B.

Civil Aspect
Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered
into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation
of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature consequences, and incidents are
governed by law !rt ", #amily $ode% &ince it is established that the married man and the
married woman are under the equal protection clause, the repercussions of the discrepancy
between the two crimes in the civil aspect. 'he civil status of the individuals is one of the reason
for them to be under the same substantial classification and not through their gender. (eing
married with one another, there are rights conferred to them and there are obligations imposed
between the two of them too. Marriage is definitely for two loving adults who view the
relationship with )amor gig nit amorem* respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to
togetherness, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution Ilusurio vs. Ilusurio+(ildner%.
In !rticle ,- of the #amily $ode is states that 'he husband and wife are obliged to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. !s
much as )fidelity* is concerned aside from criminali.ing marital infidelity, legal separation was
also provided for as a means to sanction the offending spouse. 'he #amily $ode further
considers se/ual infidelity as a ground for legal separation under !rt. 00, paragraph -. 1egal
separation does not dissolve the marriage tie, does not authori.e the parties to remarry but only
allows both spouses to live separately from each other.
'he law in ta2ing into consideration the social norms to draft these crimes seemingly
remembered to lay down provisions to protect human beings of the male gender. 'he 3hilippines
is a patriarchal society in general and though women are rising to equal ran2s in job employment
and opportunity it is still primarily the men who are e/pected to provide financial sustenance for
the family. In this case would not the married man who have e/tramarital affairs with another
woman would be e/pected to provide financial support to that woman and to the children he may
bring into the world. 'he salary of the philandering husband would be divided to allocate for his
mistress and their children if any, which will diminish the rightful subsidy for his legal family.
!rticle 45 of the #amily $ode provides that the spouses are jointly responsible for the support
of the family. !nd since the men are the prevalent bread+winner of the family, it will be
disadvantageous for the wife to consent for the husband allocating his earnings in order to lavish
to his mistress. 6hen one of the neglects his or her duties to the conjugal union or commit acts
which tend to bring danger, dishonor or injury to the other or to the family, the aggrieved party
may apply to the to the court for relief !rt. 47, #amily $ode%. 'hese reliefs will be further
discussed in relation to the topic.
In the case of $abahug+Mendo.a vs. 8arela, the husband maintained illicit amorous
relation with his paramour and wasted the family fortune on her, the wife then as2ed for the
administration of conjugal property be given to her while not as2ing for legal separation.
3reviously, !rticle 09-% rests upon !rticle 999 and !rticle 99: which mean that for se/ual
infidelity to e/ist the crime of !dultery or $oncubinage must first be proven. (y virtue of the
amendment se/ual infidelity can now be committed by a single act of se/ual intercourse on the
part of the husband and wife with a person other than their spouse. ;ven when se/ual infidelity
as a ground for legal separation was revised, there is still a need to revise the crime of
$oncubinage. 'he particular reason for the revision of !rticle 00-% was the disparity e/isting
between !rticle 999 and !rticle 99: causing this ground to be e/tremely difficult to prove in the
part of the offended wife. !ltering the provision of se/ual infidelity in legal separation is an
admission of the inequality between the two crimes. <owever this revision only serves an
emphasis that those blatant inconsistencies still e/ists between the two that was not rectified.
'he provision that in the crime of !dultery implicitly declaring that a man is innocent and
is not liable for adultery if she did not 2now the woman was married and the three acts of which
a man can be liable to the crime of $oncubinage functions as a reason for which a man can
escape punishment for having e/tra+marital affair. 3rovisions to safeguard women*s interest and
rights were merely added as an afterthought such as through the result of &upreme $ourt rulings.
=ne e/ample for this is the defense that a woman can use the defense that she did not 2now the
man to be married was not written in the !rticle 99: of $oncubinage. 'he law as it is worded
presently, turns a blind eye to the absurdity of the situation produced by these two incongruous
crimes. ! married man may be proven to have fathered a child with a woman not his wife and he
will still not be guilty of $oncubinage, such case transpired in 3eople v. (enlot. 'hough one of
the essential marital obligations under the #amily $ode is to procreate children based on the
universal principle that procreation of children through se/ual cooperation is the basic end of
marriage. $hi Ming 'soi v. $!% It does not mean that once a person is married, he or she may
then engage in further procreation with other partners. 'he wife are clearly discriminated in the
sense that se/ual intercourse with another man is deemed !dultery while a man can e/ercise
discretion and caution for his se/ual relation with other women to not be under the three
circumstances provided for in $oncubinage.
'he >eyes in his annotated boo2 of the >evised 3enal $ode admits that $oncubinage is
more severely punished than concubinage and then further admits that both crimes are a violation
of the marital vow. >eyes then differentiated adultery from concubinage in the sense that
infidelity of the husband does not bring into the family, spurious offspring. <owever, this is
remiss owing to the fact that the husband does not, indeed, bring spurious child into his family
but he can however impregnate his mistress and father illegitimate children. (orn out of parents
who are not legally married, illegitimate children are granted with successional rights by the
$ivil $ode and is entitled to the legitime. ! legitime is that part of the testator?s property which
he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are, therefore, called
compulsory heirs In !rticle --,, $ivil $ode, (oo2 III%. ! spurious child is not given any
particular rights at all by the law however an illegitimate child is a compulsory heir. ! man who
fathered an illegitimate child can still be obliged to give support even if the child is living with
the mother. <owever this support should be chargeable to the separate property of the man. If
during the marriage there were no property regime declared, the absolute community property
regime, wherein the properties of the husband and wife shall be merged into one for the benefit
of the family, will be imposed as default. ! property regime is the way in which the properties of
both the husband and wife shall be governed in relation to their marital union. &ince the couples
in the 3hilippines are not very meticulous with this detail, the absolute property regime will be
laid down as default. 6hen an illegitimate child demands support from the man and the man has
no separate property and the property regime is absolute community property, then it will be
ta2en from there. 'his will result into the reduction of the family*s property.
@ow we have seen that a man*s infidelity can cause legal injury, disastrous consequences
for the family and the tolerance for the lac2 of compliance with his obligations as a husband. 'he
#amily $ode is replete with articles and provision e/plicitly stating the obligations of married
individuals such as fidelity, support, and mutual love. ;ven the $onstitution protects the family
as provided for in !rt. "0, &ection 7. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the &tate.
;ven though the $ivil $ode ac2nowledged the discrimination of a wife from a husband,
the amendment reflects the present society*s views on common law relationship. 6e are not
wishing to deny these rights but we question the presence of these rights in the $ivil $ode.
$. Aender ;quality
8irginia 6olf said in the "B75s which is still relevant today CIt is obvious that the values of
women differ very often from the values which have been made by the other se/. Det it is the
masculine values that prevail C
'here is the implication that once an individual is married a monogamous relationship with
their spouse shall be observed. 6hy is this e/pectation of monogamy only highly e/pected and
strictly imposed upon the wife onlyE 'he reason may be the crime of !dultery having its roots
from when women where considered property of the men and continued to e/ist throughout
history from patriarchal societies. !ncient civili.ation punished the women*s marital infidelity
with inhumane punishments, such as the !.tecs stoning to death a woman who committed
marital infidelity. >omans strictly punished adultery of women while men were provided with
legal immunity. >eligions such as Fudaism and $hristianity were oriented towards the patriarchal
family strengthened the male dominated structure of society. It seems most unfair for a man to
require from a wife the chastity he does not himself practiceC Glegal ma/im of Hlpian. ;ven the
=ld 'estament of the $hristian (ible displays instances wherein the crime of adultery is severely
imposed upon the married woman while the married men are implicitly absolved. !nd the man
that committeth adultery with another man?s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his
neighbour?s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death 1ev 75I"5%.
In this passage on infidelity in marriage, the author postulates that the infidelity of a
husband, though also reprehensible, always had less serious social consequences than that of a
wife. 'he argument was based on the fact that public roles i.e., outside of the family% were
ascribed e/clusively to men. =n this basis, women*s infidelity was more contemptible because
it undermined basic family values and could not be reconciled with e/isting social mores.
!nother reason for this difference on society*s attitude towards infidelity was that the
e/tramarital affair of a woman is more contemptible than a man because of the family roles of
a husband and the wife. 'he wife is generally confined to the house and given the functions to
care for the family home and raise the children. 'he husband in turn is tas2ed to provide
financially for the family*s needs. 'he
&ociety before gave the basis of our concept that the e/tramarital affair of woman is a
deliberate decision which should be punished while the e/tramarital affairs of men is a )mista2e*
which should be attributed to his )nature*. 3hilippine culture before had greatly vindicated a
woman who would have infidelities while praising or tolerating a man who would have
e/tramarital affairs. $onsider #ilipino culture where male infidelity is still, sadly, seen by some
as a sign of virility and female domination, a study by Focano "BB:%, indicates that, to most
#ilipino% men, many of their flings or affairs are just pastimes and should not be ta2en seriously.
'hey mean nothing. (ut not to womenJ they all mean very much to them. !ccording to a
release from the @ational $ommission on the >ole of #ilipino 6omen in 755B, marital infidelity
is a major stressor among #ilipino couples, with about 9,K of men and 7K of women engaging
in e/tra+marital affairs in the country. 6hile the wife needed attention and loyalty from her
husband as she conscientiously performed her duties, the husband was more interested in
activities outside of the family*s scope, such as loo2ing for jobs or for diversions in the form of
e/tramarital relationships. 6hile more men were engaged in e/tramarital relations, a husband is
less tolerant or less forgiving when his wife becomes unfaithful.
the full and complete development of a country, the welfare of the world and the cause
of peace require the ma/imum participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields
+H@ 6omen
!dultery laws have usually been drafted and almost always implemented in a manner
prejudicial to women. 3rovisions in penal codes often do not treat women and men equally and
establish harsher sanctions for women, and in some countries, rules of evidence value women*s
testimony as half that of a man?s. #amilies are constructed around relationships that involve
obligations and responsibilities, but also status and power. SIBOL argues that this legal double
standard is based on womens child-bearing ability and mens claims of natural sexual needs or
drive, which are the same justifications used to maintain prostitution. In the case of City of
Manila vs. Laguio wherein the explanation given to render a proposed ordinance can be applied
to the inequality present between the crimes penalizing marital infidelity. It is not any less grave
a sin when men engage in it. And why would the assumption that there is an ongoing immoral
activity apply only when women are employed and be inapposite when men are in harness? This
discrimination based on gender violates equal protection as it is not substantially related to
important government objectives
'hough it is clear that a woman*s infidelity will create such effects that will be detrimental
to the family, the effects of a man*s infidelity though different from the former still e/ist even
though it is downplayed or mostly disregarded. 'he marital pattern of infidelity has such huge
impact to the offended wife that psychological effect can be a2in to persons who suffered
physical abuse. 6e must also ta2e note of the fact that the marital infidelity itself is an emotional
abuse to the wife because of the violation of trust, the man may blame the wife for his affairs
resulting to guilt, the stress arising from the fact that the wife is e/pected to perform nurturing
and care+ta2ing functions for a person who had victimi.ed her and also the effect of this towards
her raising of their children will be negative. 'he children of the legal wife shall develop a
prejudice and may grow up without respect towards the sanctity of marriage since their own
parent had violated it. 'he illegitimate children that the philandering husband may produce will
be treated to a life of stigma for being a )bastard* child which can result to a difficult childhood
and stunt the proper psychological and emotional growth of the child. 'he mistress then will also
be ostraci.ed and branded by society as a )querida*.
'here are several aspects where discrimination against women e/ist the general focus of
which are the economic status, access to education and health and political participation or
empowerment. !lthough there has been disregard to the prejudicial conduct towards women
within the civil domain with regards to social norms, traditions and the conte/t of family, it does
not mean that these deplorable treatment does not e/ist. !c2nowledgement is one thing there
must be action towards the implementation of the recogni.ed injustice.
So why do we assail this long-time ruling and crime? The same way that we say that we respect
the doctrine of operation that assumes that laws are right and in relation with how in this
contemporary times our patriarchal society changed how we appreciate women. It is may also be
in relation to how people tolerate mens misdemeanors such as spitting on the streets and peeing
on walls and posts like a dog. We know that it is not right to do that but why do we tolerate men?
It may be because of our patriarchal society. A patriarchal society is a society described as
However in the beginning of the 20
th
century our country expired a high rate of signifying that
women are gaining rights and opportunity equal to men. People may argue that women are in a
different class of men and this line of thought is nearing the misogynistic kind of thinking.
Women may be equal to men but the present general attitude of society speaks otherwise.
In the case of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, Justice Del Castillo who wrote the Opinion said that not
everything that society or a certain segment of society wants or demands is automatically a
human right The men and people who support them in the contending that it is the nature of
men to have affairs outside of marriage because of the sexual drive innate in their gender is
submitting the idea that the natural state of men is that they are incapable of controlling their
sexual urges so that the law that regulates society must indulge and be partial to their needs.
Justice Del Castillo further wrote that This has the effect of diluting real human rights, and is a
result of the notion that if "wants" are couched in "rights" language, then they are no longer
controversial. In the case of the double-standard in marital infidelity this has occurred to
different societies such as in the Philippines and is still not rectified. 6hat we are trying to
prevent here is the )double victimi.ation* of the offended party + first at the hands of the offender
and then of the legal system.
The bottom line here is "human nature" is not an excuse to have an affairPart of being
human and living in society is the capacity to control instincts, and not have them control us.

III. $=@$1H&I=@
6hen a spouse has engaged in an e/tra+marital affair, the various legal remedies can be
employed. <owever if one chooses to file criminal case against one*s spouse by virtue of marital
infidelity, there will be a clear discrepancy to the provisions between !rticle 999 of !dultery and
!rticle 99: of $oncubinage. 'hese provisions prove to be prejudicial to women while being
partial towards men. 'he previous crimes mentioned were also subjected to the requisites of
equal protection and was therefore found to be unconstitutional. 6e present the following
recommendation in view of the preceding grounds.
It is recommended to only amend !rticle 99: of $oncubinage. In order for the inequality to
be e/tinguished between the two crimes penali.ing marital infidelity, the crime of $oncubinage
must conform to the standards and requirements as to those imposed to a woman, which is the
absolute enforcement of the crime in the mere se/ual intercourse with a woman who is not his
legal spouse, without being accompanied by any qualifying circumstances. =ne manner in which
to accomplish justice between the two crimes is the deletion of the phrase )under scandalous
circumstances* which is the cause of many unsuccessful cases for its definition is ambiguous and
laborious to thoroughly prove in court.
'he &enate (ill 75"0 sponsored by &enator ;dgardo F. !ngara contains a similar
proposition, including the addition of qualifying the penalty for the concubine.
It is also recommended that the two succeeding !rticles 999 and 99: be amended to be
consolidated into one single article of !dultery applicable for both married parties with the same
requisites, as well as penalty. &enator >ichard Aordon who sponsored two bills with the same
purpose had stated in a press release thatI
&enate (ill @os. "9,7 and "9,9 see2 to retain only one of these crimes and repeal the
other. 'he retained crime of either adultery or concubinage will then become marital infidelity
that will be made applicable to both husband and wife. 'his legislative measure implements the
&tate policy under the $onstitution on the fundamental equality before the law of women and
men.