(This analysis was solicited by i Report, the online magazine of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, for its current series on political predictions. The views expressed in the essays included in this series do not necessarily reflect those of the PCIJ or any of its staff members.)

SOCIETY

by MICHAEL L. TAN

AS IN many other countries, family is sacred in the Philippines, invoked by bishops and business people, educators, and politicians. But we seem to up the ante on the family with all kinds of laws and official pronouncements.

The 1973 Constitution, for example, mentions that the State "shall strengthen the family as a basic social institution." The statement sounds almost anemic when compared to the 1987 charter, which has an entire section declaring: "The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the government."

The 1987 Constitution has many other references to the family, from recognizing marriage "as an inviolable institution" and "the foundation of the family" to the duty of the family "to care for its elderly members."

In 1988, President Corazon Aquino used her special legislative powers (granted in the 1987 charter) to promulgate a new Family Code, which introduced many changes. These included an increase in the minimum age of marriage (previously 14 for females and 16 for males, now 18 for both sexes) to the recognition of children born of artificial insemination as legitimate, even if the sperm did not come from the husband.

That new Family Code was not to go unchallenged. In the 1990s, for example, then Senator Rene Cayetano proposed a bill to lower the age of marriage back to 14 and 16, supposedly because many young girls were getting pregnant and could not get married because they were below the age of 18. Early marriage seemed the correct solution — at least to keep the young from living in sin. The social welfare secretary at that time, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, gave her full support for the bill. Fortunately, the bill never made it.

A more recent bill did succeed in overturning one of the Family Code's provisions. In the 1988 Family Code, illegitimate children had to carry the surname of the mother, even if the father acknowledged paternity. In our patriarchal society, that provision was not taken kindly, and eventually, then Senator Ramon Revilla filed a bill that would allow illegitimate children to carry the father's surname, if he gave his permission. The bill passed without any opposition, amid speculation about the fatherly senator's motivations.

THERE HAVE been many other debates around family issues, from the incarceration of juveniles, now forbidden by a law just passed in 2006, to family planning, which has faced unprecedented opposition from organized groups that, predictably, declare themselves pro-family. Attempts to introduce divorce have been shot down several times, again supposedly in defense of the family so that today, we are one of only two countries in the world — the other being Malta — that does not have divorce.

Most of these debates take place in the legal arena, particularly around legislation, which tends to make people forget that the future of the family is being shaped, with or without laws, in the economic and social spheres. Of the myriad of factors that are shaping what the Filipino family will be like in 2010 and beyond, the following have the most impact:

First and most important is the worsening income inequity in the country. The signs of boom are there with all the glowing headline statistics rolled out by government, from the growth of the gross national product (albeit at a much slower rate than our neighbors) to the "strengthening" peso (or, as some pundits would more accurately put it, the weakening U.S. dollar). No doubt, we are seeing unprecedented prosperity for some Filipinos. Yet amid new shops offering brand-name products, there are families living in the streets, and even those who have (rented) roofs over their heads are skipping meals. According to the 2003 Family Income and Expenditures Survey, 30 percent of Filipinos live in poverty; sometimes, however, it feels like there are more impoverished families out there.

Second among the factors affecting the family is the erosion of social services, including family planning. For all the rhetoric in the constitution about the State protecting the family, there has been a cutback in funds for education, health, and other social services that directly affect family welfare. The problems are not just financial in nature but extend into the sphere of policy-making around social services. For instance, when the Health Department launched a "Ligtas Buntis (Safe Pregnancy)" campaign two years ago, conservative Roman Catholics protested because it had a family planning component. The same groups strongly oppose sex education in schools, insisting on vague moralistic messages about abstinence.

The third development that is having profound impact on the Filipino family is the continuing massive diaspora. About one out of every five adult Filipinos is now living overseas, either temporarily or as a permanent migrant. That proportion is likely to increase, driven by unemployment and poverty at home.

Technically, the Filipino diaspora should also consider internal migration, involving thousands of Filipinos who flock from rural to urban areas seeking jobs. This includes the Muslim diaspora, involving thousands of migrants from Mindanao who are now to be found in most major Philippine cities, something unheard of just a decade ago.

Finally, a major development closely related to the third is the increasing feminization of labor. At home, more women are joining the labor force, both in the informal and formal sectors. From fast-food restaurants to the factories in special economic zones, the job openings tend to be more for females than males. For overseas placements, the demand is also skewed toward women, particularly as domestic helpers, nurses, caregivers, and entertainers.

All four factors are interrelated, often in ways that may not be readily apparent. For example, many of the nurses who leave to work overseas are older women, forced to leave behind families. But besides the direct loss for families, their departure also means a scarcity of trained frontline personnel in both public and private health facilities jeopardizing the health of Filipino families.

Taken collectively, these four developments have already been reshaping Filipino families over the last two decades. The years leading us into 2010 will only see an intensification of these four factors, with mixed results.