The high tribunal, citing jurisprudence, said that such rape cases should be viewed in the “light of the victim’s perception and judgment” when the crime was committed. It added that requiring proof of resistance from victim is also judging a victim’s behavior by male standards.
“If the law is to be interpreted such that a woman claiming that she was raped must satisfactorily establish that she resisted the sexual assault, we become complicit in perpetuating the premise that men, as a general rule, are entitled to free access to a woman’s body at any given time and place because unless a woman proves she resisted such act by actively resisting a man’s advances, she will be deemed to have consented to it,” the Supreme Court’s decision read.
“Pronouncements like this are not only contrary to the prevailing doctrine, they also tend to reinforce misguided stereotypes that perpetuate gender bias and insensitivity,” it added. Resistance of victims might also worsen the impacts of rape, according to the high tribunal, citing that perpetrators of these acts are usually known by the victims. The Supreme Court added that these victims are already subject to other abuses.
“The resistance requirement thus compels a woman to risk her life to protect her ‘virtue, honor, and chastity’ as if a woman should believe that life is not worth living if she was abused without a fight,” its ruling read. “The right of women to autonomy and bodily integrity should be recognized and respected just as it is for men. That there are cases that continue to invoke this line of reasoning compels the Court to state in clear terms why this position, i.e., that a woman must prove that she tenaciously resisted a man’s sexual assault before she can claim that she was raped, is both legally and morally wrong,” the Supreme Court added.
Source: Supreme Court: Resistance from victim not required in rape cases | Philstar.com
LN: iron-hand discipline + resistance should be manifested and tenacious… boo!