Sexual harassment in the workplace
Wrong statement at the wrong time in the wrong place.
That best describes the lewd remarks that Rep. Bong Suntay made recently about actress and television host Anne Curtis during the impeachment proceedings of Vice President Sara Duterte at the House of Representatives.
He did that, of all times, on National Women’s Month and before an assembly that has strong-willed and militant women lawmakers who do not tolerate sexist remarks (or accept BS) from their male counterparts.
It’s unfortunate that Suntay, who has been in the public service for a long time, committed that boo-boo despite the fact that two laws—the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 and the Safe Spaces Act (or Bawal Bastos Law)—that relate to his action have been in force for decades.
Note that sexual harassment is committed when a person who has authority, influence or moral authority over another in a work, training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether it is accepted or not.
In the work environment, that demand, request or requirement is made as a condition for employment or in granting favorable compensation and other employment benefits, or the refusal to accede to any of those actions would adversely affect the economic or professional opportunities of the person.
The prohibition on sexual harassment is gender-free, meaning its object, or the person who does the harassment, could be male or female, or has a sexual orientation different from his or her original biological character.
The harassment may be committed at the premises of the workplace or in any place where the parties may be found together anytime, anywhere, on account of their work, education or training relationship.
The prevalent belief in the workplace is that the act has to be physical, such as malicious touching, overt sexual advances or gestures with lewd insinuations, before it can be considered as a form of harassment.
Not so. The law’s implementing rules and regulations state that the harassment may be (a) verbal, such as requests or demands for sexual favors and lurid remarks; (b) through the use of objects, pictures or graphics, letters or writing notes with sexual underpinnings; and (c) other analogous forms.
With regard to pictures, the same should have sexual underpinnings to be described as objectionable. The lack of a precise definition of what constitutes “sexual underpinnings” could be problematic.
To paraphrase a popular saying, obscenity or sexual suggestion is in the eye of the beholder, or how he or she is affected by it.
A photo of a woman in a string bikini in a provocative pose hanging in a male employee’s cubicle may be considered as sexually suggestive. But would the same characterization apply if the photo includes the man who occupies the cubicle, who is also in a bathing suit?
The last item mentioned above is a catch-all provision that can be invoked if the two actions earlier mentioned may not be clearly present, as long as the act in question indirectly suggests the solicitation of sexual favor.
With the growth of awareness on gender sensitivity, it has become common practice in companies with collective bargaining agreements with their employees to make provisions for the creation of a committee that would investigate complaints of sexual harassment.
In some companies with a high percentage of male employees, that committee is sometimes viewed with skepticism or apprehension, either because of a misplaced “machismo” attitude, or fear of not being able to do the things they used to do with their female colleagues before sexual harassment became a buzzword in the workplace.
Going back to Suntay’s case, the complaints filed by women’s organizations in the ethics committee of the House and the Office of the Ombudsman should serve as a warning to macho-oriented Filipino males that our womenfolk will not take sitting down gender-related slurs against them.
For comments, please send your email to raul.palabrica@inquirer.net
