During my early years at DSWD, I was first connected with the Department’s Legal Services and was exposed to a variety of administrative cases against employees. One case which got me started in pushing for more gender equality from within was a complaint filed by the Executive Director of an attached agency against her young staff for getting pregnant “out-of-wedlock”. We all know how that was joyfully resolved, although I am surprised that no one remembers it as a matter of policy. The institutional memory and historical context is important because there were other cases that followed involving my own colleagues in my new office at Pdpb Dswd, and the other bureau directly above our floor. The insensitive comments that proliferated in the afternoon shuttles going home could’ve been shot down as early as five or seven years ago, had the matter been formally tackled and a concrete policy put in place.
Today, I cringe at the term “getting pregnant out-of-wedlock” as a concept from the so-called Dark Ages when women alone were castigated for having children without the benefit of marriage. (I personally prefer the terms “unmarried mothers” or “single parents”) For men, having fathered “bastards” and not making honest women of these mothers is not so bad. It’s even considered as a sign of “machismo”.
But it’s a totally different matter for women. Those were the days when the moral “double-standard” was so prevalent, when the burden and responsibility of having kids seems to be solely on the female’s shoulders. As if women got that way (pregnant) by themselves.
In this new, “enlightened” era of sexuality, we know better and acknowledge that everyone is bound to engage in sex, legally or illegally, morally or immorally. It is a matter of “privacy” in its very essence but at the same time, a conduct which may be regulated by the State in the interest of public health and safety, as well as in terms of human rights and social order. Thus, most laws and government policies now admit that males are jointly responsible and just as to “blame” for pregnancies and children being born into this world. Read: I am invoking the spirit behind the RPRH law (RA 10354) here!
However, left to the discretion and will of employers and supervisors, it is unfortunate that personal beliefs and ideas on morality still come into play, and may leave some women “victimized” and continually stigmatized for getting pregnant and choosing to be mothers.
Let me spell this out for you: Some of these brave women could have chosen not to go through with their pregnancies and simply get abortions, but instead, they had the courage and the conviction to keep these babies even with the overwhelming prospect of rearing and caring for them on their own.
So are you going to be that Terrible Boss who dismisses or terminates her staff, or does not renew an employment contract because a female employee got pregnant and is now a Solo Parent?
In terms of employee rights and welfare, I firmly believe this is not good labor practice. It is downright uncompassionate and hypocritical, illegal even, especially when the man responsible for getting the woman pregnant doesn’t get sanctioned and still remains in service.
Shall I dare to say it? Yes, we do have strong legal bases protecting women in such situations. RA 8972 known as the Solo Parents Act of 2000 and RA 9710 known as the Magna Carta of Women embody these legal protections. Similarly anchored on the principles set forth in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), these laws prohibit discriminating against a woman based on her gender and her accompanying reproductive functions, including all such consequences as child-bearing.
Still need further basis? Here’s the Supreme Court’s AM No.-P-07-2333 and it doesn’t get more explicit than this.
• “X x x For purposes of determining administrative responsibility, giving birth out of wedlock is not per se immoral under civil service laws. For such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. x x x”
• “x x x For a particular conduct to constitute disgraceful and immoral behavior under civil service laws, it must be regulated on account of the concerns of public and secular morality. It cannot be judged based on personal bias, specifically those colored by particular mores. Nor should it be grounded on cultural values not convincingly demonstrated to have been recognized in the realm of public policy expressed in the Constitution and the laws. At the same time, the constitutionally guaranteed rights (such as the right to privacy) should be observed to the extent that they protect behavior that may be frowned upon by the majority. x x x”
• Under these tests, two things may be concluded from the fact that an unmarried woman gives birth out of wedlock:
(1) if the father of the child is himself unmarried, the woman is not ordinarily administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct. [18] It may be a not-so-ideal situation and may cause complications for both mother and child but it does not give cause for administrative sanction. There is no law which penalizes an unmarried mother under those circumstances by reason of her sexual conduct or proscribes the consensual sexual activity between two unmarried persons. Neither does the situation contravene any fundamental state policy as expressed in the Constitution, a document that accommodates various belief systems irrespective of dogmatic origins. [19]
(2) if the father of the child born out of wedlock is himself married to a woman other than the mother, then there is a cause for administrative sanction against either the father or the mother. [20] In such a case, the disgraceful and immoral conduct consists of having extramarital relations with a married person. The sanctity of marriage is constitutionally recognized and likewise affirmed by our statutes as a special contract of permanent union. x x x”
“x x x One’s employment is not merely a specie of property rights. It is also the means by which he and those who depend on him live. It is therefore protected by the guarantee of security of tenure. And in the civil service, this means that no government employee may be removed, suspended or disciplined unless for cause provided by law and after due process. Unless the constitutional guarantee of due process is a mere platitude, it is the Courts duty to insist on its observance in all cases involving a deprivation, denigration or dilution of ones right to life, liberty and property. x x x”
I hereby rest my case and enjoin all GAD Focal Persons and Core Group of Women’s Welfare Specialists, or self-avowed Gender Advocates and Women’s Human Rights Defenders to read this.
No comments:
Post a Comment