LAWFUL INFIDELITY

CASE/FACTS:

A was a widow when she was employed in court. B, a married man but living separately with his wife, fell in love with A. B and A lived together in one house as husband and wife. They had children. They made a pledge before their religious congregation in the presence of their elders. C, a conservative citizen not related either to A and B file a complaint asking that A should be dismissed because of immorality.

ISSUE/PROBLEM:

Can A be administratively liable based on immorality? Can her defense as Jehovah’s Witnesses be an exception or can she invoke her religion as justification?

RULING/ANSWER:

COMMON LAW MARRIAGE

“A common-law marriage may be defined as non-ceremonial or informal marriage by agreement, entered into by a man and a woman having capacity to marry, ordinarily without compliance with such statutory formalities. Such agreement must be coupled by consummation, which includes at least cohabitation as husband and wife, and reputation in such a way that the public will recognize their marriage status. Common law marriages are not recognized in the Philippines because the Civil Code and the Family Code expressly and mandatory provide that intervention in a valid marriage ceremony of an ecclesiastical or civil functionary authorized by the state to solemnize marriage constitute one of the indispensable requisites for a valid marriage. Hence, the word “spouses” refers only to husband and wife lawfully married according to Philippine laws and the phrase “husband and wife” refers to parties who are lawfully married, unless the law provides otherwise.”1

IMMORALITY

On this discussion, I advance to précis the first part of the dissenting opinion of Justice Ynares-Santiago on the Estrada vs. Escritor2 case.

“The degree of morality required of every employee or official in the public service is high and strict. The Civil Service Law punishes public officers and employees for disgraceful and immoral conduct. Whether an act is immoral within the meaning of the statute is not to be determined by respondent’s concept of morality. The law provides the standard; the offense is complete if respondent intended to perform, and did in fact perform, the act which it condemns. The layman’s definition of what is “moral” pertains to excellence of character or disposition. It relates to the distinction between right and wrong; virtue and vice; ethical praise or blame. Moral law refers to the body of requirements in conformity to virtuous action consists. That which is not consistent with or not conforming to moral law, opposed to or violating morality, and now, more often, morally evil or impure, is immoral. Immoral is the state of not being virtuous with regard to sexual conduct. Hence, anything contrary to the standards of moral conduct is immoral. A grossly immoral act must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.”3

ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY

The facts of the case stated is similar to that of the 2006 case decided by the Supreme Court – Estrada vs. Escritor.

.
Alejandro Estrada filed an administrative complaint against Soledad Escritor on July 27, 2000 claiming that she is commiting “disgraceful and immoral conduct” under Book V, Title I, Chapter VI, Sec 46(b)(5) of the Revised Administrative Code, which provides:

Sec. 46. Discipline: General Provisions. –
(a) No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process.
(b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:
xxx xxx xxx
..........(5) Disgraceful and immoral conduct;
................xxx.

Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter and member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses was accused of cohabiting with Luciano Quilapio, while they were still married to other persons. Their relationship of 23 years had borne a son. Respondent testified that when she was employed by the judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow and that her cohabitation with Quilapio had the approval of their sect as proven by a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness.4 By virtue of this, their union was legitimized. Hence, their cohabitation is not immoral and they remain good members in their congregation.

.
The court in order to determine whether respondent’s invocation of his religious beliefs and/or right referred to Article III, Section 5 of the Philippine Constitution, which provides:

Sec. 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

The Supreme Court on their decision on the same case dated August 4, 20035, favored Escritor and remanded the case to the Office of the Court Administrator and ordered the Solicitor General to examine her claimed religious belief and practice and to prevent evidence in justifying an exception to prevailing law and jurisprudence governing illicit relations.

.
In remanding the case, the court said that the government should intervene in the matter to examine the sincerity and certainty of Escritor’s disputation, look into whether there is evidence on the state’s compelling interest to override such contention and show the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to her religious freedom.

.
The Supreme Court upheld Escritor’s right to conjugal union as it chose to adhere to the “benevolent neutrality approach in the Constitution that gives room for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause.6 They rule that under distinct circumstances, Ecritor’s cohabitation with Quilapio cannot be penalized as she made out a case for exemption from the law based on her fundamental right of freedom of religion. There is no violation of any law or rule as this would be an unconstitutional violation of their religious freedom.

.
In ruling that the “compelling state interest” test to be the applicable test in determining the State’s action in interfering with action pursuant to religious convictions has inquire into the “sincerity” of the beliefs of the party claiming such; determines what compelling state interest there is, if any, to interfere with the practice of religion; and the sanction to the means that intrude least into the free exercise of religion and that are proportionate to the attainment of a public and legal goal.

.
Simply put, Supreme Court ruled that couples living together without marrying are not immoral if their religion allows it.

.
In a voting decision of 9-5, Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban warned that the ruling could open the floodgates for people to use religion as an excuse to enter into illegal and immoral conjugal union. “The majority opinion will make every religion a separate republic, making religion a haven for criminal conduct that otherwise would be punishable under the law of the land. Today concubinage, tomorrow bigamy, will enjoy protection from criminal sanction under the new doctrine poised by the majority opinion,” said Associate Justice Antonio Carpio in a dissenting opinion. He cited US jurisprudence in warning that such a sweeping decision would “make professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land” and, in effect, “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

.
“This case is about a religious cover for an obviously criminal act,” the dissenters said.

.
In her separate opinion, Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago sought for the suspension of Escritor for six months for her disgraceful conduct in court. “The exacting standards of ethics and morality imposed upon court judges and court employees are required to maintain the people’s faith in the court as a dispenser of justice, and whose image is mirrored by their actuations,” she said. “The high degree of moral uprightness is demanded of employees of the government and entails many sacrifices that are peculiar to the civil service,” she added.

The far reaching significance of this case decision is that if Escritor is not a Jehovah’s Witness, her actuations and behavior would indeed constitute disgraceful and immoral conduct, as well as adultery and concubinage, under prevailing law and jurisprudence.

_______________________________________
1 Melencio S. Sta. Maria, Persons and Family Relations Law, 4th ed., Philippines: Manila, 2004, pp. 122-123.
2 A.M. No. P-02-1651. June 22, 2006. 492 SCRA 1.
3 Id., pp. 92-94.
4 DECLARATION OF PLEDGING FAITHFULNESS

..........I, Soledad S. Escritor, do hereby declare that I have accepted Luciano D. Quilapio, Jr., as my mate in marital relationship; that I have done all within my ability to obtain legal recognition of this relationship by the proper public authorities and that it is because of having been unable to do so that I therefore make this public declaration pledging faithfulness in this marital relationship.
..........I recognize this relationship as a binding tie before ‘Jehovah’ God and before all persons to be held to and honored in full accord with the principles of God’s Word. I will continue to seek the means to obtain legal recognition of this relationship by the civil authorities and if at any future time a change in circumstances make this possible, I promise to legalize this union.
..........Signed this 28th day of July 1991.
5 Estrada vs. Escritor. A.M. No. P-02-1651. August 4, 2003
6 Art.III, Sec. 5. of the 1987 Philippine Constitution: No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

.

.

REFERENCES:

• Sta. Maria, Jr., Melencio S. Persons and Family Relations Law. 4th ed. Philippines: Manila. 2004.
• Estrada vs. Escritor. A.M. No. P-02-1651. June 22, 2006. 492 SCRA 1.
• Requejo, Rey E. Supreme Court says living-in not immoral. Manila Standard Today. June 23, 2006.

.

Note: Submitted to Retired Judge Illuminado Meneses. This is my Legal Research Paper No. 5.

An Encounter with A Fellow

This night, while I am heading to Bon Angelo Cyberzone after coming from my wednesday class (Property), a group of student called me “Ma’am Lamsen, Ma’am Lamsen.” I turned and saw PSU students, 2 of them familiar and turned out to be scholar grantees under my boss’ scholarship program. We did some chit chat and bid goodbye. As I walk away from them, I smile which I still wear up to this time of typing this entry. I just thought that those students call me “madam” or “ma’am” when in fact, I, too, is a student. I couldn’t expound what I feel and realize at this moment. I just hope that this evening, I was able to inspire others.

Reapportionment in Pangasinan: House Bill 4267

It is disappointing that because of political interest of local officials, which is tantamount to their personal interest, large scale development is hindered.

Last Monday, September 1, 2008, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pangasinan rejected House Bill 4267: “An Act Reapportioning the Province of Pangasinan into Seven Legislative Districts” authored by 2nd District Representative Victor Aguedo E. Agbayani and co-sponsored by 3rd District Representative Rachel Arenas and 1st District Representative Arthur Celeste, who, however, withdrew later his sponsorship. The provincial board, in Provincial Resolution No. 770-2008 or known as a “Resolution strongly opposing House Bill 4267”, shot down the plan citing that the reapportionment is unconstitutional because of its gerrymandering character, it lack local consultations and is seen as politically-motivated move.


GERRYMANDERING

Second District Board Member Von Mark Mendoza branded the proposal of the bill as a politically-motivated move because of suspicious realignment of towns that seems to defy geographical locations.

At present, the localities under the first district are Bolinao, Anda, Agno, Bani, Alaminos City, Sual, Mabini, Burgos, Dasol and Infanta; second district comprises Labrador, Lingayen, Binmaley, Bugallon, Aguilar, Mangatarem, Urbiztondo and Basista; and San Carlos City, Bayambang, Malasiqui, Sta. Barbara, Mapandan and Calasiao are in the third district.


Under the redistricting bill, the first district will be composed of Bolinao, Anda, Agno, Bani, Alaminos City and Burgos; and under second district are Sual, Mabini, Dasol, Infanta, Labrador, Lingayen and Binmaley. Geographically, the towns of Mabini, Dasol and Infanta which are located south-west of Pangasinan will be displaced as the three are about two hours away from Lingayen. The third district will be composed of San Carlos City, Bugallon, Aguilar, Mangatarem, Urbiztondo and Basista; while the fourth district will be composed of Bayambang, Malasiqui, Sta. Barbara, Mapandan and Calasiao. The current fourth, fifth and sixth districts will become fifth, sixth and seventh districts.


Sec 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:

Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.

The underlying principle behind this rule is the concept of equality of representation which is the basic principle of Republicanism (Matias vs COMELEC, 3 SCRA 1, 7-8; 1961). One man’s vote should carry as much weight as the vote of every other man. In a representative system, this equality is ensured by requiring that the representatives represent as much as possible an equal number of constituents. This can be achieved either by making representatives represent districts of equal sizes in terms of inhabitants or by requiring that larger representative districts should be entitled to more representatives.

Moreover, in the same Article, Sec 5(3) provides:

Section 5. (3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.

This section is a prohibition of gerrymandering, which means the creation of representative districts out of separate portions of territory in order to favor a candidate.


LACK OF LGU CONSULTATION
House Bill 4267 was approved by the lower house on August 5, 2008, transmitted to and received by the Senate on August 11, 2008.

The Provincial Board expressed dismay over the non-information and non-consultation done with local officials affected by the House Bill 4267. It was only when the bill already passed plenary debate in the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate for concurrence that the matter come to their knowledge.

On the contrary, Agbayani said that consultation was made about the matter on the barangay level deploying leaders to achieve feedbacks. He also added that the board members should not worry because there will be more consultations top be made. He acknowledged the Provincial Board’s side on the issue.

Notwithstanding this contention, it has been held in Bai Sandra Sema vs COMELEC and Didagen Dilangalen, GR No. 177597, July 16, 2008 that certainly, the power to increase the allowable membership in the House of Representatives, and to reapportion legislative districts is vested exclusively in Congress.

Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution vests in Congress the power to increase, through a law, the allowable membership in the House of Representatives. Section 5(4) empowers Congress to reapportion legislative districts. The power to reapportion legislative districts necessarily includes the power to create legislative districts out of existing ones. Congress exercises these powers through a law that Congress itself enacts, and not through a law that regional or local legislative bodies enact. The allowable membership of the House of Representatives can be increased, and new legislative districts of Congress can be created, only through a national law passed by Congress.

The exclusive power to create or reapportion legislative districts is logical. Congress is a national legislature and any increase in its allowable membership or in its incumbent membership through the creation of legislative districts must be embodied in a national law. Only Congress can enact such a law. It would be anomalous for regional or local legislative bodies to create or reapportion legislative districts for a national legislature like Congress. An inferior legislative body, created by a superior legislative body, cannot change the membership of the superior legislative body.

Indeed, the office of a legislative district representative to Congress is a national office, and its occupant, a Member of the House of Representatives, is a national official. The office of a district representative is maintained by national funds and the salary of its occupant is paid out of national funds. It is a self-evident inherent limitation on the legislative powers of every local or regional legislative body that it can only create local or regional offices, respectively, and it can never create a national office.

In a radio interview in Bombo Radyo Dagupan, Representative Agbayani said that reapportionment would mean more development for the province in terms of additional countryside development fund and other benefits due to a legislative district. At present, each congressman is allotted P70 million countryside development fund annually to be used for development programs and projects in his/her district. A new district, he also added, would mean 70 million pesos development fund for the province.


POLITICAL INTEREST/

POLITICALLY MOTIVATED MOVE
The provincial board eyed the move as a tactical maneuver to suit political ends. Agbayani defended the move saying reapportionment of congressional districts is mandated by the Constitution. The first three districts are now qualified to be reapportioned to four districts as each district would have the minimum required population of 250,000.00

Pangasinan, whose population stands at 2,645,395, may now qualify to have up to 10 districts. Agbayani said it was high time to reapportion districts in the province. “I cannot recall how many Census had already been undertaken after 1987,” said Agbayani. He stressed that it is only now that an additional congressional district is being sought.

Agbayani and Arenas believed that Pangasinan would have a better representation in the House of Reps and that development would be a lot faster if an additional legislative district is created.

Sixth District Board Member Alfonso Bince believes that the division of Pangasinan is the best alternative to HB 4267. Dividing the province into 2 parts—Western and Eastern and not redistricting nor creating a new district is best for Pangasinan’s development. “If this HB is approved, it will dilute the configuration in the present SP, it will reduce financial assistance of the Provincial Government to the districts and worst about it is that redistricting is not subject to plebiscite unlike division of provinces or towns,” Bince further reiterated.

Pangasinan at present is only one of the three provinces that allow two district Board Members in every congressional district. Likewise, there is a law that mandates a maximum of 12 district BMs. Thus, the reapportionment of the existing districts into seven new one’s will only create political and legal problems because the consequence would, there will be 14 regular board members and that will be more than what is under the law.
.

Bince further stated that redistricting should be province-wide and not for selected districts only.

REPRESENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Seeing the issue as it transpires, it is the incumbent officials sitting in their most glorified seats, are the most upset because they have been painstakingly built their bailiwicks in the present compositions of districts; sowed money, time and effort in their ward leaders and now only to be suddenly derailed and discomfited by Congressmen supporting House Bills as such.

Only a homegrown debate engaged in by proponents and the opposition will help explain the bill to the people, especially those who will be affected by the changes if it is eventually approved and passed into law. After all, any decision involving the districts should not be so much a political issue but a matter of what would be best for the development of the province and its people.

Nevertheless, HB 4267 has given the people of Pangasinan their legal right in Congressional representation. The people control the government and the latter must do everything it can to help the people advance their cause. Our district representatives should be held responsible for being aware of what the Philippine Constitution provides for their fellow constituents, and that knowing the importance of the Census Population and the legal right the Constitution gave to every municipality and cities of every district—adding another Congressional district and a respective Representative in the Philippine Congress is paramount. As a matter of fact, If Pangasinan is entitled to 10 legislative districts, how come our Congressmen did not make the legal change of adding districts within the limited time allowed by the Constitution? Was this a constitutional oversight or a political control issue?

The more Congressional seats Pangasinan gets, legally, the more political power it can muster against the established quo of neglect for its constituency. It will help shift the political hegemony in Manila-centric politics, and rightfully transform the voice of Pangasinenses into a very powerful tool its leaders can use to bring home deserved funds to improve the province’s infrastructure from the towns and cities to the neglected barrios. The shameful begging days will be over, and due respect and treatment will be earned for the political might of Pangasinenses. Let us not forget though that by current statistics, Pangasinan is placed as the third (3rd) largest province in The Philippines! It has earned the right to have a powerful voice and influence in the country's political arena.

Although the aforementioned powerful political scenario holds many possibilities for Pangasinenses, we must also reflect on the possibility that it can be used negatively in the historical corruption of national and local politics. We only hope the good spirit of humanity prevails.



REFERENCES:

• Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary. Philippines: Quezon City. 2003 ed.
• Creation of ARMM's Shariff Kabunsuan is Invalid. Published August 31st, 2008 .
• National Statistics Office Website. Pangasinan Population.

Standard Oil Co. of New York vs Jaramillo

44 Phil 630

FACTS:
Gervasia dela Rosa executed a document in the form of a Chattel Mortgage purporting to convey to Standard Oil Co. by way of mortgage both the leasehold interest of the land she leases in Manila and the building which stands thereon.

The clauses in said document describe the property as personal including the right, title and interest of the mortgagor in and to the contract of lease and also the building of the said premises therein.

After said document had been duly acknowledge and delivered, the petitioner presented it to Joaquin Jaramillo, as register of deeds of the City of Manila, for the purpose of having the same recorded. The respondent opined that it was not a chattel mortgage for the interests mortgaged did not appear to be personal property within the meaning of the Chattel Mortgage Law and registration was refused on this ground only.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not said property could be a subject for mortgage.

2. Whether the respondent is clothe with authority to determine such.

.

RULING:
The duties of a register of deeds in respect to the registration of chattel mortgages are of purely ministerial character and no provision of law can be cited which confers upon him any judicial or quasi-judicial power to determine the nature of any document of which registration is sought as a chattel mortgage. The efficacy of the act of recording a chattel mortgage consists in the fact that it operates as constructive notice of the existence of the contract, and the legal effects of the contract must be discovered in the instrument itself in relation with the fact of notice. Registration adds nothing to the instrument, considered as a source of title, and affects nobody’s rights except as a species of notice.

The parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property and it is a familiar phenomenon to see things classed as real property for purposes of taxation which on general principle might be considered personal property.

It is unnecessary to determine whether or not the property described in the document is real or personal. The issue is to be determined by the Court and not by the register of deeds.

NOTES: This is my own digest. Reading the whole text of the case is recommended.