KTV : The Demystification of the Crime of Rape

Where do we go to when our own judiciary and courts of justice of our own country discriminate against us? Karen Tayag Vertido (KTV) has the answer for us and for this she spent fourteen long years of her life fighting for her rights that now benefit all of women in this country and the world. Karen, then Executive Director of the Davao Chamber of Commerce & Industry, in her 2007 communication to the U.N Cedaw Committee said that in 1996, she was brought to a motel against her will and raped by a former political head of the same organization she was working for. The Davao community supported her and launched the “Justice for Karen Movement.” Then, after eight years of court trial, the judge acquitted the defendant.

The way to go for Karen, who was counseled by women leaders, particularly, Atty Evalyn Ursua, was to write the United Nations Cedaw Committee in 2007 as a victim of discrimination as defined in the CEDAW.

The law invoked is the Optional Protocol to Cedaw which is a separate treaty to which the Philippines is a signatory and it allows women who have been denied access to justice at the national level to have their claims reviewed at the international level.

The United Nations Cedaw Committee composed of international experts, in their decision or Views promulgated that our country violated the rights of Karen in the local court decision acquitting the defendant. The Cedaw Committee, in affirming the story of Karen in her communication to this U.N body, effectively sets new standards on how the world should view and address the crime of rape and as well, demystifies the following fallacies on rape :

Fallacy One : Victim must always try to escape the rapist during rape.
Truth : There is no standard victim reaction to rape.
Fallacy Two : Rape by intimidation cannot be committed against
women who are not timid.
Truth : The character of the victim is not an element of the crime of rape.
Fallacy Three : In rape by threat, there must be clear evidence of
direct threat.
Truth : The essential element of rape is lack of consent and not the
element of force.
Fallacy Four : If you are a friend of the victim, you cannot be raped ;
Or that if you are friends, the rape is consensual.
Truth : A relationship is not proof of the consent of the victim of rape.
Fallacy Five : There is a standard of “normal” or “natural”
behaviour on rape victims.
Truth : The court should not discriminate against those who do not
conform to these standards.
Fallacy Six : If rape has reached the moment of ejaculation, there was
no resistance.
Truth : Ejaculation is not an element of the crime of rape.
Fallacy Seven : A senior citizen is not capable of rape.
Truth : Sexual prowess is not an element of rape otherwise rape
committed by old men go unpunished.

This United Nations body found that Karen was discriminated against and recommends that the Philippines pay Karen a financial compensation for all the social harm that she suffered in the way our judicial system has handled her case. The Cedaw Committee recommends that the Philippines should develop a sexuality and violence education training program for judges and prosecutors in the Philippines. To Congress, the Cedaw Committee recommends that the laws against rape in our country be reviewed and that our country allocate enough funds for enforcement.

This Cedaw Committee view is now part of a human rights standard that the entire world can emulate and the Philippines is given within six months to turn in a written response and to provide the Committee with an update on its action taken and more importantly to publish this U.N. Cedaw View and translate it to our various local lingua francas.