be taken into consideration in order to ascertain its meaning.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/183517.htm

 

So as the above explains, in order to understand exactly what Article VI, Section 10b means, you have to read the law in its entirety. 

 

You are correct that each part of the statute does not have to apply, but in order to be arrested under Article VI, Section 10b, there has to be reasonable suspicion that you are about to violate one of the acts that the law covers. ie. rape, trafficking, abuse, etc. The police are not just going to pick up a person because they are alone with a minor in public, but there are certain activities that you may be doing with that minor that may cause a reasonable person to believe you are going to harm them. (ie. touching them inappropriately, checking into a hotel, taking them to a bar, etc.)  In that case you may be arrested.  But even in some of those cases you are more likely to initially be questioned and if everything checks out you will be free to go.

 

However, if you have been reported by someone, if you have already been under investigation for a while, if there is reason to believe either you or the minor are not telling the truth, or if the behavior of the minor raises a red flag, then you will likely be charged on the spot until a further investigation can determine exactly what is going on. If there is enough evidence found at that time, then you would be charged with a more serious offence that is covered in the law such as trafficking or rape. 

 

 So why is Section 10 necessary?  What does it add?

 

It adds protection to the minor because it allows authorities to act without having to build a case first. Also, a minor can be immediately removed from a potentially dangerous situation without having to suffer the consequences of abuse. Before this law authorities would have to wait until after a minor has been abused to act.

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

 

 

Many interesting answers and evaluations of the law and its meaning, my experience is that the law really is quite simple and straightforward, I have not seen abuse of the law from PNP or NBI

 

Think that says it all.

 

HTM seems to have had much more experience of how the law works in practice than most.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

Harry - maybe you could reword this because im not sure what you are saying 

 

 

Change do to are.

  • Like 2
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..