All forms of sexual harassment in the employment, education and training environment are declared unlawful as stated in section two of the Republic Act No. 7877, otherwise known as Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 in the Philippines. For those convicted of sex crimes, probation with mandated treatment along with some jail time is a common disposition. The major goal of treatment for sex offenders is the prevention of sexual offenses in the future.
The request for sexual favor and other forms of erotic propositions are against the law of the land, especially in the Philippines. Thus, sexual harassment is not allowed under RA 7877, otherwise known as Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. Most of us have disagreed with the notions once the sex offender convicted of the crime that he had committed, he will be prosecuted to the highest extent of law.
All of us are aware of the consequences once the verdict has been pronounced, passed down or gaveled by the judge. That Republic Act No. 7877, also known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, provides criminal sanctions for acts constituting sexual harassment. The law also requires the employers or the head of the covered institutions to deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide for procedures for resolution, settlement or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment. In Republic Act No. 7877, it is clearly defined and I categorically quote:
(1) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when:
(a) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
(b) The above acts would impair the employee’s rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or
(c) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.
2) In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is committed:
(a) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;
(b) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the offender;
(c) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or consideration; or
(d) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.
Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which it would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under this Act.
All forms of sexual harassment in the employment, education or training environment are declared unlawful as stated in section 2 of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 in the Philippines. It affirmed that each person must value the dignity of every individual, enhance the development of his/her human resources, guarantee full respect for human rights, and uphold the dignity of workers, employees, applicants for employment, students or those undergoing training, instruction or education. Towards this end, to reiterate the issue, all forms of sexual harassment in the employment, education or training environment are hereby declared unlawful. This is what we called the anti-sexual harassment found in the Republic Act No. 7877 in the Republic of the Philippines.
To animadvert upon the prevailing issue, Section 3 likewise defines sexual harassment as a request for any forms of sexual favors, accepted or not, from an employer, employee, manager, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainer or other persons who have authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another. Sexual harassment is committed when such a favor is demanded in return for employment or promotion, or refusal to grant such a favor results in the impairment of the employee’s rights, privileges or employment opportunities. Like for instance, the issues of gender inequality are identified perfectly as a major problem in the other country, particularly the Middle East. One particularly degrading aspect of this is sexual harassment of women on the streets. This issue came to the forefront in October 2006, when widespread and aggressive sexual harassment of women transpired in downtown Cairo during the holiday. It said in the reports that a lot of newspapers examine the efforts of the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights to organize and lead a successful anti-sexual harassment campaign.
Data and other important documents came from the participant observations of the campaign for one year, started in November 2006. Findings showed that the organization was successful because it framed the movement broadly as a safety issue, used innovative protest tactics, and operated through routine political channels.
Here in the Philippines, the law clearly stated that any person who induces another to commit or who cooperates in the commission of sexual harassment is also held liable. The employer or the head of office has the duty to prevent and deter the commission of sexual harassment and to provide procedures for the investigation, resolution, settlement or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment, notably through the creation of a Committee on Decorum and Investigation. This does not bar prosecution in proper courts. The liability of the employer, head of office, educational or training institution arises when, informed of acts of sexual harassment, no immediate action is taken.
There have been so many cases of sexual harassment in the public schools. Victims are not only students but also teachers. Some higher education officials are guilty of this. Somebody in the academe told me about the scenario. She had a friend who was pretty and sexy. When the superintendent saw her in one of the gatherings of teachers, he asked somebody to get the phone number of the teacher. Her friend readily gave her number because it was the superintendent who asked for it. That was a weekend. A few days after that meeting, she received a call from the superintendent inviting her for dinner. She was told not to bring a chaperone. Sensing something fishy, she declined the invitation and gave out excuses. Many invitations followed thereafter and as usual she never accepted any of those propositions. The superintendent, though, did not give up. He sought the help of the principal. The principal kept on nudging her to accept the invitation even once. But she was firm in her conviction. The story did not end there. She was given a hard time. When she could no longer stomach the pressures imposed upon her, she told the principal that if he does not stop pressuring her, she will file the harassment complaint against him and his boss at the Ombudsman. He showed the principal a copy of this Republic Act. From then on, the principal and the superintendent stopped pestering her.
This RA 7877 is very helpful to employees, especially the rank and file. They are helpless if the head of office victimizes them. For fear of reprisal, some employees give in to the sexual demands of their bosses. These employees are ignorant of this Republic Act. That’s why it is imperative that employees read the articles in the constitution to know their rights and privileges. They have to know the laws. It is a misconception that only lawyers or lawmakers should be well-versed of our constitution. Every citizen has the right to know. As they say, “Ignorance of the law excuses no one.”