ON
SENATE BILL NO. 1398
"An Act Defining Domestic Violence, Providing Penalties Therefor and Providing For Protection Orders"
(Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago)
==========================
The Commission ardently supports the move that provides sanction to the Constitutional mandate that " the state recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. Marriage as inviolable social institution is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State" (Article XV, Sec.1and2)
The new Family Code provides some relief and possible recourse for battered women. Under Article 55 of the Code, habitual cruelty, violence to one's spouse and children, and attempts on the life of the spouse are now grounds for legal separation.
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of persons, and that no one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Domestic violence which affects mainly women is also contrary to the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, to which the Philippines is a signatory. Wife beating is also a violation of women's human rights.
However, existing laws do not provide penalties against the violator/perpetrator of domestic violence as a deterrent to its commission. With the advent of this law, the victim will surface to the open and seek relief in the courts, and law enforcers will view domestic violence as a public crime and not a private trivial matter between couples. The Bill includes domestic violence even in common-law relationships where the man and woman are not married but are living as husband and wife. Considering that the present statistics show that domestic violence is a worldwide phenomenon involving millions of women, this Commission strongly recommends its immediate passage into law.
The following comments are, however, submitted for consideration of Congress:
The proposed penalty of one-year imprisonment or a fine of P2,000.00 is too light. It is not an effective deterrent of the crime for a habitual violent husband who will likely repeat the same crime. For an imprisonment of one-year he can be released on probation. Moreover, the penalty as proposed is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City or Municipal Trial Court. The guilty husband can appeal easily to the RTC and the appellate courts which will usually take sometime. In the meantime, the husband is free on bail and will likely inflict harm on his wife with more revenge. It is suggested that a higher penalty be imposed to make the case within the jurisdiction of the RTC. This will be in consonance with Section 5, paragraph b whereas the petition for protection order is filed with the RTC.
In this way, there is no necessity of filing an independent action for protection order pendente lite as the same court to whom the complaint is filed can also issue the protection order.
(undated)
CONSOLIDATED
POSITION PAPER
ON
SB 1347 , "An Act Penalizing the Refusal of Hospitals and Medical Clinics to Administer Appropriate Initial Medical Treatment and Support in Emergency or Serious Cases, Amending for the Purpose of Batas Pambansa Bilang 702, Otherwise Known as "An Act Prohibiting the Demand of Deposits or Advance Payments for the Confinement or Treatment in Hospitals and Medical Clinics in Certain Cases" (Sen. Webb)
SB 1567, "An Act Prohibiting the Detention of Deceased Patients in Hospitals and Medical Clinics on Grounds of Non-Payment of Hospital Bills or Medical Expenses" (Sen. Romulo)
SB 1475 , "An Act to Penalize Absconding From a Hospital and to Amend for the Purpose Article 315 (2)(E) of Republic Act No. 3815, Otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code" (Sen. Drilon)
PSR 365, "Resolution Directing the Committee on Health and Demography to Inquire, In Aid of Legislation, the Questionable Practice of Private Hospitals, Requiring Their Patients to Purchase Medicine Only at Their Respective Pharmacies and Requiring Such Patients to Sign Waivers of Their Right to Purchase Medicine Outside the Private Hospitals Pharmacies" (Sen. Flavier)
HB 26 "An Act Penalizing the Refusal of Hospitals and Licensed Medical Clinics to Administer Appropriate Initial Medical Treatment and Support in Emergency or Serious Cases, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Bilang 702, otherwise known as "An Act Prohibiting the Demand of Deposits or Advanced Payments for the Confinement or Treatment of Patients in Hospitals and Medical Cases in Certain Clinics" (Cong. Del Mar, et. al.)
HB 28 "An Act Prohibiting the Detention of Live or Dead Patients in Hospitals and Medical Clinics on Grounds of Non-Payment of Hospital Bills or Medical Clinics" (Cong. Del Mar, et. al.)
Considering that the aforementioned Senate and House Bills have related subject matter, the Commission on Human Rights respectfully submits this consolidated position paper as follows:
Generally, all of these bills and resolutions are pro-poor, protective of human rights, and deserve the full support of the CHR;
1. The detention of live or dead patients in hospitals and medical clinics on grounds of non-payment of hospital bills or medical expenses are violations of human rights and should be condemned. The Commission on Human Rights fully supports SB 1567 and HB No. 28 seeking to penalize said violation;
2. The refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency or serious cases, and proposed to be penalized in Senate Bill No. 1347 and House Bill No. 26, is also censurable, despicable, and condemnable and likewise a violation of the patient's human rights;
3. The Commission fully supports the enactment of Senate Bill No. 1475 which seeks to amend Article 315(2)E of the Revised Penal Code to include hospitals. Article 315(2)E does not mention hospitals or medical clinics;
4. The Commission likewise fully endorses and supports Senate Resolution No. 365 directing the Committee on Health and Demography to inquire in aid of legislation, the questionable practice of private hospitals requiring their patients to purchase medicines only at their respective pharmacies and requiring such patients to sign waivers of their right to purchase medicines outside the private hospitals' pharmacies. This is another pernicious practice of private hospitals which should be stopped. The CHR recommends the enactment of a law or at least a Department order to provide a remedy for this problem;
5. On the claim of private hospitals in their opposition of these bills that they are losing money due to their difficulty in collecting hospital bills, this matter can be remedied by seeking government subsidy especially for small hospitals. Besides, the National Health Care Insurance Program (funded with 3 Million Pesos) can be tapped to answer for the said loses being claimed. Furthermore, the opposition made by hospital owners on said bills is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath of their sworn duty as physicians. Rather than denying treatment of patients especially in emergency cases, a more positive solution should be suggested by said hospitals.
There are other incentives that could be accorded private hospitals such as allowing or authorizing them to import tax-free modern equipment and reduction of their real property tax and electricity consumption.
Pasig City , 21 October 1996
|
