What makes an act immoral? According to the Philippine Supreme Court an act is only immoral if it contravenes existing laws or state policy.
 |
| https://www.philstar.com/nation/2024/12/17/2407947/sc-unmarried-teachers-cant-be-suspended-being-pregnant |
Consensual sexual relations between unmarried people that result in pregnancy are not immoral and not a valid ground for suspension from work of the pregnant woman, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled.
In an 18-page ruling, the SC First Division said sexual relations between two consenting adults who have no legal impediment to marry is not deemed immoral.
“No law forbids such, and said conduct does not contravene any fundamental state policy enshrined in the Constitution,” the SC decision, penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, read.
The high tribunal has declared illegal the 2016 suspension by a Christian school in Bohol of a teacher who became pregnant before marrying her boyfriend.
In September 2016, when she was two months pregnant, the teacher informed the school principal about her pregnancy and her scheduled marriage to her boyfriend.
The teacher was “verbally suspended” indefinitely until her marriage to the father of her child for violating the school’s policy.
She also received a written notice, stating that she was suspended indefinitely without pay due to immorality until she gets married.
She filed a complaint for illegal suspension. The labor arbiter held that she was constructively dismissed, but the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the decision.
The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that there was no constructive dismissal, and found the teacher’s suspension illegal.
The appellate court said it did not find the teacher’s conduct immoral as she did not have sexual relations with a married man and neither was she married at the time.
The CA ordered the school to pay the teacher the salaries and benefits she did not receive during her suspension.
An immoral act is an act that does not conform to accepted standards of morality. Morality is not something that can be enshrined in law but is in large part cultural. According to this ruling fornication is a moral act in the Philippines because there is no law against it. The Supreme Court based their decision on the distinction between public secular morality and religious morality. The SC's "jurisdiction extends only to public and secular morality."
 |
| pg. 10 |
In the eyes of the law, there is a standard of morality that binds all those who come before it, which is public and secular, not religious. It is important to make this distinction as the Court's jurisdiction extends only to public and secular morality.
Public and secular morality refers to conduct proscribed because they are detrimental to conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society. Otherwise, if government relies upon religious beliefs in formulating public policies and morals, the resulting policies and morals would require conformity to what some might regard as religious program or agenda."
In this case, respondent was suspended for engaging in premarital sexual relations, resulting in being pregnant out of wedlock. The Court has previously ruled in similar cases that premarital sexual relations resulting in pregnancy out of wedlock cannot be considered disgraceful or immoral when viewed against the prevailing norms of conduct.
How exactly is fornication an act which is not "detrimental to conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society?" Are sexually transmitted diseases not detrimental to society? Are single mothers not detrimental to society? How about when children are abandoned and thrown away like garbage as soon as they are born, is that not detrimental to society? All of those acts are the fruit of fornication. Yet the Supreme Court says fornication is moral and not "detrimental to conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society."
Furthermore this lady was a teacher at a Christian school. No doubt she signed a morality clause but even if she didn't surely faculty and students would be expected to uphold Christian values and teachings. The Supreme Court has ruled in two previous cases that upholding Christian values at Christian schools do not matter when it comes to the law.
 |
| pgs.10-11 |
The Court has previously ruled in similar cases that premarital sexual relations resulting in pregnancy out of wedlock cannot be considered disgraceful or immoral when viewed against the prevailing norms of conduct. In Leus v. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove," We held:
In stark contrast to Santos, the Court does not find any circumstance in this case which would lead the Court to conclude that the petitioner committed a disgraceful or immoral conduct. It bears stressing that the petitioner and her boyfriend, at the lime they conceived a child, had no legal impediment to marry. Indeed, even prior to her dismissal, the petitioner mended her boyfriend, the father of her child. As the Court held in Radam, there is no law which penalizes an unmarried mother by reason of her sexual conduct or proscribes the consensual sexual activity between two unmarried persons; that neither does such situation contravene any fundamental state policy enshrined in the Constitution.
Admittedly, the petitioner is employed in an educational institution where the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church, including that on pre-marital sexual relations, is strictly upheld and taught to the students. That her indiscretion, which resulted in her pregnancy out of wedlock, is anathema to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. However, viewed against the prevailing norms of conduct, the petitioner's conduct cannot be considered as disgraceful or immoral; such conduct is not denounced by public and-secular morality. It maybe an, unusual arrangement, but it certainly is not disgraceful or immoral within the contemplation of the law.
And in Inocente v. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging Inc.."
In this ease, we note that both Zaida and Marlon at all times had no impediments to marry each other. They were adults who met at work, dated, fell in love and became sweethearts. The intimate sexual relations between them were consensual, borne by their love for one another and which they engaged to discreetly and in strict privacy. They continued their relationship even after Marlon left St. Vincent in 2008. They took their marriage vows on after Zelda recovered from her miscarriage, thus validating their union in the eyes of both men and God. All these circumstances show the sincerity and honesty of the relationship between Zaida and Marlon. They also show their genuine regard and love for one another — a natural human emotion that is neither shameless, callous, nor offensive to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the secular community. While their actions might nor have strictly conformed with the beliefs, ways, and mores of St Vincent which is governed largely by religious morality — or with the personal views of its officials, these actions on not prohibited under any law nor are they contrary to conduct generally accepted by society as respectable or moral.
Sexual intercourse between two consenting adults who have no legal impediment to marry, like respondent and her boyfriend, is not deemed as immoral." No law proscribes such, and said conduct does not contravene any fundamental state policy enshrined in the Constitution."
This ruling, as well as the previous two, opens a can of worms. For instance, homosexuality is not illegal in the Philippines. According to the Supreme Court that means it is also not immoral. Is that what Philippine society thinks? Then why is there no sodomite marriage? Why does the SOGIE bill languish in Congress? Because even though homosexuals are tolerated and in some instances celebrated homosexual immoral in the eyes of Philippine society.
What about abortion? Right now it is illegal and thus, according to this ruling, immoral. But if it were to become legal then it would suddenly become a moral act. What kind of legal sorcery is that? Would the status of abortion from illegal and immoral to legal and moral reflect Filipino values? On what basis could it be said today abortion is detrimental to society and tomorrow it is beneficial?
What about divorce? Right now it is illegal and seen as "detrimental to conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society." If it ever becomes legal then it will be moral. How can this be so? On what basis can an action go from moral to immoral? The Supreme Court has told us on what basis, public opinion. That is no foundation on which to erect morality or ethics.
I'm no legal scholar but the implications of basing morality on public opinion and what is legal or not sets a bad precedence. This ruling will surely come back to haunt the Philippines in the coming years as it debates abortion, homosexual marriage, and divorce. Let's not forget there is a separate Sharia law system in the Philippines where this definition of morality would not fly.
