Family Code amendment passed in silence, may disadvantage women

By ANNIE RUTH SABANGAN, GMANews.TV

Published April 2, 2008 10:31pm

MORE FILIPINOS WANT TO END MARRIAGE

- ARCS, GMANews.TV

MANILA, Philippines - Lovers are supposed to share "one body, one heart, one soul" â€” and whatever wealth they acquire before getting married. Some lawmakers, however, seem to believe in sharing only the body, the heart and the soul â€” not the wealth. At the House of Representatives, lawmakers are preparing a measure that would dissolve a law that mandates a husband or a wife to share his or her wealth to his or her partner. The proposed measure would allow a spouse to keep what he or she reaped before saying "I do." House Bill 2420 or the Act Amending Article 75 of the Family Code of the Philippines was passed unnoticed, like most measures changing the names of streets and schools. On February 5, 2008, the day before the ouster of Jose de Venecia Jr as Speaker, lawmakers passed the measure. "We had two to three committee hearings before it was approved, and nobody opposed its passage," said Cebu Representative Pablo Garcia, the bill's author. HB 2420 was a two-page, seemingly harmless, proposal. "We're just going back to our tradition on property relations in marriage," Garcia said. The lawmaker proposed to revert to the "conjugal partnership of gains" system that ruled the lives of married couples before 1988. Under the set-up, a spouse has no right over the property that his or her partner obtained prior to the wedding. He or she is only entitled to the assets that his or her partner acquired since the start of the marriage. For example, if Juan inherited a 100-hectare land from his parents before getting married to Maria, Maria would have no right over Juan's landholding. If Maria bought a car or a house before getting married to Juan, Juan would have no right over these, too. The set-up was changed to the "system of absolute community of property relations in marriage" when the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. The "rule on absolute community" entitles the spouse to equal rights over the property acquired by the husband or the wife before and during the marriage. Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban described the "absolute community regime" as the "marital ring" of legal sharing. Panganiban, in a newspaper article, said: "Unless â€“ prior to the wedding â€“ the parties enter into a written marriage settlement, the absolute community regime takes effect immediately, even if the titles to the assets are registered in the name of one spouse only." "Accordingly, land, condominiums, cars, computers, and jewelry of each of the spouses automatically become communal...Neither spouse may sell, mortgage, or give away any communal asset without the consent of the other," he added. Garcia, however, said the absolute community regime defies "the long accepted system of conjugal partnership of gains." Prior to the Family Code, a spouse had no right over the property that his or her partner acquired before marriage. The Spanish Civil Code, which was enforced from 1889 to 1950, and the new Civil Code, which was in effect from 1950 to 1986, both mandated the conjugal partnership of gains. Garcia also said he favors the retention of a spouse's exclusive rights because it is consistent with the law of succession. "When property is inherited from a descendant, that asset is reserved for the family of the propertied spouse," the lawmaker said. "Under the absolute community rule, the property line between a child and his or her parents is cut once that child marries," he added. Removing the spouse's right over the property that his or her partner acquired before marriage is allowed through a prenuptial agreement. But Garcia said it is still "not acceptable" for most Filipinos. Garcia filed the bill on September 4. It was referred to the House Committee on Revision of Laws on September 17. Garcia heads the committee. On December 18, HB 2420 was approved on second reading. On February 5, the House passed the bill on third and final reading. On February 11, the proposed legislation was transmitted to the Senate. HB 2420, a measure that could affect the lives of 26.1 million married Filipinos, was passed and approved without a noise, except that which came from a retired judge.

Divorce Magazine.com listed countries where percentage of divorce is high.

Sweden	54.9%
Belarus	52.9%
Finland -	51.2%
Luxembourg	47.4%
Estonia	46.7%
Australia	46%
United States	45.8%
Denmark	44.5%
Belgium	44%
Austria	43.4%
Czech Republic	43.3%
Russia	43.3%
United Kingdom	42.6%
Norway	40.4%
Ukraine	40%

Jesus Quitain, former judge of the Regional Trial Court in Davao City, warned that the measure would be against the interest of women. He posits that in a situation that a wife is less propertied compared to a wealthy, womanizing, wife-beating, drunkard husband, the woman would be at the losing end in case the marriage is annulled or the couple separate. The former judge said Article 75 of the Family Code is a triumph for wives, because the law had somehow discouraged husbands to fool around. "With this law, the wealthy spouse, usually a spoiled husband, might be stopped from having mistresses, gambling, drugs, and the like, although he can afford it. This is because when the wife files a case and there is a division of assets, the wealthy spoiled spouse responsible for the breakup will lose part of the property he owned before marriage," he said. Too simplistic A professor of Family Laws at the Manuel L. Quezon University said tradition cannot be used as basis for legislation, especially if it no longer mirrors the present makeup and needs of society. Lawyer Florisa Almodiel said using tradition as basis for crafting HB 2420 "is too simplistic." She said: "We can't use the argument that we should go back to conjugal partnership of gains just because this was the practice since the Spanish time." "Power relations between couples have already evolved. Yesterday's groom and bride are no longer today's husband and wife," said Almodiel. She said questions like "What is the present makeup of families? Who is the more economically-empowered or the more-disadvantaged spouse? What is the economic impact of marriage dissolution on the wife, on the husband, and on their children? Who will gain and who will lose if property relation reverts back to conjugal partnership of gains?" must be considered. Almodiel said that while Quitain's stereotyping of wives and husbands could explain inequity, it is inadequate to gauge the likely impact of changes in property relations of couples who do not fall under the rich husband-poor wife partnership. "It only applies to one kind of situation. There are many other scenarios," she said. She cited cases when a wife is the hardworking and propertied spouse, and the husband is the bum or philanderer or both. "Would it be fair if the erring husband gets an equal share of the properties that were single-handedly raised by the wife?" There are also cases when a wife's contribution to the family's resources is undervalued, if not deemed unimportant because its constitutes unpaid labor. "She does not earn and may not have her own property. But childbearing and homemaking â€“ cooking, washing clothes and dishes, cleaning the house, raising children â€“ are part of her chores. The economic value of the wife's multiple roles in the household must be recognized and included in the equation on proposed changes in marital property relations," said Almodiel. While there might be a need to amend the Family Code, lawmakers must first get into the heart of the problem on marital power relations, according to Almodiel. "Issues on property relations in marriage shouldn't just be limited to a debate on whether we should retain absolute community or go back to conjugal partnership of gains," she said, adding that it may not even be the real issue that must be addressed. "Laws solve conflicts. But we should know first what are the conflicts before we address them through laws," she said.

THE INVISIBLE WOMEN

Marilyn Waring of New Zealand criticized the use of GNP and GDP as economic indicators, which were institutionalized through the UN System of National Accounts. She said the GNP and the GDP excluded women's work (other unpaid work and things that have only use-value and not exchange value) in measures of economic progress. The UN Platform for Action Committee Monitoba gives examples on how the UNSNA unfairly values work, activities, and resources: Things of economic value: Women's bodies when used in media advertising; trees that are cut down; the tobacco industry; arms and missile production; the weight loss industry; crime, the court system, and imprisonment; prostitution; illness, clinics, and hospitals; death and the funeral business; rebuilding countries after natural disasters or terrorist attacks; war; and oil spills. Things without economic value: A mother's contribution to the birthing process; caring for own children; doing own dishes and laundry; hunting, vegetables grown in own garden and eaten by family; hunting, fishing, and trapping own food; beauty (except if it's for sale in an art piece); health; rivers and forests (when they're not being harnessed for economic gain). In a study presented in the December 2007 Global Forum on Gender Statistics in Italy, the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) said unpaid work adds 66.2 percent in the Philippines' GDP. It also said that 59.6 percent of the total hours of unpaid work are done by women. In another study, NSCB secretary general Romulo A. Virola cited results of time-use surveys from 1979 to 2000 showing that "women's unpaid housework is greater than (that of) men." In the 1979 time-use survey, it was found out that single women performed unpaid work of 3.04 hours per day or almost twice as long as the unpaid 1.71 hours done by their male counterparts. The 1979 survey said married women were in a "more disparate" situation. Their daily unpaid work of 7.93 hours was thrice as much as the 2.63 hours of unpaid work by their male counterparts. The gap in unpaid work between women and men became wider in the 1985 to 1990 survey. Women's unpaid work of 6.57 hours per day was almost four times longer than men's 1.87 hours. Virola said there was an "observed improvement" in the 2000 survey "when the ratio of unpaid work of women to men went below two hours." - ARCS, GMANews.TV

Economic impact Even in advanced economies, power relations are heavily tilted toward men. Major studies show that in these countries, dissolution of marriage often results in the economic deprivation of wives, and the improved economic status of husbands. Sociologists Saul Hoffman and Greg Duncan concluded in their 1988 study that in the US, the standard of living of the custodial mother and her children were reduced by 30 percent on the average, while that of the noncustodial father increased to about 15 percent. In another study in 1994, American scholars Jay Teachman and Kathleen Paasch pointed out that even when employment rates among custodial mothers increased after divorce - from 58 to more than 70 percent - this did not necessarily improve their economic status. The study shows that while the divorced wife's "first response to economic stress" was to enter into the labor force, the average amount she earns, which comprises 60 percent of the single-parent family income, "declined from immediately before to immediately after (marriage) disruption." Teachman and Paasch attributed the decline to either low-paying or "less than full-time" jobs available to divorced wives. In 2005, sociologists Dorien Manting and Anne Marthe Bouman of The Netherlands said the result of their study on the economic impact of marriage dissolution on Dutch women was "consistent" with the findings in other countries such as the US, Great Britain, Germany and Canada. They said "women experience a large financial setback, whereas men even seem to gain financially from divorce." Manting and Bouman said that while more Dutch women joined the labor force after marriage dissolution, "this does not really mean that (they) gain enough to become economically independent of their spouses." Why not? Because according to the study, most of these women, who are responsible for taking care of children, could only work part-time. And even when they work full time, they get paid less than men. Economic subordination In the Philippines, no comprehensive study has yet been done on the economic impact of marriage dissolution on wives, particularly on those who also act as custodial parents. Most studies and surveys on women deal on their participation in the labor force, while a few, and still germinal studies focus on their increasing role as heads of households in urban areas, and the prevalence of female unpaid family workers in rural areas. Nevertheless, it could be inferred from these studies and surveys that while some female professionals in urban areas are now more economically competitive than their male counterparts, majority of women remain in economically subordinate positions, whether in the house where they render unpaid labor, or at the workplace where most of them are low-paid wage earners. For instance, a report presented by the NSCB during the December 2007 Global Forum in Gender Statistics in Rome, showed that economic power remained in the hands of men. The NSCB report said that in 2005, employment rate for men was at 74 percent, while that of women only stood at 46 percent. A separate survey by the National Statistics Office in 2004 showed that for 10 years, since 1995, labor force participation by females (50 percent) consistently lagged behind that of males (over 80 percent). Even in the government's supposed equitable distribution of economic resources under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), peasant women still suffer from inequality. Data culled by GMANews.TV from the Department of Agrarian Reform showed that the government failed to equitably distribute farmlands to male and female CARP beneficiaries. From 2002 to 2004, only 506,571 female CARP beneficiaries, representing 27 percent of the total beneficiaries, were awarded their emancipation patents and certificates of landownership award. The bulk of the EP and CLOA was awarded to 1,338,701 male tillers or 73 percent of the beneficiaries. In terms of percentage, gender inequality in the CARP's EP and CLOA distribution was most pronounced in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Of the 9,542 beneficiaries, only 15.5 percent were women, the rest, 84.5 percent, were men. Second to ARMM was Region 2 in Cagayan Valley. Of the 159,118 beneficiaries, only 17.2 percent were women, while 82.8 were men. Third was Region 3 or in Central Luzon, where only 21 percent of the 227,648 beneficiaries were women, and the rest, 79 percent, were men. Economic undercount Just how poor and disadvantaged are women in the Philippines? How much is their real contribution to the economy when they work in and outside of the household, whether paid, underpaid or unpaid? What is the economic status of female and male-headed households (single, widowed, separated or annulled) in urban, rural, and regional areas? These could be some of the vital questions that need answers before deciding on the fate of HB 2420. However, lack of comprehensive gender, sex-disaggregated, sector-specific, and socioeconomic class-based statistics has failed to define women's problems. This, according to many cause-oriented organizations has led the government to sidestep issues on women in many of its reform policies, and thus fail to address the interest of the sector. Similar to this concern is the issue earlier raised by Almodiel on HB 2420 that was apparently approved without being backed by an impact assessment based on sound socio-economic and legal research. In its 2007 report presented in a global forum in Rome, NSCB recognized the need to improve generation and analysis of gender statistics. It said the "economic undercount of women puts them in a situation that can perpetuate, if not outright worsen the inequity between men and women." The National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women also saw the need for accurate gender statistics essential in the implementation of government policies on women, and in meeting the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals by 2015. Goal 3 of the MDG is on promoting gender equality and empowering women. NCRFW chairperson Myrna T. Yao said the consciousness of data producers and users of gender statistics must be raised, while decision-makers must be influenced "to think and act for women." Also, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization emphasized the need for policy-makers and planners in the Philippines to address the plight of women by mainstreaming gender concerns. The FAO said policy makers could start by collecting sex-disaggregated local data, particularly on agriculture, environment, and rural production. With this backdrop on women's issues and lopsided power relations between men and women, passing HB 2420 into law might be a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. - GMANews.TV

Tags: annulment, legalseparation, husband, wife, couple