Rights and obligations between husband and wife from the Biblical standpoint and that of the Family Code of the Philippines

The Family Code mentions the word “love” only twice and the first mention of the word is found in Title III which covers Articles 68 up to 73. The second mention of the word “love” is in Article 220 which states the rights and duties of parents towards their unemancipated children. Paragraph (2) of the article states that among the duties of parents towards their children is “to give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding.”

Anyway, let’s proceed from this romantic, mushy (this is redundant, right?) stuff about “love” and get on with the nitty-gritty details of the rights and obligations between husbands and wives.

As “Insight for Living” Bible teacher Chuck Swindoll once said, “The basis of a good marriage is not love; it is commitment.” What he's saying is that love is not a matter of the emotions, but of the will, of volition (this is really redundant, right?) You might want to review my article “Love Potion No. 9” where I wrote about dopamine, oxytocin and vasopressin. These chemicals produced by the human body and which some people have termed as the “cuddle chemicals” are believed responsible for that mysterious thing called love.

After the Family Code primer immediately below, I will discuss what the Bible says about rights and duties of husbands and wives, okay?

What are the rights and obligations of spouses under the Family Code?

The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. (Art. 68, Family Code of the Philippines)

What if one spouse refuses to comply with his or her marital obligations as provided under Art. 68, can the offended spouse legally compel him to come home and comply with such obligations?

The Supreme Court in the case of Ilusorio vs. Ilusorio-Bildner (G.R. No. 139789 July 19, 2001 and G.R. No. 139808 July 19, 2001) stated among other things that “consortium” or “coverture” (the obligation to, live together, observe mutual, respect and fidelity) is prompted by the spontaneous, mutual love and affection between husband and wife and cannot be enforced by any legal mandate or court order.

The Ilusorio decision written by Justice Pardo revolved around this issue: “May a wife secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her in conjugal bliss? The answer is no. Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling may not be enforced by the extra-ordinary writ of habeas corpus.”

The Supreme Court as a final note in the Ilusorio decision stated, “No court is empowered as a judicial authority to compel a husband to live with his wife. Coverture cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by sheriffs or by any other mesne process. That is a matter beyond judicial authority and is best left to the man and woman’s free choice.”

Who decides on the family domicile?

The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide. (Art. 69)

Article 68 states that the spouses are obliged to live together. Are there exceptions?

The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family. (2nd paragraph, Art.69)

Who is responsible for the support of the family?

The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The expenses for such support and other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income or fruits of their separate properties. In case of insufficiency or absence of said income or fruits, such obligations shall be satisfied from the separate properties. (Art. 70)

Who shall manage the household?

The management of the household shall be the right and the duty of both spouses. The expenses for such management shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Article 70.

What if the husband or the wife neglects his or her duties to the family?
When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to the conjugal union or commits acts which tend to bring danger, dishonor or injury to the other or to the family, the aggrieved party may apply to the court for relief. (Art. 72)

Under RA 9262 or the “Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004”, the wife can petition the Family Court where she resides for a Protection Order.

Can the wife exercise her profession or engage in business even without the permission of her husband?

Either spouse may exercise any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity without the consent of the other. The latter may object only on valid, serious, and moral grounds. (Art.73)

What if there is disagreement between the spouses?

In case of disagreement, the court shall decide whether or not:

(1) The objection is proper; and

(2) Benefit has occurred to the family prior to the objection or thereafter. If the benefit accrued prior to the objection, the resulting obligation shall be enforced against the separate property of the spouse who has not obtained consent.

If the husband refuses unjustifiably to allow his wife to exercise her profession or engage in business, what are the rights of the wife?

RA 9262, under paragraph (4) of Section 5 lists this situation as a act of violence against a woman. The said paragraph penalizes the man (husband or live-in partner) if he “prevents the woman from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity or controls the victim's own money or properties, or solely controls the conjugal or common money, or properties.”

Rights and obligations of husbands and wives from the Biblical standpoint

Ephesians 5:21 up to 33 outline the rights and obligations of husbands and wives:

21. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

I Peter 3: 1-12 also state the rights and duties of husbands and wives toward each other:

1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
8. Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
9. Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
10. For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:
11. Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.
12. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

In the area of relationships and marriage, there cannot be a more explosive and divisive issue than that of the headship of men and the submission of women. Sometime in the late 1990’s, I think, the Southern Baptist Convention issued an official statement asking women to “graciously submit” to their husbands. Needless to say, that statement was greeted with controversy, scorn and ridicule from different sectors and even from within the Convention itself. Feminist groups have been saying all these time that the Biblical injunction for women to submit to their husbands is an open invitation for spousal abuse.

If you want a thorough discussion of the Biblical doctrines of the headship of men and the submission of women, I recommend the following books to you:

[1] “Strike the Original Match” by Chuck Swindoll; Multnomah Press © 1980; specifically the chapters entitled “Let’s Repair the Foundation” and “Bricks that Build a Marriage.”

[2] “The Grace Awakening” also by Chuck Swindoll; Word Publishing, ©1996; specifically the chapter entitled “A Marriage Oiled by Grace”

[3] “Together Forever” by Anne Kristin Caroll; Zondervan, © 1982 by Barbara J. Denis); specifically the chapter entitled “Who Wears the Pants?”

[4] “Rocking the Roles” by Robert Lewis and William Hendricks; NavPress, ©1991; specifically the chapters entitled “The ‘S’ Word” and “The Masculine Counterpart to the ‘S’ Word.”

I have previously written about the headship of men and the submission of women, and you might want to re-read it. Part of that article reads as follows:

Lewis and Hendricks, while maintaining the traditional view of the headship of men and the submission of women, clarify however that submission is not a wife’s role. Rather, they say, submission is the wife’s loving response to her husband’s loving and sacrificial headship.

“Roles” and ‘responses” may sound like only semantics to you, but I encourage you to read “Rocking the Roles.” The most striking statement in this book about submission is found in page 135: “A biblically submissive wife’s focus is not on enabling wrong behavior, but in empowering her husband to pursue right behavior – to become the man God wants him to be, and the leader God wants him to be.”

I remember something Dr. James Dobson wrote in his classic book (highly recommended!) “Love Must Be Tough” about submission. Dobson said, “Being a spiritually submissive wife doesn’t mean being a doormat.”

Caroll, who writes her book out of the crucible of the pain of her divorce (and remarriage to the same guy) says on page 126, “Submission is freedom.”

During the wedding reception of a Filipino missionary couple bound for a Creative Access Nation, the groom wished out loud that his wife would submit to him. That brought about a lot of laughter among the guests. Well, Sir, please do keep in mind Lewis and Hendricks’ definition of submission and I’m sure your marriage will turn out okay. What’s their definition again? “A biblically submissive wife’s focus is not on enabling wrong behavior, but in empowering her husband to pursue right behavior – to become the man God wants him to be, and the leader God wants him to be.”

Life after life

Note: I wrote this article March 2006 but I am reprinting it here in view of Easter Sunday, the world's celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and on a more personal note, the death yesterday morning, after a two-year battle with cancer, of Dra. Myrna Gigantone, faithful member of Bethany Makati and beloved professor and guidance counselor of L.D. Woosley Bethany Colleges.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

One of the hit movies worldwide in the 1970’s was “Sunshine” starring Cristina Raines and Cliff de Young, I think, based on the tape-journals kept by a young mother dying of leukemia. I’m sure you have heard the movie’s theme song by John Denver. I watched this movie three times, I think, on TV reruns; hey, what can I say? I’m a sentimental kind of guy!

“Sunshine” is probably the only movie about death and dying that has become a huge box office hit. As the man on the street would say, “What kind of a movie is it if the hero dies at the end?” The story is told that in one Fernando Poe Jr. movie, moviegoers in Muslim Mindanao rioted when the character played by “Da King” died at the end of the movie.

Several weeks ago, we heard and saw on television news reports of the tragic story of former teen idol Darius Razon - losing his daughter in a fire several years ago, and three weeks ago, his son Denver in a car accident …

Somehow it seems unnatural for a man’s children to die ahead of him. Nature seems to dictate that parents are buried by their children, and not the other way around. I remember several years ago, there was a plane accident in Mindanao where all the passengers and crew died. During an interview, a grieving mother said of her college-age son (one of the passengers), “I didn’t think he would die at such at a young age.”

Death is an inescapable fact of life. Everyone who has ever lived died. Everyone living now will eventually die. I think it was Sigmund Freud, father of psychoanalysis, who said, “Death is the goal of life.” The late Peter Marshall, famous preacher and chaplain to the US Senate, once said, "Death is not a wall; it's a door." So it's really fitting to speak of "life after life" and not "life after death."

John Donne, poet and preacher to England’s monarchy two hundred years ago, described death this way,

“All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be translated. God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God’s hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall be open for one another.”

The Bible in Hebrews 9:27 says it simply but definitively: “For it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this, the judgment.”
In law school, I took a one-unit required, non-bar course called “Medical Jurisprudence.” My professor was a very kind medical doctor and who was the town vice-mayor at that time; he passed me even though I didn’t get to read through the textbook. But then again, in the late 70’s, I was a great fan of the TV series “Quincey, Medical Examiner” starring Jack Klugman. “Quincey” is the forerunner of the various “CSI” shows today. I learned a lot of forensics from watching “Quincey,” enough to pass the final exams in Medical Jurisprudence.

The only thing I can remember now from that course was that one way of determining death was to place a mirror near the patient’s mouth and nostrils. If the mirror wasn’t fogged, then the patient was deemed to have stopped breathing and then pronounced dead by the attending doctor. (Hmm, this could be the reason why women carry around with them a “compact” with face powder and a mirror in it. Some women would rather die than be caught in public without their make-up. Just kidding! I just couldn’t resist this kind of non-sequitur jokes and comments!)

The ancient Greeks, despite using the best means available to them, were puzzled as to why the human body weighed the same before and immediately after death. They wondered as to what was missing in the human body so that what was once alive was now dead.

Medical criteria in determining death

The medical community, here and abroad, has used several criteria by which to determine whether a person is dead or alive. These are:

(1) Heart-lung death: the irreversible cessation of spontaneous respiration and circulation
(2) Whole-brain death: the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, even if the heart and digestive systems are still functioning
(3) Higher-brain death: the irreversible cessation of all cognitive functions such as personality, consciousness, uniqueness, memory, judgment, reason, enjoyment, worry, etc.

How does Philippine law define “death”? Republic Act 7170 or the “Organ Donation Act of 1991” in Section 2, paragraph (j), defines death this way:

j) “Death” - the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. A person shall be medically and legally dead if either:

1) In the opinion of the attending physician, based on the acceptable standards of medical practice, there is an absence of national respiratory and cardiac functions and, attempts at resuscitation would not be successful in restoring those functions. In this case, death shall be deemed to have occurred at the time those functions ceased; or

(2) In the opinion of the consulting physician, concurred in by the attending physician, that on the basis of acceptable standards of medical practice, there is an irreversible cessation of all brain functions, and considering the absence of such functions, further attempts at resuscitation or continued supportive maintenance would not be successful in restoring such natural functions. In this case, death shall be deemed to have occurred at the time when these conditions first appeared.The death of the person shall be determined in accordance with the acceptable medical practice and shall be diagnosed separately by the attending physician and another consulting physician, both of whom must be appropriately qualified and suitable experienced in the care of such patients. The death shall be recorded in the patient’s medical record.

As far as my research goes, the Philippine legal definition of death was patterned after two American laws - the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (1970) and the Uniform Determination of Death Act (1980). Please take note that the Philippine criteria is in the alternative; it is either heart-lung death OR whole brain death.

The issue of determining how and when death has occurred is a raging controversy because of the inter-related issues of euthanasia, the quality of life of a terminally-ill patient, organ transplantation and even racism. (Why racism? Black Americans are afraid that white American doctors might be trigger-happy, so to speak, in pronouncing them dead for the purpose of harvesting their organs for the lucrative business of transplantation of organs.)

Dr. David Anderson of Faith Baptist Church, Sarasota, Florida, has a very informative article entitled “A Brief Summary of End-of-Life Bioethics.”He provides clear and helpful definitions of the various terms like “patient self-determination,” “living will,” “advance directive,” “persistent vegetative state,” “do not resuscitate order,” etc. He also presents a point by point rebuttal of “physician-assisted suicide.”

Anderson also agrees with the “brain-death” criteria for determining whether a person is dead or alive. He says, “Using a clinical determination of brain death is a far more acceptable standard than using levels of consciousness, social interaction, or degrees of personhood. The brain death criteria is as an objective determination of death as is possible at this phase in medical science .... Brain death appears to be the most reliable standard for determining death.”

Paul A. Byrne, M.D. in his article “Understanding Brain Death” for the Vital Signs Ministries, however, disputes the validity, accuracy and the morality of the brain-death criteria for determining death. He says passionately right at the beginning of his article,

“All general criteria used as standard up to 1968 developed from the intention to make sure that a person who is still alive will not be treated as if dead. On the contrary, the new criteria are intended to prevent someone from being treated as alive when already dead. The new criteria are intended not only to decide as soon as possible when someone is dead, but among other options to clear the way for the excision of vital organs - action which, if a mistake has been made, is certain to kill the still-living patient. Since any criterion nowadays must subserve organ transplantation as well as other purposes, any new general criterion of death must be at least as certain as the older ones, since a mistake here would be lethal. Yet, the new criteria are far less certain than the older ones; they are not merely uncertain but certainly wrong in principle.”

Farther on in his article, Byrne states his preference for the heart-lung death criteria: “Before 1968, a patient was pronounced dead by a physician who observed no circulation, no breathing and no reflexes. While these observations and criteria for pronouncement of death were not infallible, they were very reliable.”

Byrne says that “cessation-of-brain-function laws, if followed by living will and death with dignity laws, will all be a part of, or lead to euthanasia.” In one of his conclusions, he states emphatically, “Death ought not to be declared unless the circulatory and respiratory systems and the entire brain have been destroyed, i.e. no longer having the capacity to function.”

Death, serious sickness or traumatic injuries can possibly come into the lives of our families or friends one of these days. I recommend that you read these articles by Anderson and Byrne so that you will be prepared in confronting the questions of organ donation, when to say “stop” in doctors’ attempts to resuscitate your loved one, euthanasia, the quality of life of a terminally-ill patient, etc.

My father’s and mother’s deaths

Sometime in 1976, my father, walking home alone after the Sunday morning service at the Mandaluyong Bible Baptist Church in Nueve de Febrero St. became dizzy and fell into a ditch. He had been lying in the ditch for some time before someone saw him and brought him to the nearby Waterous Hospital.

My mother, sisters and I rushed across the street to the hospital to see him. My father was conscious, with a deep, ugly wound on his forehead. I remember holding on to my father’s hand and praying, “Lord God, please don’t let my father die. I’m already in college but I really don’t know him, who he is, who and what he was like before I was born …”

God did spare my father’s life at that time. My father stayed at home for several months recuperating, and every chance I had, I stayed in the house, talking with him, or just letting him tell stories about his guerilla days in World War II, fighting the Japanese in the Ipo Dam campaigns. Sometimes, I would just stay near him, as he lay in bed, listening to his favorite radio personality Mel Tiangco. In 1986, my parents went to the US to live with my eldest sister. I kept in touch with my father intermittently through greeting cards and short phone calls. Sometime April 1991, he died of a heart-related problem.

From time to time after my father’s death, my mother would come home from the US for short visits. I looked forward to getting home in the afternoons, because I knew that my mother would be preparing something delicious - siopao, empanada, broccoli boiled in water with a little salt and then dipped in mayonnaise, etc. During the impeachment hearings against President Estrada, my mother and I would watch the proceedings on television for hours. My mother wanted to spend the rest of her days in a farm in Dumaguete but that wish didn’t come true. She died in the US August 2004 because of an inoperable, flattened heart vessel.

I think it was martyred missionary Jim Elliot who said, “When it’s your time to die, make sure that all you have to do is die.” What he says, I think, is not to leave any loose ends in your life - no words of love, affirmation or encouragement left unsaid; no hurts and heartaches inflicted by other people left unforgiven; none of your own sins and offenses against other people left unconfessed …

The Apostle Paul says in I Corinthians 15:51-58:

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Christ is risen!