approve this bill and thereby add to the growing program for special protection of children and youth. We need this measure to deter abuse. We need a law to prevent exploitation. We need a framework for the effective and swift administration of justice for the violation of the rights of children.[30] This same deference to the discreteness and subsistence of the felonies in the RPC is apparent in this interpellation with respect to seduction: Senator Lina. This is qualified seduction. Simple seduction is seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation over 12, but under 18 years of age, committed by means of deceit. Here the subject is a woman. In our proposal, it will be both male and female. But that is not the only difference, Mr. President. The situation that we would like to cover that will lead to easier prosecution and to overcome this present problem of government enforcement agencies in booking or charging an alleged so called "pedophile" is that we want the fact of being present, say, inside a hotel, sauna, or an inn, between the presence of a person without any relationship with a child under 18 years of age and there is no sexual contact. It is not proved that there is sexual contact. There is no need for proof of lewd design. The fact that they are there will be considered an attempt to commit child prostitution. We are, in effect, advancing a new concept or theory, Mr. President, to cover this gap in our present statutes, making it easier or making it difficult for the prosecution to hale to court this so-called "pedophile." So, this is different from consented abduction, qualified seduction or simple deduction.[31] Force or intimidation does not equate to coercion or influence. Since Section 5(b) penalizes a specific class of lascivious conduct, I cannot concur with the ponencia when it states that the element of coercion or influence under Section 5(b) was met by the allegation in the Information of force and intimidationan element of Article 336. "Common" or "ordinary" acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 and lascivious conduct under Article 336 in relation to Section 5(b) are separate offenses, with distinct essential elements. To hold that the allegation and proof of the existence of an element of one can take the place of what has been jurisprudentially defined as an element of another muddles the understanding of these two offenses, and effectively constitutes judicial legislation as it results in a partial repeal of Article 336 through a change of its essential elements. The essential elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC are as follows: