Jorge Patrick A.

Yasay
February 27, 2015
Torts and Damages
PEOPLE VS. JUMAWAN First Marital Rape Conviction in the Philippines
May a husband be convicted of rape when he forcefully have sexual intercourse
with his wife? This is the question answered in the affirmative by the Supreme
Court when the Philippines had its first conviction of marital rape.
The Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Jumawan1 narrated the historical
connection of rape and marriage, as well as its evolution to the marital
exemption rule.
Historically, the man had the right to chastise his wife and beat her if she
misbehaved, allowing him to bring order within the family. 2 This was even
worsen by the marital unity theory which states that upon marrying, the woman
becomes one with her husband; she had no right to make a contract, sue
another, own personal property or write a will. 3
Things even worsen for the wives when the anti-women views and theories had
evolved to the marital exemption rule on rape. As narrated by the Supreme
Court, in the 17th century, Sir Matthew Hale (Hale), a Chief Justice in England,
conceived the irrevocable implied consent theory that would later on emerge as
the marital exemption rule in rape. He stated that:
[T]he husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful
wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given
up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.
The rule was observed in common law countries such as the United States of
America (USA) and England. It gives legal immunity to a man who forcibly
sexually assaults his wife, an act which would be rape if committed against a
woman not his wife.93 In those jurisdictions, rape is traditionally defined as "the
forcible penetration of the body of a woman who is not the wife of the
perpetrator.
The first case in the USA that applied the marital exemption rule was
Commonwealth v. Fogerty promulgated in 1857. The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts pronounced that it would always be a defense in rape to show
marriage to the victim. Several other courts adhered to a similar rationale with
all of them citing Hale's theory as basis.
In the Philippines, according to the Supreme Court in the case subject of
discussion, no documented case on marital rape has ever reached the High Court
until 2014. Fortunately, however, the Court decided correctly, disregarding the

1 April 21, 2014, G.R. 187495

2 l William Blackstone Commentaries *432 and Katherine M. Schelong, Domestic Violence
and the State: Responses to and Rationales for Spousal Battering, Marital Rape and
Stalking, 78 MARQ. L. REV. 79, 81 (1994).
3 Cassandra M. DeLaMothe, Liberta Revisited: A Call to Repeal the Marital Exemption for
All Sex Offenses in New York's Penal Law, 23 Fordham Urban Law Journal, p. 861 (1995).

marital exemption rule and giving life and spirit to our laws penalizing rape as a
crime against person, regardless of whether or not the woman is the wife of the
criminal. Although the old provisions of rape under Article 355 of Act No. 3815
adhered to Hales irrevocable implied theory, the law had been repealed by the
Anti-Rape Law (R.A. No. 8353) which enshrines the United Nations Convention on
the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (UN-CEDAW) to
which the Philippines is a signatory to. This is a major instrument likewise hailed
as the first international womens bills of rights.
The Supreme Court is correct when it said that the ancient customs and
ideologies from which the irrevocable consent theory evolved have already ben
superseded by modern global principles on the equality of rights between men
and women and respect for human dignity established in various international
conventions, such as the CEDAW.
A woman is no longer the chattel-antiquated practices labeled her to be. A
husband who has sexual intercourse with his wife is not merely using a property,
he is fulfilling a marital consortium with a fellow human being with dignity equal
to that he accords himself.
Personally, I find the ruling of the Supreme Court sound and forward-looking.
Although the present society is still patriarchal and favors men, there is an
obvious paradigm shift toward gender equality and women empowerment.
This paradigm shift may be traced from the political movement of feminism. It
led to social legislation favoring women, thus legitimizing and recognizing their
political and civil rights. This had been reinforced by societal and cultural
acceptance. In People vs. Jumawan, when the court decided in favor of the wife,
it also ruled in favor of human dignity, gender equality, and cultural and social
progress.
The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide
freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and
reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence. 4 Women do not
divest themselves of such right by contracting marriage for the simple reason
that human rights are inalienable. 5

4 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, The Fourth World Conference on
Women, September 15, 1995, paragraph 96.
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/pdf/BDPfA%20E.pdf, last accessed
on April 3, 2014. According to the Philippine Commission on Women, the
Philippines acceded to the commitments set forth in the Beijing Declaration and
Platform for Action.
5 R.A. No. 9710 (The Magna Carta of Women), Section 3:Principles of
Human Rights of Women. - Human rights are universal and inalienable. All
people in the world are entitled to them. The universality of human rights
is encompassed in the words of Article l of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which states that all human beings are free and equal in
dignity and rights.

There exists no legal rational for the legislature to enact a law exempting from
criminal liability a husband who ravages his own wife. Likewise, there is no
reason for the Court to interpret our laws on rape as favoring the married man.
Our body is our own temple and when we marry someone, we expect that person
to respect this temple. Marital rape may even be more hurtful to other forms of
rape because the one who violated the victim is the person whom she reposed
so much trust and love the person who, instead of upholding her human
dignity, ravaged the same and made her feel like a mere object.