SEXISM IN THE FAMILY CODE

Art 14 of Family Code

Art. 14. In case either or both of the contracting parties, not having been emancipated by a
previous marriage, are between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, they shall, in addition to the
requirements of the preceding articles, exhibit to the local civil registrar, the consent to their
marriage of their father, mother, surviving parent or guardian, or persons having legal charge of
them, in the order mentioned. Such consent shall be manifested in writing by the interested party,
who personally appears before the proper local civil registrar, or in the form of an affidavit made in
the presence of two witnesses and attested before any official authorized by law to administer oaths.
The personal manifestation shall be recorded in both applications for marriage license, and the
affidavit, if one is executed instead, shall be attached to said applications. (Emphasis supplied)

The first two sentences of Article 14 form part of the instructions printed on Municipal Form No.
92 or Consent of Marriage of an underage person which is still being used by the local civil registrar.1
The phrase in the order mentioned underscored above shows that the law is explicitly partial to the
fathers decision to give or withhold consent to the marriage of a son or daughter. Thus, if the mother
consents but the father objects to the marriage, there is no valid consent to the said marriage.2 On
the other hand, even when the mother may have serious objections to the marriage, the childs father
could decide otherwise and the mothers reservations will be left unheeded.

Family Code Article 55 (1)

Article 55 (1) states that legal separation could be filed if petitioner or the common child of the
petitioner receives repeated physical violence or gross abusive conduct.

While the law itself is applicable to both spouses, the PCW notes that wives are at a disadvantage
owing to the general physical strength of husbands. The law also states that the abuse has to be
repeated to qualify. So in cases of wife-beating, battered wives may have to suffer sustained and
heavy beating to be able to file for legal separation, the PCW said.

It is on these grounds that the PCW is calling for an amendment to consider not only the number of
times abuse is inflicted but the seriousness of the abuse. The legislative measure to amend Article 55
according to the PCWs recommendations is pending in Congress.

Family Code Article 96 and 124

Articles 96 and 124 state that while ownership of properties belongs to both spouses jointly, it is the
husbands decision that shall prevail in case of disagreements.
The issue that womens groups have with these articles is clear, as the law presupposes that husbands
are wiser and have better judgment than their wives. It also implies that since husbands are most
likely the breadwinners, they ought to make the decisions when it comes to properties.

The PCW has submitted recommendations to amend these two articles, suggesting that decisions on
community property require the consent of both spouses to encourage mutual decision-making. Like
the above articles, the recommendations are pending in Congress.

Family Code Article 221 and 225

Articles 221 and 255 both pertain to the legal guardianship of a married couple over their common
children.

Article 221 states that the husband and wife jointly have legal guardianship over their common
children. However, in disagreements over legal guardianship, the husbands decision prevails unless
there is a judicial order against it.

Article 225 focuses on the property of the child, in which a married couple has legal guardianship of a
dependent childs property. Like Article 221, unless there is a judicial order against him, the husbands
decisions prevail over any argument arising over the childs property.

Like Articles 96 and 124, Articles 221 and 225 are questionable as far as womens groups are
concerned. Based on the PCWs interpretation, these force the wife to go to court every time she has
to question her husbands decision.

To amend the two articles, the PCW suggests that both should require the consent of the husband
and wife over matters of legal guardianship over their children and their property.

SEXISM IN LABOR CODE

Women Night Workers

Consistent with giving women equal access to employment opportunities, the night work prohibition
in the Labor Code of the Philippines was repealed by Republic Act No. 10151 (An Act Allowing
Employment of Night Workers Thereby Repealing Articles 130 and 131 of the Labor Code) which
provides the terms and conditions for the employment of women night workers.

Notably, night workers are those whose work covers the period from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. the
following morning, provided, that the worker performs no less than seven (7) consecutive hours of
work. Pregnant or nursing women night workers are given the added privilege, as far as practicable,
to be assigned to day work, before and after childbirth for a period of at least sixteen (16) weeks
which shall be divided between the time before and after childbirth. Where transfer to day work is
not possible, a woman employee may be allowed to extend her maternity leave without pay or to use
earned leave credits.

Leave Benefits

1. Special Leave Benefits (2 Months)

Aside from the maternity leave benefits, the Magna Carta of Women provides for special leave
benefits (SLB) to female employees who underwent surgery caused by gynecological disorders, not
limited to, dilatation and curettage and those involving female reproductive organs, as certified by a
competent physician. Further, in DOLE Department Order No. 112-A, it was clarified that the benefit
consists of two (2) months paid leaves based on gross monthly compensation (salary plus
allowances).To be eligible, the availing female employee should have rendered at least six (6) months
continuous aggregate employment service for the last twelve (12) months prior to surgery. The
benefit can only be availed of for a maximum period of two (2) months per year. The benefit cannot
be taken from existing statutory leaves, as it is considered in addition to leave benefits granted under
existing laws. Where the woman employee undergoes surgery due to gynaecological disorder during
her maternity leave, she is entitled only to the difference between the SLB and maternity leave. In the
event that an extended leave is necessary, the female employee may use her earned leave credits.

2. Battered Woman Leave (10 Days)

R.A. No. 9262 (Anti Violence against Women and Children Act of 2004) entitles women who are
victims of violence whether physical, sexual or psychological to an additional paid leaves of up to ten
(10) days. The leave benefit shall cover the days that the woman employee has to attend to medical
and legal concerns. The leave may be extended, without pay, when the necessity arises as specified in
the protection order.

3. Solo Parent Leave (7 Days)

For women who are solo parents as defined in the law, R.A. No. 8972 (The Solo Parents Welfare Act
of 2000) grants seven (7) working days every year to any solo parent employee who has rendered
service for at least one (1) year.

Non-Discrimination/Equal Remuneration For Work Of Equal Value

Central to the protection given to women is the prohibition of discrimination in any of its forms. R.A.
No. 6725 (An Act Strengthening the Prohibition on Discrimination Against Women with Respect to
Terms and Conditions of Employment, Amending for the Purpose Article One Hundred Thirty Five of
the Labor Code), which amended Article 135 (Discrimination Prohibited) of the Labor Code,
strengthened the prohibition on discrimination against women by attaching criminal liability for wilful
commission of unlawful acts of discrimination against women, which include, but not limited to the
following: (a) payment of a lesser compensation to a female employee as against a male employee,
for work of equal value; and (b) favoring a male employee over a female employee with respect to
promotion, training opportunities, study and scholarship grants solely on account of their sexes. Also,
Article 136 (Stipulation Against Marriage) declares as unlawful to require as a condition of
employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married, to dismiss
or to prejudice a female employee who contracts marriage. Moreover, Article 137 (Prohibited Acts)
makes it unlawful to deny or to discharge any woman employee for the purpose of preventing her
from enjoying the benefits provided for in the law.