Just when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed the Magna Carta for Women into law, her justice secretary sends a convicted rapist to Spain in a prisoner exchange program and her Deputy National Security Adviser Luis ?Chavit? Singson publicly admits that he had battered his estranged common-law wife. What the right hand giveth, the left hand poundeth away.

The original Magna Carta of 1215 secured by law the power of the feudal barons against the English king. Hereabouts, we used the law but for the opposite purpose: to enable a child of privilege, Paco Larrañaga?convicted in 1999 for the kidnap, rape and murder of the sisters Jacqueline and Marijoy Chiong?to leave his Philippine prison for a Spanish one. That law is the 2007 Treaty on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons between the Philippines and Spain, and its first and apparently intended beneficiary will be Larrañaga. The law in its majesty thus prevails, but it leaves the rest of us wondering whether justice has been left behind somewhere.

And today, nine centuries after the original Magna Carta, the feudal warlords strut about, cocky that neither the President of the Republic nor its courts are bold enough to enforce the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act (Anti-VAWC).

I saw on television the photos of Singson?s former live-in partner of 17 years, Rachel ?Che? Tiongson, her face all bruised from the beating and whipping (with the ?latigo? that Chavit allegedly used on his?hear this?pet tiger that he so gently patted and caressed in news photos). Then I watched in disbelief as Singson confessed that he had actually beaten her up. The next day, the papers quoted him as saying: ?Mabait pa nga ako, hindi ko sila pinatay.?

The Palace and in particular National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, Singson?s immediate boss, have made protestations that this is a ?private and personal family matter.? Falling in and out of love?yes, that is private. But beating up a partner black and blue is definitely public.

The Anti-VAWC law states: ?Section 25. Public Crime. Violence against women and their children shall be considered a public offense which may be prosecuted upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving the commission of the crime.? This aims to ensure that the case can be prosecuted even if the victim is coerced and intimidated into withdrawing the complaint, and that acts of violence should not be the subject of out-of-court settlements. In other words, the law authorizes the public to be officious minders in cases of domestic violence.

Second, Singson has warned women?s rights groups not to be taken for a ride by his ex-lover because, he argued, it was she who had asked for it by dating other men (that is, after she had broken off from him). There is no law, no reason, no excuse for domestic violence or the even more sleazy blackmail reportedly done on Tiongson and her date by Singson?s bodyguards.

It is thus imperative that activist groups remain focused on the case. Sen. Pia Cayetano, Gabriela party-list Representatives Liza Maza and Luzviminda Ilagan, Commission on Human Rights Chair Lilia de Lima and Gabriela secretary-general Emmy de Jesus must not let up on their vigilance.

Remember that Philippine institutions are weak. They will buckle down under pressure from above. In the words of no less than Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita when Singson was first appointed, Singson was an ally the Palace ?cannot afford to lose.? That should explain Press Secretary Cerge Remonde?s wimpish comment: ?We advise Undersecretary Singson to behave accordingly as an upright citizen and to submit himself to due process of law.?

This is not the first time that some warlord has been accused of domestic violence. Who remembers that former actress married to another local politician and who was desperate enough to kill herself by jumping off a building? Without public attention, this will be just another story that will soon be forgotten, and the feudal lords will continue to think that they are in fact the wounded victims, not the villains.

What perplexes me about domestic violence is that it dishonors the old-fashioned virtues of the feudal man. Recall the proverbial knight in shining armor coming to the aid of the damsel in distress, or the traditional respect and nurturing for the so-called ?weaker? sex. In others words, feudalism fostered its own moral universe, skewed and perverse, you may say, but a self-contained ecology of rules nonetheless that created the reciprocity of duties and privileges between patrons and clients, between men and women.

Part of that ecology is that there are proper ways by which to vindicate one?s honor. Even if you were to go twisted feudal all the way, ask yourself: What honor is there in beating up a weaker foe, in a grown man whipping a woman? What honor is there in using hired goons to fight your battles? Surely the true feudal lord would want to fight his enemy man-to-man, mano-a-mano? Wouldn?t the true samurai want to fight his own battles against fellow samurais? Worst, why find courage in guns and thugs, against an unarmed woman?

Domestic violence mocks that normative universe, and its practitioners are shamed even by feudalism?s own standards. That is why it sounds weird when Lorelei Fajardo, deputy presidential spokesperson, appeals to Singson?s sense of delicadeza. That assumes that he has kept faith by feudal virtues.

No, the 21st century feudal lord wants the feudal perks but, living in the modern, capitalist world, will purchase and outsource its burdens.

(Comments to passionforreason@gmail.com)