Giving birth out of wedlock is not immoral

Dear PAO,

Good day! I just want to be enlightened about the single parent issue. Are there provisions regarding this subject? Does the Civil Service Commission prohibit employment and continuance in service of single pregnant women? Currently, I am employed in the government sector and my fear is that they will terminate me on the ground of immorality for I am unmarried and pregnant. Hope you could help me regarding this issue.
Thank you very much.
Aerise

Dear Aerise,

The law that can address your query is Republic Act No. 8972 otherwise known as the “Solo Parents’ Welfare Act of 2000.” It provides for the benefits and privileges to which solo parents and their children are entitled.

Being unmarried and pregnant, you may be considered as a solo parent in accordance with Section 3(a)(8) of the said Act provides, to wit:

“Section 3. Definition of Terms. – Whenever used in this Act, the following terms shall mean as follows:

(a) “Solo parent” – any individual who falls under any of the following categories:

* * *

(8) Unmarried mother/father who has preferred to keep and rear her/his child/children instead of having others care for them or give them up to a welfare institution;”

A perusal of RA 8972 would reveal that it supports the employment of solo parents by granting benefits such as flexible work schedule, no work discrimination and parental leave. Furthermore, the said law applies to all solo parents as long as they fall within the definition of Section 3 of the said law. Apparently, the Civil Service Law in consonance with the provisions of RA 8972, does not prohibit employment and continuance in service of a solo parent as long as the latter is not committing gross immorality.

The Supreme Court in the case of Anonymous, Complainant vs Ma. Victoria P. Radam, Utility Worker, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Alaminos City, respondent (A.M. No. P-07-2333, December 19, 2007 (formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2510-P) had the occasion to rule on the administrative liability of a government employee who got pregnant though unmarried.

The High Court addressed the matter in this wise:

“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.

In Estrada v. Escritor, we emphasized that in determining whether the acts complained of constitute “disgraceful and immoral behavior” under civil service laws, the distinction between public and secular morality on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other should be kept in mind. The distinction between public and secular morality as expressed—albeit not exclusively—in the law, on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other, is important because the jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality. Thus, government action, including its proscription of immorality as expressed in criminal law like adultery or concubinage, must have a secular purpose.

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.

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. 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.

(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. 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. Accordingly, judicial employees have been sanctioned for their dalliances with married persons or for their own betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. x x x”

In the said case, the person charged with immorality was exonerated from administrative liability for giving birth to a son out of wedlock considering that the father of her child was unmarried like her.

Apparently, your being pregnant though you are unmarried will not make you liable for immorality if the father of your child is also unmarried and this may not be ground for you to be removed from service.

It is also our view that if the woman was a victim of deception by the father of her child that the former purportedly an unmarried individual, the woman who is an umarried individual, may be treated as a victim of misrepresentation on the part of the father of her child. Thus, single mother should not be penalized behind having a child out of wedlock.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter. Please take note however, that all the information contained herein are based on our appreciation of the facts have given and on the assumptions we made. A different legal opinion may be given if other facts not included in your query will be discussed. –PERSIDA ACOSTA, Manila Times

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net