Law of the Land

"There is a country where women freely go out unescorted and, like the beautiful roses in their public gardens, they always receive the protection of all. That country is Switzerland."

- People v. Jaurigue, 76 Phil. 174

I thought I have seen it all when, in addition to Jaurigue, quoted above, the justices of our Supreme Court introduced the concepts of "bombardment of the drawbridge," "shelling of the castle of orgasmic potency," and "strafing of the citadel of passion" to our jurisprudence. Now, the Court of Appeals have enriched our laws further with its recent ruling on the Subic Rape Case. To wit:

“When a woman is drunk, she can hardly rise, much more stand up and dance, or she would just drop. This is a common experience among Filipino girls.”

I do not know the last time the good lady justices went out to have a good time, but I think it is rather safe to assume that not one of them has ever been to Embassy, or to any college party, recently, where they would have seen enough drunk women - yes, drunk Filipino girls - who can not only rise and stand up, but actually dance a lot better than when they were sober. When was the last time you ladies went out anyway? 1945?

“Resistance by words of mouth [sic] does not suffice to establish that she indeed did not give her consent to the sexual intercourse.”

I guess this means that when a woman wants to say "No," it is not enough that she screams "No, I definitely do NOT want to have sex with you!" She also has to put it in writing, or maybe she has to express it in sign language, or perhaps via Morse Code. So, what would suffice? The problem is that the decision does not say what else a woman is supposed to do in order to deny her consent to sexual intercourse. If it is to be in writing, it also does not say whether or not it has to be in a public instrument. (Hello, I am being raped, can you notarize my statement of resistance to this unlawful aggression?)