MANILA, Philippines – Several women’s groups hit Senator Robin Padilla’s remarks during a Senate probe earlier this week.
Progressive women’s group Gabriela condemned Padilla’s statements, which they say perpetuated “machismo” and “blatant disregard for women’s autonomy and rights.”
“The audacity to question a woman’s right to her own body is a glaring example of the deeply rooted machismo that continues to plague our society. Senator Padilla’s line of questioning not only disrespects women but also trivializes the serious issue of consent,” GABRIELA secretary general Clarice Palce said in a statement.
During a Senate hearing on August 15 meant to discuss TV networks’ policies in handling cases of sexual abuse, the attention shifted to Padilla due to his controversial statements on sex in marriage. Padilla questioned whether a spouse saying no to sex might not mean no, and stated how the wife is there to serve men who he said has “may iba talagang urge” (a different kind of urge).
“We’d like to remind Senator Padilla that consent is non-negotiable and must be respected at all times. A woman’s right to say ‘no’ is fundamental and absolute, regardless of marital status,” Palce said. “We strongly demand accountability and a retraction from Senator Padilla for his macho and dangerous statements!”
Another group, Roots of Health, said the reality is many Filipinos share Padilla’s view on marriage and consent. Citing the 2021 Young Fertility and Sexuality Study of the University of the Philippines Population Institute, the group said over 30% of people aged 15 to 24 (both male and female) believe “it is the wife’s duty to have sex with her husband whenever he wants it.”
The controversy, according to the group, should be a wake-up call to teach people, especially children about the importance of consent. Roots of Health also said that the Department of Education needs to implement comprehensive sex education as mandated by the 2012 reproductive health law to promote.
“August is International Youth Month. No one should be coerced into sex, whether in a long-term relationship or not. Let’s work together to guide young people in making informed decisions about their sexual and reproductive health and rights, so they can develop and thrive,” the group added.
Controversial exchange
During the Senate hearing, which stems from the sexual assault complaints filed by actor Sandro Muhlach against GMA independent contractors Jojo Nones and Richard Cruz, the discussion shifted to the sexual relationship between a husband and wife.
“For example, the woman, your wife, sometimes you think that she’s actually urging you to press further when she’s saying no – so how can you say no is no? It’s hard to distinguish sometimes how the woman acts like she doesn’t want to but actually wants to. How do we deal with that? We’re in a pitiful situation. How about us [men] if we’re not in the mood? Do we have the right to say no?” Padilla said in Filipino.
Lawyer Lorna Kapunan, who was present at the hearing to discuss how employers need to disprove that they were not negligent in creating a work environment that may enable sexual harassment, replied, “‘Yong no means no applies to both genders. Hindi siya puwedeng i-force no’ng asawa (No means no applies to both genders. The spouse can’t be forced by their partner).”
However, Padilla further reasoned out: “You cannot remove this from a husband and wife. You have sexual rights over your wife. You cannot decide when you are going to be in heat. What if your wife is not in the mood? So what can I say to my wife if she’s not in the mood?”
Later, Kapunan rebuked Padilla’s statement and said that a wife has no obligation to serve the husband.
“The chair’s statement, with all due respect – it’s not the obligation of the wife, as you said, to serve the husband. That’s why the issue of mutual respect is important. If your spouse refuses to have sex whether valid or not, let’s respect the decision of the wife or the husband,” Kapunan said in Filipino.
The lawyer also said how the 1988 revision to the Family Code of the Philippines removed the wife’s obligation of obedience to the husband, and the “husband and wife are now obliged for mutual respect.” The revised code also reassigned parental authority to both partners as a joint obligation, disassociating the husband as the sole provider and the family’s decision maker, Kapunan added. – Rappler.com