Halt! A Study on the No Marriage Rule on Female Soldiers

Halt! A Study on the No Marriage Rule on Female Soldiers
by: Michael Andrew V. Tong

Introduction
The law are not merely rules that should be followed; it should also be the epitome and the pillar of equality and justice. It should protect the interest of the majority, and create a safe living environment for everyone. It should bridge our differences and gaps that we can live peacefully and harmonious with each other in spite of our differences. The law should not be prejudice, bias, and discriminatory for it defeats the true purpose of the law. The law should put no one in a pedestal while step on another one. When a law becomes prejudicial, it should be as soon as possible fixed or abolished.

The female had been discriminated by the military for years. They only allowed the membership of women in the AFP only in 1963, and the Philippine Military Academy only recruited female cadets only in 1993. Without the help of legislation, maybe the military’s door is closed forever to women even up to know. The laws were the key for the women to break through the walls of the Philippine Army. However, these laws that helped the women to become part of the Military, is still prejudicial to women. With a rule wherein the female members’ service only, not including males, will be terminated, if she married without continuously had served the AFP for three years. It is to be noted that the law only applies to women not men.

What is the reason for the rule? What is the justification that only women are covered by the controversial law? Is it valid?

Opening the Doors
The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), in providing the country with competent defence system in the time of crisis and national emergency, has utilized the service of women. Today in the Philippines, female students are provided with opportunities to train for military service through the Citizens Army Training (CAT) in high school and the Women Auxiliary Training Corps (WATC) in college. Further advancements in this field are provided by the WAC (Women Auxiliary Corps) and the NC (Nurse Corps), formerly called Army Nurse Corps. Even in the Philippines Military Academy, female are now accepted as cadets.

The need for women to join in the defence of the country was initiated several decades ago. Upon the recommendation of Col. Wendell Fertig, Ms Josefa Borromeo Capistrano established the Women’s Auxiliary Service (WAS) in 1943 seeing that the military needs women reserves to support and complement the various roles of a soldier. Founded in Mindanao, the Women’s Auxiliary Service fostered cohesion among the Muslim women of Mindanao and Sulu. The courageous efforts of the WAS and the innate courage and patriotism of Filipino women caused the number of WAS members to expand from 200 in February 1943 to over 3000 by the end of the Second World War.

Recognizing the role that Filipino women soldiers played in our country’s lengthy and difficult battle for freedom, President Diosdado Macapagal approved Republic Act No. 3835 on June 22, 1963. Otherwise known as the Women’s Auxiliary Corps Law, RA 3835 has made the WAC an integral unit of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The WAC Law prescribes that the WAC serves as a core of trained military women upon which the expansion of the corps would be based in times of crises. Likewise, it commissions these women to provide administrative and technical services to designated units of the military institution.

Primarily, the Women’s Auxiliary Corps must assist the Commanding General of the Philippine Army in the foundation policies, planning, coordination and supervision of all matters regarding to the WAC, Philippine Army. The Office of the Chief WAC shall act as consultant on all matters concerning its proceedings as it relates to the overall program on personnel management of the corps. On July 9 1963, over 3000 women applied for the entrance examination to the Women’s Auxiliary Corps. Only fifty, however, qualified for enlistment, from the original 50 enlisted women who founded the Corps, now over 1200 officers and enlisted personnel have been allocated in the four major branches of service of the Armed Forces.

In accordance with Section 7 of the Women in Development and Nation Building Act, Republic Act 7192, approved by Corazon Aquino, states that:
Section 7: Admission to Military Schools. — Any provision of the law to the contrary notwithstanding, consistent with the needs of the services, women shall be accorded equal opportunities for appointment, admission, training, graduation and commissioning in all military or similar schools of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police not later than the fourth academic year following the approval of this Act in accordance with the standards required for men except for those minimum essential adjustments required by physiological differences between sexes

The Philippine Military Academy opened their doors to women for the first time in 1993. Sixteen females had the opportunity to become the first batch of female cadets to be admitted in PMA. Throughout the years, the number of female cadets gradually increases. The acceptance of female is not a bad decision for some of the outstanding graduates of the academy has been women. For the past years, the top graduates always do include women, proving that they can compete with men.

A lot of development has happened ever since the early days. It is now customary to see women in the various offices of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. With laws as their key, women are now trained to take arms, ride tanks, and fly planes, playing with the big boys.

Provision in Question

When Diosdado Macapagal approved the legislation of Republic Act 3235, an act establishing the Women Auxiliary Corps, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1043, it was a positive move towards gender equality. The usually male dominated industry of the military is now opening its doors to women. The nation is now recognizing the vital role of women in nation building and protection of our country. Yet, despite the good intentions of the law a provision in the said law is controversial for it prejudiced women. Section 5 of the abovementioned law states that:
Section 5: Except as otherwise specifically provided, all laws and regulations now or hereafter applicable to commissioned officers and enlisted men of the AFP shall likewise be applicable respectively to commissioned officers and enlisted women of the Women's Auxiliary Corps: Provided, That any commissioned officer or enlisted woman who contracts marriage while in the active service shall be automatically separated from the service, unless she has, at the time of said marriage, already completed at least five (5) years of continuous active military service in the AFP; Provided, further, That all laws and regulations on maternity leave now or hereafter applicable to female employees of the government shall be applicable to married members of the Corps, and Provided, Finally , That members of the Women's Auxiliary Corps who were separated previously separated or discharged honorably by reason of marriage may be called to active duty subject to the conditions aforementioned and in accordance with rules and regulations as the Secretary of National Defense, upon recommendation by the Chief of Staff, AFP may prescribed. (emphasis provided)

To simplify, the highlighted provision says that before a female member of the AFP can be married, she should have served actively in the military service in the AFP for five (5) consecutive years. Before the amendment, if an officer or personnel of the Women’s Auxiliary Corps entered into a marriage contract, she would be discharged immediately. The amendment added the five year requisite.

On May 22, 1984, under the leadership of President Ferdinand Marcos, with Presidential Decree No. 1910, the law is amended with focus on the controversial provision. The said decree states that:
Section 1: Any female commissioned officer or enlisted woman whose contract marriage on or after the approval of this Act while in the active service shall be automatically separated unless she has, at that time of said marriage, already completed at least three (3) years of continuous active military service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Provided, that any female member of the AFP who was previously separated or discharged honorably by reason of marriage may be called to active duty or reinstated subject to the above condition and in accordance with rules and regulations as the Chief of Staff, AFP may prescribe. (emphasis provided)

The amendment did not abolish the provision but, as emphasized above, the only action it made was to shorten the requisite years of continuous service to the AFP from five year to three years.

The provision violates the liberty of female to be married. It is true that the law can prohibit some of our liberties if it benefits the majority. Yet, when the prohibition is enforced unequally, the law does not push the purpose of the law.

With the restriction of AFP female members to marry, you have to wonder what the purpose of said restriction to liberty is.

Rationale of the Rule

The “no marriage before three year service” rule of female members of the Philippine Military Academy and the Armed Forces of the Philippines were not just put up just for the sake of hindering one of the fundamental rights of human ,marriage, it was put up for the female members of the military to be utilized more. Female soldiers after marriage and bearing a child tend to be less involved in the military. They are bound to their family and child that they choose over their responsibilities as a mother and a wife over their calling to save the country. For example, Capt. Arlene Orejana-Trillanes, wife of jailed Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV. After she graduated in 1997 as one of the original seven female cadets, she married quite early. “In a 1999 interview, Trillanes, who was then a second lieutenant, had said that parenthood partly affected her career. Instead of pursuing combat duty that would have accelerated her promotion, she signed up for the PMA Corps of Professors so she would have more time to take care of her children.” Once you are married, had a child, and have a family, the priorities of the parents change. They postpone indefinitely their own dream for the growth of their family as a unit. The family becomes a factor in all the decisions he or she creates. They are always included in the things to be considered when planning his or her future. They become a major part in your life sometimes the family even defines a person existence and purpose. The importance of the family cannot be denied.

With that in mind, the law was put up to ensure that the talents of these women do not go to waste and guarantee that the soldiers will serve in the military. The Philippine government is just utilizing all the resources it can obtain. It wants a return of the money and time it took in training these women soldiers, a return of investment of sorts and does not go to waste. It assures that the government will not regret the appropriation of the taxes paid by the Filipino people in training these soldiers; making sure that there will be notion that the money of taxpayers is misused by the government.

With a qualification of serving three years first before allowing them to be married or else termination or separation from the force, it forces the women to serve the military without excuse of family. For three years, they can be freely instituted on different military bases and war torn areas of the Philippines, they can be sent to a military ship for a long period of time, and they can be ready for battle anytime without any violations on their part using the “family” excuse. For three years, the government can utilize their training and talent to their own discretion, the government will be calling the shots. This qualification ensures that the government’s money and time in training these female soldiers do not go to waste.

However, is the reason of the government for it to be legislated enough for the law to qualify female soldiers before marrying?

Validity of Classification of the Law

Our laws are meant to ensure the rights of each human being, to empower them, to ensure their interest. It is put up to protect everyone from denial of the law and their rights. It insures that there will be no unfair treatment to any man. Yet, when the law itself is prejudicial to the interest of a minority, it should be changed.

Our own 1987 Constitution provides a guaranty of equality among us Filipinos. It states that:
Section 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws.

The equality clause of the constitution do provide for the law to qualify. It does not require universal application of laws. The law allows classification because if we push for equality for all, it might be more prejudicial. For example, a law prohibiting R-rated materials to all persons, regardless of age, would protect the morals of the young yet violate the freedom of the adult. What the law requires is that there is equality among those similarly situated, equality among equals. However for the law to differentiate women to men in terms of their vocation to the family compare to their duty to the military is not valid.

In the case People versus Cayat, it states the requisites for a valid classification or qualification:
1. It must be based upon substantial distinctions
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only
4. It must apply equally to all members of the class.

There is substantial difference between men and women in terms of reproduction. However prohibiting women to their right to be married because of their inclination to their duties in the house in comparison to a male is just a great example of stereotyping. It is true women do bear the child however it does not automatically mean that the female is the only one willing to sacrifice her job for her family. Does being a man eliminate the tendency to give apprehension in fulfilling their duties that are being required of them as a soldier because of family calls? Does being a man remove his inclination in choosing his family over the military? Do only woman have the sole responsibility of taking care of the family? It falls under the old-fashion belief that female should stay at home and tend to her family while the men go and bring home the bacon. This law reinforces the label that was vested on women as only homemakers and should only stay at home. Being a house maker is not a lowly job, however it limits the women to stretch her wings and achieve more, to fulfil her own ambitions. It gives only women a secondary role in nation building. It is just corroborating the false idea that men are stronger than women.
The difference is superficial and is only made on the basis of past false pretence against women, thus making it invalid. The difference of gender can be valid distinction in the law if its basis is on the physical make-up of a male and a female, for example women can be pregnant while men cannot. It does not discriminate a gender but protect them. A woman having the privilege of a longer leave after pregnancy in comparison to her male counterpart can be a valid classification because it is based on the fact that the woman is the one who will be pregnant. She might need rest after to recover from the pain of pregnancy. It will be inhuman to require instantly a female after pregnancy to report to the job without having been fully recovered. However, if the basis of the law is not the challenges of pregnancy but of the idea that the mother should take care of the infant, the distinction is questionable.

The distinction must also be germane to the purpose of the law. The distinction must be related, needed for the implementation of the said law. The above provision which requires consecutive three years of service in the military before a female member to be married without consequence main purpose is to utilize the female soldier before the government lose them to their families. It is true that for the government to fully utilize the investments it had made in the soldiers to enforce compulsory service before attaining benefits. Yet, if truly its main purpose is to utilize the resources invested by the government in training their soldiers why not include their male counterparts. Men are also trained, money and time is also invested in their training. It is safe to say like with women soldiers they also want a return of investment on them. Now, why do only women are being separated from the service because of marriage? Why do women the only one covered by the rule? If the law’s purpose is to utilize its members, then it must also include male soldiers. Exempting male soldiers from the rule clearly does not reinforce the purpose of the law of fully utilizing the government’s resources. It does the opposite.

Female may have a higher probability in prioritizing their family over the military now not because they want to but because of the notion that they have to. If a woman chooses her career over her family, she feels guilt in abandoning her duty. It is already embedded in their minds that they are wife and mother first before anything; that they should put their family first ahead of their career, ambitions, and dreams. And, it is all the fault of the society implanting the idea that a woman should only play a certain role that they should stay home and tend to her family, that they are the weaker sex.

The government with its law should be the one who should initiate the challenge against the notion that women treated a second and weaker gender. The legislators should take a strong stand to empower women and eliminate this stereotype. If their vision is to make women and men as equal as possible, their laws should fully reflect equality without hint of bias. Or else, the law is hypocritical. The above laws are groundbreaking. It opened a new door and opportunity for women to join the military however, with the inclusion of the discussed provision, it still shows AFP’s preference for male soldiers.

Recommendation

There are two options in addressing and solving the controversy at hand, whether to amend the law and erase the said provision or enforce the said rule not only to female but also male soldiers as well.

In the first option, the provision of Presidential Decree 1910 which states that:
Section 1: Any female commissioned officer or enlisted woman whose contract marriage on or after the approval of this Act while in the active service shall be automatically separated unless she has, at that time of said marriage, already completed at least three (3) years of continuous active military service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Provided, that any female member of the AFP who was previously separated or discharged honorably by reason of marriage may be called to active duty or reinstated subject to the above condition and in accordance with rules and regulations as the Chief of Staff, AFP may prescribe.

This provision should be completely abolished. This will give freedom for female members of the military without fear from termination of marrying even if they have not served in the military for three consecutive years. With the provision out of the way, the law promotes equality and gender parity in the military destroying the conception that women will leave the service because of family. It gives the same privileges to both without compromising other each other rights.

However, the rule, service before married, is one of the ways of the government to ensure the return of their investment in training their soldiers without excuses with family as their alibi. It is like what private corporations do when they recruit trainees, or send their employees back to school. They make contracts that the employee was to stay in the company for a period of time to make sure that the intelligence, the money, and the time invested in them will not go to waste. And if we destroy one of the assurance that government’s resources will just disappear, we risk that millions of money are not made the most of or sometimes even thrown away by the government for lack of focus, apprehension to important military missions and untimely retirement of the members of the military for choosing to be with family rather than fulfilling their duty to the nation. Without the government’s safety net, millions of Filipino taxpayers’ money will dissipate.

To ensure that none of our taxes will just go to waste, it is advised to pursue the second option, enforcing the rule on both genders, male and female soldier. In this option, with both male and female subjected to the rule of terminating those who married without serving three consecutive years first in the military, the laws purpose is satisfied without any discrimination and stereotyping against women. The law is more gender friendly. Whether a male or a female chooses to live the military or become picky with its missions because of “family”, the AFP had already as much as possible used up the talent and the training of the soldier for three consecutive years. It is one step to completely destroying the concept that women are the homemakers. As of now, this mentality is still entrenched in the vein of our society, unfortunately. Despite that fact, it is good to know that in the eyes of the law not only mothers can be homemaker but also the fathers. As we battle to destroy the concept that women are the only one who should rear her family, it is encouraging that the government see man and woman equal in its eyes, as it should be the one encouraging the Filipino people to leave that concept in the past. It is great that the law are both afraid of the tendencies of both gender in leaving the force because of family not utilizing the talents and training of both and money and time invested in them. The addition of male soldiers to the rule shows to the Filipinos that not only women can take care of the family but also men.

A world of equality is impossible strong words from my father. The world is built to be unfair. Even God did not believe in equality for if He did He would have created all human being in one height, with one appearance, and of the same intelligence. It is true we cannot have a world of equality but we can achieve a world where we live peacefully and harmoniously with each other in spite of our differences. We can reach anything when we all work hard and work together. Each advocacy, each controversy will be a tremendous task however we should take each battle with all heart and soul. For each battle won is a small step to the illustrious world we dream of, a place of peace in spite of difference, like the fight to include men in the law terminating a member of the military for marrying without serving for three consecutive years in the force. No battle can be won easily, it must be fought hard but if we give our all we might win and maybe we can attain even the said to be impossible, the battle for true equality in mankind.