Marital infidelity, abortion, PCP2
A reader observed that last Monday, I said the road to liberalism of our Supreme Court and the Catholic Church is rocky, yet I gave two samples of decisions that can hardly be deemed controversial; one was unanimous (15-0) and the other, nearly unanimous (13-2). What a keen observation! Let me now exemplify a rocky one, XXX vs People (April 16, 2024, per J. Ramon Paul L. Hernando, en banc, 9-5-1), which ruled that marital infidelity that causes mental or emotional anguish to the wife is punishable with imprisonment and fine.
THE CASE INVOLVES THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION of Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. 9262 that criminalizes any act
“[c]ausing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman’s child/children.”
The Court solemnly decreed, “An illicit sexual encounter committed by a male person, however casual or infrequent, constitutes marital infidelity that is tantamount to psychological violence punishable by …” RA 9262.
The minority contended that the criminal intent of the husband to commit mental or emotional anguish via his infidelity had not been proven. However, the majority ruled there is no need for such proof because “the specific intent to cause mental and emotional anguish upon the victim may be conclusively presumed from the fact of infidelity itself.”
Incumbent lady Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Maria Filomena D. Singh did not only vote with the majority of nine; they wrote compelling concurring opinions. But the minority of five is looking for another case with similar facts for a new opportunity to prevail when the composition of the Court changes.
Meanwhile, my simple advice to husbands is: Infidelity, though casual or occasional, and whether with a willing mistress or a one-night stand, is dangerous to life and liberty. How about women betraying their husbands? Sorry, RA 9262 punishes only philandering husbands; it is sub-silentio on philandering wives!
THE ALLEGED RIGHT TO ABORTION has become a hot issue in the ongoing presidential campaign in the United States; in fact, it has transformed into an acrimonious battle between liberals and conservatives. In contrast, in the Philippines, such battle is passé. Abortion is barred by our Constitution and penalized by our laws as a crime. The only question is: When does life begin? Specifically, at what stage in pregnancy is abortion deemed committed?
Answer: Our Supreme Court—in the landmark 106-page Imbong vs Ochoa (April 9, 2014, per J Jose Catral Mendoza, en banc, 11-1-3)—definitively ruled that life begins at fertilization, that is upon the union of the human sperm and egg. Said the Court: “In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or understood under medical parlance, and more importantly, following the intention of the framers of the Constitution, the undeniable conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism, and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well-defined moment of conception, that is, upon fertilization. For the above reasons, the Court cannot subscribe to the theory advocated by Hon. [Edcel] Lagman that life begins at implantation” (p.47).
True, indeed, the constitutional framers, especially Bernardo M. Villegas and (later chief justice) Hilario G. Davide Jr., stressed during the constitutional deliberations that life must be protected “from the moment of conception,” when “the ovum is fertilized by the sperm.”
Accordingly, the tribunal held that “every human being enjoys the right to life. Even if not formally established, the right to life, being grounded on natural law, is inherent and, therefore, not a creation of, or dependent upon a particular law, custom, or belief.”
Another major consequence of these dicta is that health professionals cannot be forced to use any device, method, or drug that prevents the fertilized ovum from reaching the maternal womb. Neither can they force their patients to use them. Some theologians say that only the “rhythm method” should be prescribed in family planning.
THE VATICAN II AND PCP2 DOCUMENTS are quite voluminous and complicated. I do not have the expertise in canon law or the space to dwell on them. But what is probably relevant to the questions raised in my last column is found on page 242 of the “Acts and Decrees of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines,” which I quote:
“Article 28. #1. Lay men and women in responsible position in our society must help form the civic conscience of the voting population and work to explicitly promote election to public office of leaders of true integrity.
“#2. Bishops, priests and religious must refrain from partisan politics, avoiding especially the use of the pulpit for partisan purposes, so as to avoid division among the flock. In this regard special attention is to be given to Canons 287 #2 and 672.”
Those with further questions may consult a canon lawyer or purchase the book for P308 (paperback edition) from St. Paul’s Superstore in San Antonio Village, Makati.
—————-
chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com
