6 out of 9 vs RA 9262

June 19, 2009 6 out of 29 cases that day was about RA 9262. This is an issue, much like domestic violence. I'm in the courtroom awaiting for my turn. Every case about the RA 9262, I would secretly glance at both parties trying to pinpoint who the real victim is, but to no avail. I would focus my attention to those men as I imagine them behind bars for at least a day or two prior posting bail. Most of them only with one or two alleged violations of RA 9262, I was cited for four different offenses. Gladly my case was referred to mediation, and thereafter we reached settlement with my ex-wife.

RA 9262 is a criminal offense, and with that, you'll be jailed pending the resolution of your case. While this is bailable, surely the experience will haunt you forever. Now 6 out of around 20 men in that courtroom have been to jail for RA 9262, each of them needs to bail for their temporary liberty, liberty of their physical body but not of anguish that they are yet to bear with the case pending. The litigation fees, the alimony etc, will be next to haunt you besides the fact that you don't have a family to call now. You are alone men, you are doomed. You are hereby declared homeless and without money to even sustain a decent living.

Our cases may differ but I call on men to unite as this cause is for us. We've been empowering women for the past century that it now haunts us. The state should protect all its citizen regardless of gender, race or economic status. The Garcia case (as feminist groups call it) is still awaiting its decision from the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of RA 9262. I'm not after its abolition, rather for its amendment. We all need protection, not just women.

There's about a hundred studies about battered women and other domestic violence issues against women, but is it right to say that this does not happen to men or it's just that there's no study made about it as of yet? Just try google and there maybe about a thousand results all about women but only a couple for men. I joined a couple of internet forums just to see how Filipinos react about this issue on men being victims of domestic violence, and as I previously posted, I got about a couple of 'groups' discussing this issue. My conclusion still remains the same, we know it's happening, but we don't know how to react or counter it. Men still see fear of their wives as love not abuse and is often faced with ridicule instead of guidance. Anyone in an abusive relationship needs to seek help asap. We don't need to throw all our men to jail if they happen to be abusive, or they can't pay alimony or child support. What we need is support from the government instead of laws penalizing this and that.

Why not create a department who will handle all issues of domestic violence composed of professionals who can REALLY help instead of encouraging our women to seek legal remedies right away? Let those abusive men AND women go to counselling together or independently. If the state won't let us file divorce as they are clinging on to this 'sanctity' of marriage, then, for every Juan's sake, assist them go to counselling. Seeking legal remedies right away seems expediting the process of ruining the family. This is like saying 'send your husband/partner to jail first then reconcile after'. If your wife sent you to jail would you want to go kiss and make-up again? I don't think so.

RA 9262 vs Dr. Hayden Kho

Republic Act 9262 covers abuse or violence like, physical, sexual, economic, verbal and psychological abuse. Now, with Dr. Hayden Kho's case, I don't see how our legal luminaries will see this case, but this is my view.


Here are several issues they may raise against Kho:


In RA 9262, sexual violence as defined in Sec 3 part B refers to it as an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child.



- The act in the video is sexual in nature, no question about it, but is not against the woman's will. What is against the woman's will was the distribution of the video, which is yet to be covered by an existing law.



Section 3 part B.- rap, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a sex object.



- Sex object? Well, probably, as he has this intention of recording the deed without the woman's knowledge, but again, this is, or should I say, this was for his personal 'consumption'.



Section 3A refers to Psychological violence.


- Key word here is 'likely to cause'. It is indeed likely that there's the probability that those videos would be stolen, much like your diary being read by someone after keeping and writing in it secretly for years. What's in Kho's computer or someone's diary may 'likely' cause psychological violence, but I believe that's what is needed to be established here is their intention.



There might be other cases NBI or DOJ is looking into what case will be filed against Dr. Hayden Kho, but there’s a probability that it will be RA 9262 as was already insinuated by Sec. Gonzales in his statement. Again, I'm not an expert on this matter but this is how I see this case will go. My heart goes out to Katrina and the others for being subjected to this misery.

The new Andres

We've known Andres de Saya since were little. A husband that either so love or so afraid of his wife. Andres is now a thing of the past, now we call them with different names, and despite that fact that this is a societal issue, we manage to laugh about it. Here's to name a few;


U.P.A.K - Unyong Patago sa mga Asawang Kinatatakutan

U.T.I.N - Unyon ng mga Tatay na Inaapi ng mga Nanay

P.U.K.I - Pambansang Unyon ng mga Kalalakihang Inaapi

U.H.A.W - Union of Husbands Afraid of Wives


With catchy and naughty names these 'organizations' are actually for real and they have members that ranges between 10-30 or even more, actively lurking in the cyberspace.

UPAK being the most active of them all with about 5-20 members participating in their forum. The likes of crav007, DreadLed,feth102, mutzie, execon,rchie and sparkee will always be there to share their 2cents for any member needing assistance.

PUKI's members are global, allegedly with chapters like PUKI-Ca (California) and PUKI-Mo (Missouri). The cyber origin of this 'organization' can be traced back to a bicolano forum.

I don't have exact details of UTIN and UHAW, but they do exist in other small forums but is either not active or is just a subplot to an existing topic.

DiegoSilang the yahoogroup was established four years ago with 30-50 members. Most members however are quite inactive, others like me, continues to carry on the fight for men's rights thru other venues.

While these groups carry unusual and not so serious names, they do have members who are ready to listen and they too are quite serious with their cause. Unfortunately, most of them remain hidden in the various corridors of cyberspace afraid of ridicule or wrath of their dreaded enemy.

Now is being a battered/abused men a mere myth? A pigment of our imagination? I don't think so. While most of us refuse to outdo our medieval thinking that men are superior in nature than women, this thought, projects how we see men and women of today. Again I say that until you see that both gender is equal, you'll always be a victim yourself. Since the launch of this site 2 months ago, it already reached about 200 visitors. Visitors now aware that this site and this cause for men’s rights now exist. Thank you!

Kinds of Abuse as defined under RA 9262 and who it protects.

Republic Act 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 covers act or a series of acts committed by any person which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harrasment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Now let's define each within the scope of RA 9262.

• Physical Violence (RA 9262 3A)- refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm. (Pananakit sa katawan, pambubugbog)
• Sexual Violence (RA 9262 3B) - refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child. It includes, but is not limited to:

1. Rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a sex object, making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks, physically attacking the sexual parts of the victim’s body, forcing her/him to watch obscene publications and indecent shows or forcing the woman or her child to do indecent acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/lover to live in the conjugal home or sleep together in the same room with the abuser.
2. Acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any sexual activity by force, threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm or coercion.
3. Prostituting the woman or child.

• Psychological Violence (RA 9262 Sec 3C) - refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children.
• Economic Abuse (RA 9262 Sec 3D) - refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following;

1. Withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code.
2. Deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common.
3. Destroying household property.
4. Controlling the victims’ own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties.

Coverage or who this law protects;

Per Section 3 of RA 9262, this law protects your;

• Wife
• Former wife
• Girlfriend or Mistress (with established sexual or dating relationship)
• Child or children (legitimate or illegitimate)