MEL STA. MARIA | Exposing 'sex-for-flight' and the sexualization of government corruption

By: Atty. Mel Sta. Maria, News5

Akbayan representatives' allegations that certain labor officials abroad offered free repatriation to stranded or distressed overseas Filipino female workers in exchange for sexual favors have made the headlines. If proven true, this should be enough to oust these officials from their positions and, I believe, to forever ban them from holding any other public office.

To be fair to those named as offenders, concrete evidence must yet be presented against them. They must be given a chance to defend themselves. The greatest suspicion, as our Supreme Court said, is still not evidence. Testimonies must be scrutinized. Stories must be validated or, if necessary, corroborated. It is not only the accused that must be probed; so, too, should the accusers.

While making public accusations can easily and instantly tarnish a reputation, correcting a besmirched image resulting from false charges is very difficult to do. Worse, the negative perception, though already belied, may linger in the mind of the public, making the complete reconstruction of one's good image impossible.

What is significant in the current scandal is that all the alleged offenses were committed against women only. And all the alleged offenders were men. Whether true or not, the report is a cause for serious concern. The history of violation, abuse, manipulation, exploitation and discrimination of women in the Philippines is just too well documented in many interdisciplinary studies by various credible groups and in cases decided by the Supreme Court. For instance, the stories of Filipina comfort-women raped by Japanese soldiers during World War II are well known.

Even Congress has made legislations acknowledging the historically unequal and abusive treatment of Filipino women. For example, to prevent the commodification of women, Republic Act No. 6955 was passed prohibiting the facilitation of Filipina mail-order-brides. Republic Act No. 7192, known as the "Women in Nation Building and Development Act", seeks to assure equal opportunities for men and women. Also enacted was Republic Act Number 9262, otherwise known as the VAWC law, penalizing the physical, emotional and economic violence perpetrated by men against women and children. Finally, Republic Act No. 9710, otherwise known as the "Magna Carta of Women", provides that

"the state condemns discrimination against women in all its forms and pursues by all appropriate means and without delay the policy of eliminating discrimination against women in keeping with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and other international instruments consistent with Philippine law. The State shall accord women the rights, protection, and opportunities available to every member of society."

If abuse of our women-migrant-workers are perpetrated clandestinely by some of our government officials abroad, then we are now being confronted with a new kind of abuse, equally appalling as rape. For the vulnerability of our women, their distressed situation and sense of desperation are exploited to obtain carnal knowledge of the most despicable kind. Worse, the allegation that it was perpetuated by men with power and authority in the embassy makes it extremely repulsive, for they were not the usual foreign-employer-suspects we usually read about in the newspapers.

If all this is true, then Filipino women are being targeted by their own compatriots plainly because they are women. The crime is gender-based. One wonders if the government is truly serious in implementing Section 37 of the "Magna Carta of Women" which provides:

Section 37. Gender Focal Point Officer in Philippine Embassies and Consulates. - An officer duly trained on Gender and Development (GAD) shall be designated as the gender focal point in the consular section of Philippine embassies or consulates. Said officer shall be primarily responsible in handling gender concerns of women migrant workers. Attached agencies shall cooperate in strengthening the Philippine foreign posts' programs for the delivery of services to women migrant workers.

Fortunately, victimized women-OFWs can file appropriate criminal cases here in the Philippines for the offenses committed against them abroad. While it is a general rule that crimes must be prosecuted only in the place where they have been committed, Section 4 of Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides an exception if a public officer should commit a crime abroad in connection with their public functions. The law does not even specify that the crime should be committed inside the Philippine Embassy or Consulate.
Thus, if a public official solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters pending before him, the public official may be held liable for the crime of "abuses against chastity" under Article 245 of the Revised Penal Code with the penalty of imprisonment up to six years. The case can be filed within a period of 10 years from the time of its discovery by the offended party or by the authorities. In this case, it is obvious that the time of commission is the time of discovery. Also, if sexual intercourse were committed by means of grave abuse of authority, rape is committed under Article 266-A © of the Revised Penal Code with a penalty of life imprisonment. The case can be filed within a period of 20 years.

The victim can also seek civil damages under Article 26 of the Civil Code requiring that every person shall respect the dignity, personality and the peace of mind of others. Article 20 provides that when a person, contrary to law, willfully or negligently injures another, that person can be held liable to pay damages. Article 27 also provides that "Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken."

While there are remedies, it is still very painful emotionally for a violated woman to come forward and tell her story. If she testifies, women's rights advocates call this "double victimization", as she would have to relive in court the horrible act done to her. It can again be traumatic. The fear of this second "victimization" is the source of victimized women's hesitance to expose the terrible wrong done to them. Courts have acknowledged that this experience, while necessary to convict the guilty, is an ordeal for women-victims. It takes a colossal amount of courage to speak out.

That is why, in gender-based violence like rape, the victim's lone uncorroborated testimony, if credible, is considered sufficient to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict the offender.

For public officials to demand "sex for flight" is a most repugnant form of official misconduct. And as Atty. Ampy Sta.Maria of the Ateneo Human Rights Center has advocated, "it is time also not to overlook the challenge of combating corruption in ways that disproportionately affect women's concerns. If this 'sex for flight' had taken place, then it merely affirms the sexualization of government corruption. It has taken a very depraved gendered form. We see here the interfacing of gender and corruption. It should be stopped."


The violation of public trust by a public official is worse when it degrades the dignity of a citizen, of a human being. And there is no other more vicious form of debasement than when the betrayal involves sexual exploitation against someone who is in a situation of vulnerability, in a state of emotional distress and needing the assistance of said official. This is such a toxic situation, you would not wish it on your enemy. As Lucrecia Mott said, 

"The world has never yet seen a truly great and virtuous nation, because in the degradation of women, the very fountains of life are poisoned at their source."