In this country, there is often a disconnect between the spirit of the law and the society which it is supposed to regulate. I sometimes think the law is nothing more than a literature of a state to which we aspire, or worse, of mere wishful thinking. I also understand that legislation can serve as a guidepost of sorts. Indeed, there is nothing wrong in codifying what we deem to be normative, that is, how things should be instead of a description of how things are.
In this light, recent legislation on women are nothing short of revolutionary. However, I do wonder whether those who have advocated for the legislation of the Magna Carta of Women had it in their minds that once the bill passes through the legislative process unscathed, its spirit will somehow magically trickle down from the vaunted halls of Congress down to reality.
The Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act, Anti-VAWC as it is affectionately called, was legislated in 2004. And why shouldn’t it be? What animates this law is the principle that no woman nor child in a domestic situation should be physically or emotionally harmed. News of the Deputy National Security Adviser beating up his partner Che Tiongson is a high-profile case that will test the Anti-VAWC’s spirit.
Probably used to getting his way all his life, because in his universe power makes right, Chavit Singson has had the audacity to call himself the victim. He justifies his act of violence by claiming he is the one wronged, the cuckold. He says Tiongson and her boyfriend should be grateful he did not actually kill them.
Now, I do not know whether some or most Filipinos (men and women) will empathize with Singson. I am not surprised, but nonetheless still outraged, by the reaction of Mon Tulfo. He calls those who have come to Tiongson’s aid as “women’s groups and bleeding hearts.” This betrays a kind of thinking that belongs to the Stone Age rather than the 21st century. In Tulfo’s mind, Tiongson getting beat up is indeed something to be pitied – and nothing more. It does not occur to him that there is something fundamentally wrong with doing anyone harm regardless of gender or situation. I am surprised he has not said that what happens between husband and wife is nobody’s business. This comes from the notion that a man may do with his wife as he wishes because all she is is an extension of himself, devoid of any rights independent of her husband. So, yeah, maybe Tulfo isn’t that much of a troglodyte. But then he throws in a caveat:
“I’m not saying he was right, but we should understand him in the context of our macho society.”
So, Tulfo thinks Singson did wrong, but we should understand him anyway? Is it not the same kind of justification that tolerates public malfeasance at the highest levels of government in the context of our corrupt society?
Popularity: 2% [?]
galing, sparks. stone age thinking talaga, chavit’s and tulfo’s, and who knows how many more pinoy machos’ out there think feel behave the same way.
Normally, when i hear the term ‘bleeding hearts’, it means that those being referred to by this term are somehow interfering with the way things are supposed to be, even though it is none of their business since they are not affected, or more importantly, they are the beneficiaries of this natural order.
For Tulfo, those men who are outraged at what Chavit did are the ones who are violating the macho-code which says that infidelity on the part of the woman is punishable by death and anything less is an act of mercy on the part of the wronged man. Tulfo sees justice at work in what Chavit did and this is the basis for his plea for understanding.
passion and obfuscation are extenuating circumstances that could affect the “intent” (mens rea) requirement for culpability. this is an old legal principle that has been recognized in philippine criminal law and jurisprudence since the spanish penal code. i think the principle was the subject of a 1963 movie, “twilight of honor” that starred richard chamberlain and featured joey heatherton (who became one of my favorites).
from the way it looks, chavit was acting with impaired notion of right and wrong when he saw the victim “in flagranti delicto” with another man.
Bencard, your defense would probably be correct, had Chavit not run off his mouth in his interviews, glorifying what he did, defending what he did, as if the victim was lucky that her life was not taken.. Take note, Chavit has said that it was only right of him to do so.. Again, this was post the event that he talked about it in such a way. Was his notion of right and wrong impaired in all of these interviews?
I would contend, that Chavit’s notion of right and wrong has always been impaired..
nick, for purposes of the extenuating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, the castigating hand must be employed not one minute sooner or later than the “actual” coitus. in one leading philippine case (i can’t recall the cite but maybe jcc does), the unfaithful wife and her paramour emerged from an outhouse while the woman was pulling up her underwear and the man zipping up his trousers, when the avenging husband killed both. the court held the defense did not apply.
yeah, indeed Sparks.. it’s the same thinking that says it’s okay to moderate the greed, moderate the feed, and then moderate the bleed..
Anak ng topak. Against someone like Chavit, wag na kayong mag-sound bite. You want to do something about him? Try bringing back some of the other issues against him. Like the killing of Umali. It happened in Pearl Drive ortigas very near where I live. This is in front of the University of Asia and the Pacific. Maraming student din around the area, mga mayayamang students. Umali’s car is a bullet-proof Mercedes, and he owns a business and a penthouse, I think, in Pearl Plaza, where he was gunned down. Now, family offered 10 million to any witness. Wala.
You see, this is it, the real warlord in action. To me Chavit falling and going to jail is as satisfying as GMA relieved of office. But, knowing my country, I know this little “commotion” will just pass away. A woman n tears will seek safety back in her torturer’s jealous protection and a man, a philandering idiot, would have lost his tiny di** forever. That’s all folks.
This is how I understand Chavit Singson. He acted out of rage. He did what he did because in a macho society, if your girl gets it from someone else, what does that say about you? My heart does not bleed for Che Tiongson, a cheating girlfriend. What she did to Chavit wrong but there is just no justification for beating her up. Ever. No where does beating her up make a man more macho. It just makes a man less than a man. It just makes you a bloody wild animal. We don’t need animals running this country, especially not Deputy National Security Adviser.
What I want to know is this: will Tiongson’s case send Chavit Singson to jail or will this be one of those times, people talk about and tomorrow we’d all forget? A scary thought: If Chavit killed Tiongson in a fit of rage, would that have sent him to jail faster?
Jail is for animals and I think since the country has a death penalty wouldn’t it be appropriately useful right now for animals that can never be rehabilitated?
Sometimes, law and culture are really at odds in our country, are they? We have laws against bigamy, but sa loob-loob ng Pinoy, they like to own many women. I think Erap wouldn’t have been president if the male voters weren’t like this. Singson’s camp may have this attitude as they try to maneuver him out of trouble. But I agree… nothing justifies beating up Tiongson. Aside from violence against women, that’s uncivil treatment of a fellow person.
Chavit has reason to to be outraged. She dumped him with a 2-incher.
Was his, perhaps, shorter? Hehehe. Seriously, how was it shortened? Is the other man in the triangle still alive?
In one sense, it is clear as crystal that Chavit could be the victim in terms of the fact that his live-in partner viciously fails to fulfill her part of the ‘contract’.
Bringing another man alone in a place Chavit and his live-in partner calls home, whether caught in the act or not, is morally intolerable and therefore, much legal restraints must apply in this case.
There is no prejudging Chavit until the case has become all too clear for everyone.
he beat the living crap out of her Primer! Throw her out of the damn house is what he should have done. Short of having ones life threatened, there is no reason to beat any woman for any reason unless ones life is being threatened.
There’s also no reason to kill someone, especially if the only reason was that you were pissed off and nakaka-lalaki ang ugali. But he did it.
Sparks
Tulfo understands it in the context of erectile dysfunction!
Check your laws and your facts guys:
The country is known as a “macho country”. Jurisprudence is replete with husbands found not guilty for parricide because they caught their wives in flagranti delicto ( in bed with someone else), and accordingly kill her and her paramour. On rare occasion, wives are exempt too for this kind of offense. But take note that Chavit is not married to Che Tiongson. But the feeling of rage and obsfuscation may work in the same fashion whether the one you use to screw was your wife or simply your common-law wife. Sort of a slide rule where the judge can tilt it to screw the husband or to screw the dead spouse.
In this case, Che and her lover were physically manhandled by Chavit or his bodyguards. There is some tone of “righteousness” in the statement that “they were luckier they were not killed”.
Article 12, Exempting Circumstance (Book One of the Revised Penal Code)
x x x
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
Article 13, Mitigating Circumstance,
x x x
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
Anyway, this is a high-profile case like the Nicole v. Smith. The public outrage against Singson will be utilized to the utmost to serve a very personal interest of Che to maneuver for a very hefty compromise, or see them in the following weeks to kiss and make up.
On FB, Che is advised to “cut” and to Trump Chavit. BTW, the Macho country this pile of earth is considered is fading fast. The “macho” Tulfo begging the public to understand Chavit?!?!? WTF! That is a clear sign of how things have changed!
This pile of earth like all piles elsewhere is becoming multi-gendered! This Che Trumping Chavit affair is good entertainment. Gabriela will go ballistic and Ladlad will follow with the knife. Face it so called “machos”, the Philippines is a now multi-gendered society. Pubs that deny BB Gandanghairi of her/his right to enter due to his cross-dressing will be history. You have to re-frame your idea of machismo. You can start by wiping the shit off your baby’s bottom, do the laundry, and treat women as equals and complement them in their work.
FOOTNOTE:
The court case against Chavit is only designed to bring the “manhandling” to public consciousness and thus generate the anticipated outrage. Inwardly, Che knows she cannot win her court case against Chavit, whether on its merit/demerit. Chavit is powerful because he is awashed with jueteng cash, an ingredient powerful enough to determine the outcome of the case.
Che is interested more in waging her battle in the media which are willing to come to her side for mercenary reasons too. Too much bad publicity against Singson will force him to neutralize this bad publicity.
Singson could have found the doorknob to Mr. Tulfo and his company that they started playing the “Lucky They Were Not Killed” symphony.
A man who cannot keep his common law wife. And who is showing to
us that he is MACHO. Seems to border into ridiculousness.
We support the law for the violence against women. If a woman does not want the relationship anymore. No one can force her to change her
mind. By brute force or by common law wife beating.
People,
Here is the most appropriate Revised Penal Code Article:
Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. xxx.”
Here is the Jurisprudence:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/130634_35.htm
but take note that the wife-husband relationship is not an issue. Singson is not married to Che.
so, since they are not married, this law cannot be applied, right?
btw, this article 247 is very weird. i don’t like it.
Most of the articles in the Revised Penal Code are biased to favor the “macho” culture. The code was based on the Old Spanish Penal code and was codified during the 1930′s and most probably written by Men for Men.
Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
Yes, GabbyD, it may not be applied only after going to some Socratic discourse on what makes the marriage bond elemental requirement to justify killing a spouse when caught in bed with a paramour where the common-law husband could be as incensed finding his common-law wife in bed with someone.
If you look at the philosophy behind the law, their could be no basis for distinction. One’s sense of honor could be violated finding your woman in bed with someone, regardless whether only common-law relationship exists between the couple.
i mean “there” could be no basis for distinction x x x
You are so freaking wrong people. He became Erap’s best friend because of his warrior abilities. Ito na yung pinkamatinik nating warlord. He stared death in the face and toppled a president to save himself. Now, because of what he did and what this administration owes him, he’s practically in command of several law enforcement divisions. Parang Genghis Khan ng Pinas ito mga friends. If he were get, he’d probably get away raping men, even celebrities like Cogee. Macho culture? Try a real live 21st century barbarian horde.
If he were gay, not “get”
We allow these brutes to coerce us. Great warriors like Gen. Sherman;
Gen. Eishenhower; and other great man of conflicts did not behave
that way. These Generals were facing real enemies like the powerful
German Army and the powerful U.S. Confederate Army. If Singsong is
faced with people who can shoot back at him. I think, he will be
either dead or defeated. The fellow is just a bully.
He did take down Erap.
The people power took down Erap. He claimed it for
himself. It is we, the PEOPLE. Not him.
No it is the ruling class that took down erap by incensing some of the unelightened DE crowds, create a symblance of “popular” metropolis uprising, enlist the aid of some traditional power brokers from the bureaucracy; SCORP and the AFP, then you have Erap’s demise.
But don’t take me wrong, GMA for a while was a better alternative for Erap, until her numbers were down because of one “scandal after another” hitting the headlines.
Try saying that to his face. :-)
“Now, I do not know whether some or most Filipinos (men and women) will empathize with Singson.”
It DON’T matter. Anyway, this is not an issue for the blogs. Unless you’re here to inform the clueless that such a man exists.
“So, Tulfo thinks Singson did wrong, but we should understand him anyway?”
Ibig sabihin, intindihain mo ang konteksto. What you’re seeing is a simple act of violence against a woman, no different than seeing a neighbor beat up his wife. Hindi ito ang PUNTO! Ang punto is impunity.
Ang hirap nyo umintindi ano?
Kung kalaban mo maliit na aso, anong gagawin mo? Kakanyunin mo ba?
Eh, ito dragon ito eh. Malaking anaconda. Si Cerberus. That’s why I’ve said earlier your reactions are clueless.
It’s your oh-so-ordinary and typical I’m-against-violence stance. Don’t you think Singson is aware that many people see life and women differently than he does? Don’t you think he’s aware that people like you exist. He is, but he doesn’t care.
SPARKS,
Ibig sabihin, marami na tayong pinalampas na ginawa ni Singson. Pinalampas dahil takot tayo? Dahil wala tayong magawa. Dahil kung gawin man natin, eh masisira way of life natin?
There are things we can do about this but they all involve extreme action and need extreme sacrifices. This is no ordinary dude that you can simply bully online or on mainstream media. This is like shooting a werewolf with a slingshot.
I really find your words and your COMPREHENSION of what happened to be utterly clueless. Other men who read you will just say, OK, WE can change and we will, but what about Singson? If you’re trying to make a sample of him for the rest of us, forget it. Every guy knows he’s different from this guy. To even the most macho dudes, they can only fantasize about what Singson did. Singson just did it.
example=sample
This post wast meant to elicit discussion about machismo and our culture. Of course you men have missed the point.
Buti pa si Primer, gets. LOL.
Kasi naman bakit nag-iisang babae na lang ako dito sa FV eh. Hint hint hint.
but sparks, you cannot deny, we all each have a “point”, right? (lol).
Ay naku, iba iba ang pinoy. Sa amin babae ang nambubugbog. Never seen a woman or heard of one get beat up where I grew up. But I’ve seen quite a few females berating their men and pulling their man’s hair.
Sparks,
I think it is you who cannot process all these threads. The Anti-VAWC has to hurdle first Art 247 of the Revised Penal Code before it is even considered by the Prosecuting Fiscal if indeed Chavit can be held liable for violating the act.
Thank you Sir, for pointing out my limited brain capacity to understand the legal ramifications of this ‘case.’
Siguro po abogado kayo kaya sa puntong legal ang tingin nyo dito.
Pasensya na po kung hindi lang puntong legal ang tingin ko sa balitang ito.
Which is a pity, really. It speaks volumes about what women have yet to achieve in this country. For this ‘case’ to be spoken about merely by its legal merits.
Or maybe its my fault for speaking about ‘the law.’ To my mind though – abogados – advocates – should be the first to explain to us lay people – what the spirit behind legislation is about in the first place.
Oh wait – that only applies to a handful of lawyer-advocates I have met in my lifetime.
sparks,
btw, if a woman had surprised her husband in bed with another woman, she can kill him and her lover and be exempted too from liability using Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code. It speaks volumes too that men in this country have a long way to go to free themselves from their murderours women.
It seems that anyone has a long way to go to free themselves from murderous anybody elses, male or female.
But now there’s a claim that Che wasn’t beaten up after all. Thing is, are the pictures telling the truth?
And even if she cheated, all Chavit needed was to call a split. “Macho” dancing indeed.
In an incident like this, I am inclined to say, okay, who created the problem in the first place? It was not the thug. Second, I am inclined to say, what if the guy had been an upstanding citizen, someone well thought of? Would the recrimination be intense, or is it really the character of the thug that is the problem. If the character of the thug is the issue, raise hell that his employer accepts this. Or, twisted another way, because his employer accepts this, and similar thuggish behavior, the Philippines gets dinged on human rights rankings.
So in my analysis, the thug is just doing what a thug does. He is like a spoiled child who was taunted and lashed out. His parents (employers, in this case) are irresponsible and whoever taunted him was not too bright.
Joe
no sparks, it was you who said that we missed your point and therefore we are harebrained. i am just making the opposite argument that you were missing our point.
your search for the philosophy behind the “macho” concept of Art. 247 is explained by the SCORP and you did miss it too.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/130634_35.htm
I didn’t say you were harebrained.
I said commenters have so far missed the point. This post was meant to elicit discussion about machismo and Philippine culture.
But since we have plenty of lawyers here – you included apparently – far be it for me to impede in your freedom of expression.
Like I said – Filipino Voices – our writers and commenters – mostly old men :-)
sparks,
if you insist that we missed your point, the unsaid conclusion is that we are half-wits.
anyway here is the macho explanation of the SCORP on article 247:
“The vindication of a Man’s honor is justified because of the scandal an unfaithful wife creates; the law is strict on this, authorizing as it does, a man to chastise her, even with death. But killing the errant spouse as a purification is so severe as that it can only be justified when the unfaithful spouse is caught in flagrante delicto; and it must be resorted to only with great caution so much so that the law requires that it be inflicted only during the sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter”.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/130634_35.htm
sir,
You can miss the point and be a genius.
This is called difference.
Perhaps you are offended because you believe yours is the only perspective?
Like i said, we’ve a long way to go.
Filipino Voices – mostly old, mostly men.
Vive la différence. Vive la diversité!
Sparks,
Re the remark that most of FV commentators are “old men”. Is that like telling my wife she crabs like an “old woman”, or that my daughter, in being blonde, is “brainless”, or that old men are rigid in their views and therefore not worth listening to (ala bencard), or what exactly is the point of that characterization?
I could draw from it that Filipino young men and all Filipino women lack the will or ability to opine intelligently, the former because they are working like dogs sunrise to sunset and the latter because they are busy shadow-dancing with those hot chicks on Wowowee or catching “the Buzz” to ogle Kris’s latest blubberings. You know, that grand icon of Filipino feminism . . .
But I wont . . .
Joe
Joe America,
Of course you are right. The comment section is not the proper venue for me to air my frustrations regarding the imbalance of voices heard here on Filipino Voices.
Neither is Plurk for that matter, where I have repeatedly brought this up with our ENC Nick.
Mayhaps I should write a lengthier post?
That said, I am merely stating a fact. Most of our active contributors and commenters are men over 40.
Am I claiming that the views of men over 40 are wrong? No. I am saying, I’m a little frustrated because we don’t have a bit of a diversity here.
Maybe we are not encouraging comments from our other readers because the first thing over-40-men say is “You’re stupid” articulated in various ways.
Stupidity is relative too.
That is all.
one is stupid because of what he says, not because somebody calls him that.
Sparks,
I have also discerned that the women who contribute on FV are more open to listening and adapting their views to intelligent comment. Many of the “old men” are indeed rigid and defensive and will argue with anything, ever unbending.
So I think we are of like minds.
I do think young men and women in the Philippines are working on careers, older are not computer literate, and too many cannot afford a computer. Thus, the old reasonably well-off farts represent Filipino Voices for the most part.
I am at that age where the joints and the brain start to stiffen, so undertake exercises to stretch them and keep them from becoming calcified. Engaging with the likes of your sharp mind is one of the exercises for my brain.
Write on.
Joe
no, i am not offended by your argument. as i said i was just returning your argument that we did miss your point by telling you that it was you who missed our point. our capacity to understand your youthful irreverence is beyond your comprehension. believe you me, i am not about to go further on this thread that will lead the discusssion beyond the accepted norms of civilities.
If I follow strictly that popular reductionist drift, it would amount to this in the end – here, we judge the man himself, not his act – as to whether indeed, it was criminal, violative of law, or a transgression of the human rights other people normally enjoy.
Now call this draw the line? I don’t think so and my apologies having to disagree with the editor-not-chief not editor-in-chief himself.
In certain parts of the globe, it is legal to bury a wife with her dead husband even if she’s still alive.
In certain parts of the globe, it is legal for a 50 year old man to marry a 9 year old girl.
In certain parts of the globe, it is legal for a woman to be stoned to death for having been raped.
Is the law always a good barometer of what is right?
No. If lawyers know better they should study the life of their patron saint, Thomas More. Conscience not the law is the barometer of what is right.
Blackshama,
You know I am entertaining the thought that we our corrupt, and that lawyers specifically are susceptible to corruption, because of our weak (or non-existent) background in non-Christian philosophy?
I am told that UP law has a course on ethics. But is one class enough?
If you think about it, what is lawful constitutes what is just. And what, exactly is “just”? These are all philosophical questions.
I fear that our lawyers know the technocratic ins/outs of the rules. But the principles behind them?
Sparks
This is where Catholic principles becomes the barometer. Not all that is lawful is just. Many of the lawyers in this country receive Catholic sacraments so I presume they live the faith and being lawyers they have a greater gravitas on what justice is or is not. More’s warning not to “cut down every law” comes into the picture here. More distinguishes “God’s laws” and “Man’s laws”. In a regime where Man’s laws conform to God’s laws, then common sense will make us saints. But we have to operate under Man’s laws and here neither common sense or the seven cardinal virtues will make you a saint. That is why you need lawyers like Bencard!
Lawyers should heed their conscience. This is why More got his head off his shoulders!
blackshama, st. thomas more taught us to obey the law, not UNJUST laws, which are void. just laws derive their authority and obligatory power from Divine law, which is eternal. unjust laws derive theirs from brute force, which is fleeting and temporal.
Since Sparks said machismo culture is the issue, then I’ll go with the boat. I agree that our Filipino machismo culture is morally questionable, since Filipino men profess being upright or moral, then they go and chase after many women, get get drunk on the street and pick fights. Like I always say, Pinoy culture is filled with bullshit, and we got to disobey culture often to do things right.
That is called cultural rebellion!
Yeah… is it really wrong? Sometimes, we need this. The 1960s in the US showed that.
Macho discipline or the generalization of men physically and sexually abuses women and children including those closest to them.
The Issue, though the world pays lip service to the concept of Men “getting in touch with their emotions,” the fact remains that men in general are encouraged to be rough, tough, macho, and even sexist. In our society, The macho standard is assumed to be a heterosexual male who fathers children from multiple women, fraternizes with other males in public displays of masculine bravado (like drinking, gambling, and fist fights), and establishes their social status through dominance over other sexes and genders, such as women and queers. This macho as an aggressive, petulant, and ’irresponsible‘ male who inhabits the center of the social stage – and has defined for its popular audience what ‘being a man‘ is- his stability. All of these are totally false definition of manhood, and being ignorant to the real definition of manhood is like living in a world full of self-centered, egotistical-criminal minds…The world’s idea of what makes a man valuable is shallow: How much money does he make? How many coworkers can he step on as he climbs the ladder to success? Can he take care of himself in a fight? Can he survive difficult situations without looking weak, showing fear, or-worst of all-shedding tears? Why some men are so cruel to others whom they think are weak?…this is the Man standards…which is incomparable to God’s standard, because it will take a lot of courage to stand firm against the shallow definitions of manhood for do you think guys are better off being themselves (even if others view them as losers, wimps, or thumbs-down guys) or acting tough and macho, no matter what?
Understanding Chavit?…nahh!!! it is like a Chavity that becomes TARTAR. dapat itong si Tulfo toothbrushin ang utak…daming CHAVITY ang nasa isip.
Was this a crime of passion? A heat of the moment thing?
“Binantayan na namin…”
Or a planned punishment? And a long-drawn out torture?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoksHEmbMx8
sparks,
now you are talking… chavit can even be charged for attempted murder or serious physical injury depending on take of the Prosecutor… if death occurs, it is easy to charge him with murder because the “surprise in bed” theory cannot be a basis for exculpation because he was like a fox waiting for his prey to make the false move and jump on it.
another issue is that chavit and che are not married so article 247 may not apply. the manhandling is through and through battering… this is how the law should be ideally applied. you were reading Machismo in this whole episode when it is all about applying the law fairly and ideally.
but the caveat is that Chavit has money and Che has not. If the other proposition is true, (Che has money), chavit would be in jail now. so the whole episode is not about gender. it is about power and money.
expect Che to kiss and make up with Chavit.
The woman going back to the man, unfortunately, fits the profile.
Although Tiongson’s move to put it all out in the public and to sue Chavit will make it difficult for the latter take her back methinks.
Now, Chavit is doing his damnedest to destroy her character. In my opinion, she could be the worst kind of slut and bad mother – that does not make it right for her partner to lay a whip to her or have her boyfriend tortured.
this is a actually a media war. che’s court case may not be that promising because it is a case by one without power against the powerful. the outcome is predictable.
the salacious story about che’s being a “slut” and a “abuse of power” by a government official are good media materials. street sales pick-up and media people earn their payolas on the side.
kiss and make-up may take several forms. one of which is for che to withdraw the case for a hefty sum, that is if she make some headway in this media war.
Che has no money because she has no job and she does not get child support. Chavit has said that he will not give child support, child-support money that obviously Che can use to pay for her condo and for daily expenses.
UP n grad,
Glad you brought up that point on child support. 5 kids they have together.
Now, if we had divorce in this country……
Or denying Child support which every law book for lawyers and non-lawyers say is illegal.
if Chavit has the five kids with him, is he obligated by law to provide child support to Che for the five kids?
If refusal to give child support is illegal, then there’s hope against this criminal bro-in-law of mine? hehe.
Also, Chavit said something like, “good thing I didn’t kill her,” right? How with that utterance, isn’t he liable for having intention to murder someone? There’s a law against that isn’t it, with Chavit’s statement as evidence?
His time is gone, and he’s holding on to what little of his corrupt years are left.
@bert
i think so. the law obligates him to do so.
thank you, Gabby. still, if Chavit has the kids and will still pay child support to Che the commonlaw wife who does not have any kid to support, wouldn’t the law be unfair to Chavit?
Since the judge is like a horse with blinders, chances are, Chavit might have to lose his legal battle.
This can be reminiscent of the case of Romeo Jalosjos.
The first test of a new law is always against the interest of those who wield so much political power. Just like in Jalosjos, there are clear signs that the law will turn the table on Chavit Singson.
But every student of law knows that the problem of Chavit is not really that insurmountable except that it comes at a time when one has to go against the current of crippling public opinion as being drummed up by militant and activist advocacy groups such as Gabriela, et cetera.
This cultural movement effectively tilts the balance in favor of its victims.
primer,
your crystal ball versus my crsystal ball.
Jalosjos has a minor victim who were surrounded by “cause-oriented” group who wanted to bring to justice a politician with money and power to serve the “cause-oriented” groups’ own sense of justice and agenda.
Che is a mother of five without money and without child-support. Mother instinct will tell you that she would rather suffer some indignities and swallow her pride to bring food on her children’s table.
Or if the case is a calculated plan to milk Chavit for her physical sufferance, my prediction for a “kiss and make up” makes even more realistic.
Ordinarily, it is not as simple as it may seem.
Call to mind that the minor in the case of Jalosjos was sort of ‘peddled’ like a ‘merchandise’ by her pimp of a step-father (was it?) and RJ was under the impression that the girl is past her minor age or something to that effect.
Inquirer accounts even had it that RJ did not really had sex with the girl, as we ordinarily understood it before the new anti-rape law.
If a new investigation will be opened again, perhaps, there would be certain revealing facts that have yet to be told. I do not supposed RJ is that bad a man.
In the case of Chavit, it is beyond us whether indeed, the live-in partner does take care of their children and therefore needs a lot of money all of the time to feed them. My impression is that, Chavit reasonably gives subsidies to his children as it is to his rather unfaithful wife.
This is one for the movies.