A Digest of Case Law on the Human Rights of Women - Asia Pacific ...

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos v Commission on Elections and Cirilo Roy Montejo (Philippines)
change a wife’s domicile to that <strong>of</strong> her husband. The Family Code replaced the term
“residence” (used in the Civil Code) with the term “domicile”. Article 69 <strong>of</strong> the
Family Code gives a husband and wife the right to jointly fix the family domicile.
The provision recognised revolutionary changes in the concept <strong>of</strong> women’s rights
in the intervening years by making the choice <strong>of</strong> domicile a product <strong>of</strong> mutual
agreement between the spouses. The provision recognised the right <strong>of</strong> women
to choose their own domicile and removed the automatic transfer <strong>of</strong> a husband’s
domicile to his wife.
Justice Flerida Ruth Romero
Justice Romero agreed with the findings <strong>of</strong> the majority <strong>of</strong> judges that the term
“residence” in electoral law is synonymous with domicile. She also agreed with the
finding <strong>of</strong> the majority that a woman did not lose her domicile when she changed her
residence to comply with the Civil Code, which gives a husband the right to choose
their place <strong>of</strong> residence. In coming to her decision the judge relied upon a number
<strong>of</strong> international instruments that protect the rights <strong>of</strong> women and made a number <strong>of</strong>
positive statements about the role <strong>of</strong> women in contemporary Philippines society.
Justice Romero in her judgment made specific reference to CEDAW and noted that
Article 15(4) grants to men and women “the same rights with regard to the law
relating to the movement <strong>of</strong> persons and the freedom to choose their residence
and domicile”. Justice Romero noted that the impact <strong>of</strong> CEDAW on other laws in
the Philippines was significant. She referred to the Constitution <strong>of</strong> the Philippines
1987 into which the values <strong>of</strong> CEDAW had been incorporated. For example, Article
2, section 11 states that, “the State values the dignity <strong>of</strong> every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights” and Article 2, section 14 states that
“the State recognises the role <strong>of</strong> women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law <strong>of</strong> women and men”. She also referred to
the Family Code, by which many <strong>of</strong> the unreasonable strictures on Filipino wives
enshrined in the Civil Code, were removed. For example, Article 114 <strong>of</strong> the Civil
Code had previously stated that a wife could not, without a husband’s consent,
acquire any property by gratuitous title, except from her ascendants, descendants,
parents-in-law, and collateral relatives within the fourth degree. Article 117 similarly
had stated that a husband wields a veto power if a wife exercises her pr<strong>of</strong>ession or
occupation or engages in business, provided his income is sufficient for the family,
according to its social standing, and if his opposition is founded on serious and valid
grounds. Article 84 had prohibited a widow from marriage until three hundred days
following the death <strong>of</strong> her husband, unless in the meantime she had given birth to a
child. The removal <strong>of</strong> these provisions indicated the powerful impact <strong>of</strong> CEDAW on
Philippines law.
7