Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Batasan Hills, Quezon City

NINETEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

1341

HOUSE BILL NO.

Introduced by Honorable Representatives
ARLENE D. BROSAS (Gabriela Women’s Party);
FRANCE L. CASTRO (ACT Teachers Partylist);
and RAOUL DANNIEL A. MANUEL (Kabataan Partylist)

AN ACT REPEALING ARTICLE 247 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
EXPLANATORY NOTE

Our 84-year-old Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) carries a provision that practically gives
license to taking life without due process of law and a consequent penalty. This provision
is Article 247, which provides for Death or Physical Injuries Under Exceptional Circumstances.
Under this Article, a legally married person who has surprised his or her spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another shall kill or seriously injure any or both of them in
the act or immediately thereafter shall suffer the penalty of destierro (banishment). Far from
being a penalty, destierro is not really intended as a penalty but to remove the killer spouse
from the vicinity and to protect him or her from acts of reprisal principally by relatives of the
deceased spouse. | So, not only does the law absolve the killer, it also affords him or her
protection via the imposition of destierro.

Worse, Article 247 applies to parents who shall kill or injure their minor daughters (sons not
included) who are living with them and/or their “seducers” under the same circumstances.
Violative of the right to due process as it already is, Article 247 also clearly discriminates
against women. It reinforces double standards of morality applied to women and men and
unduly infringes on women’s sexual rights.

As noted by legal experts, Article 247 does not define a crime since the accused will still have
to be charged with parricide if the act resulted in death or with physical injuries if it only resulted
in physical injuries. Article 247 is only utilized as a defense which must be proven by the
accused.

That the law considers the spouse or parent as acting in a “justified burst of passion” had been
cited as the justification for the existence of this Article in the Revised Penal Code

But, the veiled truth is that the Article suggests that a married person's sexual intercourse with
@ person, not his or her spouse, is considered dishonorable, in the same manner that the
minor daughter's sexual intercourse with her “seducer’ is also prescribed to be dishonorable,
‘such that when they are caught in the act, killing or injuring them is “justified.” Sadly, this is
the Philippine version of honor killings being practiced in other countries but is universally
condemned by various human rights organizations. The last paragraph of Article 247 supports
this position when it states that: “Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of
his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse
‘shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.” As in honor killings, the “justification” for the



killing or injury under exceptional circumstances is the perceived shame or dishonor brought
by the act of intercourse outside the marriage or with minor daughters, and not the “justified
burst of passion.”

The Revised Penal Code already recognizes passion or obfuscation under Article 13 thereof.
But it is only recognized as a mitigating circumstance, whereas in Article 247, it is an
absolutory cause. This reinforces the observation that Article 247 provides a Philippine version
of honor killing,

So while Gabriela Women's Party is aware that there is an ongoing effort to overhaul the
antiquated Revised Penal Code, Article 247 must be immediately repealed for the following
reasons:

1) Itviolates Article II!, Section | of our Constitution, which prohibits taking life without due
process of law. Article 247 allows spouses and parents to take life under exceptional
circumstances without due process. The decision to take life is placed solely on the
persons “benefited” by the Article:

2) The preposterous gender-based assumptions in the Article reinforce the double
standard applied to women and men regarding their sexual behavior and morality. This
is very clear in that only parents of minor daughters can claim the “benefits” of this.
Article. The same gender-based assumptions are also present with respect to killings
committed by spouses. Although both husband and wife are entitled to the “benefits”
of the Article, almost all cases are decided by the Supreme Court, except for the 1934
case of Corazon Zamora de Cortez. (who admitted to the Killing of her husband's
paramour when she caught them in the act of intercourse), show that husbands carry
out the killings under exceptional circumstances; and

3) The Article violates international conventions and domestic laws, to cite only a few:
Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Convention on the
Rights of the Child, RA 7610, and RA 9710.

In sum, immediate repeal of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code will protect and preserve
life, protect children and promote women's rights and gender equality.

People vs. Lauron, C.A., 57 O.G. 7367 as cited in The Revised Penal Code (Criminal Law)
book of Luis B. Reyes, 13th Edition, 1993, page 423.

People vs. Gonzales, 69 Phil. 66)

People of the Philippine Islands vs. Corazon Zamora de Cortez (G.R. No. |-39461,
February 24, 1934).


In view of the foregoing, the passage of this bill is eamestly sought.

Wy

ARLENE 1). BROSAS
‘Gabriela Women’s Party

FRANCE/L. CASTRO aod ce MANUEL

ACT Teachers Partylist Kabataan Partylist



Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Batasan Hills, Quezon City

NINETEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

1341

HOUSE BILL NO.

Introduced by Honorable Representatives
ARLENE D. BROSAS (Gabriela Women's Party);
FRANCE L. CASTRO (ACT Teachers Partylist);
and RAOUL A. MANUEL (Kabataan Partylist)

AN ACT REPEALING ARTICLE 247 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

Section 1. Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby repealed,

Section 2. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion
of its publication in the Official Gazette or at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,