Sunday, June 15, 2008 Malilong: Case of the pregnant SK chairperson By Frank Malilong The Other Side
SUN.STAR reported yesterday that a 17-year-old chairperson of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) of Bacayan, Cebu City has been advised to resign because she is pregnant and her condition has impeded her capacity to carry out her duties and responsibilities.
The same report likewise quoted the Bacayan barangay captain as saying that lawyers from the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) told the girl that her pregnancy is an immoral act because she is still a minor.
Perhaps, the companeros and the barangay captain would have viewed the situation differently if the girl had gotten, or promised to get, married after she discovered her pregnancy. The rule of thumb in this part of the globe seems to be that while pre-marital sex is immoral, subsequent marriage provides instant absolution.
But the girl is only 17 and therefore cannot get married even if she and her child’s father want to. And her minority and consequent legal incapacity to contract marriage are now being held against her, if you believe the barangay chief’s account of what the DILG and CSC lawyers said.
We have many laws that safeguard the rights of minors but none, it seems, that allows a minor to keep his or her public position if he or she had engaged in sexual activity. (The Sun.Star report said the girl’s immoral conduct, as defined by the government lawyers, consisted in her getting “pregnant out of wedlock while she’s still a minor.”
But aren’t all minor pregnancies necessarily outside of wedlock for the simple reason that they are not allowed to marry under the law? Why couldn’t they just say that they are punishing her for having sex?)
Morality is a serious issue but I have always had misgivings on the behavior of its guardians especially their seemingly selective application of the rules. The girl’s case has done little to mitigate my unease.
For example, if the SK chairperson had been a boy and he had impregnated a girl would he have been considered morally unfit to discharge the functions of his office? Not likely. Society’s moral guardians would have most probably said that he was only a victim of circumstances. Worse, they would have condemned the girl because boys will always be boys and she shouldn’t have fallen for his advances!
This double standard is even more pronounced in favor of adult office holders. Many of them have committed acts far worse than what the SK chairperson is now being pilloried for. A former president flaunted his paramours even when he was still only a local executive but did he get as much as a reminder from the government’s assigned guardians of morality?
I’m not saying that we should discard all rules of morality, only that we apply them evenly and with compassion.
The most that can be said against the SK head is that she committed a mistake but don’t we all? Shouldn’t she instead be treated as a victim instead of perpetrator in the light of her young age? If we grant a minor who commits murder a second chance to join the mainstream of society, why can’t we accord the same privilege to another who, in a moment of weakness, succumbed to the temptations of the flesh?
