Decision - 53 - G.R. No. 227363 The President Pro Tern pore. Is there any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the amendment is approved. How about the title, "Child Prostitution," shall we change that too? Senator Angara. Yes, Mr. President, to cover the expanded scope. The President Pro Tempore. Is that not what we would call probably "child abuse"? Senator Angara. Yes, Mr. President. The President Pro Tempore. Is that not defined on line 2, page 6? Senator Angara. Yes, Mr. President. Child prostitution and other sexual abuse. The President Pro Tempore. Subject to rewording. Is there any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the amendment is approved. Any other amendments? 117 Indeed, the Angara amendment explains not just the rationale of the body of Section 5(b) ofR.A. No. 7610 to cover a loophole or situation where the minor may have been coerced or intimidated to indulge in lascivious conduct. The amendment of President Pro Tempore Laurel, however, also affects the title of Article III, Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610, i.e., "Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse." It is settled that if a chapter and section heading has been inserted merely for convenience or reference, and not as integral part of the statute, it should not be allowed to control interpretation. 118 To our mind, however, the amendment highlights the intention to expand the scope of Section 5 to incorporate the broader concept of "child abuse," which includes acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC committed against "children," as defined under Section 3 of R.A. No. 7610. Records of the Senate deliberation show that "child prostitution" was originally defined as "minors, whether male or female, who, for money or profit, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct are deemed children exploited in prostitution." 119 With the late addition of the phrase "or subject to other sexual abuse," which connotes "child abuse," and in line with the policy of R.A. No. 7610 to provide stronger deterrence and special protection of children against child abuse, We take it to mean that Section 5(b) also intends to cover those crimes of child sexual abuse already punished under the RPC, and not just those children exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, who are coerced or intimidated to indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. This is the reason why We disagree with the view of Justice Perlas-Bernabe that the first proviso under 117 118 119 Record of the Senate, Vol. I, No. 7, August 1, 1991, p. 262. Commissioner of Customs v. Relunia, 105 Phil. 875 (1959). Records of the Senate, Vol. IV, No. 116, May 9, 1991, p. 33. t7