FIRING LINE: Hooray for husbands

By Robert B. Roque, Jr.

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals that a husband should be imprisoned for his failure to provide financial support to his wife.

In this case, the evidence presented showed that the wife did not take any proactive steps to communicate with her husband or request financial support before filing the criminal case. The SC raised doubt as to the wife’s motivation in immediately resorting to a criminal case after 13 years without attempting to obtain financial support from her husband, calling it “dubious.”

Justice Samuel Gaerlan, who penned the High Court’s ruling, stated that a husband’s failure or inability to provide financial support to his wife does not automatically make him criminally liable for violating Republic Act 9262, the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act.

Justice Gaerlan even went as far as describing the CA ruling that affirmed the trial court’s decision to send the husband to jail for two to six years for alleged “economic abuse” of his wife as “unfair.”

Firing Line commends the SC for reflecting the true spirit of the law and upholding justice for both men and women concerning RA 9262. It is refreshing that Justice Gaerlan highlighted the mutual obligation of support between spouses, emphasizing that it is not solely the husband’s responsibility to provide for his wife.

It is beautiful to realize that the law, as Gaerlan wrote, views the wife as also having an “identical obligation” to support her husband. The SC clarified that the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act does not intend to impose a heavier burden on husbands or utilize criminal prosecution as a means to enforce support from them.

 Not so suave

Senator Robinhood Padilla seems to be mistaking the Senate for his grooming salon. Dude, if you want to comb your mustache, go to the restroom. Did you see any of the lady senators retouching their foundation or applying lipstick during a hearing? Besides being “noisy” — as aptly noticed by no less than former Senate president Franklin Drilon — proper decorum should also be on your agenda.

Now, let’s dissect Padilla’s statement about the new Senate members taking their jobs seriously. Seriously? Have you been watching the same Senate sessions as the rest of us? Padilla’s attempt to defend the so-called “noisy” senators falls flat. Giving inputs during a session may be allowed, but there’s a fine line between constructive contribution and attention-seeking behavior. 

It’s ironic that Padilla brings up the “inheritance” of problems from previous honorable senators — obviously a dig at Drilon. Here’s a suggestion: Instead of inheriting lousy behavior, why not focus on breaking the cycle and setting a higher standard? 

So, “Senator Badboy,” it’s time to put down the comb and pick up a copy of the Senate rules. Let’s strive for a Senate serious about solving the nation’s issues and maintaining a sense of decorum and professionalism. After all, it’s called the Senate, not “Eat Bulaga!”

*         *         *

SHORT BURSTS. For comments or reactions, email firingline@ymail.com or tweet @Side_View. Read current and past issues of this column at http://www.thephilbiznews.com