ARTICLE XV

The Family
SECTION 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family
as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it
shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote
its total development.
SECTION 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social
institution, is the foundation of the family and
shall be protected by the State.
SECTION 3. The State shall defend:
(1) The right of spouses to found a family in
accordance with their religious convictions and the
demands of responsible parenthood;
(2) The right of children to assistance, including
proper care and nutrition, and special protection
from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to
their development;
(3) The right of the family to a family living wage
and income; and
(4) The right of families or family associations to
participate in the planning and implementation of
policies and programs that affect them.
SECTION 4. The family has the duty to care for its
elderly members but the State may also do so through
just programs of social security.

families

for

the

defense

of

its

rights

and

[ Volume III, September 24, 1986 ]

responsibilities, for the development of society and

JOURNAL NO. 91

for the planning, formulation and implementation of

Wednesday, September 24, 1986

family policies and programs that affect them.

SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MRS. NIEVA

She stated that the Constitutional Commission should

Mrs. Nieva stated that the rights of persons, which

the Constitution protects, have fundamental social
dimension
noted

in

that

the

family

institution
exists

of

prior

the
to

family.

the

State

She
and

take advantage of the opportunities to provide in

the

Constitution

certain

safeguards

for

the

inalienable family rights while enhancing its total

development.

other communities, and as stated by Pope John Paul

II, the future of humanity passes by way of the

She pointed out that since some of the provisions on

family,

the

which

possesses

inherent

and

inalienable

family

had

already

been

considered

in

other

rights that are intrinsic to its very existence and

Articles, the proposed Article on Family Rights had

perpetuity.

been

abbreviated.

She

explained

that

Section

provides for the promotion of the total development

She observed, however, that while history affirms
the family's indispensable role as primary educator,
economic provider, cultural mediator and spiritual
formator, the rights of the family have often been
ignored and undermined by legal, social and economic
structures and programs of many countries.

of the Filipino family; and Section 2, as amended by

Mr.

Gascon,

provides

that

the

institution

of

marriage is the foundation of the family, hence, the

protection of the rights of the spouses to found a
family, the rights of the family to a decent living
wage, and the right of the elderly to family care.

But unlike other peoples, she underscored that the

INTERPELLATION OF MR. DE CASTRO

Filipinos are family-centered, which trait has been

a real strength of the nation. She noted the deep

In reply to Mr. de Castro's query on Section 1, Mrs.

concern

children's

Nieva explained that "total development" refers to

turn,

the

welfare,

of

Filipino

education

parents
and

for

future,

their
and

in

the

social,

economic,

spiritual,

intellectual

and

children take good care of their elderly parents

cultural aspects of family life. She stated that the

with personal sacrifice.

Committee would, however, welcome any amendment on

the use of the term "actively promote".

She

maintained

that

the

family

system

should

be

preserved not only in the country but in all the

Mr.

world, because without such protection there would

suggestion

to

refer

be a gradual collapse of the family considering the

institution

as

found

various powerful forces in society.

considered in the period of amendments.

Moreover, she adverted to the new dimension of the

On Section 2(g), on the right of the elderly to

family as an agent of social change and development,

family care, Mrs. Nieva pointed out that in Western

and called on the State to protect such rights of

countries, the elderly are sent to institutions for

the family in order that it can cooperate with other

the

Gascon

aged

also

because

stated

that

to
in

Mr.

marriage
the

their

Civil

social

de
as
Code

and

Castro's
a

social

would

be

economic

structures do not allow the elderly to be maintained

agreed

with

in their own homes, which practice does not obtain

Committee has adopted the stipulation in the New

in the Philippines.

Civil Code which directs the State to defend the

rearing

Mr. de Castro disclosed that in Switzerland, the

of

Mr.

Nolledo's

children

in

observation

accordance

that

with

the

religious

convictions and demands of responsible parenthood.

elderly are given some help instead of sending them

to homes for the aged, and their family takes care

Additionally, Mr. Gascon stated that it would also

of them.

mean that the State shall defend the primary right

of the parents to determine how many children they

On

whether

the

Committee

intends

that

the

State

wish

to

have,

and

that

there

would

be

no

law

should take care of the elderly, Mrs. Nieva stated

authorizing the State to dictate on families how

that

many children they could have.

such

assistance

necessary,

for

would

instance,

be

extended

when

the

when

family

is

financially unable to support them.

On

Mr.

Nolledos

query

as

to

the

meaning

of

children, Mrs. Nieva explained that it refers to

Mr. Gascon explained that what the Article would

legitimate, legitimated, natural children by legal

like

fiction,

to

discourage

would

be

the

impersonal

care

given to the elderly in old folk homes and by their

acknowledged

natural

children

and

other

illegitimate children.

own families.
As to the meaning of decent living wage, Mrs. Nieva
On the age classification of "elderly", Mrs. Nieva

explained that it means the employment of at least a

explained

are

member of the family on a wage that will allow it to

themselves.

live a decent life supplemented by social service,

that

the

term

incapacitated

or

unable

Additionally,

Mr.

Gascon

refers
to

to

those

support

explained

that

who

"elderly"

refers to persons who are no longer as productive as

housing, health, education and other help from the

State.

they used to be but have the right to care from the

family which they had supported.

On

Mr.

Nolledo's

query

whether

the

Committee

is

aware that a minor who is employed by his parents

Mr.

de

Castro

elderly

is

contended

already

that

taking

Filipino

care

of

tradition

the
and,

therefore, there is no need for the provision in the

need not be compensated, Mrs. Nieva stated that what

the

Committee

contemplates

is

employment

of

the

child by a third person.

Constitution, to which Mrs. Nieva replied that the

Constitution is for future generations who, because

As to how the State could defend the institution of

of modern trends, may take the elderly for granted.

marriage as the foundation of the family, Mr. Gascon

stated that it could discourage divorce, but what

INTERPELLATION OF MR. NOLLEDO

the Committee would want to emphasize is that those

who wish to marry and establish a family have the

In

reply

Filipino

to

Mr.

family

Nolledo's
is,

Mrs.

query

Nieva

as

to

stated

what

that

a
the

Committee has adopted Article 217 of the New Civil

Code

as

the

basic

definition

thereof.

She

also

right to expect from society the moral, educational,

social

and

economic

conditions

that

would

enable

them to exercise their right to marry in maturity

In reply to Mr. Bernas' query whether the proposal

and responsibility.

of Mr. Gascon means prohibiting a general law on

divorce, Mr. Gascon replied that such is not his

On

whether

the

provision

would

outlaw

live-in

relationship Mrs. Nieva replied that it certainly

does

not

encourage

according

to

such

relationship

psychologists

and

intention and that he merely wanted to encourage the

social institution of marriage.

because

educators

many

INTERPELLATION OF MRS. QUESADA

delinquent children who eventually become criminals

come from families or homes which were not stable.

In reply to Mrs. Quesada's query as to how would the

Additionally, Mr. Gascon stated that although the

State actively promote the spiritual development of

provision does not encourage live-in relationship,

the Filipino family, Mr. Bacani explained that it

it also acknowledges the fact that some poor people

could be through education, specifically through the

establish families without marriage but who should

constitutional

not be discriminated.

instruction in public and private schools, and by

provision

allowing

religious

safeguarding the freedom of worship and religion.

Mr. Nolledo agreed with Mr. Suarez' observation that
Article 216 of the New Civil Code is also the thrust

On Mrs. Quesada's contention that the State should

of the Family Rights and that Article 218 of the

not

same Code which provides that no custom, practice

develop spiritually, Mr. Bacani replied that this is

or

not the intention of the Committee.

agreement

which

is

destructive

of

the

family

impose

on

the

family

how

the

members

should

shall be recognized or given any effect can be very

effective. However, Mr. Nolledo stated that this has
to

be

read

provision

in

the

which

light

respects

of

the

indigenous

Constitutional
customs

and

tradition and the decree of Mr. Marcos recognizing

Muslim laws on persons which allow divorce. With
respect to Article 219 thereof, which provides for
mutual aid, both moral and material, to be rendered
to members of the same family, Mr. Nolledo stated
that this is covered by Section 2 and, in the same
manner, Articles 220, 222 are also covered.

despite

these

provisions

of

the

Civil

Code, Mr. Nolledo stated that the importance of the

family as a basic institution must be underscored
and

raised

to

the

level

provision.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. BERNAS

of

instead of other words like "promote", "protect" or

"encourage", Mrs. Nieva explained that the Section
speaks of rights and rights must be defended. She
stated, however, that the Committee would be willing
to consider alternatives at the proper time.

On

the

constitutional

reason

why

the

Committee

has

limited

the

right of the spouses to found a family in accordance

with their religious convictions, Mrs. Nieva stated
that

On whether there is still need for a constitutional

provision

As to why the word "defend" was used in Section 2

the

Committee

would

be

willing

to

accept

amendments at the proper time.

As

to

what

children,
involve

Mrs.
the

education,
others.

assistance
Nieva
whole

moral,

could

be

explained
gamut

health,

of

extended
that
social

physical,

this

to

the

would

services,

spiritual

and

At

this

juncture,

one

Mr. Tingson suggested that the article be entitled

proposed amendment on the assistance for children

"Family Rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES" stating that it

reads as follows: CHILDREN SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO

is

PROPER CARE, NUTRITION, A RELEVANT, NON-SEXIST AND

husbands, wives and other family members that the

QUALITY

enjoyment

of

fulfilled

with

EDUCATION,

Mr.

AS

Bacani

WELL

informed

AS

that

PROTECTION

FROM

EXPLOITATION AND MENTAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSE.

necessary

Mrs.

Nieva

to

inculcate

rights

would

their

replied

into

be

minds

meaningless

respective
that

the

she

of

unless

responsibilities.
has

no

objection

Mrs. Quesada stated that the kind of assistance that

although

could be given the children must be enumerated so

Section to include the different responsibilities of

that

the family and that the Section might then become

the

people

would

know

exactly

what

kind

of

support the children would have. She suggested that

it

might

mean

reformulating

the

whole

unwieldy.

instead of providing for special protection against

neglect, cruelty and

Reacting thereto, Mr. Tingson remarked that if it is

exploitation, the Body should be more explicit in

the

the kind of assistance that should be extended to

accompany

the children.

more meaningful. Then adverting to the saying "No

conviction
those

that
rights,

responsibilities
the

Article

should

would

become

success elsewhere could ever compensate for failure

Mr.

Villacorta

suggested

that

stated

that

"assistance"

some

should

Members
be

have

at home", he inquired whether this is one of the

substituted

reasons for stating in the Article that marriage as

with PROPER CARE AND NUTRITION.

an institution is the foundation of the family, to

which Mr. Gascon replied that he believes marriage

On Mrs. Quesada's query whether the Committee would

be

amenable

to

including

provision

that

would

liberate the women or the girls of the family from

the bondage of household chores such as cooking,
washing and cleaning, Mr. Bacani stated that the
Body has already approved a provision regarding the

encourages
instances

a
of

strong

family,

successful

although,

families

not

there

are

founded

on

marriage. He concurred with Mr. Tingson's statement

that there is a lot of merit in developing values
and proper family perspectives which are beneficial
to society.

fundamental equality between men and women.

Mr.
Mrs. Quesada opined that the fundamental equality
between

men

and

women

should

also

apply

to

all

members of the family so that the boys and the girls

would have to share responsibility and learn the
basic things to make the family more cohesive. She
added that there should be reorientation of roles
and

that

she

would

present

effect.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. TINGSON

an

amendment

to

that

Tingson

observed

that

the

amendment

"the

institution of marriage as the foundation of the

family" is a positive suggestion that the family
should be based on marriage, to which Mr. Gascon
agreed.

Likewise,

marriage

is

to

based

on

his

inquiry

the

whether

husband's

and

good

wife's

respect for each other, Mr. Gascon noted that one of

the basic things needed in the development of the
family

is

love

and

partnership

upon

which

the

success of the family is based, with proper values

encouraged within the home.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. BENNAGEN

On the matter of promoting and defending the family,

Mrs.

In

reply

to

Mr.

Bennagen's

inquiry

on

the

Committee's understanding of "marriage", Mrs. Nieva

Nieva

stressed

that

the

State

should

exert

efforts to promote or defend the family in the same

manner as in the Social Justice provisions.

stated that it is the union of man and woman.

Mr. Bennagen informed that a recent study conducted
As to whether this would be the same as the folk

by the Communications Research Center headed by Mr.

norm of "nagsama sila", Mrs. Nieva stated that the

Villegas claims that the threshold wage of a Metro

Committee

does

mere

Manila family is around P5,865 per month. He noted

agreement

between

legal

that the Article does not state that there should

not

define

the

marriage

two

spouses

as

without

sanction.

only be one wage earner who should earn enough to

maintain the family. To his inquiry as to what the

On whether marriages which have not gone through

religious or legal rituals would be defended by the
State, Mrs. Nieva replied that "marriage" should be
understood in its general sense.

As

to

whether

this

would

compel

all

spouses

to

of folk ritual in the concept of "nagsama", Mrs.

replied

that

it

would

relation to their claims on the State, Mrs. Nieva

answered that the remunerations are provided in the
provisions on labor.

undergo a certain legal or religious ritual in lieu

Nieva

families earning wages below this level can do in

not

for

purposes

of

Mr. Bennagen, however, pointed out that this would

differ from labor in the sense that a laborer can
claim his right for a decent family living wage from
capital.

receiving protection from the State.

Mrs. Nieva stated that what is emphasized is that
Mr. Nieva clarified that what the Committee tries to
project

is

that

marriages

are

founded

on

full

consent of the spouses and that other cultures which

may have other traditional models of marriage and
family life would be respected.

On

the

meaning

of

"religious

not

believe

that

the

State

convictions",

Mrs.

has

the

right

to

dictate the number of children and impose certain

methods to limit such number.

On

the

would

question
include

whether

help

the

family

achieve

this

goal.

She

noted,

however, that there are no sanctions against the

On whether the failure of the State to meet the goal

of providing families with a decent family living
wage

would

revolution

not
of

set

into

rising

motion

some

expectations,

kind

Mrs.

of

Nieva

answered that it shall all depend on what the State

"religious

convictions

that the State should do everything in its power to

State in case it fails to do so.

Nieva stated, by way of example, that the Catholics

do

families have a right to live decent human lives and

of

convictions"

animists

and

has in its power to provide.

OBSERVATIONS OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

pantheists, Mrs. Nieva replied that the State should

respect their beliefs provided that they are not

Mrs.

against the law.

stating that a decision has to be made on whether a

Rosario

Braid

prefaced

her

observation

by

full Article would be provided or the provisions

would

be

placed

under

one

of

the

other

Articles

To underscore his point, he noted that the Civil

which shall be determined by the kind of amendments

Code provides that in violation of the freedom of

made thereon.

contract, two married people cannot enter into a

contract

On

Section

1,

development

she

would

observed

mean

that

that
the

"total

family,

human
as

for

legal

separation.

They

cannot

even

dissolve the conjugal partnerships of gains.

the

basic social institution, would provide the moral

He stated that in case of annulment or an action for

and intellectual foundation, orientation for a fully

legal separation, the fiscal is duty-bound to see to

developed

of

it that there is no collusion between the parties,

emotional stabilization, in addition to material and

which proves that solidarity is the thrust of the

physical needs.

Civil Code.

She expressed the hope that, should the provision be

On

a whole Article, it would look at the values which

institution of marriage as the foundation of the

the

personality

people

would

restructure

with

like

and

to

the

stronghold

preserve,

reference

to

Mr.

Gascon's

proposed

family, Mr. Maambong pointed out that what the Civil

matters

as

Code

such

defends

in

Article

undertake

institution of marriage.

socialization

the

or

inviolable

entire

making

re-orient

rigidity in family roles, allowing the school to

the

provision

process,

the

social

52

is

institution

marriage
and

as

not

an
the

closeness of family ties or family solidarity which

at times fosters nepotism in large businesses, and

He suggested that the provision be reworded.

the value of women in a family life.

On
Reacting
family

thereto,
rights

perhaps,
Article
Committee

issue

through
on

Mr.

observed

deserves

the

Family

Gascon

due

the

recognition,

institutionalization

Rights.

He

added

family

as

recognizes

that

of

stated

that

which
when

provides

there

are

several

rights,

rights,

there

corresponding duties. The Civil Code, he informed,

provides

for

rights

under

parental

authority

and

social

the Body can particularize the persons duty-bound to

be liable for violation of such rights.

Mrs. Nieva stated that the Committee would welcome

Mrs. Rosario Braid's suggestions or amendments at

[ VOL. IV, September 19, 1986 ]

R.C.C. NO. 87
Friday, September 19, 1986

the proper time.

REMARKS OF MR. MAAMBONG

HE PRESIDENT: We will first read Section 9. Is there

any other amendment?

Mr. Maambong urged that the Body make sure that the
family rights provisions would not conflict with the
Code.

are

care and education of the children. He noted that

institution.

Civil

he

the

that

basic

an

Section

On

Section

1,

he

suggested

"solidarity", which is the thrust of the Civil Code

provisions, could be incorporated therein.

MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.

that
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: I have a proposed amendment to the first

MS. AQUINO: It is included.

paragraph of Section 9. It is a very minor amendment

to add the words "AND MARRIED" after "family." So
the

first

sentence

will

then

read:

"The

MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President.

State

recognizes the sanctity of family AND MARRIED life

and shall protect and strengthen the family as a
basic social institution."

MR.

RAMA:

May

ask

that

Commissioner

Monsod

be

recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: What does the committee say?

MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I just want to add the

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, the committee regrets

that it cannot accept the amendment, precisely on
the premise that family life is premised on married

words "AND PRIMARY" after the word "natural" on line

3, page 3 of Section 9. This would harmonize with
the

section

on

Education

that

was

introduced

by

Commissioner Aquino. So it will read: "The natural

life.

AND PRIMARY right and duty of parents."

MR. DAVIDE: So, when the committee therefore used
the words "family life," it is deemed to include
married life.

MS. AQUINO: The committee accepts the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: How will it read?

MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.

MS. AQUINO: Section 9, lines 3 to 6 on page 3, will

MS. AQUINO: That is the consensus in the committee.

now read: "The natural AND PRIMARY right and duty of

parents

MR.

DAVIDE:

intention,

With

am

that
not

explanation

insisting

on

and
my

clear

proposed

in

the

rearing

of

the

youth

for

civic

efficiency and the development of moral character

shall

receive

the

aid

and

support

of

the

amendment.

government."

MS. AQUINO: Thank you.

MR. COLAYCO: Madam President.

MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.

THE

PRESIDENT:

Is

there

any

other

amendment?

MR. COLAYCO: May I ask if Commissioner Monsod will

Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.

entertain an amendment.

MR. BENNAGEN: Since there was the question whether

MR. MONSOD: May we hear it first.

or not family life includes married life, does it

also include instances where there is no marriage
but

there

is

family

life?

Is

that

also

the

understanding in the committee? There are cases of

family
married.

life

without

necessarily

having

to

get

MR. COLAYCO: I suggest to put "PRIMARY" before the

word "duty" on line 3, so it will read: "The natural
right

and

PRIMARY

necessarily primary.

duty."

The

word

"natural"

is

MR. MONSOD: We use the word "PRIMARY" to denote the

Thank you.

superior right of the parents as against the State.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we vote on
MR. COLAYCO: I will not insist; I was just thinking.

the whole Section 9.

MR. GASCON: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Will the chairman please read Section

9, as amended.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.

MR.

TINGSON:

Section

9,

as

amended,

reads:

"The

MR. GASCON: I have another amendment to the same

State recognizes the sanctity of family life and

sentence. On line 5, delete the words "aid and," so

shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic

it will read: ". . . development of moral character

social institution. IT SHALL ACCORD EQUAL PROTECTION

shall receive the support of the government." I feel

TO life of the mother and the life of the unborn

that the words "aid and" are already covered by the

from conception. The natural AND PRIMARY right and

word "support."

duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for

civic

THE PRESIDENT: What does the committee say?

character

question
Commissioner

Madam

President,

regarding
Aquino

the
on

what

shall

the

receive

development
the

of

support

moral

of

the

MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.

BACANI:

and

government."

MR. TINGSON: We accept the amendment.

BISHOP

efficiency

want

to

interpretation
Commissioner

ask

a
of

Bennagen

meant when he mentioned "no marriage at all" or "no

civil marriage." What does the Commissioner mean?
Are they the same?

MR. BENNAGEN: No. I contemplate on the possibility

of consenting adults plus children living a family
life.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.

MR.

MAAMBONG:

clarification
moral

Before
on

the

character."

we
last

would

vote,

phrase
like

just

want

"development

to

know

from

a
of
the

committee if this is well considered, considering

that with the insertion of the phrase "development
of moral character," it would appear that the right
and duty of parents is limited to development of
moral

character

and

do

not

think

that

is

the

intention. I just want a one-sentence explanation on

BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but together they have a mutual

this.

and a stable compact.

MR. TINGSON: It is not limited to that, but the
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.

committee felt that that is of primary importance;

that

it

deserves

to

be

mentioned

because

the

BISHOP BACANI: I see. I was wondering if it was

morality of a young man covers, more or less, the

something, at least, less than that, then the State

whole plethora of his personality.

shall strengthen that type of living-in situation.

That is not the idea.

MR. MAAMBONG: I ask this because this phrase "and

SR. TAN: May I just ask the committee how the State

the development of moral character" does not appear

will give the family aid for moral character?

in the 1973 Constitution. However, I will not insist

on my clarification, with the assurance that the

MR.

TINGSON:

We

already

deleted

that

upon

the

words "development of moral character" do not limit

amendment suggested by Commissioner Gascon. The word

the duty and right of parents.

"aid" is eliminated; it will now be "shall receive

the support of the government."

MR. TINGSON: The phrase does not appear in the 1973

Constitution but we want to make our Constitution

SR. TAN: May I know how the government shall support

better than the 1973 Constitution.

the moral character of a family in Tondo?

MR. MAAMBONG: Does this not really limit the right

MR. TINGSON: I will ask Commissioner Aquino to say

and duty of parents only to the development of moral

something on that.

character?
MS.

AQUINO:

The

forms

and

modalities

of

state

support are varied. It may take the form of welfare

MR. TINGSON: No.

services
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.

and

social

services

in

the

fields

of

education. It may take the form of scholarships and

other incentives to enforce the spiritual and moral

MR. REGALADO: Madam President.

formation of the citizens.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.

SR. TAN: In other words, this is an emphasis on the

support for moral development, but it does not mean

MR. REGALADO: May we request Commissioner Tingson to

read again the second sentence of this section. It
seems to be a little different from that in the
copies we have.

MR.

TINGSON:

while

ago.

it

would

not

help

physically

or

materially

because nothing is said about material help. One

cannot preach about God to a hungry stomach. That is
what I mean.

There

The

that

was

second

little

sentence

mistake
reads:

there

"It

shall

equally protect the life of the mother and the life

of the unborn from conception."

MR. REGALADO: Thank you.

MS.

SR. TAN: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is recognized.

Madam

President,

over

and

above

the

other provisions of the article on state support,

material support is already included. The committee
is of the sense that a complete development of moral
character also partakes of the need and requisite
for

THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready now?

AQUINO:

material

support

from

the

State.

It

is

not

excluded.

SR. TAN: Thank you for that explanation.

MR.

RAMA:

President.

The

body

is

ready

to

vote,

Madam

MR. TINGSON: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: This may not be very, very important

but I just want to ask Commissioner Villegas or our
committee. I am, of course, disturbed by the fact
that in the United States and other places, there is
sympathy towards defining a family as including an
effeminate man living with another man. We just want
to make sure that when we speak of "family," we are
speaking of the normal conservative definition of
family,

and

together.

that

is,

know

we

man

and

woman

understand

that,

married
but

I,

personally, would like to say that for the record.

MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, both the natural law,

the

age-old

religious

traditions

values

in

affirm

the

that

Philippines

normal

family

and
life

relationship, not conservative, is between a man and

a woman.

MR. RAMA: We are ready to vote, Madam President.

VOTING

THE

PRESIDENT:

Section

has

been

read

by

the

chairman.

As many as are in favor of Section 9, as amended,

please

raise

their

hand.

(Several

Members

raised

their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No

Member raised his hand.)

As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand.

(Few Members raised their hand.)

The results show 34 votes in favor, none against and

4 abstentions; Section 9, as amended, is approved.

[ VOL. IV, September 16, 1986 ]

R.C.C. NO. 84
Tuesday, September 16, 1986
Xxx xxx xxx
REV. RIGOS: In Section 9, the committee speaks of
the family as a basic social institution. It also
speaks of protecting the life of the mother and the
life of the unborn child. This is also included in
the Article on Family Rights. Is the intention of
the committee to delete that portion in the Article
on Family Rights in case this is approved here, or
would the committee tolerate the mention of this
portion in the Declaration of Principles and in the
Article on Family Rights?
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Villegas would like to
answer.
MR. VILLEGAS: May I answer that, Madam President.
I think this will also apply to other topics. It is
the intention of the committee that in the
Declaration of Principles, we make general mention
of specific rights, whether these be about the
family, labor or cooperativism without prejudice to
their being fleshed out, so to speak, in the other
articles where we can talk about them in greater
detail. I think we should not hesitate to have these
in a general statement in the Declaration of
Principles, although we may find some duplication in
the various other articles but with more details.
And I think this is also applicable to family
rights.
REV. RIGOS: Apparently, that is the same intention
in the case of the role of the youth, Section 10;
the role of women, Section 11; labor, Section 12;
education, Section 13; agrarian reform, Section 14;
cultural minorities, Section 15; science and
technology, Section 19; and autonomy, Section 22.
xxx xxx xxx
REV. RIGOS: In Section 9, page 3, there is a
sentence which reads:
The State shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of
conception.
When is the moment of conception?
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President.
MR. TINGSON: The bachelor member of our committee
seems to have expertise on this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: As I explained in the sponsorship
speech, it is when the ovum is fertilized by the
sperm that there is human life. Just to repeat:
first, there is obviously life because it starts to
nourish itself, it starts to grow as any living
being, and it is human because at the moment of
fertilization, the chromosomes that combined in the
fertilized ovum are the chromosomes that are
uniquely found in human beings and are not found in
any other living being.
REV. RIGOS: I suppose Commissioner Bacani agrees
with the Gentleman on that. I just want to be sure
that Commissioner Aquino also agrees with him.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is married; he should
know the answer. (Laughter)
REV. RIGOS: Thank you, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: The committee is strongly divided on the
matter of human life regarding the phrase "from the
moment of conception." There are questions like: Is
a mere biological existence, as a potential for
human life, qualifiable as a human person? This is a
question that has rankled and divided the committee
on the interpretation of this section. I,
personally, would take exception to the position of
Commissioner Villegas on the matter, except that I
am bound by the committee decision on this.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI: May I interject a comment at this

particular point. I think there need not be, even at
this particular point, a conflict between the
positions of Commissioner Aquino and Commissioner
Villegas. The position of Commissioner Villegas is
that there is human life there; he is not asserting
that there is human personality in the philosophical
sense. I think at this stage of the game, there is
no conflict here.
One can vindicate human life biologically and
genetically without the need to specify human
personality in the philosophical sense.
Thank you.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: We would like Commissioner Rigos to
know that the phrase "from the moment of conception"
was described by us here before with the scientific
phrase "fertilized ovum." However, we figured in the
committee that the phrase "fertilized ovum" may be
beyond the comprehension of some people; we want to
use the simpler phrase "from the moment of
conception."
[ VOL. IV, September 17, 1986 ]
R.C.C. NO. 85
Wednesday, September 17, 1986
xxx xxx xxx
MR. VILLACORTA: We have provisions, not just in this
Constitution but in the other constitutions, in
which the State has the duty to protect the lives of
its citizens.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right.
MR. VILLACORTA: That is why we have police forces or
armed forces. In the same manner, we are giving the
State the duty to protect the life of the unborn. So
it is only logical that certain monitoring groups be
formed by the State in order to protect the life of
the unborn. Anyway, the contemplation has been
clarified, and perhaps at the proper moment this
Representation will propose an amendment.
On Section 10, lines 13 to 15, about the protection
of children, this Representation, along with four
female Commissioners as well as four male
Commissioners, sponsored Resolution No. 355 and the
title of that resolution is: "Resolution Providing
for the Equality of Women and the Protection of the
Rights of Women, Children and the Family." Looking
through the list of resolutions that this committee
considered, we do not find our Resolution No. 355.
However, we are happy to note that our proposed
sections giving women equal rights in all fields of
life, as well as the right of the family to develop
its capabilities, were incorporated in the draft
article. There are two provisions which we consider
important but were not incorporated in the draft
article; for example, the section that says:
"Marriage must be founded on the free consent and
equality of both spouses." I do not know the member
of the committee who is concerned with the rights of
women and children. It may be Commissioner Rosario
Braid or Commissioner Aquino. We would like to know
whether or not this is part of the intendment of the
committee's provision. I skipped Section 11; then I
will go back to Section 10 with the Commissioner's
indulgence.
Section 11 has to do with the role and participation
of women in nation building and the right of women
to equal protection. In behalf of my cosponsors, I
would like to ask this question: Is the provision
"Marriage must be founded on the free consent and
equality of both spouses " included in the
contemplation of Section II?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Since we were concerned with the
general principle here, to which the Commissioner
can include a phrase, the said resolution has been
referred to the section about the family.
MR. VILLACORTA: I see.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: So, we only considered a very

general resolution for inclusion in this Article on
the Declaration of Principles.
MR. VILLACORTA: But just the same, since the
Commissioner is talking about the right of women to
equal protection in all spheres of life, would she
still include this principle that marriage is
founded on the free consent and equality of both
spouses?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: We will entertain the
Commissioner's amendment to this provision during
the period of amendments.
MR. VILLACORTA: In other words, at present it is not
included in the sense of Section 11 and, therefore,
an amendment would have to be introduced?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: This is very general and we could
take it as when we say "equal protection." The
Commissioner could include that in the section
dealing with family life. If the Commissioner will
present his amendment on the family, which will be
considered after this article, we will welcome it.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you.
Xxx xxx xxx
MR. PADILLA: I concur with the view of Commissioner
Azcuna that if there be equal protection of the
rights, that is all what the law or even the
Constitution can provide. Due to the natural
differences between man and woman, it is only a
woman who can give birth to a child, and that is a
very great privilege. In fact, it is the female who
is more valuable than the male.
There are some provisions in the Revised Penal Code
which favor women; for instance, one of the
aggravating circumstances is the disrespect or the
disregard of respect due the offended party by
reason of his rank, age or sex. This is a
recognition of the natural differences between man
and woman. If the offended party is a female, except
in crimes against chastity where it is an inherent
element of the offense, that fact, if it constitutes
disrespect or disregard of the respect due the
offended party by reason of her sex, by being a
woman, is an aggravating circumstance. Whereas,
there is no such provision in favor of the male or
man. Also, when a woman and a man are separate, both
have equal rights. But when they get married, there
is not only a contract; there is also a sacrament. I
believe they Civil Code properly governs the
relations between husband and wife. The fact that
the Civil Code provides that, as a general rule, it
is the husband then who becomes the head of the
family. He chooses the family domicile. He is the
administrator of the conjugal property. That is not
an attack on the rights of the wife. These are
important for the unity and harmony within the
family. But as a matter of actual fact, not of law,
most families prosper where it is, in effect, the
woman who acts as the head or the administrator of
the family fortunes. As Senator Recto once said: "La
mujer reina pero no gobierna."
Thank you, Madam President.
Xxx xxx xxx
MR. VILLACORTA: I would like to go back to Section
10 with respect to the provision on children. It
says here: "The State shall protect children from
all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation. . ."
This is negatively stated. I wonder if the committee
would consider having a more positive statement or
stipulation of said protection, something that our
resolution proposed: "CHILDREN SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT
TO PROPER CARE, NUTRITION, A RELEVANT NON-SEXIST AND
QUALITY EDUCATION, AS WELL AS PROTECTION FROM
EXPLOITATION AND MENTAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSE."
MR. AZCUNA: The committee will gladly consider an
amendment along those lines at the proper time.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you.
Xxx xxx xxx

[ VOL. IV, September 18, 1986 ]

R.C.C. NO. 86
Thursday September 18, 1986
xxx xxx xxx
Madam President, I now leave Section 3, and it will
take me just about 10 minutes more to wind up on
other sections. Section 9, line 29 on page 2, on the
right to life, states:
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and
shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
social institution.
The focus of this sentence is on the sanctity of
family life. Will this term "sanctity," which I
interpret as being synonymous with purity and
inviolability, disauthorize Congress from passing a
divorce law? I am not saying in the immediate
future, but I hope this Constitution will live for
ages, let us say, 20 years or even 30 years from
now. After all Italy, where the Holy See is,
approved a divorce law about 10 years ago in a
referendum, and that is the very citadel of our
faith as Catholics and Christians. Will the words
"sanctity of family life" interpreted as being
inviolable and being pure be sullied by future
legislation that will grant marital partners a wider
freedom of choice than what they now enjoy under
existing law?
MR. VILLEGAS: As far as the committee's opinion is
concerned, I think that statement does not take any
stand one way or the other about the possibility of
divorce. That will be left to legislation and it
will be up to the people to decide.
MR. OPLE: The question is very simple and very
clear, Madam President. Will these words
disauthorize Congress to pass a divorce law in the
future?
MR. NOLLEDO: The answer is no because we do not talk
of the sanctity of marriage; we talk of the sanctity
of family life as a whole.
MR. OPLE: The answer is satisfactory. I would like
to proceed to the next sentence closer to the heart
of Commissioners Bacani and Villegas which reads:
The State shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of
conception.
Yesterday, I had the good fortune to listen to some
of the interpellations precisely on this sentence.
Commissioner Villegas on behalf of the committee
then said, "This could be related to some statements
in the general provisions on family planning." Does
this mean that, in providing for the protection of
the life of the unborn from the moment of
conception, this is going to be taken as a signal to
dismiss the relevance and validity of all family
planning programs in the Philippines? Is that how
the committee views this?
MR. VILLEGAS: No. As we made it very clear
yesterday, any contraceptive that is not
abortifacient can still be legal, according to this
specific provision.
MR. OPLE: I will vote for this provision, Madam
President. I think that in writing a constitution,
we write not only provisions of a fundamental law.
We set the tone whether we like it, or the tone of a
whole civilization, and that is why I also voted for
the elimination of the death penalty under certain
conditions, subject to certain powers of Congress to
provide for exceptions in the case of heinous
crimes. Overall, we should raise the tone of our
public and social morality through a constitution;
and the reverence for life, that time and life is,
of course, being rendered cheap by all the threats
to our safety in a very disorderly environment.
Still a commitment to the protection of life, even
in its incipient stage, is a declaration of a
commitment to a higher tone of our civilization. But
at the same time, I would be very concerned if the
committee now taking off from its forthcoming
victory on this Section 9 will start considering

this as a mandate to discredit, to actually dismiss

family planning programs in this country. I heard
Commissioner Villegas say that purposeful programs
to limit the size of families have failed
everywhere. He quoted President Reagan, whose wisdom
might lie in other fields than in family planning,
as having said that social and economic development
is the only key to the reduction of human
populations. He referred to the new U.S. policy,
which is driving Mr. Salas and his UNFPA to a new
lookout. He has applied to be transferred to Tokyo
because of this new restrictive atmosphere on family
planning in the United States.
But, of course, may I say that family planning is
not a rigid idea. May I tell the body that in the
Soviet Union, which I know a little bit since I have
traveled there no fewer than seven times, even
within that vast country, there are two kinds of
population crises. In the European part, it is the
crisis of a steadily diminishing population; and,
therefore, the State holds up medals of heroism for
heroic mothers who would give birth to more than
eight children. But in the Asian part of the Soviet
Union, there is a reverse problem. They are
reproducing at a faster rate. This possesses
momentous political and economic implications for
the Soviet Union after the year 2000, when the
Asiatic population begins to match the European
population. And what will we have \ crisis of
leadership about distribution of leadership and
power, especially in the higher strata of the Soviet
policy and bureaucracy. But India is different.
Japan is different. The Philippines is different. We
are a developing country. If my data are still
current \ I used to sit in the Population
Commission \ about 10 years ago, our population
growth rate was 3.5 percent according to the
University of the Philippines. Then it declined over
10 years to only about 2.6 percent. The NEDA now
says it is 2.4 percent if I am not mistaken. And
yet, these were years of stagnation in
manufacturing. As a matter of fact, Philippine
manufacturing has never exceeded 14 percent of the
total employed force of this country since 20 years
ago. Commissioner Villegas is an authority on that.
He uses this argument very fiercely in the debates
on protectionism.
Since we did not really grow spectacularly in those
10 years, still the rate of growth of the population
dropped precipitously from 3.5 to only 2.4 percent
at this time. Will we not give the population policy
of the government and of the nongovernmental
organizations some credit for having accomplished
this small miracle in population control?
MR. VILLEGAS: That is one of the most statistically
debatable issues. Although this is a completely
separate question which is not related to Section 9
of the Article on the Declaration of Principles,
still my position is that it is subject to the flux
and the changes in economic policy, in urbanization
and in industrialization. It should be something
that should not be found in a constitution, but
should be subject to legislation. If family planning
is found necessary, let it be in the legislative
process. However, as I said, that is a completely
separate question.
MR. OPLE: This is a slight revision of the views
which the Commissioner gave yesterday, but I hope
this is the official one.
MR. VILLEGAS: What I stressed yesterday was to
support in the separate discussion on the Article on
the General Provisions the idea of deleting any
reference to population policy precisely because
today it may be that we want to limit population.
Tomorrow it may be that we want to increase
population.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much for that
clarification.

[ VOL. IV, September 19, 1986 ]

R.C.C. NO. 87
Friday, September 19, 1986
xxx xxx xxx
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may we take a vote on the
provisions of the whole section, as amended.
THE PRESIDENT: We will first read Section 9. Is
there any other amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I have a proposed amendment to the first
paragraph of Section 9. It is a very minor amendment
to add the words "AND MARRIED" after "family." So
the first sentence will then read: "The State
recognizes the sanctity of family AND MARRIED life
and shall protect and strengthen the family as a
basic social institution."
THE PRESIDENT: What does the committee say?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, the committee regrets
that it cannot accept the amendment, precisely on
the premise that family life is premised on married
life.
MR. DAVIDE: So, when the committee therefore used
the words "family life," it is deemed to include
married life.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: That is the consensus in the committee.
MR. DAVIDE: With that explanation and clear
intention, I am not insisting on my proposed
amendment.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other amendment?
Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Since there was the question whether
or not family life includes married life, does it
also include instances where there is no marriage
but there is family life? Is that also the
understanding in the committee? There are cases of
family life without necessarily having to get
married.
MS. AQUINO: It is included.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Monsod be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I just want to add the
words "AND PRIMARY" after the word "natural" on line
3, page 3 of Section 9. This would harmonize with
the section on Education that was introduced by
Commissioner Aquino. So it will read: "The natural
AND PRIMARY right and duty of parents."
MS. AQUINO: The committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: How will it read?
MS. AQUINO: Section 9, lines 3 to 6 on page 3, will
now read: "The natural AND PRIMARY right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic
efficiency and the development of moral character
shall receive the aid and support of the
government."
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: May I ask if Commissioner Monsod will
entertain an amendment.
MR. MONSOD: May we hear it first.
MR. COLAYCO: I suggest to put "PRIMARY" before the
word "duty" on line 3, so it will read: "The natural
right and PRIMARY duty." The word "natural" is
necessarily primary.
MR. MONSOD: We use the word "PRIMARY" to denote the
superior right of the parents as against the State.
MR. COLAYCO: I will not insist; I was just thinking.
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: I have another amendment to the same
sentence. On line 5, delete the words "aid and," so
it will read: ". . . development of moral character
shall receive the support of the government." I feel

that the words "aid and" are already covered by the

word "support."
THE PRESIDENT: What does the committee say?
MR. TINGSON: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I want to ask a
question regarding the interpretation of
Commissioner Aquino on what Commissioner Bennagen
meant when he mentioned "no marriage at all" or "no
civil marriage." What does the Commissioner mean?
Are they the same?
MR. BENNAGEN: No. I contemplate on the possibility
of consenting adults plus children living a family
life.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but together they have a mutual
and a stable compact.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: I see. I was wondering if it was
something, at least, less than that, then the State
shall strengthen that type of living-in situation.
That is not the idea.
Thank you.
xxx xxx xxx
[ VOL. V, September 24, 1986 ]
R.C.C. NO. 91
Wednesday, September 24, 1986
xxx xxx xxx
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 542
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A
SEPARATE ARTICLE ON FAMILY RIGHTS.

Resolved, as it is hereby resolved by the

Constitutional Commission in session assembled, To
incorporate in the New Constitution a separate
Article on the Protection and Promotion of the
Rights of the Family, with the following provisions:
ARTICLE __
Family Rights

SECTION 1. The State shall actively promote the

total human development social, economic,
political, cultural, and spiritual of the Filipino
family.
SECTION 2. The State shall defend the following
fundamental rights of the family:
a) The right to life from the moment of conception,
and of special protection and assistance while in
the age of minority.
b)

The

right

of

accordance

with

convictions

and

parenthood.

spouses
their
the

to

found

religious

requirements

family

beliefs
of

in
and

responsible

c) The primary right of parents to educate their

c) The right of the family to a family living wage

children in conformity with their moral or religious

and income.

beliefs, and to receive from the State the necessary

d) The right of families and family association to

aid and assistance to perform their educational role

participate in the planning and implementation of

properly.

policies and programs that affect them.

d) As spouses, both man and woman shall enjoy equal

rights

before

the

law,

which

shall

not

be

SECTION 4. The family has the duty to care for its

elderly members but the State may also do so through
just schemes of social security.

discriminatory in favor or against either sex.

xxx xxx xxx
e) The right of family wage earners to a decent
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MRS. NIEVA
family living wage.
f) The right to assistance in times of special need.
g) The right of the elderly to be cared for within
the family, according to Filipino tradition.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 542
(AS AMENDED)
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A
SEPARATE ARTICLE ON FAMILY RIGHTS.

Resolved, as it is hereby resolved by the

Constitutional Commission in session assembled, To
incorporate in the new Constitution a separate
article on the protection and promotion of the
Rights of the Family, with the following provisions:

We Filipinos are truly a family-centered culture and

this is one of our real strengths as a nation. We
are poor in many ways but not in our instinctive
love and commitment to family life. Our core family
values may yet prove to be our greatest contribution
to the rest of the contemporary world where family
life has been continually eroding.

ARTICLE ___
FAMILY RIGHTS

SECTION 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family

as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it
shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote
its total development.
SECTION 2. Marriage as an inviolable social
institution is the foundation of the family and
shall be protected by the State. The State shall
respect the family as an autonomous social
institution.
SECTION 3. The State shall defend
a)

The

right

of

spouses

to

found

family

in

accordance with their religious convictions and the

demands of responsible parenthood.
b) The right of children to assistance including
proper
from

care
all

exploitation

MS. NIEVA: Mr. Presiding Officer, in this

Constitution, we have risen to the defense of the
rights of the individual, of women, of children. The
rights of the person, however, have a fundamental
social dimension in the institution of the family.
The family as a natural society exists prior to the
State or any other community. Thus, Pope John Paul
II has rightly said that the future of humanity
passes by way of the family. From this it follows
that the family possesses, as given by the Author of
nature Himself, certain inherent and inalienable
rights which are intrinsic to its very existence and
perpetuity. Many cultures, particularly in highly
technologized countries, have become desensitized to
His deeply human realities. In some countries, in
fact, it appears that the family as a basic and
fundamental institution has ceased to be a priority
concern of the State. While history affirms the
family's indispensable role as primary educator,
economic provider, cultural mediator and spiritual
formator, the rights of the family are often ignored
and even undermined by legal, social and economic
structures and programs.

and

nutrition

forms

of

and

other

their development.

and

special

neglect,
conditions

abuse,

protection
cruelty,

prejudicial

to

The typical Filipino couple's major concern is their

children, their children's welfare, education and
their future. In turn, their children care for their
elderly parents in personal and sacrificing ways
that are increasingly disappearing in many
contemporary cultures. Such a deeply human family
system as ours deserves to be enhanced and preserved
not only for the sake of our own country but even
for the sake of the rest of the world. It deserves
the fullest support and protection from the State.
Without such protection and support, we may
inevitably capitulate to the powerful forces from
without and witness the gradual collapse of our
Filipino family system.
I would end this brief introduction by adverting to
a new and significant dimension of the family as an
agent of social change and its potential for the
social transformation and development of society.
Society and the State are, therefore, called upon to
protect the rights of families to participate, in
cooperation with other families, in concerted action
in defense of its rights and responsibilities, in
the development of society and in the planning,
formulation and implementation of family policies
and programs that affect them.

As we draft our new Constitution, we have this

singular opportunity and responsibility to
explicitate our commitment to the Filipino family
through safeguarding its inalienable rights and
enhancing its total development in all spheres of
life social, economic, political and spiritual.
Mr. Presiding Officer, the original proposed
article, the Article on Family Rights, consisted of
many sections. However, many of these provisions
have already been taken care of by the Articles on
the Declaration of Principles, Social Justice and
Education. So we have before us a very abbreviated
proposed article which we hope the body will
consider favorably this afternoon.

MR. DE CASTRO: "Marriage is not a mere contract but

an inviolable social institution," according to the
Civil Code and I think that will be much better than
"the institution of marriage."
MR. GASCON:
There will be no objection, Mr.
Presiding Officer, to that terminology.
MR. DE CASTRO: Now, on Section 2(d), "The right of
the elderly to be cared for within the family . . ."
What does this mean, the elderly of the family?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we are referring here particularly
to them.
MR. DE CASTRO: They are members of the family.

xxx xxx xxx

I understand there is an amendment that Commissioner
Gascon would like to add to Section 2.
MR. GASCON: Yes. As we can see in our tables, there
is a proposal to move as the first subsection of
Section 2 the following: "THE INSTITUTION OF
MARRIAGE AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY." That
would read. therefore: "The State shall defend the
following: a) THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AS THE
FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY" and then go on with "b)
The right of the spouses to found a family . . . and
then "c) The right of parents to educate their
children . . . d) The right of family wage earners
to a decent family living wage and e) The right of
the elderly to be cared for within the family . . ."
xxx xxx xxx
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco): Commissioner de
Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I ask the committee a few
questions. "SECTION 1. The State shall actively
promote the total human development social,
economic, political, cultural, and spiritual of a
Filipino family." What does it mean?
MS. NIEVA: I think in the previous discussions we
have had on total human development, we meant all
aspects of the social, economic, spiritual,
intellectual, cultural life of the person and the
family. In this case, it is the entire family.
MR. DE CASTRO: "Actively promote." What does it
mean? Is there an inactive promotion?

MS. NIEVA: There is a trend in westernized countries

where the tendency is to reject or send the elderly
to old folks homes and such institutions because the
economic or social setup in the community will not
allow them to maintain their elderly in their own
homes. Whereas, in the Philippines I think we would
not think of that possibility of sending our aged
parents to wither away in the loneliness of old
folks homes and so forth.
MR. DE CASTRO: In Switzerland the elderly are given
some help by the State instead of sending them to
the homes for the aged, et cetera. And also the
family takes care of the elderly. Does the
Commissioner intend to include in the provision that
the State shall care for the elderly?
MS. NIEVA: In cases where there would be such need.
For example, there might be families who may not be
in an economic position to properly take care of
their elderly, since they themselves are in economic
straits. Maybe that might envision in the future
some kind of assistance from the State to help the
families take care of their own elderly; and it will
be even cheaper.
MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer, what we wish to
discourage is the impersonal care being given to
elderly people when they are sent to these old folks
homes and forgotten by their families themselves,
these basic families which they founded.
MR. DE CASTRO: When the Commissioner talks of
"elderly," how old is that? I am 74 years old, am I
an elderly? Shall my children take care of me? Will
the State? I am hearing some answers at the rear,
but I do not hear the answer of the commissioner.
MS. NIEVA: We are given some support from the floor.

MS. NIEVA: Would the Commissioner want to qualify

that in another way? We would welcome his suggestion
if he thinks "actively promote" is a redundancy.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am really having some difficulty.
Our civil law speaks of marriage as an inviolable
social institution. Will that not be better than
"the institution of marriage as the foundation of
the family," or "the marriage as a social
institution"?
MR. GASCON:
We recognize that, Mr. Presiding
Officer. In fact, if the Commissioner wishes to
present during the period of amendments the term
"social institution of marriage," I do not believe
that the committee will object.
MS. NIEVA: The wording of the Civil Code on this is
stated in Art. 216 which says: "The family is a
basic social institution which public policy
cherishes and protects."

It really depends. I think the Gentleman knows the

kind of elderly people we are referring to here
the ones who are incapacitated and cannot take care
of themselves.
MR. DE CASTRO: Is that answer relayed to the
Commissioner by somebody on the floor?
MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer, when we speak of
"elderly" these are those who are no longer as
productive as they used to be in the family but have
the right to the care from the family which they
have supported for a long period of time. But at
that point, when they can no longer support the
family, I think the family, in turn, should look for
ways and means to support them and the State should
be encouraged to support families taking care of
their elderly in the Filipino tradition.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco): The Chair is
giving a one -minute extension to Commissioner de
Castro.

MR. GASCON: That is the point, Mr. Presiding

Officer. When we speak of "elderly" here, they are
those who have reached that stage in their lives
when they can no longer support themselves and
would, in fact, need support from their family.
MR. DE CASTRO: There is one thing more that I would
like to ask the Chair. We are given three minutes,
but actually my question lasts only less than a
minute and the answer is much, much longer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco): That has been
taken into account. Since the Gentleman started,
five minutes has elapsed so I have deducted two
minutes.

MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to the words "found a

family" on Section 2 (a), and the words "in
accordance with their religious convictions and the
demands of responsible parenthood," is the
Commissioner referring to procreation of children?
When the Commissioner talks of "found a family," she
may be referring to procreation of children, am I
correct?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, we are
referring to that specifically.
MR. NOLLEDO: That the State shall defend the rearing
of these children in accordance with religious
convictions of the spouses and the demands of
responsible parenthood, am I correct?

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.

MS. NIEVA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I am not articulating with the committee, but
certainly now by Filipino tradition, we are taking
care of our elders. Does the Commissioner need to
write that in the Constitution?
MS. NIEVA: We are not writing it for the present. As
we say, the Constitution is for future generations
also, and with the trend in the modern, urbanized
world, the elderly are beginning to be set aside
because they are no longer as helpful as before.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, I think the Chair is
having sharp eyes on me.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco): Thank you.

MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer, it would also

mean that the State shall defend their primary right
to determine how many children they wish to have,
and there should be no law that will encourage the
State to tell a family "you can only have one child
or two children."
That is not the implication of this right of the
family to found or the parents to found how many
children they really want. That is why we have the
term "in accordance with their religious convictions
and the demands of responsible parenthood."

MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be

recognized.

When we speak of "responsible parenthood," we mean

to encourage them. When they decide to have so many
children, it would also be dependent on their
capability of sustaining such a family.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco): Commissioner

Nolledo is recognized for three minutes.

MR. NOLLEDO: And when you talk of children in

Section 2, letter (b), do you refer to minors?

MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Does

the three-minute period include the answers of the
members of the Committee?

MR. GASCON: Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco): No, it will be

adjusted.

MS. NIEVA: Yes, definitely. I think we refer to all

types of children. Even children born, perhaps, out
of wedlock or children who are adopted; children who
are orphaned. So, we are thinking of all children.

MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you. In Section 1, we talk of the

Filipino family. What is the composition of the
Filipino family?
MS. NIEVA: There are different models, I think.
MR. NOLLEDO: May I ask the Commissioner a more
detailed question. Am I right if I say that we are
adopting the provision of Article 217 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines which states:
Family relations shall include those:
(1)

Between husband and wife;

(2)

Between parent and child;

(3)

Among other ascendants and their descendants;

(4)

Among brothers and sisters.

MR. NOLLEDO: Or those under parental authority?

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, with respect to

Section 2(c), when the Commissioner talks of the
right of the family to a decent family living wage,
what does she mean by this? Is it employment by any
member of the family by a third person?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. We are thinking in terms of a wage
that will allow a family to live a decent human
life. That means, with the necessary social
services, housing, health, education and all the
basic needs of a family.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think, Mr. Presiding Officer, we are
aware of the principle that when children render
services while they are minors, they need not be
compensated.
MS. NIEVA: No, we are not referring to that at all;
we are referring to employment by a third party.

MS. NIEVA: Basically, yes, that would be the

definition of a Filipino family.
MR. NOLLEDO: So the committee adopts the definition
of the family as found in Article 217 of the present
Civil Code?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we do.

MR. NOLLEDO: My last question is with respect to the

Gascon amendment, just inserted now. It reads: "Sec.
2(e). The institution of marriage as the foundation
of the family in effect shall be defended by the
State." Can the Commissioner give examples of the
ways by which the State may defend the institution
of marriage as the foundation of the family? Does it
do away with divorce?

MR. GASCON: I guess it would discourage divorce.

However, this will be subject to existing customary
and traditional laws. In fact, it is to my knowledge
that divorce is being practiced in, let us say, the
Cordilleras or Muslim Mindanao.
MR. NOLLEDO: No, excluding Muslim Mindanao or the
Cordilleras. Is Congress prevented from passing a
divorce law with respect to Christian Philippines,
if we adopt the provision that the State shall
defend the institution of marriage as the foundation
of the family?

MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we be

recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco): Commissioner
Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you. We will not address the
interpellations to the members of the committee but
will the Honorable Nolledo oblige with a few
questions?
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, with pleasure.

MR. GASCON: What I mean when I encourage this

proposal, "defend the institution of marriage," and
if the proposal will be pushed through, "the social
institution of marriage," is to emphasize that those
who wish to marry and establish a family have the
right to expect from society the moral, educational,
social and economic conditions which will enable
them to exercise their right to a mature and
responsible marriage.
So, it is more a positive thing, that when we speak
of defending the social institution of marriage, the
society must encourage marriage by insuring the
other conditions which will help support the basic
institution or social institution of marriage.
Furthermore, what would be emphasized is that
marriage cannot be contracted, except by free and
full consent; encouragement of these basic
traditions which we connect with the term
"marriage."
However, this is my personal opinion. I would
personally discourage divorce in our culture.
MR. NOLLEDO: Does the provision outlaw live-in
relationship? (Laughter)
MS. NIEVA: It certainly does not encourage this,
because if we are going to encourage all kinds of
unions, then we will have problems in society like
the one of delinquent children and even major
criminals, most of whom come from broken homes.
Studies of psychologists and educators have really
enough empirical evidence on this. So, I think we
want to save society from the ravages of antisocial
young people and adults who come from homes that
were not really the kind of institution and
environment that promote the well-being of people.
MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco): Is Commissioner
Nolledo through?
MR. GASCON: I would like to respond also to that.
However, Mr. Presiding Officer, although this
provision does not encourage that, it is also a
reality that there are certain people who found
families without the formalities of marriage not
because of anything else but primarily because of
socio-economic reasons. I was talking to Sister
Christine Tan a while ago and she was mentioning to
me that it is a reality that there is the poor, who
cannot even go into formal marriage because of their
socio-economic condition. But this provision does
not wish to discriminate them but rather it merely
emphasizes that the State must create a condition
whereby marriage will prosper and flourish even
among the poor. But, of course, when we speak of
this, it is not meant to discriminate or to
antagonize those who come from the poorer classes of
society. That is the intention, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are family men

and I assure that we are both interested in
maintaining the solidarity of the family.
MR. NOLLEDO: If we can help it.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, subject to that exception. Now,
because the Commissioner cited Article 217 of the
Civil Code as descriptive of the family institution,
may I call the Commissioner's attention to the
preceding article, Mr. Presiding Officer, Article
216, which is wonderfully worded. May I read it, Mr.
Presiding Officer? It says, "The family is a basic
social institution which public policy cherishes and
protects" and that is also the thrust in the Article
on Family Rights. Does the Commissioner agree with
me, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. NOLLEDO: I agree with Commissioner Suarez, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner enumerated the
instances in Article 217 of the new Civil Code which
covers what would be relevant to family relations.
May I call the Commissioner's attention also to
Article 218, which reads:
The

law

governs

family

relations.

No

custom,

practice or agreement which is destructive of the

family shall be recognized or given any effect.
The Commissioner will find that very effective and
all-covering, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, but that provision is no longer
absolutely true in view of the constitutional
provision that indigenous customs and traditions
should be respected by the State and in view of the
passage of the decree of Mr. Marcos on Muslim
personal law where divorce is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: So, the Commissioner feels that it
should go beyond this provision appearing under
Article 218, that is why the Commissioner is in
favor of a constitutional precept governing family
rights? Is this why mention was made regarding the
problem involving the indigenous personal relations,
traditions or customs, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. Even under
the 1973 Constitution there is a similar provision
enjoining the State to protect the indigenous
customs and traditions.
MR. SUAREZ:
Now, let me go to another article
which is Article 219, and it reads:
Mutual aid both moral and material shall be rendered
among

members

of

the

same

family.

Judicial

and

administrative

officials

shall

foster

this

mutual

assistance.
Does the Commissioner think this has to be covered
by another constitutional provision?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, I think that can be adequately
covered by Section 2 of the report of the Committee
on Human Resources on family rights, Mr. Presiding
Officer, because of the introductory part which
says, "The State shall defend the following," and
the wordings below sufficiently cover Article 219 of
the Civil Code.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you. My last question is: This

chapter is captioned "THE FAMILY AS AN INSTITUTION"
and enumerates Articles 216 to 222. Does the
Commissioner feel that in spite of these codal
provisions, we need a constitutional declaration of
principle of some sort?
MR. NOLLEDO: I feel so, Mr. Presiding Officer,
because I think we have to underscore the importance
of the family as a basic social institution and that
importance must be raised to the level of a
constitutional provision.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the clarification, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

MR. SUAREZ: Referring to "mutual aid " among members

of the same family.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask that

Commissioner Bernas be recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: Like for example "the right of the

elderly to family care" and "the right of children
to assistance and the special protection." I
understand that the word "protection" here should
also cover protection from the family.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco): Commissioner

Bernas is recognized.

MR. SUAREZ: Let me call your attention finally to

the provisions of Article 220 of the same new Civil
Code, reading:
In

case

of

doubt,

all

presumptions

favor

the

solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of

law or facts leans towards the validity of marriage,
the

indissolubility

of

the

marriage

bonds,

FR. BERNAS: Just one question, and I am not sure if

it has been categorically answered. I refer
specifically to the proposal of Commissioner Gascon.
Is this to be understood as a prohibition of a
general law on divorce? His intention is to make
this a prohibition so that the legislature cannot
pass a divorce law.

the

legitimacy of children, the community of property

MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer, that was not

primarily my intention. My intention was primarily
to encourage the social institution of marriage, but
not necessarily discourage divorce. But now that he
mentioned the issue of divorce, my personal opinion
is to discourage it, Mr. Presiding Officer.

during marriage, the authority of parents over their

FR. BERNAS: No. My question is more categorical.

Does this carry the meaning of prohibiting a divorce
law?

children, and the validity of defense for any member

MR. GASCON: No, Mr. Presiding Officer.

of the family in case of unlawful aggression.

FR. BERNAS: Thank you.

Does the Commissioner think this is also covered by

Section 2 of the proposed Article on Family Rights?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think this should be covered because
of the words "shall defend," especially in relation
to the amendment of Commissioner Gascon, the
institution of marriage as the foundation of the
family.
In addition to his observation, Mr. Presiding
Officer, I would like to state that really there is
an intendment of the law towards the validity of
marriage, because even in legal separation, if he
will remember, both of us are lawyers, there will be
a suspension on the proceeding, a "cooling off"
period. I think the State is not receptive to the
petition for legal separation, and the State will
exert all efforts towards a compromise, if he
remembers. And if he refers to Article 222 of the
Civil Code which he is now holding, it states:
No suit shall be filed or maintained between members
of

the

same

family

unless

it

should

appear

that

MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Quesada be

recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco): Commissioner
Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
In the Commissioner's revised formulation, he did
not spell out the areas of total human development,
but in the previous formulations, he included
"spiritual development of the Filipino family." Just
exactly how does he envision the State's actively
promoting the spiritual development of the Filipino
family?
BISHOP BACANI: There is already a constitutional
provision, for example, through the educational
system regarding the development of moral character,
the instilling of ethical and moral values. There is
also a provision in our Constitution for optional
religious instruction. And then there is the general
provision for freedom of worship and religion. The
maintenance and safeguarding of this will be ways by
which the spiritual development of the family is
promoted.

earnest efforts toward compromise have been made,

but

that

the

same

have

failed,

subject

to

the

MS. QUESADA: But it is with the understanding that

the State shall not impose on the family the choice
of how they will develop the family spiritually.

limitations in Article 2035.

BISHOP BACANI: No, I do not think that that is the
contemplation at all, that there will be a definite

mode by which this spiritual development will be

promoted.
MS. QUESADA: Another question would be the choice of
the word "defend" instead of the words "promote,
protect, encourage," which we have been using in the
past. Why was the choice for the term "defend" used
in Section 2?
MS. NIEVA: We were thinking in terms of defending
these rights against encroachment of forces that
would work against the welfare of the family. We can
always add the words "enhance" or "promote." We
would welcome whatever amendments the Commissioner
may want to make to strengthen this provision.
MS. QUESADA: Yes. I was thinking of more positive
terms instead of "defending" because "defending"
seems to imply that there is an assault on the
rights of the family.
MS. NIEVA: While the family we contend is the victim
of assault in many ways, we do not necessarily cling
to the use of the word "defend."
MS. QUESADA: So the Committee will be amenable to
possible amendments?
MS. NIEVA: We will be very open to a more positive
term, if the Commissioner wants.
MS. QUESADA: Now, on Section 2(b), it is stated:
"the right of spouses to found a family in
accordance with their religious beliefs and
convictions. . ." Why is the right of spouses
limited to found a family in accordance with their
religious convictions? Are there not any other
considerations in the exercise of this right?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, there are, the educational rights
and all the other rights, but we were hesitant to be
accused of being repetitious, therefore, we did not
want to include the other basic rights that belong
to the family. But if the Commissioner has a
formulation that would include this and would be
acceptable to the body, we would be very glad to
accept such an amendment.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, because by spelling out only the
religious convictions as the basis of this right of
spouses to found a family and also the demands of
responsible parents, some other considerations which
have been spelled out are not included. So, maybe
there is a need to amend this formulation.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we adhere to that, but we were at a
loss as to how to include the other important
aspects without being accused of redundancy.
MS. QUESADA: My third question is on the ideas of
the kind of assistance that the children have the
right to receive from the State.

cruelty and exploitations. Maybe, we could be more

explicit in the kind of assistance we should give to
the children.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, as a matter
of fact, several Commissioners are proposing that in
lieu of "assistance," we place "PROPER CARE AND
NUTRITION" to be more explicit.
MS. QUESADA: Yes. When the time comes maybe we could
work out a formulation. And, finally, I was
wondering why there is no mention of any right of
women and girls in the family which should be
strengthened in this particular section. I am
thinking particularly of how women, the wife or the
girls in the family, may be freed from the role that
has been traditionally assigned to them, to take
care of tasks which the male members of the family,
for example, do not share, like cooking,
housekeeping and even taking care of the children.
These have been relegated through all these years to
women. So, would the committee be amenable to a
resolution or a provision that would try to liberate
our women and girls in the family from the bondage
of these domestic roles?
BISHOP BACANI: We will consider that, Mr. Presiding
Officer, but remember the provision regarding the
fundamental equality of men with women or of women
with men that has already been passed by the
Commission. And I was telling Commissioner Nieva
that the group of Mrs. Shahani, when they came here,
was objecting precisely to the putting of the
provision on the equality of women within the
context of the family. I do not know for what
reason.
MS. QUESADA: Yes. I would think that it would be not
just that. It would be an equal right of boys and
girls, members of their family to learn some of the
basic things that would make the family more
cohesive and share in the responsibility of
parenthood and of bringing up a wholesome family
life. So it is not really in the context of just
girls but I suppose that men and boys in the family
should also be given a reorientation in the roles.
This is one area which I think has been overlooked
because we have accepted this as a tradition that
should not be changed.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: So the Commissioner can propose
an amendment to that effect when the time comes.
That is right.
MS. QUESADA: Yes. So when the time comes, we shall
introduce some amendments.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. QUESADA: That is all that I have to ask, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.

MS. NIEVA: I think this would include educational,

physical, moral, health care and all aspects of the
development of children.

xxx xxx xxx

[ VOL. V, September 25, 1986 ]

BISHOP BACANI: There is one proposed amendment which

has been submitted to us about the type of
assistance that can be given, and it says: "CHILDREN
SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROPER CARE, NUTRITION, A
RELEVANT, NON-SEXIST AND QUALITY EDUCATION, AS WELL
AS PROTECTION FROM EXPLOITATION AND MENTAL AND
PHYSICAL ABUSE."
MS. QUESADA: Yes. I was wondering if we could spell
this out since we would like people to know just
what kind of support children should have instead of
just affording special protection against neglect,

R.C.C. NO. 92
Thursday, September 25, 1986
xxx xxx xxx
MS. NIEVA: There are two possible formulations for
Section 1 that the committee would be willing to
accept.

The first is from Commissioner Davide that says:

"THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE FILIPINO FAMILY AS THE
FOUNDATION OF THE NATION. ACCORDINGLY IT SHALL
STRENGTHEN ITS SOLIDARITY AND ACTIVELY PROMOTE ITS
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT."
The alternative is the one presented by Commissioner
Suarez: "THE STATE SHALL STRENGTHEN THE FAMILY AS A
BASIC SOCIAL INSTITUTION AND SHALL PROMOTE AND
PROTECT THE SOLIDARITY OF THE FAMILY."

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, my amendment is

on Section 1.
MR. OPLE: Yes, this is an omnibus amendment by
substitution, so may I give way to Commissioner
Davide and the committee with respect to that
amendment on Section 1. But may I reserve the right,
Mr. Presiding Officer, to rise afterwards in order
to present this proposed omnibus amendment.
Thank you.

I think the committee would agree to the Davide

amendment which includes the Suarez amendment except
for the additional phrase "PROMOTE ITS TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT" which the committee would like to
maintain.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner

Maambong is recognized.

So, the section would read: "THE STATE RECOGNIZES

THE FILIPINO FAMILY AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE NATION.
ACCORDINGLY IT SHALL STRENGTHEN ITS SOLIDARITY AND
ACTIVELY PROMOTE ITS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT."

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, do I understand

from the committee that the acceptable proposal of
Commissioner Davide, which is the main proposal, is
the one accepted, because he has two proposals one
is the main and the other is the alternative
proposal?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any

comment on that?

MS. NIEVA:Yes, the first proposal would also

incorporate the amendment of Commissioner Suarez.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, so what is

acceptable now to the committee? Is it this
alternative proposal?

MR. RAMA: May I ask Commissioner Davide to explain

and elaborate on that proposal?

MS. NIEVA: No, the first.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner
Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I suggested this proposal, Mr. Presiding
Officer, to emphasize the indispensable role of the
family consonant with what we have adopted in the
Declaration of Principles which states to the effect
that:
The State values the sanctity of family life and
shall

promote

the

family

as

basic

social

institution.
The family referred to is the Filipino family and
necessarily in the light of the concept mandated in
the Declaration of Principles, it is in fact the
foundation of society, the foundation of the nation.
Without a strong family there cannot be a strong
nation. So, necessarily the State shall have the
duty then to strengthen the solidarity of the
family, and as originally proposed by the committee,
it should also actively promote its total
development. The solidarity and strength of the
family is also the solidarity and strength of the
nation; hence, the proposal. And Commissioner
Maambong is a coauthor of this, especially the word
"SOLIDARITY."

MR. MAAMBONG: And this would read: "THE STATE

RECOGNIZES THE FILIPINO FAMILY AS THE FOUNDATION OF
THE NATION. ACCORDINGLY IT SHALL STRENGTHEN ITS
SOLIDARITY AND ACTIVELY PROMOTE ITS TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT."
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am glad that "SOLIDARITY" has been
accepted. This was the point I raised last night in
the period of sponsorship and debate, but I would
just like to interject another concept in the Civil
Code which describes the family.
Under Article 216, the Civil Code provides that the
family is a basic total institution. I wonder if we
can insert the words "AS A BASIC TOTAL INSTITUTION"
to realign this provision with the Civil Code
provision. I am not institutionalizing the Civil
Code; I am just saying that I am trying to put in
the concept as stated in the Civil Code so that we
will have no misunderstanding later on that our
Constitution goes against the concept already
accepted by the Civil Code. So, probably, it would
come in after the last word "DEVELOPMENT"
"ACTIVELY PROMOTE ITS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AS A BASIC
TOTAL INSTITUTION."
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. RAMA: Commissioner Ople would like to present

another amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner

Davide is recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner

Ople is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: That particular precept or concept is

already included in the Declaration of Principles.
So, if I remember correctly, the particular
provision of the Declaration of Principles is to
this effect:

MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding

Officer.
I would like to present a proposed omnibus amendment
on family rights and responsibilities.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is this an
amendment to the amendment?
MR. OPLE: It is an omnibus amendment to a prior
amendment by Commissioner Davide.

The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and

shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
social institution.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, Mr. Presiding Officer, I
withdraw my proposal. But I just want to indicate
that if Commissioner Davide is quoting it rightly,
the Civil Code says: "basic total institution." It
is marriage which is the social institution, while

the family under the Civil Code is a total

institution. I really do not know what the
distinction is but that is the wording of the Civil
Code.
MR. DAVIDE: If I remember correctly, it is "social"
also. Anyway, it really is the totality. It is the
foundation of society. It is the foundation of the
nation. But in any case, as an institution, it is
recognized in the Declaration of Principles.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Since there is
no proposed amendment to the amendment, is the body
ready to vote on the amendment of Commissioner
Davide? The chairman will please read the proposed
amendment again.
MS. NIEVA: This is the way the first section would
read then: "THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE FILIPINO FAMILY
AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE NATION. ACCORDINGLY IT
SHALL STRENGTHEN ITS SOLIDARITY AND ACTIVELY PROMOTE
ITS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT."

xxx xxx xxx

MR. MAAMBONG: The formulation now is: "MARRIAGE IS
THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY AND SHALL BE PROTECTED
BY THE STATE." Is that correct?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I introduce an amendment? After
the word "MARRIAGE," we say: "MARRIAGE AS AN
INVIOLABLE SOCIAL INSTITUTION IS THE FOUNDATION OF
THE FAMILY AND SHALL BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE."
I am introducing this amendment to realign it again
with Article 52 of the New Civil Code which says
that "marriage is not a mere contract but an
inviolable social institution."
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment and I hope the
committee does the same, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. NIEVA: We accept, Mr. Presiding Officer.

VOTING

MR. BENGZON: With the same interpretation as

articulated earlier on the basis of my question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are

in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand.
(Several Members raised their hand.)

VOTING

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No

Member raised his hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand.
(One Member raised his hand.)
The results show 23 votes in favor, none against and
1 abstention; the proposed amendment is approved.
xxx xxx xxx
MS. NIEVA: Section 2 shall now read as follows:
"MARRIAGE IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY AND SHALL
BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE. THE STATE SHALL RESPECT
THE FAMILY AS AN AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION."
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner
Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: This is just a clarificatory question
because there are a lot of Commissioners who have
some misgivings about the last phrase of the first
sentence: "MARRIAGE IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY
AND SHALL BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE." Is that the
wording?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: Will this in any way preclude Congress
from approving a law on divorce?
MS. NIEVA: We discussed that yesterday and I think
we reiterated that it does not.
MR. BENGZON: It does not.
MS. NIEVA: No.
MR. BENGZON: So, even if this section or this
sentence is approved, Congress will still have every
right to pass a divorce law under certain
circumstances as it may deem fit.
MS. NIEVA: That is right, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is the body

ready to vote?
As many as are in favor of the amendment, as
amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No
Member raised his hand.)
The results show 18 votes in favor and none against;
the proposed amendment is approved.
xxx xxx xxx
BISHOP BACANI: I wish to propose three amendments
from the committee side, Mr. Presiding Officer. Let
me read the first one. This is subject to transfer
to any part of this committee report: "THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT THE FAMILY FROM POPULATION POLICIES
IMPOSED AS A CONDITION FOR FOREIGN AID OR LOANS."
Let me explain this: The important word here is the
word "IMPOSED." It is not that population policies
are being excluded; population policies are
admissible under this provision but there are
certain population policies which can be imposed,
and which seems to have been imposed already upon
the Philippines by foreign interest as a condition
for foreign aid or loans. Hence, it is being
proposed here by myself as a form of protection for
Filipino families.
Let me mention one specific case. At present it was
reported to me that the drug Depo-Provera is being
tested or is being used for 1,000 women in Cavite.
This is a contraceptive, but this has not been
approved for use in the United States of America.
And now, when we are asked to reduce our population
as a condition for foreign aid and such means are
used, then I think the State should protect its
women from such impositions.
So, that is the rationale for this amendment, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

xxx xxx xxx

VOTING

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are

in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members

in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members

raised their hand.)

raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No

Member raised his hand.)

Member raised his hand.)

As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand.
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand.

(One Member raised his hand.)

(Four Members raised their hand.)

The results show 19 votes in favor, none against and
The results show 14 votes in favor, none against,

one

and

approved.

abstentions;

the

proposed

amendment

is

abstention;

Section

2(c),

as

amended,

is

amended

by

approved.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
BISHOP
MR. OPLE: hank you very much.

BACANI:

So

the

text,

as

Commissioner Ople and as it is now put under Section

4, is: "THE FAMILY HAS THE DUTY TO CARE FOR ITS

Since we are in the period of amendments, I presume,

I would like to propose the addition of a phrase to

ELDERLY MEMBERS BUT THE STATE MAY ALSO DO SO THROUGH

JUST SCHEMES OF SOCIAL SECURITY."

the text of Section 2(c) so that it will read: "The

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Will the result
right of the family to a decent family living wage
of this be the deletion of paragraph (d)?
OR

INCOME."

The

reason

for

this,

Mr.

Presiding

Officer, is that about 60 percent of our work force

are not in the wage system; they are outside the

MS. NIEVA: Yes, that automatically results in the

deletion of Section 2(d).

wage system. The bulk of these are unpaid family

labor; those farmers who earn the equivalent of a

VOTING

wage but we do not call that a wage, which is the

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are

income

are

in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members

the

raised their hand.)

from

deducted.

the

They

farm

after

comprise

all

about

the

60

expenses

percent

of

total labor force. So that if we adhere to the term

"living wage," we would cover only about 40 percent

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No

of the families of the Philippines. Therefore, if we

Member raised his hand.)

assume

that

the

family

living

wage

is

already

reaffirmed as part of the text of Section 2(c), I

The results show 20 votes in favor and none against;

suggest that we add "OR INCOME."

the amendment is approved.

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

[ VOL. V, September 26, 1986 ]

R.C.C. NO. 93
Friday, September 26, 1986

On Section 1, no change. On Section 2, we added the

word "ENCOURAGED" and placed a comma (,) after
"Marriage," so it will read: "Marriage, as an
inviolable social institution is the foundation of
the family and shall be ENCOURAGED and protected by
the State."
I ask for its approval, Mr. Presiding Officer.

xxx xxx xxx

APPROVAL OF JOURNAL

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir) : Commissioner
Monsod is recognized.

MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we

approve the Journal of yesterday's session.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we
proceed to the Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of
Business.

MR. MONSOD: I believe that during the deliberations

on this article, I made a suggestion to transpose
the second sentence of Section 2 to Section 1. And I
think the records will show that this was accepted.
The second sentence of Section 2 deals with the
family and not with marriage.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us see. It says: "The State shall
recognize the Filipino family . . . it shall
strengthen . . ." So, the Commissioner wants to
transpose the second sentence of Section 2 which
reads: "The State shall respect the family as an
autonomous social institution."
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

xxx xxx xxx

My suggestion was to combine the first sentence of

Section 1 and the second sentence of Section 2
because they both refer to the family.

[ VOL. V, October 01, 1986 ]

MR. RODRIGO: Yes, I have no objection to that.

R.C.C. NO. 97

MR. AZCUNA: No objection.

Wednesday, October 1, 1986

xxx xxx xxx

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, upon consultation with
my co-sponsors, Commissioners Rigos, Aquino and
Rosario Braid, we are withdrawing our proposed
amendment to Section 13 on the understanding that
the absence of a provision on population welfare and
responsible parenthood will not prevent the
government from proceeding with these programs, and
further on the understanding that Section 3 (d) of
the section on family rights would allow prospective
parents, through their participation in planning and
implementation of policies and programs that affect
them, to acquaint themselves with their choices in
this regard and thus arrive at an informed
conscience.

MR. MONSOD: But it has to be restyled in

combination, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, it has to be restyled.
MR. RODRIGO: So, this reads: "Section 1 The State
recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of
the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its
solidarity and actively promote its total
development." Do we repeat the "State"?
MR. AZCUNA: The term is "It shall."
MR. RODRIGO: So, it now reads: "It shall respect the
family as an autonomous social institution."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir) : One moment.
Commissioner Rigos is recognized.

Thank you, Madam President.

REV. RIGOS: I will wait for the approval of Section

first.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

MR. RODRIGO: I move for the approval of Section 1.

Let it be noted that said proposed amendment has

been withdrawn.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir) : Commissioner de

Castro is recognized.

xxx xxx xxx

MR. DE CASTRO: When we were discussing this, I was

questioning the term "Filipino family." Then I even
asked what family are we talking here; certainly,
not the Korean family, not the Japanese family, not
the American family. This is our Constitution and we
are talking certainly of a Filipino family. Do we
need to put that?

[ VOL. V, October 11, 1986 ]

R.C.C. NO. 105
Saturday, October 11, 1986
xxx xxx xxx
MR. RODRIGO: We now go to the Article on Family
Rights.

MR. RODRIGO: So, the Gentleman wants to say: "The

State recognizes the family."
MR. DE CASTRO. It looks awkward to me, Mr. Presiding
Officer, stating in the Filipino Constitution the

phrase the Filipino family. Certainly, we are not

talking of any other family here.
MR. RODRIGO: Does the Commissioner want "Filipino"
deleted?

Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading

is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the
proposed resolution.

MR. DE CASTRO: That is my problem.

MR. RODRIGO: So, the line would read: "The State
recognizes the family."

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 542,

entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir) : Commissioner

Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I vigorously
object to the deletion of the word Filipino
because in the Philippines, there are foreign
families residing in the country. And they will
invoke the rights when we delete the word
Filipino.

ARTICLE ON FAMILY RIGHTS.

xxx xxx xxx
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir) : The results show
33 votes in favor, none against and no abstentions.

MR. DE CASTRO: But this Constitution refers to the

Filipino family.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think that is very immaterial, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

Proposed Resolution No. 542 is approved on Third

Reading.
xxx xxx xxx

Thank you.
[ VOL. V, October 12, 1986 ]
MR. DE CASTRO: But our Constitution certainly, Mr.
Presiding Officer, refers to the Filipino people, no
other. If there is a Chinese, he becomes a
naturalized Filipino; certainly, he becomes a
Filipino.
That is my problem since the time we were still
discussing Family Rights. I will be uncomfortable
with "Filipino" there. I will be still happier if it
is not there.

R.C.C. NO. 106

Sunday, October 12, 1986
xxx xxx xxx
MR. GUINGONA: May we go to Article XV on the Family
and this is found on page 20.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir) : Commissioner

Nieva is recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir) : Commissioner

Nolledo is recognized.

MS. NIEVA: Yes, I agree; there is no change in

sequence.

MR. NOLLEDO: I think that all of us are aware that

there are provisions in the Bill of Rights that are
applicable even to aliens. Not all of the rights and
obligations or privileges set forth in the
Constitution are available to Filipinos exclusively.
There are cases where aliens may invoke certain
constitutional provisions.

MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DE CASTRO: But when we talk of family, certainly

it is the Filipino family. When we talk of rights,
yes, there may be rights of foreigners. But when we
talk of family in a fundamental law, a municipal
law, then it is the Filipino family.

May I move for the approval of Article XV on the

Family, as sequenced.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir) : Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; Article
XV, as sequenced, is approved.
xxx xxx xxx
[ VOL. V, October 15, 1986 ]
R.C.C. NO. 109

xxx xxx xxx

NOMINAL VOTING ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 542

Wednesday, October 15, 1986

ON THIRD READING

xxx xxx xxx

(Article on Family Rights)

President Cecilia Muoz Palma is recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President
Ambrosio Padilla.

MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on

Proposed Resolution No. 542.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir): Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 542 were
distributed pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the
Rules of the Constitutional Commission.

xxx xxx xxx

Very close to my heart are the provisions on the
family. For the first time, the Constitution devotes
a separate Article on the Family thereby giving due
recognition to the fact that the family is a basic
autonomous social institution and, therefore, the
State shall uphold the sanctity of family life,
protect the stability of marriage and the right to
found a family in accordance with one's religious

beliefs and convictions, and responsible parenthood.

At this time in the history not only of our country
but of all mankind when the institution of the
family is subjected to assaults against its inherent
dignity as an instrument to God's creation,
constitutional provisions which give protection and

guarantees to rights and duties of parents are

safeguards against the erosion of moral and
spiritual values.
xxx xxx xxx