Some Peculiar Laws in the Philippines

There are several branches of law that are being applied in the Philippine’s legal system, to wit: criminal law, civil law, taxation law, constitutional law, etc. Before a law becomes as such, it starts as a proposed bill which shall be submitted to the Congress for First Reading then follows by another reading and submissions until signed by the President (See Sec. 27, Art. VI of the 1987 PH Constitution). The laws affect the general welfare of the public as well as the legal order of the State, thus it is very important to examine them taking consideration of the existing laws and the circumstances at the time of its proposal before passing as laws, otherwise- expect for future declaration of their nullity!

The recent example is the newly passed Republic Act No. 11479, otherwise known as Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. Many lawyers and commentators have declared their opposition to such for number of reasons, such as the ambiguity of some of its provisions and that the country has already an existing law that penalized terrorist acts- that is Human Security Act of 2007. Hence, it was questioned before the Supreme Court which ruled in its validity EXCEPT for the two provisions of the said law. (See the full case, which is not yet available as of this writing).

Anyway, my point is, a law, after several readings can still be declared unconstitutional if the same are believed to be as such by the High Court. However, there are really laws in the Philippines that although peculiar in some way, are still constitutional– and still applicable in proper cases. Here are some classic examples:

How to get away with Murder

Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.” Yes, either a man or woman can justify the act of killing. Ignore the use of “his” and focus on “legally married person”. Nonetheless, the law has its own teeth as provided by several Supreme Court decisions. It was ruled that, there must be a clear showing that the killing was done while the guilty spouse was in the act of “that”. Therefore, if the guilty spouse or the paramour or both were just naked, the killing of the spouse will not be justifiable even you were too sure that something happened or about to happen. (I think it make sense- the killing. Lol). So cheat no more to stay alive.

Fifty Shades of Grey

“Among the duties assumed by the husband are his duties to love, cherish and protect his wife, to give her a home, to provide her with the comforts and the necessities of life within his means, to treat her kindly and not cruelly or inhumanely. He is bound to honor her x x x; it is his duty not only to maintain and support her, but also to protect her from oppression and wrong. x x x Husbands do not have property rights over their wives’ bodies. Sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of marriage, if not consensual, is rape.” -People v. Jumawan, 2014

Another criminal provision that I found odd (initially until I read an annotation) is Article 266-C of the Revised Penal Code which states that “The subsequent valid marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.” Yes dear, when the offended party married the offender, the latter shall be exonerated from his/her criminal liability and/or penalty imposed. Interestingly, when the crime of rape was still categorized as crime against chastity, the benefits under this provision extends to the accomplice and accessory of the said crime. However, by virtue of the amendment, which classified rape now as crime against person and not chastity, according to Luis Reyes the benefit of marrying the rape victim by the offended party will no longer extend to the accomplice nor accessory. It is important to take note also that, the marriage must be valid. Thus, if the marriage between the offender and offended was attendant by intimidation, force or undue influence, and therefore void ab initio ( for lack of consent), the said provision will not be applicable. Hence, the offender can still be criminally liable for the crime of rape.

The World of the Married

“Never underestimate the man’s ability to make you feel guilty for his mistakes” - Rihanna (or Kylie Padilla. lol)

Let’s see your reactions about this/these next law/s because while the Philippines are open to equality, these laws show a certain degree of discrimination just by being a woman. Art. 333 of the RPC provides that “Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.

Meanwhile, Art. 334 provides that Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

Comparing the two, we can see that the law punished the wife for committing the adultery just by having sexual intercourse with the man not her husband, whereas the husband MAY ONLY commit concubinage in three scenarios: keep mistress in the conjugal dwelling, sexual intercourse in ‘scandalous circumstances’, or cohabit with the paramour in other place. Either of these scenario must be proved by the wife before she can file a case against her guilty husband. You see, while the wife may be prosecuted on account of sexual intercourse, the husband may still have sex with others as long as the same will not fall on three scenarios. Just to be clear, I do not condoned this. I am just pointing out the discrimination manifested on the provisions. What’s more is that, in adultery, the wife may be imprisoned for up to 6 years while in concubinage, the husband may be imprisoned for 4 years. While in law school, I’ve heard that the reason behind this is that the woman is expected by the society to behave being the “ilaw ng tahanan”. Well, I guess both should be. Relationship and marriage is a two way process. To make it last, both must work it out. And if either does not want to stay in the marriage anymore, just leave, not cheat. ( alright, free life coaching!)

The Guide for the Perfect Family

“Family quarrels are bitter things. They don’t go according to any rules. They are not like aches or wounds, they’re more like splits in the skin that won’t heal because there’s not enough materials” - F. Scott

Actually, I don’t know if it is just me but I really find this next law as absurd if not odd. Under Art. 332 of the RPC exempts from criminal liability arising from the crime of swindling, theft and/or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:

• Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;

• The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and

• Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.

• The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime.

I believed that Filipinos are by nature , family oriented. Every occasions, festive and gatherings will always be celebrated together with the family – extended family and so on. What I disagree with is that, I don’t think, exempting the above mentioned family members can help solidarity among them. First, the crimes included here are ‘mala in se’ meaning they are crimes because the acts are contrary or violated moral, or natural principles. In short, even without law, they are evil in itself. Intent is also an essential element of the said crimes. Hence, if the family member committed it to other members, he/she/they has/have intent to do the crime in the first place. Therefore, the acts constituting the crimes are voluntarily committed against the others. It is just absurd that after knowing that they defrauded you, or took advantage of you, you cannot file a case just because they are exempted by the law. But listen, you (we) can still file a civil case for damages.

Jane, the Virgin

"A successful marriage requires falling in love many times, always with the same person.” - Mignon Mclaughlin

I just remember these provisions from the Family Code which according to my colleagues are thesisable: Article 14 and Art. 15 of the Family Code. The provisions require that the parties ages between 18 and 20 and between 21 and 25 who wish to marry, need to obtain parental consent and parental advice respectively. Failure of the parties to comply will cause the delay of the issuance of marriage license. Thus, the parties are required to re-apply for the marriage license together with the requirements. However, absence of which will not invalidate the marriage but would render the marriage voidable. And the person/s who caused the issuance of the marriage license or solemnizing the marriage despite want of parental consent and/or advice will be administratively liable.

Me, Myself and Irene

One of the grounds to nullify a marriage is when either or both of the spouses are psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code. Jurisprudence teaches us that one is psychologically incapacitated when he/she is incapable of complying with marital obligation. This, however, depends on case to case basis. It is really hard to tell whether certain characteristics or acts of the person may be refer to as incapacity in contemplation of Art. 36. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Republic v. Molina citing Santos v. CA, that psychological incapacity must be characterized of : gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The supreme court further explained the three characteristics in the recent case of Cortez v. Cortez, to wit;

The psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity, i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after marriage; and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.

However, there were several cases when a person whose previous marriage has been declared void by virtue of Art. 36, can still remarry after such declaration and the State, obviously allowed it. Why is the State still allowed the person declared psychologically incapacitated to enter subsequent marriage, when in fact, the condition is incurable in the first place, therefore a high chance of ending the same on the same ground? Philippines, as we all know has a strong state policy in upholding sanctity of the family. This may be the reason why the country is still against divorce.

In the most recent case of Tan Andal v. Andal, the Supreme Court has modified the interpretation of psychological incapacity, to wit; “psychological incapacity” as a personal condition that prevents a spouse from complying with fundamental marital obligations toward a specific partner and that may have existed at the time of marriage but became evident only through behavior subsequent to the marriage ceremony.

With that, it is clear now that, the incurability only applies to the current spouse. The person might be psychologically incapacitated to that spouse but not with others. (Parang hindi lang talaga kayo compatible sa isa’t isa, charot!). My curiousity about this law was actually answered by the case of Andal. Nonetheless, I think, this must be back up with more study specifically discussing whether it is possible that a person can be psychologically incapacitated to one and not to others — well, if there is already, then that’s an improvement in our legal system. If there’s not, I believe it is necessary to take consideration of that. Not that I intend to deprived the person to remarry, but considering the time and cost of litigation if after all, the marriage will eventually fall down on the same ground– and again and again.

Start Up

Our Corporation Code has been revised on 2019. Major provisions had progressively amended. Some of which are the removal of corporation’s limited period of existence. Before the amendment, the maximum corporate existence is only up to 50 years, subject to extension as provided by the said law. In the Revised Corporation Code, the corporate existence (of corporation which was created after the efffectivity of the amendment) continue to exist even after 50 yars except in cases where the law provides otherwise. The required percentage of paid up capital was removed from the provision. The new amended law, also introduced the One Person Corporation. Yes, a corporation runned by one person. This may sound weird but of course, this has advantage to those who want to start their business. Why? Being an OPC, it acquired the power of a corporation. As a corporation, it has separate personality from its stockholders. Hence, the liability will be limited to the corporation. The stockholder is the president and the director. He/ She can also be the treasurer but not as secretary.

Toss Coin

As I am writing this, election time is fast approaching but pandemic is still out there, as such, candidates’ campaign activities are subject to certain regulation. Oh, how I missed going to the center to watch and listen candidates’ propaganda. Expectedly, every candidates are well prepared for their speech to hook us up to obtain votes from us. But, what if, the candidates obtained a very fair and equal votes from public? Will there be a recount? or declaration of failure of election? Let’s see what the law provides. Section 240 of Omnibus Election Code, if the election resulted to ties, the board of canvasser shall then proceed to drawing of lots in order to determine the winning candidate. (oh di ba, may pa raffle). Coin toss is only a form of drawing lots and therefore allowed by law. Imagine, you are candidate and just lost because the luck of tossing the coin was not favorable to you (ouch). Anyway, DURA LEX SED LEX