Table of Contents

Chapter I – Nature of Morality

Introduction
Nature of Morality
The Problem of Determinism
The Compromise Between Free will and Determinism
What is Ethics
Ethics and Religion
Ethics and Law
Chapter II - Going Deeper into the Ghetto
Introduction
Ethical Relativism: Who are we to judge?
Egoism: Why should I be concerned?
Popular Ethics: how many are raising their hands?
Utilitarianism
Chapter III - Expanding and Enlightening the Dilemma
Introduction
Aristotle and the Eudaimonia Ethics
Chapter IV - Bringing the yardstick into the Corporate World
Introduction
Corporate World from the Legal Perspective
Partnership
Corporation
Business Ethics
Why should Corporations be Good
Code of Ethics in Corporation
The Foundation of Business Ethics
Standards of Business Conducts and Ethics
The Philippine Seven Corporation Code of Conduct
Chapter V - The Workplace
Introduction
Civil Liabilities in the Workplace
Right Due Process of Law
Civil Liabilities in the Workplace
Management Prerogative
Wages
Chapter VI - The Firm and the Laborers
Introduction
Sexual Harassment
Employment Discrimination
Contractualization
Chapter VII - The Firm and Consumers
Introduction
Adulteration
Fraud
False Advertising
Insider Trading
Chapter VIII - Ethical Consumerism and Corporate
Social Responsibility
Introduction
Corporate Social Responsibility
Basic Principles of CSR
Components of CSR
Environmental Sustainability
 CHAPTER 1
Nature of Morality

Learning Objectives:
 To describe three major theoretical approaches in integrity and ethics
 To explain the various approaches to the study of morality
 To understand what morality is and how it differs from aesthetics, nonmoral behavior,
and manners
 To explain the influence of Filipino culture on the way students look at moral experiences
and solve moral dilemma problems.

Introduction
The world as we know it is constantly changing.
The life we live is fleeting
We are but passers-by in this finite ghetto. People are born, and people die.

The world is not a pre-determined construct, consisting of fixed meaning; it rather

encompasses a constant unfolding of things and man is a perpetual participant to this. This
unfolding cannot be mastered in one grasp, not even in a million. Man experiences reality never
in its totality; it always escapes our limitations, as always leaving a vast space for further scrutiny
and voyage.

“Hindi kayang lunukin ang kabuuan ng meron”Kumakagat lamang tayo”. Fr. Roque Ferriols, SJ
Carl Sagan, in trying to explain how belittling earthy existence is in the face of the vast
universe, said “Look again at that dot. That’s her. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love,
everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, live out their
lives… on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam” -Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)
The recognition of one’s finitude, of the seemingly insignificant earthy journey one is taking,
of the minuteness of one’s being, somehow calls for an inevitable examination of the purpose of
one’s existence. And as we are bound to time, so we are bound to the life-time search for meaning.

“ Just as man cannot evade time, so he cannot escape from this search for meaning, for upon
this hinges the integrity and wholeness of his humanity”.

Death for instance, is the ultimate manifestation of our finitude, and the realization of the
possibility of death brings people into a deeper evaluation of his/her existence. People having close
encounter with death, whether personally or that of others, gain a renewed appreciation of life.
But part of his quest for self-worth is the question of the RIGHT and the WRONG- the
quandary of what actions to take and what behaviors to portray. There is, throughout the course of
history, the constant struggle of separating the GOOD from the BAD; of distinguishing the upright
from the evil, the virtue from the vice; of constructing the pinnacle for the moral and the nadir for
the immoral.
But this scuffle does not necessarily bring man into walking straight in the path of morality (as
the evil, chaos and pandemonium surrounding us would exactly prove otherwise), but simply to
create a semblance of security, façade of order, a pretense of clarity as regards the idea of the good,
the bad, and all the grays in between, a veneer of consciousness as to the life is ought to live.

I. Nature of Morality

What Morality is?

We make decisions almost every minute of every day. We are faced with a variety of choices.
From the minutest and seemingly insignificant ones, such as what toothpaste to buy in the
convenience store or what flavor to have in one’s ice cream, to the apparently colossal ones, like
what course to take in college or which job offer to accept. The overwhelming hand of decision-
making creeps into almost every facet of human existence, and seems to be an inescapable route
for every passerby in this fleeing and fragile earthy life.
But the existence of choices would only find its true significance if the one selecting among
the presented options is FREE to actually make the choice. The availability of choices finds its
fruition and meaning on the freedom of human beings.

“There is unmistakable intuition of virtually every human being that he is free to make the
choices he does and that the deliberation leading to those choices are also free flowing. The
normal man feels too, after he has made a decision, that he could have decided differently.
That is why regret or remorse for a past choices can be disturbing”. – Corliss Lamont,
Freedom of Choice Affirmed, from Louis P. Pojman (2006)

“Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of
existentialism. Thus the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man on possession of
himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own
shoulders.” – Jean-Paul Satre, French existential philosopher.

EXTENTIALISM – may be defined as the philosophical theory which holds that a further set of
categories, governed by the norm of authenticity, is necessary to grasp human existence – Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Any ethical and moral standard. Whether subjective or objective, is primarily based on the
voluntariness of human actions. The good and evil, the moral and immoral, are mainly determined
by the existence of free will – of an intelligent and rational agent who freely picked up the knife
from the table to stab someone; who freely cheated on his wife with his younger, sexier office
secretary; who freely stood up for the rights of the poor and underprivileged at the expense of
his/her own life; who freely took the sandwich out of his/her bag to give the same to a beggar in
the street.
That is why people normally feel outraged when they hear news about children being abused,
bombs being blown in the public places, dogs being maltreated, public money being stolen by
corrupt public officials; or ecstatic when your favorite sports team came out victorious after the
grind, or you received the results of relatively difficult exam and got A+ for it.
We are praised or rewarded for a good deed, or punished for a wicked one, because we are free
beings who are hence responsible for the consequences of our actions. Without freedom, there is
moral responsibility, and ultimately, there is no point at even distinguishing good from evil – the
words ethics or morality would be devoid b of any meaning whatsoever-

II.A The Problem of Determinism

But are we really Free?

…tickle your imagination…

(i) You are walking in the busy streets in Manila. A toddler approaches you, imploring
and pleading for a peso or two or any spare changes you have in your pocket, in order
to alleviate him from the hunger that has been tormenting him for the past few days.
Will you empty your pocket in order to fill his stomach?
Or the question is, SHOULD you give alms to the kid? Do you have an obligation or duty to extend
help to the needy?
(ii) You were up all night, burning the midnight oil, studying for your final exams. But in
spite of every ounce effort you have exerted and every gram of caffeine you have taken,
Lady Luck seems to be frowning upon during the exam day. Then in your moment of
sheer agony, you saw one of your classmates breezing through the test questions, as he
was being aided by his improvised cheating machine. Will you report your classmate
to your teacher?
Or, better yet, SHOULD you inform your professor that your classmate is cheating his way out
of exam? Are you duty- bound to tell the truth at all cost? Is lying always wrong?
(iii) You are a rich business tycoon, who pride yourself with having clawed your way up
the ranks, after having spent sometime struggling beneath the quagmire of poverty.
Rugs to riches, as others would put it. You are enjoying the bigger chunk of economic
wealth that your capital has generated, while your employees are picking the little
 crumbs falling from the dining table. Will you give your employees more than what is
mandate by law as minimum wage?
Or do you have an OBLIGATION to give then a bigger slice in the pie of wealth that your
company generates? Does justice dictate that both the capitalist and the laborer MUST share
proportionally in the economic arena?
(iv) You are driving a trolley down the track; all of a sudden, the brakes fail and you cannot
stop the trolley at the red light. Ahead of you are ten men working on a track, who you
will kill if you do nothing. Fortunately, there is a sidetrack that you can turn off on and
thus spare the men. Unfortunately, however, a child playing on the track will be killed
if you do not turn onto the sidetrack. If you do nothing, ten men will be killed due to
the brake failure, but if you voluntarily act, you will kill the child. What should you
do?
Do we choose to be good or bad? Or are we compelled to be either? Are we really free to
choose who we want to be, or kind of person we will become?

Let us examine Further…..

(v) As your eyes scuttle the letters embedded in this humble book, and your brain deciphers
the meaning entrenched in the text collectively, let me engage you in a simple
quandary. Why are you reading this book? Did you choose this activity out of your own
full volition, or were you required by your professor to do so? Compelled, I might say.
Forced, if you want a stronger word.
Or maybe it is not so much of the coercion that comes from the fiery eyes of your
professor, but rather the compulsion that flows from the fear of being called for
recitation and eventually sinking deep within the arms of humiliation for failing to give
the correct answer. Or the irresistible urge of being on top of the class, or pleasing your
parents with good grades to get them to nod with any request you may heave them.
If only to stretch the argument a little further, let me ask you: why are you in school?
Is it because of your passion for learning and the overwhelming desire to excellence?
Or is it due to the pre-constructed social norm that associates education with social
status, diploma with good life, the façade of universities with the luxurious hallway of
big companies, school uniforms with striking black suits and dresses? Maybe it is
simply because going to school has already been crept deep in the veins of our culture,
that to break from the status quo would be to enter the gates of the discriminated and
outcaste.
Nkasanayan….nakagawian…

Other than the afore-mentioned social compulsion, there is also the matter of genetics.
Some psychologists believe that certain people are more predisposed to become good or wicked
because of their genetic makeup. Of late, some scientists have even claimed that a person’s sexual
orientation is largely determined by genetics, rather than choice. In a recent study published in the
international journal Psychological Medicine it was discovered that there is shared notable patterns
in two regions of the human genome from the 800 gay participants – one on the X chromosome
and one on chromosome 8. If so, gays and lesbians are as ‘natural” as straight males and females
– and must therefore be extended with the same rights that are sometimes being extended only to
the latter, i.e. marriage.

For one reason or another, following above-mentioned arguments, it seems that we are not
totally in control- that there exist some compelling and irresistible forces that drive us into doing
things that are contrary to what we actually want, or different from what our innermost desires
really long for, or that totally determines the decisions we are to make even before we actually
make them. Seemingly, although most would strongly deny, we are but puppets bound in the
strings of the unknown and the uncertain.

But if man bereft of any control with regard his actions and decisions, can he be held
responsible for the consequences of the same? If our actions are determined by certain irresistible
forces, then it seems that the notion of human freedom is put in jeopardy. And the loss of freedom,
as already mentioned, likewise nudges aside the notion of moral responsibility – as anyway, I have
not voluntarily chosen my course of action. How can we be held accountable for those which we
do not cause? “No doubt you have(also) heard the argument that criminals who come from poor
or dysfunctional families, or neighborhoods in which the main role models were drug dealers, are
not responsible for their crimes.” This is the dilemma being posed by the concept of
DETERMINISM.
 Determinism is the theory that everything in the universe is governed by causal laws. That
is everything in the universe is entirely determined so that whatever happens at any given moment
is the effect of some antecedent cause. This theory… implies that there is no such thing as an
uncaused event. Things cannot but be anything other than how they are right now. And the notion
of determinism is at the very heart of physical science- everything is a continuum of causes and
effects, and therefore, everything is supposed to be predictable. When we jump, our feet come
back to the ground immediately thereafter because of the law of gravity. There is certainty in the
outcome. Understanding the laws of nature, for example, helps scientist in predicting future events
and come up with the means of addressing, if need be, or simply providing for coherent
explanations for such imminent events.

To determinists, all human actions are also events. Following this presumption, they
believe that ‘ human actions are NOT NDETERMINED, are NOT FREE in a radical sense but are
also PRODUCT OF A CAUSAL PROCESS. Hence, while we may self-importantly imagine that
we are autonomous and possess free will, in reality we are TOTALLY CONDITIONED by
heredity and environment.”

B.F. Skinner, an extremely influential behavior psychologists from Harvard, is one of those
who advocated the idea of determinism – that human freedom is merely an illusion, and all our
behavior is controlled by a network of environmental, psychological and sociological stimuli. “His
position seems to be that man’s behavior is shaped and determined by external forces and stimuli
whether they be familial or cultural sanction, verbal or non-verbal reinforcement, or complex
systems of reward and punishment”
According to Baron Henri d’Holbach, “the actions of man are never free; they are always the
NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of his temperament, of the received ideas, and the notions, either
true or false, which he has formed to himself of happiness.”

But while it can be conceded, as claimed determinists, that every event has a cause (as it
would be logically unacceptable for something to have come from nothing), does it necessarily
render man’s freedom nugatory and illusory so as to equally reduce the concept of morality into
rubbles and ruins.
“Morality is concerned with what men ought and ought not to do. But if a man has no freedom to
choose what he will do, if whatever he does is done under compulsion, then it does not make sense
to tell him that he ought not to have done what he did and that he ought to do something different.
All moral precepts would in such case be meaningless.” – Walter Stace
Can we still considered free in the face of seemingly pre-determined world?

II B. The Compromise Between Free Will and Determinism

Experience would confirm that both realms, that of determinism and free will, compliment
one another – that for there to be a more meaningful sense of morality. Rather than seeing them as
two irreconcilable extremes, it would be more helpful to view them as two sides of the same coin
– that coin being human existence.
There are things which we did not choose, but nevertheless determines much of who are – like the
fact that we did not actually elect to be born, or select the parents who are to take care of us, or
pick the gender that we will detain in. We were not given the opportunity to choose our eventual
genetic framework, and yet it affects an ample of our characters and traits.

Humans are rational conscious being. We are aware of our existence, and that of other
beings. We are conscious of the dilemma that might not be free, and in being so, we are able to
distance ourselves from the problem and study the same objectively- so that we cannot be
reproached of being totally submerged in the abyss of determinism.
John Kavanaugh, in trying to balance the extremes of determinism, states that “if we are all
absolutely determined, then we all must be deluded at the very heart of our primary experience,
for it seems that almost all normal experience some degree of freedom in choosing or being able
to say something about their own actions. In fact, it would be difficult to conceive how men could
operate at all in this world without at least the ‘feeling’ of being free. Society at every level- the
interpersonal, the legal, the political, the scientific, is based upon the primordial ‘feeling’ or
experience of freedom and responsibility.”
 The existence of freedom does not mean that it has to be absolute- for there is no such thing
as absolute freedom. The availability of options is in itself an affirmation of the existence of
freedom. So that, it is not a matter of whether we are free; it is a matter of how we are to exercise
our freedom. If our understanding of freedom is purely based on the presence or absence of
hindrances or obstacle thereto, then there is really that slight chance of us whining about how we
are not free. But if we look at it from the perspective of the purpose or end of our free actions, then
we can better appreciate our liberty.

“My body is not only an object among all other objects, a nexus of sensible qualities among others,
but an object which is sensitive to all the rest which reverberates to all sounds, vibrates to all
colors and provides words with their primordial significance through the way in which it receives
them.”

The body is basically a subject, and this is opposed to the traditional notion which
considered the body as merely an extended substance, a mass of particles with parts or as a
secondary material principle. On account of the body, one is anchored in the world, and his
existence is firmly based. It is also due to the body that one communes or dialogues with the world.

As we embrace our liberty, so should we accept that we do not get to choose everything, and that
external factors influence our identity in one way or another. Freedom and determinism are not
exclusive terms, and can actually co-exist as it should.

III. What is Ethics?

Ethics, simply put, is the study of right and wrong. It refers to the systematic endeavor to
understand moral concepts and justify moral principles and theories. It undertakes to analyze such
concepts as right, wrong, permissible, ought, good and evil in their moral contexts. It seeks to
establish principles to right behavior that may serve as action guides for individuals and groups. It
investigates which values and virtues are paramount to the worthwhile life or society.
Moreover, if only to expound it further, in the scientific sense, ethics is a descriptive discipline,
involving the collection and interpretation of data on what people from various cultures believe,
without any consideration of the appropriateness or reasonableness of those beliefs. In the
Philosophical sense, the sense that concerns us, ethics is two-sided discipline.
Normative ethics, answers specific moral questions, determining what is reasonable and therefore
what people should believe.
Metaethics, examines ethical systems to appraise their logical foundations and internal
consistency.

“Moral precepts are concerned with norms; roughly speaking, they are concerned not with what
is, but what ought to be”
It aim is to understand the nature of the human actions, and determine what parameters are to be
used identifying which human actions are upright and which ones are evil.

Morality is a lot like nutrition. We cannot avoid confronting moral problems because acting
in ways that affect the well-beings of ourselves and others is as unavoidable as acting in ways that
affect physical health. We inevitably face choices that hurt or help other people; these choices may
infringe on their rights, violate their dignity, or use them as mere tools to our own ends.
Morality is about living, and as long as we continue living, we will inevitably be confronted with
moral questions – and if we choose to stop living, that too is a moral issue.

IV. Ethics and Religion

Religion, along with art and science, counts as one of the most fundamental and pervasive
aspects of human civilization. “(It) has existed for as long as there have been human beings on the
earth. It is not a novel masterpiece of the civilized world as we know it; nor is it an innovation
ushered in by the educated or the pious. On the contrary, it has always been at the heart of humanity
even before empires rose from the grounds of antiquity. Some scholars even say that religion is a
by-product of cultural Evolutionism.” Robert Wright, The Evolution of God, 2009.

Religion is not simply an institutionalization of man’s assent to spontaneous divine revelation;

it is also an apparent off-shoot of his constant adaptation to both his and his surrounding’s ever
changing needs. Edward Taylor
 It can also be described “ as a natural outgrowth of humanity; a natural product of a brain
built by natural selection to make sense of the world with a hodgepodge of tools whose collective
output isn’t wholly rational”, but is nevertheless nothing short of being human.
Religion has largely shape, either progressively forward or in a backslide route, the
chronicles of human civilization. And one facet of religion that has greatly influenced believers
and non-believers alike is the mark it has left on the realm of morality and in the formulation of
different ethical principles and yardsticks.
It is in this regard that “morality may be closely bound up with religion, and moral behavior
is typically held to be essential to the practice of religion.” (Pojman), as anyway both ethics and
religion basically seek the same thing- the establishment of a vivid foundation and virtuous
parameter for the conducts and affairs of human being.
The seeming merger or fusion of religion and ethics can be gleaned from how certain moral
issues are assessed or evaluated. For instance, on the issue of capital punishment or death penalty,
arguments would normally towed the line of the 5th commandment engraved in the well-known
tablets found in the book of Exodus- “Thou shalt not kill”. To add to this too simplistic
interpretation of the Bible is the contention (still following religious doctrines) that life, being a
gift from God, is sacred and hence can only be taken away by Him. And this same, all-too-
convenient, logic will also be used almost redundantly on the issues of abortion and suicide.
One such elaboration came from Cardinal Avery Dulles, to wit:

Catholicism and Capital Punishment

In the Old Testament the Mosaic Law specifies no less than thirty-six capital offenses
calling for execution by stoning, burning, decapitation, or strangulation. Included in the list are
idolatry, magic, blasphemy, violation of the sabbath, murder, adultery, bestiality, pederasty, and
incest. The death penalty was considered especially fitting as a punishment for murder since in his
covenant with Noah God had laid down the principle, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man
shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Genesis 9:6). In many cases God
is portrayed as deservedly punishing culprits with death, as happened to Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram (Numbers 16). In other cases individuals such as Daniel and Mordecai are God's agents in
bringing a just death upon guilty persons.
In the New Testament the right of the State to put criminals to death seems to be taken for
granted. Jesus himself refrains from using violence. He rebukes his disciples for wishing to call
down fire from heaven to punish the Samaritans for their lack of hospitality (Luke 9:55). Later he
admonishes Peter to put his sword in the scabbard rather than resist arrest (Matthew 26:52). At no
point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his
debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, "He who
speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die" (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10, referring to Exodus
2l:17; cf. Leviticus 20:9). When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points
out that Pilate's power comes to him from above that is to say, from God (John 19:11). Jesus
commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief
are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Luke 23:41).
The early Christians evidently had nothing against the death penalty. They approve of the
divine punishment meted out to Ananias and Sapphira when they are rebuked by Peter for their
fraudulent action (Acts 5:1-11). The Letter to the Hebrews makes an argument from the fact that
"a man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three
witnesses" (10:28). Paul repeatedly refers to the connection between sin and death. He writes to
the Romans, with an apparent reference to the death penalty, that the magistrate who holds
authority "does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the
wrongdoer" (Romans 13:4). No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.
Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are
virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St.
Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners.
To answer the objection that the first commandment forbids killing, St. Augustine writes in The
City of God:
The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions,
as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an
individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not
responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" to
wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of the State's authority to put criminals to
death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.
 In the Middle Ages a number of canonists teach that ecclesiastical courts should refrain
from the death penalty and that civil courts should impose it only for major crimes. But leading
canonists and theologians assert the right of civil courts to pronounce the death penalty for very
grave offenses such as murder and treason. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus invoke the authority
of Scripture and patristic tradition, and give arguments from reason.
Giving magisterial authority to the death penalty, Pope Innocent III required disciples of
Peter Waldo seeking reconciliation with the Church to accept the proposition: "The secular power
can, without mortal sin, exercise judgment of blood, provided that it punishes with justice, not out
of hatred, with prudence, not precipitation." In the high Middle Ages and early modern times the
Holy See authorized the Inquisition to turn over heretics to the secular arm for execution. In the
Papal States the death penalty was imposed for a variety of offenses. The Roman Catechism, issued
in 1566, three years after the end of the Council of Trent, taught that the power of life and death
had been entrusted by God to civil authorities and that the use of this power, far from involving
the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment.
In modern times Doctors of the Church such as Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori
held that certain criminals should be punished by death. Venerable authorities such as Francisco
de Vitoria, Thomas More, and Francisco Suárez agreed. John Henry Newman, in a letter to a
friend, maintained that the magistrate had the right to bear the sword, and that the Church should
sanction its use, in the sense that Moses, Joshua, and Samuel used it against abominable crimes.
Throughout the first half of the twentieth century the consensus of Catholic theologians in
favor of capital punishment in extreme cases remained solid, as may be seen from approved
textbooks and encyclopedia articles of the day. The Vatican City State from 1929 until 1969 had
a penal code that included the death penalty for anyone who might attempt to assassinate the pope.
Pope Pius XII, in an important allocution to medical experts, declared that it was reserved to the
public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life in expiation of their crimes.
Summarizing the verdict of Scripture and tradition, we can glean some settled points of
doctrine. It is agreed that crime deserves punishment in this life and not only in the next. In
addition, it is agreed that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those
judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of
death.
Yet, as we have seen, a rising chorus of voices in the Catholic community has raised
objections to capital punishment. Some take the absolutist position that because the right to life is
sacred and inviolable, the death penalty is always wrong. The respected Italian Franciscan Gino
Concetti, writing in L'Osservatore Romano in 1977, made the following powerful statement:
In light of the word of God, and thus of faith, life all human life is sacred and untouchable. No
matter how heinous the crimes . . . [the criminal] does not lose his fundamental right to life, for it
is primordial, inviolable, and inalienable, and thus comes under the power of no one whatsoever.
If this right and its attributes are so ab solute, it is because of the image which, at creation,
God impressed on human nature itself. No force, no violence, no passion can erase or destroy it.
By virtue of this divine image, man is a person endowed with dignity and rights.
To warrant this radical revision one might almost say reversal of the Catholic tradition, Father
Concetti and others explain that the Church from biblical times until our own day has failed to
perceive the true significance of the image of God in man, which implies that even the terrestrial
life of each individual person is sacred and inviolable. In past centuries, it is alleged, Jews and
Christians failed to think through the consequences of this revealed doctrine. They were caught up
in a barbaric culture of violence and in an absolutist theory of political power, both handed down
from the ancient world. But in our day, a new recognition of the dignity and inalienable rights of
the human person has dawned. Those who recognize the signs of the times will move beyond the
outmoded doctrines that the State has a divinely delegated power to kill and that criminals forfeit
their fundamental human rights. The teaching on capital punishment must today undergo a
dramatic development corresponding to these new insights.
This abolitionist position has a tempting simplicity. But it is not really new. It has been
held by sectarian Christians at least since the Middle Ages. Many pacifist groups, such as the
Waldensians, the Quakers, the Hutterites, and the Mennonites, have shared this point of view. But,
like pacifism itself, this absolutist interpretation of the right to life found no echo at the time among
Catholic theologians, who accepted the death penalty as consonant with Scripture, tradition, and
the natural law.
 The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone
hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent
supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents
were groups hostile to the churches. When death came to be understood as the ultimate evil rather
than as a stage on the way to eternal life, utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham found
it easy to dismiss capital punishment as "useless annihilation."
Many governments in Europe and elsewhere have eliminated the death penalty in the
twentieth century, often against the protests of religious believers. While this change may be
viewed as moral progress, it is probably due, in part, to the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt,
and retributive justice, all of which are essential to biblical religion and Catholic faith. The
abolition of the death penalty in formerly Christian countries may owe more to secular humanism
than to deeper penetration into the gospel.
Arguments from the progress of ethical consciousness have been used to promote a number
of alleged human rights that the Catholic Church consistently rejects in the name of Scripture and
tradition. The magisterium appeals to these authorities as grounds for repudiating divorce,
abortion, homosexual relations, and the ordination of women to the priesthood. If the Church feels
herself bound by Scripture and tradition in these other areas, it seems inconsistent for Catholics to
proclaim a "moral revolution" on the issue of capital punishment.
The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the
death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the
present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. The
United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that "Catholic
teaching has accepted the principle that the State has the right to take the life of a person guilty of
an extremely serious crime." Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the "Consistent
Ethic of Life" at Fordham in 1983, stated his concurrence with the "classical position" that the
State has the right to inflict capital punishment.
Although Cardinal Bernardin advocated what he called a "consistent ethic of life," he made
it clear that capital punishment should not be equated with the crimes of abortion, euthanasia, and
suicide. Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed in
Evangelium Vitae (1995) that "the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is
always gravely immoral." But he wisely included in that statement the word "innocent." He has
never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in
some cases to execute the guilty.
Catholic authorities justify the right of the State to inflict capital punishment on the ground
that the State does not act on its own authority but as the agent of God, who is supreme lord of life
and death. In so holding they can properly appeal to Scripture. Paul holds that the ruler is God's
minister in executing God's wrath against the evildoer (Romans 13:4). Peter admonishes Christians
to be subject to emperors and governors, who have been sent by God to punish those who do wrong
(1 Peter 2:13). Jesus, as already noted, apparently recognized that Pilate's authority over his life
came from God (John 19:11).
Pius XII, in a further clarification of the standard argument, holds that when the State,
acting by its ministerial power, uses the death penalty, it does not exercise dominion over human
life but only recognizes that the criminal, by a kind of moral suicide, has deprived himself of the
right to life. In the Pope's words,
Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not
dispose of the individual's right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the
condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has
already dispossessed himself of his right to life.
In light of all this it seems safe to conclude that the death penalty is not in itself a violation
of the right to life. The real issue for Catholics is to determine the circumstances under which that
penalty ought to be applied. It is appropriate, I contend, when it is necessary to achieve the
purposes of punishment and when it does not have disproportionate evil effects. I say "necessary"
because I am of the opinion that killing should be avoided if the purposes of punishment can be
obtained by bloodless means.
The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic
tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the
following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.
 Granted that punishment has these four aims, we may now inquire whether the death
penalty is the apt or necessary means to attain them.

Rehabilitation
Capital punishment does not reintegrate the criminal into society; rather, it cuts off any
possible rehabilitation. The sentence of death, however, can and sometimes does move the
condemned person to repentance and conversion. There is a large body of Christian literature on
the value of prayers and pastoral ministry for convicts on death row or on the scaffold. In cases
where the criminal seems incapable of being reintegrated into human society, the death penalty
may be a way of achieving the criminal's reconciliation with God.

Defense against the criminal

Capital punishment is obviously an effective way of preventing the wrongdoer from
committing future crimes and protecting society from him. Whether execution is necessary is
another question. One could no doubt imagine an extreme case in which the very fact that a
criminal is alive constituted a threat that he might be released or escape and do further harm. But,
as John Paul II remarks in Evangelium Vitae, modern improvements in the penal system have made
it extremely rare for execution to be the only effective means of defending society against the
criminal.

Detterence
Executions, especially where they are painful, humiliating, and public, may create a sense
of horror that would prevent others from being tempted to commit similar crimes. But the Fathers
of the Church censured spectacles of violence such as those conducted at the Roman Colosseum.
Vatican II's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World explicitly disapproved of
mutilation and torture as offensive to human dignity. In our day death is usually administered in
private by relatively painless means, such as injections of drugs, and to that extent it may be less
effective as a deterrent. Sociological evidence on the deterrent effect of the death penalty as
currently practiced is ambiguous, conflicting, and far from probative.

Retribution
In principle, guilt calls for punishment. The graver the offense, the more severe the
punishment ought to be. In Holy Scripture, as we have seen, death is regarded as the appropriate
punishment for serious transgressions. Thomas Aquinas held that sin calls for the deprivation of
some good, such as, in serious cases, the good of temporal or even eternal life. By consenting to
the punishment of death, the wrongdoer is placed in a position to expiate his evil deeds and escape
punishment in the next life. After noting this, St. Thomas adds that even if the malefactor is not
repentant, he is benefited by being prevented from committing more sins. Retribution by the State
has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence.
According to Christian faith, God "will render to every man according to his works" at the final
judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic
anticipation of God's perfect justice.
For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a
transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the
past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the
governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on
objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is
misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.
The death penalty, we may conclude, has different values in relation to each of the four
ends of punishment. It does not rehabilitate the criminal but may be an occasion for bringing about
salutary repentance. It is an effective but rarely, if ever, a necessary means of defending society
against the criminal. Whether it serves to deter others from similar crimes is a disputed question,
difficult to settle. Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In
general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt.
There is more to be said. Thoughtful writers have contended that the death penalty, besides
being unnecessary and often futile, can also be positively harmful. Four serious objections are
commonly mentioned in the literature.
 There is, first of all, a possibility that the convict may be innocent. John Stuart Mill, in his
well-known defense of capital punishment, considers this to be the most serious objection. In
responding, he cautions that the death penalty should not be imposed except in cases where the
accused is tried by a trustworthy court and found guilty beyond all shadow of doubt.
It is common knowledge that even when trials are conducted, biased or kangaroo courts
can often render unjust convictions. Even in the United States, where serious efforts are made to
achieve just verdicts, errors occur, although many of them are corrected by appellate courts. Poorly
educated and penniless defendants often lack the means to procure competent legal counsel;
witnesses can be suborned or can make honest mistakes about the facts of the case or the identities
of persons; evidence can be fabricated or suppressed; and juries can be prejudiced or incompetent.
Some "death row" convicts have been exonerated by newly available DNA evidence. Columbia
Law School has recently published a powerful report on the percentage of reversible errors in
capital sentences from 1973 to 1995. Since it is altogether likely that some innocent persons have
been executed, this first objection is a serious one.
Another objection observes that the death penalty often has the effect of whetting an
inordinate appetite for revenge rather than satisfying an authentic zeal for justice. By giving in to
a perverse spirit of vindictiveness or a morbid attraction to the gruesome, the courts contribute to
the degradation of the culture, replicating the worst features of the Roman Empire in its period of
decline.
Furthermore, critics say, capital punishment cheapens the value of life. By giving the
impression that human beings sometimes have the right to kill, it fosters a casual attitude toward
evils such as abortion, suicide, and euthanasia. This was a major point in Cardinal Bernardin's
speeches and articles on what he called a "consistent ethic of life." Although this argument may
have some validity, its force should not be exaggerated. Many people who are strongly pro-life on
issues such as abortion support the death penalty, insisting that there is no inconsistency, since the
innocent and the guilty do not have the same rights.
Finally, some hold that the death penalty is incompatible with the teaching of Jesus on
forgiveness. This argument is complex at best, since the quoted sayings of Jesus have reference to
forgiveness on the part of individual persons who have suffered injury. It is indeed praiseworthy
for victims of crime to forgive their debtors, but such personal pardon does not absolve offenders
from their obligations in justice. John Paul II points out that "reparation for evil and scandal,
compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness."
The relationship of the State to the criminal is not the same as that of a victim to an
assailant. Governors and judges are responsible for maintaining a just public order. Their primary
obligation is toward justice, but under certain conditions they may exercise clemency. In a careful
discussion of this matter Pius XII concluded that the State ought not to issue pardons except when
it is morally certain that the ends of punishment have been achieved. Under these conditions,
requirements of public policy may warrant a partial or full remission of punishment. If clemency
were granted to all convicts, the nation's prisons would be instantly emptied, but society would not
be well served.
In practice, then, a delicate balance between justice and mercy must be maintained. The
State's primary responsibility is for justice, although it may at times temper justice with mercy.
The Church rather represents the mercy of God. Showing forth the divine forgiveness that comes
from Jesus Christ, the Church is deliberately indulgent toward offenders, but it too must on
occasion impose penalties. The Code of Canon Law contains an entire book devoted to crime and
punishment. It would be clearly inappropriate for the Church, as a spiritual society, to execute
criminals, but the State is a different type of society. It cannot be expected to act as a Church. In a
predominantly Christian society, however, the State should be encouraged to lean toward mercy
provided that it does not thereby violate the demands of justice.
It is sometimes asked whether a judge or executioner can impose or carry out the death
penalty with love. It seems to me quite obvious that such officeholders can carry out their duty
without hatred for the criminal, but rather with love, respect, and compassion. In enforcing the
law, they may take comfort in believing that death is not the final evil; they may pray and hope
that the convict will attain eternal life with God.
The four objections are therefore of different weight. The first of them, dealing with
miscarriages of justice, is relatively strong; the second and third, dealing with vindictiveness and
with the consistent ethic of life, have some probable force. The fourth objection, dealing with
forgiveness, is relatively weak. But taken together, the four may suffice to tip the scale against the
use of the death penalty.
 The Catholic magisterium in recent years has become increasingly vocal in opposing the
practice of capital punishment. Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae declared that "as a result of
steady improvements in the organization of the penal system," cases in which the execution of the
offender would be absolutely necessary "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." Again at St.
Louis in January 1999 the Pope appealed for a consensus to end the death penalty on the ground
that it was "both cruel and unnecessary." The bishops of many countries have spoken to the same
effect.
The United States bishops, for their part, had already declared in their majority statement
of 1980 that "in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of
punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty." Since that time they have repeatedly
intervened to ask for clemency in particular cases. Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital
punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today.
In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of
the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to
impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition
held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects.
Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be
applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in
contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked,
because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.
In a brief compass I have touched on numerous and complex problems. To indicate what I
have tried to establish, I should like to propose, as a final summary, ten theses that encapsulate the
Church's doctrine, as I understand it.

1. The purpose of punishment in secular courts is fourfold: the rehabilitation of the criminal, the
protection of society from the criminal, the deterrence of other potential criminals, and retributive
justice.
2. Just retribution, which seeks to establish the right order of things, should not be confused with
vindictiveness, which is reprehensible.
3. Punishment may and should be administered with respect and love for the person punished.
4. The person who does evil may deserve death. According to the biblical accounts, God sometimes
administers the penalty himself and sometimes directs others to do so.
5. Individuals and private groups may not take it upon themselves to inflict death as a penalty.
6. The State has the right, in principle, to inflict capital punishment in cases where there is no doubt
about the gravity of the offense and the guilt of the accused.
7. The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or
better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.
8. The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as
miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent
human life.
9. Persons who specially represent the Church, such as clergy and religious, in view of their specific
vocation, should abstain from pronouncing or executing the sentence of death.
10. Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as
a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the
bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in
continuity with Scripture and tradition.

Aside from the issue of death penalty, another dispute upon whose edifice
religious doctrines have cozily made home of, is the matter of homosexuality – particularly same
sex marriage. The usual outcry of homosexual couples in asserting that their union must also be
duly recognized by the state is that of justice – that regardless of sexual preference, they ought to
enjoy the same basic rights being experienced by heterosexuals, as they are also human beings.

Homosexuality

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child
of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual
behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the
same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural
law.
 Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to
a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become
sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire
and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires,
like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those
desires in some manner.

Divine Law

The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well
known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality
and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for
homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his
household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire “because the outcry against its people has
become great before the Lord” (Gen. 19:13).
Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of
the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But
today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of
hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites
that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to
Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.
Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in
unnatural lust.” Ezekiel says that Sodom committed “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:50), which
could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters
in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over
heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament
deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: “You shall
not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a
woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is
upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Reinterpreting Scripture

To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives
from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the
time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.
While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its
moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures,
but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.
Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual
behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to
acknowledge and worship God. He says, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable
passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up
natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing
shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And
since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper
conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they
not only do them but approve those who practice them” (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).
Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will
deprive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes
nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers
will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).
All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the
rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted
in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

Natural Law

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because
they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another
human, not an animal.
 The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex
partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have
the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is
wrong because it is unnatural.
Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For
example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the
needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives
rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping,
mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

“I Was Born This Way”

Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they
were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.
But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires
are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For
example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one
can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing
them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior)
without consciously choosing them.
Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on
this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part
of the natural design of humanity. Other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because
there may be a genetic predisposition toward them. For example, scientific studies suggest some
people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought
to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic.

The Ten Percent Argument

Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of

the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.
But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the
population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the
population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest
themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us
information about the demographics of original sin.
But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report
by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later
psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from
convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex
offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.
Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively
homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then
stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual “phase” but who were not
long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud,
by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House,
1990].)
Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one
to two percent of the population is homosexual.

And then there is SEX. Like it or not, the kaleidoscope of morality tiptoes, sneaks past your
bedroom doors and into the most private of human affairs such as sexual intercourse. Is sex before
marriage immoral?
For some , it is an expression of love; to others, just an outlet for the overwhelming libido
embracing their every veins; still some, simply to satisfy the tingling nuisance of curiosity. But
regardless of the reason, it would be hard to deny that it has grown into a fad, a routine, a humdrum.
A “thing” of today’s generation.
But while common, this issue of premarital sex has not escaped the watchful,
vigilant eyes of fervent devotees. Following the religious notion of marriage and of procreation,
sex is deemed as a sacred at and must only be performed within the walls of married life.
 To have sex purely and solely for pleasure’s sake, rather than for its “real” end
of procreation, will be humiliate the sanctity of the act, and reduce the participants into nothing
more than mere objects of carnal desire – which in turn, has the effect of degrading human dignity.

Pre-marital Sex: Lessons from Reason, Scripture

By Fr. William Saunders

The Catholic Church continues to teach that sexual love between a man and a woman is reserved
to marriage. We find this teaching in the creation account of Genesis—Book 1, Chapter 1 of Sacred
Scripture: First, God creates man in His own image and likeness, making them male and female
(Genesis 1:27). In the next verse, the Bible reads, "God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fertile and
multiply; fill the earth and subdue it’"(Genesis 1:28). Before the man and woman come together
as husband and wife, and before they express their love as husband and wife, they are first blessed
by God.

Only in marriage do we find God’s blessing upon the act of sexual love, or what is better termed,
marital love. This physical expression of love in marriage is a sacred sign of a husband and wife’s
covenant of love and love that they share in union with God. This marital love signifies the vows
freely exchanged between each other and thereby reflects the faithful, permanent, exclusive, and
self-giving love they have promised to each other and to God. This understanding is evident in
Jesus response to the Pharisees’ question regarding divorce: "Have you not read that at the
beginning the Creator made them male and female and declared, ‘For this reason a man shall leave
his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become as one’? Thus they are no
longer two but one flesh. Therefore let no man separate what God has joined" (Matthew 19:4-6).
Thorough the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, God blesses the couple joined in this sacred bond
and generously bestows grace so that they may assume the duties of marriage in mutual and lasting
fidelity.

Moreover, the marital love of husband and wife which unites them as "one flesh" may overflow
and participate in God’s creative love: a child may be born from their love. Here again, God gives
abundant graces so that the husband and wife can fulfill their duties as father and mother.
Therefore, in accord with God’s design, sexual love is reserved to marriage.

Think though of this issue from the perspective of the child, who may be conceived by an act of
sexual love. A child has the inviolable right to life from the moment of conception until death. He
has the right to be born. He has the right to two loving parents who are husband and wife, who
have pledged their total love to each other, and who have the means to provide for raising a child.
He has the right to be considered as a gift from God, not as an "unplanned pregnancy," an
"accident," or a "burden." In essence, a child has the right to the best family possible—a family
filled with love. (Confer Donum vitae, II, 8.) Here again, just using our reason, we can conclude
that sexual love ought to be reserved to marriage.

Taking sexual love outside the context of marriage is contrary to the dignity of each person and of
marriage. Our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, lamented the decline in respect for marital love in
his encyclical The Gospel of Life: "Sexuality too is depersonalized and exploited, from being the
sign, place and language of love, that is, of the gift of self and acceptance of another, in all the
other’s richness as a person, it increasingly becomes the occasion and instrument for self-assertion
and the selfish satisfaction of personal desires and instincts" (#23).

Given this teaching, little wonder the Bible has grave condemnations against both fornication,
"carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman" (Catechism, #2353), and
adultery, "when two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual
relations—even transient ones . . . " (Catechism, #2381). Jesus said, "Wicked designs come from
the deep recesses of the heart: acts of fornication, theft, murder, adulterous conduct, greed,
maliciousness, deceit, sensuality, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, and obtuse spirit. All these evils
come from within and render a man impure" (Mark 7:21-23; cf. also Matthew 15:19). St. Paul
warned, "Can you not realize that the unholy will not fall heir to the kingdom of God? Do not
deceive your selves: no fornicators, idolaters, or adulterers, no sexual perverts, thieves, misers or
drunkards, no slanderers, or robbers will inherit God’s kingdom" (I Corinthians 6:9-10). In the last
judgment scene depicted in the Book of Revelation, God said, "As for the cowards and traitors to
the faith, the depraved and murderers, the fornicators and sorcerers, the idol-worshipers and
deceivers of every sort—their lot is the fiery pool of burning sulphur, the second death!"
(Revelation 21:8). God’s upholding of the sacredness of marital love is clearly evidenced in the
blatant condemnation of the sins against it.

Sadly, in our society, we see the act of marital love trivialized. Whether we would turn to
pornography or even to a comedy show, the act or marital love is oftentimes portrayed as a selfish
expression without any sense of permanence, fidelity or exclusivity. The act is reduced simply to
an immediate, fleeting pleasure without any sense of responsibility to each other or to the possible
child conceived. The couple easily forgets that the action could conceive a child and that they
could become "Mommy and Daddy." And what then? Would the child be aborted? Would he be
raised by one parent, by grandparents, or by two parents "forced" to get married?

We see the tragedy that occurs when we deviate from God’s plan. Many people have thought they
were in love with someone else, gave themselves to that person in the most intimate expression of
human love, then were later discarded. Many people have heard the phrase, "I want you," but all
the person really wanted was a body; not a person, a sensation, not a commitment of life and love.
Many people speak of "making love," without realizing we cannot make love: God Himself is
love, we can only love in His love in accord with His design (I John 4:16). Yes, the eyes of many
people today reveal an internal emptiness which comes from spending oneself on a fleeting
pleasure rather than on building upon a marriage and a family.

In response, the Church calls people to live the virtue of chastity. Chastity respects the dignity of
our human sexuality and the sacredness of marital love. In chastity, a person strives for mastery
over feelings and passions, respects the sacredness of marital love, and takes responsibility for his
actions. This virtue, moreover, gives great freedom: freedom from slavery to passions; freedom
from any sexually transmitted disease, so easily contracted in this age because of promiscuity;
freedom from loss of a good reputation and being known as "easy," "a slut" or "a womanizer;"
freedom from painful memories or regrets of past relationships; freedom from mortal sin and
eternal punishment. St. Paul challenges us to live in the freedom of God's children. Granted, the
temptations of this world are great. By the grace of God, we can live in such freedom, respecting
the sacredness of marital love.

To be productive, ethical disclosure must take place on common ground, that is, using
understandings and intellectual procedures and judgment criteria that all participants – Christians,
Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others – affirm. Because theological doctrine depends to a great extent
on faith, it does not provide that common ground. Not all religious read the same book; nor does
everyone belonging in the same religion read and believe their own sacred books.

Religion, in its pragmatic sense, has been more than a helpful in molding people to become better
persons; but its extreme pursuit, at times, has also brought about acts that outsiders have considered
as utterly unethical- such as the Inquisition, the Crusades, suicide bombings, hate crimes and the
like.

According to, there are distinct strengths or advantages in the notion that divine command takes
precedence over reason.

1. Ultimate Reckoning. One of the most vexing difficulties for moral philosophers is that
morality demand on some occasions that we set personal advantage aside and act for the
sake of some larger good. Why (then) should we behave morally when we lose by doing
so? Religion’s answer to this is that ultimately God will balance the scales. The just will
be rewarded, and the unjust punished. If this is true, according to Hinman, then it certainly
provides followers of divine command theories with a motivation to be moral.
2. Religious as a Motivation to be Good. According to Hinman, there are several senses in
which religion is able to provide the motivation. First, the though that the just will be
rewarded may often be a sustaining motivating thought for people in morally difficult
times, guaranteeing that their virtue will be rewarded. Second, the other side of this same
motivational coin is the threat of punishment and damnation, which also can be powerful
motivating force. Third, we should note that religion provides practices and structures that
support its values.
3. Religion and Liberating. Consider the role of religion in some of the most important moral
transformations of our day. In the Civil Rights Movements in America, religious faith was
a central source of both vision and motivation for those involved in the fight for equality.
Many of the black leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, both major figures such as
 Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and countless minor figures such as local pastors and
preachers, were ordained ministers. Similarly throughout the world, religious leaders have
been tremendously important forces for peaceful change.

But while ethics and religion are not synonymous, as can be deduced from the above discourse,
these two concepts are not necessarily exclusive or contradictory. If any, the only challenge when
dealing with an intertwining of ethical and religious dilemma, is how not to be close-minded-
because it is in being stubbornly unyielding that the true danger lies. One can therefore converse
in the language of ethics; without totally compromising one’s religious convictions and vice versa
because anyway, the main thrust of both is the pursuit of the good.

V. Ethics and Law

Morality is also closely related to law, and some people equate the two practices. After all, law
can promote well-being and social harmony and can resolve conflict of interest, just as morality
does. But despite the apparent similarities between these two concepts, they are not entirely on the
same page. The divergence is best manifested in the fact that there are laws which are considered
by basic ethical principles as immoral, and illegal acts which can nonetheless pass the test of
morality. While ina completely ideal perfect world, both morality and legality should jive and
dance in beat of the same music, reality would nonetheless paint a different scenario.

REPUBLIC ACT No. 9995

AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PHOTO AND VIDEO

VOYEURISM, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of
2009".

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State values the dignity and privacy of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights. Toward this end, the State shall penalize acts that
would destroy the honor, dignity and integrity of a person.

Section 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the term:

(a) "Broadcast" means to make public, by any means, a visual image with the intent that it be
viewed by a person or persons.

(b) "Capture" with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means,
or broadcast.

(c) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast.

(d) "Photo or video voyeurism" means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or
group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the
private area of a person or persons without the latter's consent, under circumstances in which such
person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of selling, copying, reproducing,
broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or
device without the written consent of the person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to record
or take photo or video coverage of same was given by such person's.

(e) "Private area of a person" means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks
or female breast of an individual.

(f) "Under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means believe
that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or a private area of
the person was being captured; or circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that
a private area of the person would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is
in a public or private place.
Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful for any person:

(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any
similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or
undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the
person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable
expectation of privacy;

(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording
of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration;

(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of
sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or

(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast

media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any
similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device.

The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record
or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Any person who violates
this provision shall be liable for photo or video voyeurism as defined herein.

Section 5. Penalties. - The penalty of imprisonment of not less that three (3) years but not more
than seven (7) years and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not
more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court shall
be imposed upon any person found guilty of violating Section 4 of this Act.

If the violator is a juridical person, its license or franchise shall be automatically be deemed
revoked and the persons liable shall be the officers thereof including the editor and reporter in the
case of print media, and the station manager, editor and broadcaster in the case of a broadcast
media.

If the offender is a public officer or employee, or a professional, he/she shall be administratively

liable.

If the offender is an alien, he/she shall be subject to deportation proceedings after serving his/her
sentence and payment of fines.

Section 6. Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or
punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the court, to use the record
or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo
or video voyeurism: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written
application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she
may produce, and upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video
voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed, and that the evidence to be obtained
is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such, crime.

Section 7. Inadmissibility of Evidence. - Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or
secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections shall not be admissible in evidence in
any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.1avvphi1

Section 8. Separability Clause. - If any provision or part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional,
the remaining provisions not affected thereby shall remain valid and subsisting.

Section 9. Repealing Clause. - Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of
instruction , administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.

Section 10. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete
publication in the Official Gazette or in two(2) newspapers of general circulation.
Then there are those acts which are illegal, not because they are unethical, but simply by reason of
cultural considerations or for other almost-all-too shallow reasons that might seem weird for
outsiders. Here are examples of such laws:

Unusual Laws Around the World

Suspiciously holding a salmon in the UK

Parliament's famous Salmon Act of 1986 states that it's illegal to hold a salmon under suspicious
circumstances. Sounds fishy, but it's true.

Chewing gum in Singapore

When heading to Singapore, leave the Juicy Fruit at home and pop a breath mint instead. Among
the lengthy list of items that aren't allowed to be imported into Singapore is chewing gum, a rule
enforced in order to keep public spaces clean. An exception is made for dental or nicotine gum.
Naming your baby something weird in Denmark

Celebs in Denmark would be screwed, since the country has official child naming guidelines. If
you want to name your baby something other than the 7,000 approved names, you need to get
approval from the government. Sorry North, Apple, Blue Ivy
Recklessly biking in Mexico

Bikers may not lift feet from pedals, as it might result in a loss of control. This practical law was
created in 1892 as a way to protect riders. However, no hands is still fair game.
Hiking naked in Switzerland

The Swiss kindly ask you not to hike in the nude. In fact, Swiss canton Appenzell was the first to
ban the indecent act after a naked German man walked past a family picnicking in the Alps in
2009.

Being a bird perch in Venice

A fine of up to $700 is in store for anyone who feeds the pigeons in Venice's St. Mark's Square.
The city banned the practice, citing the birds as a health hazard, and as bad for the monuments.

Whistling in Canada

The city of Petrolia in Ontario has a law that limits excessive noise. The rule states that no yelling,
shouting, whistling or singing is allowed at any time.

Having your chickens cross the road in Georgia

If you own any chickens in Quitman, Georgia, it's illegal to let them cross the road. Simply put,
the law essentially wants owners to have their chickens under control at all times.
Wearing high heels in Greece

Leave your stilettos at home if you're planning on sightseeing around Greece's historic cities. High
heels are illegal at certain ancient monuments because they can damage them, and because they
often threaten preservation efforts .

Naming a pig Napoleon in France

So the law no longer states Napoleon specifically, but instead says that it's illegal to offend the
heads of state by naming your pig after them. As of 2013 it’s no longer a criminal offence, but
you’d better stick with the name Wilbur if you want to avoid charges from the country's strict
slander and defamation laws.

Running out of gas on the autobahn in Germany

Hitting 100 on the autobahn is a thrilling feeling, but you'd best keep an eye on the road and the
other on the needle. Running out of gas on the motorway will lead to fines — basically, you should
have known better and planned ahead, like any self respecting German.

Peeing in the ocean in Portugal

You can’t pee in the ocean in Portugal, though we can’t confirm or deny that anyone has ever been
caught. Still, out of respect for your fellow beachgoers, just hold it, okay?

Getting someone too drunk in Australian pubs

It's a bit counter intuitive, but Down Under getting patrons too drunk at the pub is met with heavy
fines.

Using water guns in Cambodia on New Year's Eve

In 2001, Phnom Penh governor Chea Sophara banned the sale and import of all water guns, fearing
they would cause social unrest during Khmer New Year celebrations.

The main goal of laws is the institutionalization of the purpose for which the State exists-
i.e the promotion of general welfare and maintenance of social order. In the pursuit of such inherent
objectives, ethical norms may be compromised, or at least suspended. Laws ought to adapt to the
inevitable changes occurring in its immediate community. Sticking with established ethical
standards, which are oftentimes viewed as uncompromising and independent from external factors,
might not always jive with what the State deems as necessary to keep public order, safety, and ell-
being.
Morality distinguishes itself from law by going deeper into the essence of our social
existence- it goes beyond what the exigencies of time demand. It transcends time and social
constraints.

CHAPTER 2
Going Deeper into the Ghetto

Learning Objectives:
 To understand and discern the difference between cultural relativism, ethical relativism
and normative relativism.
 To analyze the structure of the arguments for relativism and assess the truth value of the
premises and the logical structure of the argument.
  To examine the alternatives to relativism to begin the process of crafting a better
understanding of the source and nature of ethical values.
 To understand the relationship between taking responsibility and being ethical, and how
this applies to one's own life

I. INTRODUCTION

Can we agree to a singular overarching parameter of what moral is?

Or is morality exclusively dependent on our cultural differences which, although inevitable as to

presence, is nevertheless overwhelming as to influence?

Is there an absolute good, or is it relative upon the individual pursuing the act?

In the first place, what is good? What is right?

Are we even required to be good? In other words, is it a natural tendency, an innate value, for
human beings to pursue the good; or is it just an artificial social construct built solely for the
purpose of keeping us from ripping out reach others internal organs and falling into a perpetual
state of war and chaos?

II. ETHICAL RELATIVISM: Who we are to judge?

Lebron James have been both famous and infamous in the sport of basketball of recent
memory, some consider him as one of the greatest athlete to have ever played the game, placing
high up in the pedestal of other basketball legends like Michael Jordan, magic Johnson, Wilt
Chamberlain, Julius Irving and Larry Bird. However, others see him as nothing more than a
haughty, arrogant player who is nowhere near the Olympus of basketball gods.
Which is which then? Is there a truth that acceptable to everyone, or is it simply a matter
of opinion-
(kanya-kanyang pananaw at walang basagan ng trip)?

The once upon a time prominence that the Earth enjoyed as the center of the universe was
later debunked by heliocentric theorists, which placed the Sun at the center, not of the universe,
but only of the solar system.
The idea that the earth was flat was embraced by almost everyone in the ancient world as
an absolute truth, only to be shamed for being false by those who ushered in scientific proofs.
One of the biggest mankind feat of our generations is the moon landing of the Apollo
expedition. Still resonating through our historical chronicles are the words, “One small step for
man, one giant leap for mankind”. But recently doubts have been cast upon its authenticity.
Conspiracy theorists believe that it was a fluke, and was only staged for the purpose of beating
America’s space-rival back then – the USSR.

As a matter of fact…..

Moon- landing Real or Hoax?

1. You can tell Apollo was faked because….

The American flag appears to be flappings as if “ in breeze” in videos and photographs
supposedly taken from the airless lunar surface.
 2. You can tell Apollo was faked because….
Only two astronauts walked on the moon at a time, yet in photographs such as this one
where both visible, there is no sign of a camera. So who took the picture?

NASA’s Response…

The cameras were mounted to the astronauts’ chests said astronomer Phil Plait, author of the
award-winning blog Bad Astronomy and president of the James Randi Educational Foundation.

Plait notes, “ you can see (Neil) arms are sort of at his chest. That’s where the camera is. He
wasn’t holding it up to his visor.”

3. You can tell Apollo was faked because….

The astronauts made no such exclamation while on the moon, and the black backgrounds
of their photographs are curiously devoid of stars.

NASA’s response…
The moon’s surface reflect sunlight, and that glare would have made stars difficult to see.
Also, the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which
would have limited incoming background light.
“ They were taking pictures at 1/150th or 1/250th of a second,” Bad Astronomy’s Plait
said. “ in that amount of time, stars just don’t show up.”

4. The lunar lander known as the Eagle rests peacefully on the moon’s surface in a picture
taken mere hours after the July 20, 1969, moon landing.
You can tell Apollo was faked because… the module is shown sitting on relatively flat,
undisturbed soil. According to skeptics, the lander’s descent should have been
accompanied by a large dust cloud and would have formed a noticeable crater.
NASA’s Response….

The lander’s engines were throttled back just before landing, and it did not hover long enough to
form a crater or kick up much dust, the Smithsonian’s Launius said.
“ Science fiction movies depict this big jet of fire coming out as (spacecraft) land, but that’s how
they did it on the moon,” he added. “ that’s not the way they would do it now or anytime in the
future.”

Source: news.nationalgeographic.com

And then there are optical illusions, which all the more puts clout of uncertainty upon what we
actually know.

“An optical illusion is the difference between reality and what the brain thinks its seeing. The
information gathered by the eye is processed to give an image that does not agree with a
physical measurement of the source.

There are three main types:

1. Literal Optical Illusions
Creates images that are different from the objects that make them.

Moving Circle?

2. Physiological
The one that are the effects on the eyes and brain of excessive stimulation of a specific
type (Brightness, tilt, color, movement)

Is this really square?

3. Cognitive Illusions
Where the ye and brain make unconscious inferences.
 Straight Rope?

“Nothing is ever for sure, that is the only thing I am sure of”, as one of the characters in the
movie A Beautiful Mind succinctly puts it. The conundrum of relativism likewise spills over the
issue of morality.

Is there one absolute ethical standard everyone ought to follow, or is morality nothing more than
a matter of opinion – of an individual, of the majority, of a cultural milieu, of a generation?

..tickle your imagination…

You saw a young boy, approximately 14 years of age, hurriedly running away from a
much older guy. There was a smear of grimace outlined in the face of the young boy, while an
infinity of disorderly interweaving contours in the older guy’s that manifested his rage. The
young boy was caught anyway. It turned out that he stole the wallet of the evidently angry
victim. But there was no trace of any remorse on the kid – no qualm, no guilt. It was just the
grimace that remained – although this time, it was bigger, wider.

Should he be condemned for the fact?

Some, especially the victim, would probably answer in the affirmative – as stealing, at
least as far as most ethical standards would concede, is morally wrong.

But consider this.

He grew up in a community where theft, robbery, murder and other crimes, are a
commonplace – a regular occurrence. His father was a notorious pickpocket and thief; his mother
was a drug dependent. His brothers were themselves burglars, who taught him how to steal
things without getting caught. He leaved in the streets where morality is blurred and rendered
almost nugatory by the growl of an empty stomach and the beckon of survival.

Should he be faulted for having such a loose sense of morality?

Or maybe we must first ask, who are we to judge?

Let us examine another ,more complicated, dilemma….

Of late, our airwaves, frequencies and spreadsheets have been bombarded with news
regarding terrorist attacks – as if such incidents have become a mundane day-to-day occurrence.
The international community has been throwing jabs and strikes of condemnation against these
acts, together with its every bits and pieces, But while most consider these acts as immoral and
downright evil, they nonetheless continue to linger – slithering relentless fear into our streets and
homes. How can it still survive despite the widespread denunciation?
However, from the perspective of the main protagonists to this spectacle, these are not
acts of terror – on the contrary, these are heroic undertakings, virtuous deeds, and religious
engagements. While from our vantage points they are terrorists, from theirs they are martyrs of
faith – whose deaths are revered and lauded, and in turn, earn for them a place in paradise with
72 virgins as their eternal rewards. It is their culture.

Again, who are we to judge?

 ETHICAL RELATIVISM

To put it simply, “ethical relativism is the doctrine that the moral rightness and
wrongness of actions varies from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral
standards binding on all men at all times, accordingly, it holds that whether or not is relative to
the society to which he belongs.” Citing John Ladd, Ethical Relativism, Pojman, Philosophical
Traditions 420.
This being the case, it seems that every person is robbed from the prerogative of passing
judgment upon another person’s act because at the end of the day, morality is relative on the
person doing the act. There are as many diverse ethical standards as there are human beings who
sees it as their business to consider what is good or right for them.
One of the main factors that propel the acceptance of ethical relativism is culture.
Whether we like it or not, culture diversifies our beliefs systems – it creates a demarcation line
between societies and among human beings. It defines most of our concepts, shapes an ample of
your perspectives, and determines a greater chunk of your behavior.
In some cultures, polygamy is accepted, even encouraged; in others, it is frowned upon,
and at times condemned. Murder is definitely denounced in most cultures; but are warranted, and
even glorified in others. Homosexuality is censured, discriminated, or worse treated as a
psychological ailment, in some societies; but the same is not always true in other countries.
It seems, therefore, that the even plainest concept such as being ‘ normal” is nothing
more than a cultural definition and construct. That being the case, it would not be surprising that
most of our moral standards are also culturally charged – i.e, heavily influenced by our cultural
backgrounds. And the fact that diversities between cultures are sometimes poles apart.

Is there really any point comparing them?

Are there, cultures that are better than others/
Or should we leave moral judgments and ethical considerations to each culture?

According to Hinman….Ethical Relativism

“Culture clash, and when they do, we must decide how to deal the resulting conflicts,
including moral conflicts. Sometimes, as in the case of terrorists attacks, the clashes are violent.
At other times, such as the preservation of indigenous ways of life in the face of encroaching
modernization, the clashes do not necessarily involve violence… Ethical relativists see each
culture as an island unto itself, correct in its wonderful world, and they deny there is any
overarching standard terms of which conflicting cultures can be judges.”
In some cultures, polygamy is accepted, even encouraged; in others, it is frowned upon,
and at times condemned, Murder is definitely denounced in most cultures; but are warranted, and
even glorified in others. Homosexuality is censured, discriminated, or worse treated as a
psychological ailment, in some societies; but the same is not always true to other countries.
Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral
practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do
not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was
common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they
entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned
in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty
to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral
principles but agree on the principles.
Also, it is argued, it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative
whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may
depend on local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression,
may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other
differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean
that all practices are relative. Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its
implications for individual moral beliefs. These philosophers assert that if the rightness or
wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the
norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally.
 This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices
are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view
promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society.

Criticisms of Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism merely the idea that different people have different beliefs about ethics,
which again no one would deny. It is, rather, a theory about the status of moral beliefs, according
to which none of them is objectively true. A consequence of the theory is that there is no way to
justify any moral principle as valid for all people and all societies.
Critics have lodged a number of complaints against this doctrine. They point out that if
ethical relativism is correct, it would mean that even the most outrageous practices, such as
slavery and the physical abuse of women, are “right” if they are countenanced by the standards
of the relevant society. Relativism therefore deprives us of any means of raising moral objections
against horrendous social customs, provided that those customs are approved by the codes of the
societies in which they exist.
Critics say, it is a mistake to think that relativism implies that we should be tolerant,
because tolerance is simply another value about which people or societies may disagree. Only an
absolutist could say that tolerance is objectively good. Critics also point out that disagreement
about ethics does not mean that there can be no objective truth. After all, people disagree even
about scientific matters. Some people believe that disease is caused by evil spirits, while others
believe it is caused by microbes, but we do not on that account conclude that disease has no
“real” cause. The same might be true of ethics—disagreement might only mean that some people
are more enlightened than others.
Anthropologists have observed that, while there is some variation from culture to culture,
there are also some values that all societies have in common. Some values are, in fact, necessary
for society to exist. Without rules requiring truthfulness, for example, there could be no
communication, and without rules against murder and assault, people could not live together.
Lastly, to the claim that there is no legitimate way to judge a society’s practices “from the
outside,” critics may reply that we can always ask whether a particular cultural practice works to
the advantage or disadvantage of the people within the culture.

Types of Relativism

Cultural Relativism
Describes the simple fact that there are different cultures and each has different ways of
behaving, thinking and feeling as its members learn such from the previous generation. There is
an enormous amount of evidence to confirm this claim. It is well known by just about every
human on the planet that people do things differently around the globe.
People dress differently, eat differently, speak different languages, sing different songs,
have different music and dances and have many different customs.

Descriptive Ethical Relativism

Describes the fact that in different cultures one of the variants is the sense of morality: the
mores, customs and ethical principles may all vary from one culture to another. There is a great
deal of information available to confirm this as well. What is thought to be moral in one country
may be thought to be immoral and even made illegal in another country.

Normative Ethical Relativism

Is a theory, which claims that there are no universally valid moral principles. Normative
ethical relativism theory says that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from
society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at
all times. The theory claims that all thinking about the basic principles of morality (Ethics) is
always relative. Each culture establishes the basic values and principles that serve as the
foundation for morality. The theory claims that this is the case now, has always been the case
and will always be the case.

III. EGOISM : Why should I be concerned?

 Egoism is the philosophy concerned with the role of the self, or ego, as the motivation
and goal of one's own action. Different theories on egoism encompass a range of disparate ideas
and can generally be categorized into descriptive or normative forms. People act for many
reasons; but for whom, or what, do or should they act—for themselves, for God, or for the good
of the planet? Can an individual ever act only according to her own interests without regard for
others’ interests. Conversely, can an individual ever truly act for others in complete disregard for
her own interests? The answers will depend on an account of free will. Some philosophers argue
that an individual has no choice in these matters, claiming that a person’s acts are determined by
prior events which make illusory any belief in choice.
Nevertheless, if an element of choice is permitted against the great causal impetus from
nature, or God, it follows that a person possesses some control over her next action, and, that,
therefore, one may inquire as to whether the individual does, or, should choose a self-or-other-
oriented action. Morally speaking, one can ask whether the individual should pursue her own
interests, or, whether she should reject self-interest and pursue others’ interest instead: to what
extent are other-regarding acts morally praiseworthy compared to self-regarding acts?

ETHICAL EGOISM

1. Common-sense Egoism:
According to this view, egoism is a vice. It involves putting one’s own concerns over those
of others. One’s behavior is egoistic if it involves putting one’s own interests over those of others
to an immoderate degree.

2. Psychological Egoism:
Argument For: Human agents always, at least on a deep-down level, are all egoists insofar
as our behavior, explainable in terms of our beliefs and desires, is always aimed at what we
believe is our greatest good (Baier, 1991, p. 203).
Objection: The psychological egoist confuses egoistic desires with motivation. An agent
may act contrary to his desires and what is in his own best interest. People often act in ways that
they know are detrimental to their well being. Moreover, what one most wants may not be in
their own self-interest (e.g., giving money to Amnesty International rather than buying a new
CD). MacKinnon adds that, “Even if it were shown that we often act for the sake of our own
interest, this is not enough to prove that psychological egoism is true. According to this theory,
we must show that people always act to promote their own interests”

3. Egoism as a Means to the Common Good

Argument For: According to the economist, Adam Smith, when entrepreneurs are
unimpeded by legal or self-imposed moral constraint to protect the good of others, they are able
to promote their own good and, as a result, provide the most efficient means of promoting the
good of others (Baier, 1991, p. 201; see MacKinnon, p. 24). Such a view leads to the doctrine
that, “if each pursues her own interest as she conceives of it, then the interest of everyone is
promoted” (Baier, 1991, p. 200).
Objection: Apart from positing an “invisible hand” guiding the market processes, the
common-good egoist makes the fallacy, ascribed to J.S. Mill, that if each person promotes her
own interest, then everyone else’s interests are thereby promoted. “Clearly, this is a fallacy, for
the interests of different individuals or classes may, and under certain conditions (of which the
scarcity of necessities is the most obvious), do conflict. Then the interest of one is the detriment
of the other” (Baier, 1991, p. 200).

4. Rational Egoism:
Rational egoism is concerned with reasonable action.
Strong Rational Egoism: It is always rational to aim at one’s own greatest good, and never
rational not to do so (Baier, 1991, p. 201).
Weak Rational Egoism: It is always rational to aim at one’s own greatest good, but not
necessarily never rational not to do so (Baier, 1991, p. 201).
 Argument For: When doing something does not prima facie appear to be in our interest,
our doing said act requires that we justify our action by showing that it is in our interest, thereby
justifying our action.
Objection: Such an approach to justifying actions in our own interest may be abused if
we do not have criteria established to determine what the interests of agents amount to. If such
criteria are established, such actions may be reasonable so long as they do not result in conflicts
between agents. In such cases, creative middle ways are called for.

5. Ethical Egoism:
Coupled with ethical rationalism—”the doctrine that if a moral requirement or
recommendation is to be sound or acceptable, complying with it must be in accordance with
reason”—rational egoism implies ethical egoism (Baier, 1991, p. 201).
Strong Ethical Egoism: It is always right to aim at one’s own greatest good, and never right
not to do so (Baier, 1991, p. 201).
Weak Ethical Egoism: It is always right to aim at one’s own greatest good, but not
necessarily never right not to do so (Baier, 1991, p. 201).
Argument For: If we accept rational egoism, and if we accept ethical rationalism, then we
must accept ethical egoism. This is the case because if acting in one’s own self-interest is
reasonable, then it is a moral requirement that one acts in one’s own self-interest.
Objection: Ethical egoism is incompatible with ethical conflict-regulation. Consider the
following example from Kurt Baier, regarding the problem over whether it would be morally
wrong for me to kill my grandfather so that he will be unable to change his will and disinherit me
(1991, p. 202)

Three Types of Ethical Egoism

 Personal Ethical Egoism

Personal egoists maintain that they are going to act in their own self-interest and that
anything else is irrelevant to them. They actually have no interest in telling other people how to
act at all, and in this sense, their position is hardly a moral theory at all. They are simply saying “
This is how I am going to act.”
 Individual Ethical Egoism
The difference between personal egoism, and individual egoism is that the latter does make a
claim about how other people ought to act. Individual egoists claim that “I ought to act in my
own self-interest, and everyone else should act in my self-interest.
 Universal Ethical Egoism
Whereas individual ethical egoists think all people ought to act in their own self-interest,
universal ethical egoists think that each individual ought to cat in his or her own self-interest.
Each person ought to be out for himself or herself

But whatever the type of ethical egoism is, it becomes apparent that in this kind of moral
framework, ethical norms become dispensable – something that a person may follow for a period
of time, and for selected circumstances, but not when his self-interest demands a higher
beckoning – for anyway, my own good is the only ethical standard I accept. Ultimately, my self-
interest is the sole parameter of what morality is.
There is, at times, a greater personal incentive and benefit to act wrongly, than stick in the
path of morality.
Why do educated students still cheat?
Why do rich politicians persist in their corrupt practices?
Why do people still do bad things even if they are fully aware of its wrongness, and are
effusively conscious of what morality dictates?
But anyways, from an egoistic perspective, it would be wrong to consider as immoral the acts
of cheating, stealing, lying , and the like. It is always as “it depends” situation.
Ethical egoism finds support in a sundry of philosophical principles. Thomas Hobbes, for
example, claims that man by nature is selfish – that man is naturally inclined to further his own
self-interest over that of others. Self-preservation is the most fundamental instinct that all living
things share, and humanity is not exempt from such basic inclination. It is on this note that
Hobbes proposed the idea that the existence of the Government is one that is out of necessity – a
social contract. According to him, it is necessary because left on our own, vis-à-vis our
overwhelming selfishness, we will fall in a perpetual state of war and chaos.
Another philosophical outlook that gives credence to egoism is Friedrich Nietzche’s
argument against altruism. Briefly, altruism caters the idea of selflessness and willingness to
sacrifice for the sake of others especially the weak and the poor, on the basis of virtues such as
justice and charity.
“Altruistic morality, he argued, was demeaning because it was essentially a morality of the
weak- a morality of slaves, for the herd, and for those who were afraid to assert themselves. The
weak, Nietzche claims, preach the gospel of altruism to gain control over the strong, to try to
convince the strong to take care of the weak, and to give up their power. Genuinely morality is
about self-assertion and self-transcendence, and the will-to-power.” This is the basic principles
behind his introduction of the Overman.

IV. POPULAR ETHICS: How many are raising their hands?

Polls, surveys Statistics. These are some of the more relevant tools that industries and
institutions use today to gauge popular sentiments, common perspectives, preferred choices of
the people.
Take for example how political candidates glue their eyes on surveys that provide
statistical standing as to who is leading the charge. Likewise,, would –be voters, or just plain and
simple apathetic spectators, are equally lured into the numbers that these surveys provide. As is
the determination of the eventual victor of an election – the one who garnered the most number
of votes.
True enough, we live in a generation where statistics, and numbers meet us in almost all
facets of society – what food to eat, what clothes to wear, what cellphone to use, where to go to
for vacation, what course to pursue in college, and the list would go on and on.
But the role of the majority does not stop in this simple situations. It extends to the idea
of morality, of what is good and what is wicked, of what is acceptable conduct and condemnable
behavior. These seems to be a tendency to some to join the bandwagon, without really looking
into the basis of the claim or belief – suffice that most of the members of a group, or society at
large, cling on to it. This we can attribute, to the natural inclination of human beings to long for
acceptance and recognition – which one can normally achieve by humming into the same melody
that everyone is singing and caper along the same beat that everyone is dancing.
It is easy for people to judge corrupt public officials for their atrocious acts; but how
resilient would you resistance to be the lure of wealth and enticement of power if you are also a
public official or employee, and almost everyone around you is taking a bite in the quiche of
malevolence and vice - it being the status quo, the routine?

How long would you hold on to your moral convictions and principles?
If the majority does it, why shouldn’t you?

The Last Country in the World Where Divorce Is Illegal

BY TOM HUNDLEY, ANA P. SANTOS | JANUARY 19, 2015
MANILA, Philippines — On the occasion of his 84th birthday in 2011, friends of former
Filipino Senator Ramon Revilla, a darkly handsome film star turned politician, unveiled an
imposing 10-meter-high bronze statue in his honor.
Revilla’s films are mostly forgettable and his accomplishments as a lawmaker were
marginal, but he will be long remembered in the Philippines for having sired at least 72 children
by 16 different women, only one of whom was his wife. Thirty-eight of the children bear his
surname.
It’s unclear what the statue is supposed to honor, but it is a fitting monument to
something that is sorely lacking in the Philippines: a divorce law.
The Philippines is now the only country in the world that denies divorce to the majority
of its citizens; it is the last holdout among a group of staunchly Catholic countries where the
church has fought hard to enforce its views on the sanctity of marriage. Pope Francis, who
visited the Philippines last week, has urged his bishops to take a more forgiving stance toward
divorced Catholics, but this is a moot point in the Philippines: There is no such thing as a
divorced Catholic.
A bill that would legalize divorce in the Philippines is now before the legislature, but it
has little chance of becoming law without the support of President Benigno Aquino III, who is
on record saying divorce is a “no-no” for this archipelago nation. Aquino, a bachelor and a
practicing Catholic, said he does not want the Philippines to become like Las Vegas, where “you
get married in the morning [and] you get divorced in the afternoon.”
Aquino ignored the bishops and their threats of excommunication three years ago when
he signed a reproductive health law that provides subsidized contraceptives to poor women, but
most analysts here believe that he has no appetite for another politically bruising battle with the
Catholic hierarchy on another of its hot-button issues.
For its part, the global church has been steadily losing ground in the fight against divorce.
The first big blow came in 1970 when Italy legalized divorce, despite the ferocious opposition of
the Vatican. An attempt to repeal the Italian divorce law was soundly rejected in a 1974
referendum. Next came Brazil, which legalized divorce in 1977, followed by Spain (1981),
Argentina (1987), Ireland (1997), and Chile (2004).
That left only the Philippines and the tiny Mediterranean island nation of Malta (and, of
course, the independent but mostly celibate Vatican city-state). In 2011, Malta held a referendum
on divorce. The church pulled out all stops in a particularly nasty campaign against legalization,
but came up short. Soon after the referendum, the archbishop of Malta issued a rare apology for
the church’s harsh attacks on pro-divorce activists.
Here in the Philippines, the Catholic hierarchy takes particular pride in the country’s
status as the last holdout.Here in the Philippines, the Catholic hierarchy takes particular pride in
the country’s status as the last holdout. One archbishop emeritus called it “an honor that every
Filipino should be proud of.” Another said Filipinos should not follow the example of “de-
Christianized countries.”
It wasn’t always thus. Before explorer Ferdinand Magellan claimed the Philippines for
the Spanish crown and began converting the natives to Catholicism in 1521, divorce was
commonly practiced by the archipelago’s traditional tribes, according to anthropologists. But
four centuries of Spanish rule, carried out for the most part by Catholic religious orders,
effectively stamped out the custom.
Things eased up a bit when the Americans became the new colonial masters after the
1898 Spanish-American War. A 1917 law allowed divorce, but only for adultery if committed by
the wife or for “concubinage” on the part of the husband. The Japanese, during their otherwise
horrific World War II occupation of the Philippines, introduced modern divorce laws, but those
were canceled and the old 1917 law restored when, in 1944, U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur
famously returned. Six years later, after the Philippines had been granted independence and the
church had reasserted its authority, the 1917 law was revoked and divorce was banned outright.
Separation, but equal
Philippine law does allow divorce for the country’s Muslim minority — about 11 percent
of the population — but for now, the only legal option available to non-Muslim couples who
want out of a bad marriage is to seek either a church annulment or a civil annulment. (The
church accepts legal separations, but separated persons are not allowed to remarry.)

Annulment is different from divorce in that the parties must establish that the marriage was
defective from the beginning: that one or both were too young to get married (the minimum age
in the Philippines is 18; for male Muslims it’s 15, for girls “puberty”); that proper parental
consent was not obtained; that one of the parties was already married or had an incurable
sexually transmissible disease; or — most commonly — was “psychologically incapacitated” at
the time of the marriage. A church tribunal or civil judge can then declare that the marriage never
happened.
The usual problems that cause the breakdown of a marriage — infidelity, physical or
mental abuse, or plain old “irreconcilable differences” — don’t count in an annulment
proceeding.
Sen. Pia Cayetano, who was the main sponsor of the controversial reproductive health
law and who is frequently mentioned as a potential successor to Aquino, called the absence of a
realistic and reasonable divorce law in the Philippines “a travesty.”
 “It needs to change, definitely. Do I see it happening soon? No, it will take a while for the
Philippines to separate human rights and civil rights from religious belief,” she said.

Professional services

What is most troublesome about using the annulment process as a substitute for divorce is
that it forces two people who might otherwise have a reasonably civil split into manufacturing or
faking an adversarial relationship with each other and with a state prosecutor — or in the case of
church annulment, a “defender of the bond” — whose role in the proceeding is to defend the
sanctity of the marriage by arguing that the unhappy couple stay together.
“It’s inhumane — and I speak from experience,” said Cayetano, whose own annulment
was granted in 2013.
The process is not only slow and psychologically painful, but it’s also expensive. It can
take years to finalize a civil annulment unless you are wealthy enough to pay the judge a
substantial bribe to speed things long.
Michelle, a 40-year-old Manila physician from a well-to-do family, got her civil
annulment in a mere six months. All she had to do was hire the right lawyer and pay 350,000
pesos (about $8,000), more than triple the per capita GDP in the Philippines and thus well
beyond the reach of most Filipinos.
About a third of the money went to the judge as a “professional service fee.” Michelle,
who asked that we not publish her last name, said her lawyer and the judge were pals from law
school days, which helped smooth things considerably. She only had to appear in court once, and
she was asked only one question: her name.
Michelle and her husband, also a physician, were both 30 when they married. Michelle
told us she felt pressured because she was pregnant at the time. Although the marriage lasted
seven years, she said that she regretted her decision almost from the beginning and that an
annulment, despite the social stigma attached to it, somehow felt right.
“It’s like I am forgiven,” she said. “It’s like going to confession. It erased whatever sin I
committed.”
A lawyer … or a hit man
Most people, however, find the process to be less than uplifting. Paolo Yap, 35, a graphic
designer in Manila, separated from his then wife in 2004 and stopped communicating with her
entirely two years later. Four years ago, when he and his new partner decided they wanted to
marry, Paolo needed an annulment.
He hired a lawyer for 300,000 pesos, but let her go when he realized it was going to cost
at least twice that. So he made a deal with a lawyer friend who agreed to take the case in
exchange for Yap’s services as a designer.
A psychologist was hired to certify “mental incapacity.” Yap was found to be “depressive
and anti-social”; his former wife “narcissistic and histrionic.”
As the case was wending its way through the system, Yap made the startling discovery
that his former wife had already obtained an annulment. Her lawyer’s strategy had been to file
the case with a local court in a remote corner of the Philippines that had a reputation as an
annulment mill.Her lawyer’s strategy had been to file the case with a local court in a remote
corner of the Philippines that had a reputation as an annulment mill. Yap was never notified,
even though the court papers seemed to suggest he was actually present, as the law requires. And
even when the former wife learned that Yap had started annulment proceedings, she didn’t tell
him, allowing him to spend hundreds of thousands of pesos unnecessarily.
“You know, it’s only about 10 or 15 thousand pesos to hire a hit man to kill your spouse,” he
noted sardonically. “Much less than an annulment.”
Philanderers and statesmen
In the fight to uphold the sanctity of marriage, the Catholic bishops of the Philippines can
bank on solid support from an unlikely quarter: the country’s male politicians, for whom
multiple mistresses and maintaining second — and even third — households is a seemingly
sacred privilege and a badge of manly pride.
Former Senator Revilla, of course, is the gold standard in this department, but Joseph
Estrada, who served as president from 1998 until 2001 (and, like Revilla, is a former film star),
proudly sired three children by his wife and at least nine additional offspring by six other
women.
 Longtime ruler Ferdinand Marcos also had numerous extramarital affairs, while Fidel
Ramos, Estrada’s predecessor in the Malacañang Palace, acknowledged at least one well-
publicized dalliance.
The lack of a divorce option provides “a sense of comfort to male philanderers,”
according to Evalyn Ursua, an attorney who specializes in annulment cases and who has
advocated for the legalization of divorce. “With a [law prohibiting divorce], they know they can
continue this lifestyle where they have their beautiful and loyal wife — and also the comfort and
status of their mistress,” she said. “A divorce law would allow women to put an end to it.”
Despite a veneer of religious piety, philandering is deeply embedded in Philippine
society, from the privileged to the poorest. “It’s the machismo thing … and wives are expected
not to make a fuss about having mistresses,” said Rep. Emerenciana De Jesus, who is co-
sponsoring the divorce bill. But while rich men often continue to support their wives and
children for appearances’ sake, poor women generally find themselves abandoned and left to
care for their children on their own. There are laws that require gainfully employed fathers to
support their biological children, but they are so rarely enforced that most people don’t know
they exist.

A poverty of options for the poor

In a typical year, civil courts in the Philippines will grant about 10,000 annulments — a
very small number for a country with a population of more than 100 million. This is not an
indication of widespread marital contentment in the Philippines, but rather that annulments are
only available to the well-off.
As a result, experts say, most Filipinos who find themselves in an unhappy relationship
simply move on to the next one. The women, of course, are expected to deal with the children.
“For these women, the survival mechanism is to find another guy to support her and her kids,”
said Mary Racelis, a sociologist at the Ateneo de Manila University.
Among the very poor, there is a growing tendency toward what the government calls
“unions without benefit of valid marriage,” or what the church calls “living in sin.” Precise
statistics are not available, but Racelis estimates that only 30 to 40 percent of the urban poor now
bother to get married in the first place.
“It’s too expensive,” she said. “You’re expected to have a big celebration, and they
simply can’t afford it.” That and the realization that once you enter into a marriage there’s no
getting out.
The social cost is compounded by the Philippine economy’s heavy reliance on its most
important export: cheap labor. An estimated 10 million Filipinos work abroad. Although men
used to dominate the field, the majority are now women. They work as nannies, nurses,
caregivers, maids, and shop clerks, sending home some $25 billion in 2013, according to the
Philippines’ central bank, to support families back home. Unsurprisingly, the long separations
are a strain on married life, and women who work overseas frequently discover that the money
they faithfully send home each month is supporting hubby and his new girlfriend.
Far from turning the Philippines into another Las Vegas, as suggested by President
Aquino, the divorce bill that has been put forward by De Jesus and the Gabriela Women’s Party
is very conservative and, according to its authors, respectful of the “cultural sensibilities in the
Philippines.” Grounds for divorce in this bill include physical violence against a spouse or child,
imprisonment of a spouse for more than six years, abandonment for more than a year, sexual
infidelity or perversion, bigamy, homosexuality, or drug addiction. Except in cases that involve
violence against women or children, the court would not be allowed to take any action for six
months after the initial filing — a kind of cooling-off period. The bill also obliges the court to
“take steps toward the reconciliation of the spouses” before granting the final decree.
Most importantly, the bill provides guidelines for the division of assets, child support,
and payment of damages to “the innocent spouse.”
De Jesus, the bill’s co-sponsor, says the Catholic Church remains the loudest opponent of
divorce because it “is afraid of losing its cultural dominance over the majority of the country.”De
Jesus, the bill’s co-sponsor, says the Catholic Church remains the loudest opponent of divorce
because it “is afraid of losing its cultural dominance over the majority of the country.” But she
noted that under the 1987 constitution, the separation between church and state in the Philippines
is supposed to be inviolable.
 The church and its faithful, De Jesus argues, are entitled to their beliefs on the sanctity of
marriage, but are not entitled to impose those beliefs on others who may disagree. The state, she
added, shouldn’t view divorce as a damnable sin, but rather as a civil right. “The state should
recognize that if you have a right to enter into a contract, you have the right to get out of it,” said
De Jesus.
The church begs to differ. “[Proponents of divorce] see marriage as a contract. For us, it
is a sacrament,” said the Rev. Edgardo Pangan, a canon lawyer who specializes in annulments.
“We cannot compromise with the laws of God.”

Who’s your daddy?

One result of the church’s opposition to divorce and its opposition to virtually every form
of contraceptive has been millions of “illegitimate” children. No one knows the number, but one
study suggests that about 30 percent of births in the Philippines go unregistered, often because of
the stigma of illegitimacy.
Former Senator Revilla, who has probably contributed more to this problem than anyone,
has at least acknowledged and tried to do something about it. He is the father of the so-called
Revilla Bill, which allows children born out of wedlock to legally use their father’s surname so
long as both biological parents give their consent.
“These children must be spared from the stigma attached to being ‘illegitimate,’ and their
parents’ faults must not be passed on to them,” he said in 2004. “It is the state’s responsibility to
shield them from unwarranted shame and discrimination.”
Revilla, who is said to be a generous provider to all his children, has also made
provisions to leave behind samples of his DNA so that any claims of paternity that arise after his
death can be verified.

V. Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide

range of things that involve choices that people face. Among the things that can be evaluated are
actions, laws, policies, character traits, and moral codes. Utilitarianism is a form of
consequentialism because it rests on the idea that it is the consequences or results of actions,
laws, policies, etc. that determine whether they are good or bad, right or wrong. In general,
whatever is being evaluated, we ought to choose the one that will produce the best overall
results. In the language of utilitarians, we should choose the option that “maximizes utility,” i.e.
that action or policy that produces the largest amount of good.
Utilitarianism appears to be a simple theory because it consists of only one evaluative
principle: Do what produces the best consequences. In fact, however, the theory is complex
because we cannot understand that single principle unless we know (at least) three things: a)
what things are good and bad; b) whose good (i.e. which individuals or groups) we should aim
to maximize; and c) whether actions, policies, etc. are made right or wrong by their actual
consequences (the results that our actions actually produce) or by their foreseeable consequences
(the results that we predict will occur based on the evidence that we have).

Actual Consequences or Foreseeable Consequences?

Utilitarians disagree about whether judgments of right and wrong should be based on the
actual consequences of actions or their foreseeable consequences. This issue arises when the
actual effects of actions differ from what we expected. One reason for adopting foreseeable
consequence utilitarianism is that it seems unfair to say that the rescuer acted wrongly because
the rescuer could not foresee the future bad effects of saving the drowning person. In response,
actual consequence utilitarians reply that there is a difference between evaluating an action and
evaluating the person who did the action. In their view, while the rescuer’s action was wrong, it
would be a mistake to blame or criticize the rescuer because the bad results of his act were
unforeseeable. They stress the difference between evaluating actions and evaluating the people
who perform them.
Foreseeable consequence utilitarians accept the distinction between evaluating actions
and evaluating the people who carry them out, but they see no reason to make the moral
rightness or wrongness of actions depend on facts that might be unknowable. For them, what is
right or wrong for a person to do depends on what is knowable by a person at a time. For this
reason, they claim that the person who rescued Hitler did the right thing, even though the actual
consequences were unfortunate.

Arguments for Act Utilitarianism

i. Why Act utilitarianism Maximizes Utility

If every action that we carry out yields more utility than any other action available to us, then
the total utility of all our actions will be the highest possible level of utility that we could bring
about. In other words, we can maximize the overall utility that is within our power to bring about
by maximizing the utility of each individual action that we perform. If we sometimes choose
actions that produce less utility than is possible, the total utility of our actions will be less than
the amount of goodness that we could have produced.

ii. Why Act Utilitarianism is Better than Traditional, Rule-based Moralities

Traditional moral codes often consist of sets of rules regarding types of actions. The Ten
Commandments, for example, focus on types of actions, telling us not to kill, steal, bear false
witness, commit adultery, or covet the things that belong to others. Although the Biblical sources
permit exceptions to these rules (such as killing in self-defense and punishing people for their
sins), the form of the commandments is absolute.

iii. Why Act Utilitarianism Makes Moral Judgments Objectively True

One advantage of act utilitarianism is that it shows how moral questions can have objectively
true answers. Often, people believe that morality is subjective and depends only on people’s
desires or sincere beliefs. Act utilitarianism, however, provides a method for showing which
moral beliefs are true and which are false.

Once we embrace the act utilitarian perspective, then every decision about how we
should act will depend on the actual or foreseeable consequences of the available options. If we
can predict the amount of utility/good results that will be produced by various possible actions,
then we can know which ones are right or wrong. Although some people doubt that we can
measure amounts of well-being, we in fact do this all the time. If two people are suffering and we
have enough medication for only one, we can often tell that one person is experiencing mild
discomfort while the other is in severe pain. Based on this judgment, we will be confident that
we can do more good by giving the medication to the person suffering extreme pain.
Although this case is very simple, it shows that we can have objectively true answers to
questions about what actions are morally right or wrong

CONCLUSION

The debate between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism highlights many important
issues about how we should make moral judgments. Act utilitarianism stresses the specific
context and the many individual features of the situations that pose moral problems, and it
presents a single method for dealing with these individual cases. Rule utilitarianism stresses the
recurrent features of human life and the ways in which similar needs and problems arise over and
over again. From this perspective, we need rules that deal with types or classes of actions:
killing, stealing, lying, cheating, taking care of our friends or family, punishing people for
crimes, aiding people in need, etc. Both of these perspectives, however, agree that the main
determinant of what is right or wrong is the relationship between what we do or what form our
moral code takes and what is the impact of our moral perspective on the level of people’s well-
being.

CHAPTER ASSESSMENT:

Answer the following questions:

1. What do you think about human values and current Covid-19 pandemic. Did values and
morality of human change a lot, or not?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

2. Do you think there is an essential connection between the morality of an action and the
morality of the intentions behind it?

__________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER 3
Expanding and Enlightening the Dilemma

Learning Objectives:
 To describe the different ethical theories of Aristotle and Eudaimonia
 To understand the different person ethical theories
 To explain the concept categorical imperative

INTRODUCTION
 The dilemma posed by the ethical theories in the immediately preceding chapter is its too
narrow and personal approach to morality. They focus too much on the differences and diversities
that they lost sight of those attributes which humanity might share in common. Personal preference
and self-interest cannot be the sole basis of morality, and to profess otherwise would only lead to
chaos and conflict.
While the recognition on these differences, both from an individual and cultural vantage point,
can be a key component in the establishment of ethical standards, this cannot be the only parameter
that we ought to use in evaluating our actions. In this chapter, we scrutinize other ethical theories
which, although not completely free from blemish, are more stable and established than those in
the previous chapter.

I. ARISTOTLE AND THE EUDAIMONIAN ETHICS

Who would say NO to fate if offered with a happy and good life? To say that we long for
happiness is an understatement – an insult to our aspirations and dreams. Happiness is our
perpetual battle-cry, its letters comprise our sigil and its syllables are lyrics to our songs. It is the
primary and ultimate of our decisions and acts. But as to the question what would make us happy
might vary from one person to another, and the variation might be as vast as our individual desires
and as vague as our deepest mysteries. Aristotle takes on the matter of the good life, with the
purpose of finding a universal human end upon which the notion of happiness is to be determined
– and having made such resolve, make this good and happy life as the basis and foundation of
morality.
Aristotle is one person whose name resonates through almost all era and school of thought in
the realm of philosophy. His influence is defiant to the limitation of time, and is affiant to a sundry
of disciplines other than philosophy – such as science, art, theology and politics.

II.A. THE EUDAIMONIA

The main bulk of his ethical theory is found on the book Nicomachean Ethics. He starts his
notion of ethics by working on the presumption that all nature is teleological, purposive. Every
being, every activity has an end – a purpose. And a thing is considered good if it fulfills its purpose,
its intended function. For instance, the function of a pen is to write, and a good pen is one that does
its function well. The same principle applies to human beings. Every human conduct has an end,
has a purpose. You going to school has an intended purpose; you giving flowers and saying sweet
libretti to someone is based on some end or goal. Our lives are not some mindless wanderings on
some meaningless niche, as our actions are n9ot some mechanically aiming at oblivion and
nothingness. “Every act and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim
at some good; and for this reason, the good has rightly been declared to be that which all things
aim”.

And in as much as the goodness of things are determined by the fulfillment of their functions,
so are human beings. In a social context, for example, functions are delegated. Social roles are
accorded to individuals depending on their capabilities and the society’s needs. A good lawyer,
doctor, accountant, carpenter, driver, cashier, student, and so on, is one who performs his/her
function well – as established by social norms. However, if goodness and badness is simply
dependent upon intention, upon purpose, then this is no different from moral relativism or egoism,
right? As long as my actions serve my purpose, then it wouldn’t matter if I actually end up hurting
others. So that if in stealing, my purpose is to enrich myself, and I was able to fulfill such purpose,
then the act of stealing becomes good.

Aristotle avoids this quagmire by arguing that there is a chief good; a purpose or end not left
within the caprice and whim of each person that is the ultimate criterion of morality. A good upon
which all other goods must follow. Since there cannot be an infinite regress of merely extrinsic
goods, there must be a highest good which all human activity ultimately aims. For Aristotle, this
chief or highest good is an innate end, a preordained essence. We were born with it. An “act is
good or bad depending on whether it contributes or deters us from our proper human end – the
telos or final goal at which human actions aim. That telos is eudaimonia, or happiness. In other
words, actions which help man achiever this telos is good, and those which blocks or hinders him
from such path is bad.

But if happiness is the ultimate goal, we must first ask “what is happiness” for Aristotle. What
is eudaimonia? What state is that which all human action aims towards? Is it anything and
everything that gives pleasure to the senses? Is it one of following some divine precept? Is it merely
being successful at one’s craft or one’s profession? For him, “happiness is not merely a subjective
state of pleasure or contentment but the kind of life we would always want to live if we understood
our essential nature. Just as knives and forks and wheels have functions, so does species, including
human species.” If this is the case, what then is the nature of human persons? What is the innate
function, our proper human end that we all have to fulfill in order to arrive at the eudaimonia?
Unlike things such as a hammer, a table, a car, whose functions we can immediately and easily
ascertain, the nature of human beings is far more complex – if at all there is a singular essence of
nature to all humans.

II.B. HUMAN NATURE

According to Aristotle, things of any variety have characteristics function that they are to
properly perform. The good for human beings, then, must essentially involve the entire proper
function of human life as a whole, and this must be an activity of the soul that expresses genuine
virtue of excellence.

Reason is the true self of every person, since it is the supreme and better part. It
will be strange, then, if he should choose not his own life, but some other’s. What
is naturally proper to every creature is the highest and pleasantest for him. And so,
to man, this will be the life of Reason, since Reason is, in the highest sense, a man’s
self.

To Aristotle, human beings are rational animals. We are capable of thinking. We think. This,
according to him, distinguishes us from all other beings. It is our nature, therefore, to maximize
our rationality is our eudaimonia. “Our function (essence) is to live according to reason and thereby
to become a certain sort of highly rational, disciplined being. In other words, human beings should
aim at a life in full conformity with their rational natures.

But this rational nature as an end would be ideal, to say the least, if it cannot find its
manifestation in the real world. How will our being rational help us in achieving eudaimonia? To
this he turns to politics:
If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake,
and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else, clearly this must
be the good and the chief good. Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a great
influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more
likely to hit upon what we should? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine
what it is and of which of the sciences or capacities it is the object. It would seem
to belong to the most authoritative art and that which is most truly the master art.
And POLITCS appears to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the
sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should learn
and up to what point they should learn them… For even if the end is the same for a
single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater
and more complete both to attain and to preserve; for though it is worthwhile to
attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation
or for city-states.

To Aristotle, ethics is more than a theory; it is practiced, lived. It is not some dead
letter that simply fell down from the heavens to dictate the dos and don’ts of human conduct;
on the contrary, it is a practical science with high regard to the moral agent, his intentions,
and the circumstances surrounding his/her actions. This can be deduced from the fact that he
treats ethics as a branch of politics, and hence, considers the morality of a person as being
juxtaposed to his political nature. Therefore, when Aristotle speaks of the eudaimonia, he
pertains to a state of happiness which involves a good relationship between individuals and
their communities, and the inclusion of the idea of common good. He speaks of a condition
where individuals can live well in communities. This, to Aristotle, is the logical and
necessary end of being rational – as it is also our nature to be political.
And how do we live well in our communities? How can we treat each other fairly
without compromising either individual or common good? This question he addressed by
introducing the idea of moral virtues. For Aristotle, “virtues indicate the kind of moral-
political characteristics necessary for people to attain happiness. By living well, we acquire
the right habits. These habits are in fact virtues. The virtues are to be sought as best guarantee
to the happy life.”

II.C. THE GOLDEN MEAN

The morality virtuous life consists in living in moderation, and by this he means the
mean between the opposing vices of excess and deficiency. It is the middle between too
much and too little, for both extremes, to Aristotle, is always wrong. Virtue lies in the middle.

VICE OF VIRTUOUS MEAN VICE OF EXCESS

DEFICIENCY
Cowardice Courage Rashness
Insensibility Temperature Intemperance
Illiberality Liberality Prodigality
Pettiness Munificence Vulgarity
Humble-mindedness High-mindedness Vaingloriness
Want of Ambition Right Ambition Over-ambition
Spiritlessness Good Temper Irascibility
Surliness Friendly Civility Obsequiousness
Ironical Depreciation Sincerity Boastfulness
Boorishness Wittiness Buffoonery
Shamelessness Modesty Bashfulness
Callousness Just Resentment Spitefulness

I. IMMANUEL KANT AND THE ETHICS OF DUTY

What makes a right act right? A teleologist would look at the consequences of the
action to address this question. If the result of my actions are good, then it is right; if not,
then the vice versa is the answer – as can gleaned from the principles ushered in by egoism
and utilitarianism. “Moral rightness and wrongness are determined by nonmoral values (for
example happiness or utility). To this extent, the end justifies the means. The deontological
answer to this question is quite opposite. The end never justifies the means. Indeed, you must
do your duty whatever the consequences, simply because it is your duty. It is not the
consequence that determine the rightness or wrongness of the act but certain features of the
act itself.” In other words, for a deontologist, the consequences are but secondary to your
pursuit of the right or good. An act is right or moral because it is its nature and you do it not
for some selfish motive but because it is your duty.

Immanuel Kant’s ethics is a deontological one, as it works on the presumption that we

have to do good not because we feel like doing it, or because it is convenient, or because of
the benefits we can get from it – we do good because that is our duty. We act morally for the
sake of duty. For Kant, it is not our desires that determine morality, but our rational will.
Ethics is within the realm of reason, and it is sufficient for establishing moral precepts. And
since it is based on reason, and not upon unearthly contingencies, then it is transcendent and
universally binding. It applies to everyone, since reason is something shared by all –
regardless of gender, preference and culture.

Moreover, for Kant, an act’s moral worth depends on the reason for which it was
done. It is not enough that an act conforms to duty; it must also be done for the sake of duty.
It must be done out of a concern for what is morally right, not out of some self-serving
motive. The act is done just because it is the right thing to do. Obviously, Kant’s ethics is
taking a different route from those taken by relativism, egoism and utilitarianism.

… tickle your imagination …

DUTY AND SELF-INTEREST: THE GROCER EXAMPLE.

Kant’s first example, in explaining the concept of acting for the sake of duty, is of a grocer
dealing with inexperienced customers. It is often a merchant’s self-interest to be honest, but
not always. If we imagine a neighborhood grocery store where the grocer knows almost all
of the customers, if those customers are long-term patrons and if they know one another, and
if there is a competitor grocery store, then it is clearly the grocer’s self-interest to be honest.
The grocer depends on repeat business and if the grocer cheats even a few of the regular
customers, they will probably tell others, and the grocer’s business will be seriously hurt.

In this example, it can be seen how self-interest is not a sufficient motive or guarantee that
our actions shall be moral or upright, since self-interest, or what is good for a person, may
vary depending on the circumstance. Moreover, self-interest may even lead to unethical
behavior. In the above example, the grocer may resort to dishonest mechanism if he can
bully his way out of it. And finally, self-interest, although convenient to the doer, might run
in conflict with the bigger collective interest. If it is my self-interest to unjustly enrich myself
at the expense of the company I am working for, then me pursuing this action would be
detrimental to others.

III.A. THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

But then how would we know what our duties are? How are we to determine what
acts we ought to do and not to do? He used the categorical imperative as a characterization
of his basic moral concepts. He started with the general presumption of morality that we are
self-determining and free agents. We have the capacity to choose. We are able to determine
what we want – a particular goal. And corollary to this, we have the freedom to choose the
actions through which we are to attain said goal. The goal we call end and the actions we
use to achieve such we call means. From this, Kant would go on to say that there are ends
which are compulsory in nature; ends that must be pursued as a duty.

According to Kant, we are agents who are self-directing in the sense that we have
the capacity to step back from our natural desires, reflect on them, consider whether
and how we should satisfy them, and to be moved by them only on the basis of such
reflections. An inclination (that is, a habitual empirical desire, such as hunger)
moves us to act only when we choose to set its object as an end for ourselves. This
choice then sets us the task of selecting or devising a means to that end. If I see an
apple in a tree and a desire to eat it occurs to me, then I will eat it only id I first
decide to make eating it my end, and then devise a means (such as climbing the tree,
or reaching for the apple with a stick) to achieve the end. Setting an end is the most
basic normative act, because there is no action without an end to be produced by it.

Setting an end thus subjects me to a normative principle commanding me to perform

the action required as a means to an end. Kant calls this principle as hypothetical
imperative.

It is called “imperative” because it is a command of reason requiring the agent to

do something; it is “hypothetical” because the command governs our action only
on the condition that we will end in question. By contrast, an imperative that has no
such condition would be called “categorical imperative”.
 For Kant, categorical imperatives are precepts that are unconditional – as opposed to
one that is hypothetical. And as mentioned above, they are imperatives because they are
mandates by duty, dictate us what to do – the ought. “A moral imperative is categorical
because its function is not to advise us how to reach some prior end of ours that is based on
what we happen to want or our contingent ends. Its rational bindingness is therefore not
conditional on our setting any prior end.” According to Kant, there are three (3) propositions
to morality. They are as follows:

1. The First Propositions of Morality: An action must be done from a sense of

duty, if it is to have moral worth.
2. The Second Proposition of Morality: An action done from duty derives its
moral worth, not from the purpose which is to be attained by it, but from the
maxim by which it is determined, and therefore does not depend on the
realization of the object of the action, but merely on the principle of volition
by which the action has taken place, without regard to any object of desire.
3. The Third Proposition of Morality: Duty is the necessity of acting for the law.

From these formulations of the categorical imperative, it can be seen that Kant is
consistent with his goal of universalizing morality and removing it from the shackles of
individualism and contingency. He asserts that each action has its own intrinsic value, and
so when we do good, we do it for its own sake and not for some external contingent value or
worth. In the realm of categorical imperative, there are no ifs and buts. Its formulation is
simple: Do! Again, ultimately, these imperatives are based on reasons, as it is only reason
that can encompass our individualities. Therefore, Kant believes that you must “always act
in such a way that you can will that the maxim behind your action can be willed as a
universal law.”

To Kant, all our actions are motivated by our personal maxims. But these maxims
cannot by themselves be the basis of morality, for in doing so, Kantian ethics would be no
different with that of egoism. These maxims must go from being personal, to one applicable
to everyone – i.e., a universal law. By maxim, Kant means the general rule in accordance
with which the agent intends to act; by law, he means an objective principle, a maxim which
passes the test of universalizability. The categorical imperative is the way to apply the
universalizability test. It enables us to stand outside our personal maxims and estimate
impartially and impersonally whether they are suitable as principles for all of us to live by.
If you could consistently will that everyone would do some type of action, then there is an
application of the categorical imperative enjoining the type of action. In other words, the
measure of a maxim is whether it survives the test of being translated from a maxim to a
categorical imperative – that is, into a maxim that would be universally binding on everyone.
Thus, the maxim has threefold relationship: 1) to the motivating reasons of the agent; 2) to
the act itself; and 3) to a universal system of reasons.

…tickle your imagination…

One of the strongest examples given by Kant to show how the categorical imperative is used
is in the act of lying. If people tell a lie, what they are doing in effect is saying that it is
permissible to deceive another person for personal gain of some kind. This is the implicit
maxim behind their action. Yet imagine what would happen if we willed that anyone in our
society that depend on believing what another person says. When we sign a check, we are
giving our word that we have the funds to cover it; when we sign a contract, we are promising
to abide by the terms of that agreement; when we make a date to meet a friend for dinner,
we are saying we will show up at the appointment time. But imagine if we were to adopt the
maxim that people can lie whenever they think it is to their benefit to do so. If we will that
everyone adopts such a maxim, then we undermine the very possibility of gaining an
advantage from our own lying – for if this maxim were universally accepted, no one would
believe what anyone else said or promised because they would know that it could easily be
a lie. We cannot consistently will that everyone lie or make false promises whenever it is to
their personal advantage to do so. For this would undermine the credibility of our own lies
and thus negate their effectiveness. Hence this maxim (i.e., lying for personal gain) cannot
be willed as a universal law. If I universalize this principle of lying or promising without
intending to keep them, the resulting state of affairs would be self-defeating. For no one in
his right mind would take promises as promises unless there was the expectation of
fulfillment. And since lying failed the universalizability criterion, then it is immoral. So, the
contrary, which is to tell the truth, we can assume to be a universal law.

But would there be exceptions to this? Would there be instances when lying can be morally
permissible, without compromising the mandate of moral law? Kant, although reluctantly,
declares that universalizability need not exclude exceptions, provided that the exception is
not exclusive to oneself – and the same can also be willed upon everyone. “The classic
example involves the lying to the Nazis. If you are sheltering Jews during the World War II,
and the Gestapo comes to your door and asks whether you are hiding any Jews, are you
obligated to tell the Gestapo where the Jews are? What would the maxim behind your action
be?” The maxim can go like this: A person is justified to lie if it will result in preventing
killing of innocent people. The question is: would it pass the universalizability test? Can it
be considered as a categorical imperative? While others would argue that it wouldn’t, and
therefore, everyone should stick with telling the truth, others are of the impression that the
categorical imperatives are not that rigid. Respect for life, as will be discussed hereafter, is
also a categorical imperative in Kantian ethics – and this can provide justification for the
Gestapo example as an exemption to the impermissibility of lying.

III.B. HUMANITY AS AN END IN ITSELF

While the first formulation, as discussed above, focuses on the universal law, Kant’s
second formulation of the categorical imperative gives emphasis of respect for humanity.
For while the first one stresses on the intrinsic value of actions as the main determinant of
its morality, the second highlights the intrinsic value of human beings – as an end in
themselves and never merely as a means to an end. While this second formulation seems to
depart from the high standards that Kant himself has set for morality, it is nonetheless equally
helpful in humanizing the concept of ethics.

…as a matter of fact…

In October 2010, after the appearance of a research paper by Susan M. Reverby of Wellesley
College, the United States formally apologized to the government and people of Guatemala
for the experiments that the United States has conducted on Guatemalans in 1946-1948.
Using a grant from the National Institute of Health, which ultimately comes from the tax
dollars of American citizens, the United States Public Health Service conducted syphilis
experiments on Guatemalan prisoners, patients in mental hospitals, and soldiers. They were
infected with syphilis without informed consent in order to study the effectiveness of
penicillin in dealing with venereal diseases. Prostitutes with syphilis were paid to have sex
with the prisoners, and in some cases, they were infected directly with spinal punctures. It is
not known whether they were all successfully cured through the use of penicillin. These
experiments took place at the same time that the United States was prosecuting Nazi doctors
as war criminals for their experiments on prisoners during WWII.

Twenty years after the beginning of the Guatemalan experiments, other researchers in the
United States began infecting mentally retarded children in the Willowbrook State School,
New York, with hepatitis to follow the development of the disease and to test whether
gamma globulin injections were an effective protection against hepatitis. Children were not
admitted to Willowbrook unless their parents consented to the experiments. These studies
continued until 1970.

In the above-mentioned cases, it clearly shows how humans can be used as tools, as
commodities – as a means to an end. But for Kant, no matter how noble or ground-breaking
the intention is, this is impermissible. This is immoral. For him, humans are and end in
themselves – meaning, we are not objects that can be used in however manner other people
choose. We are not things whose values are merely imposed by others. Things have no value
outside of those given to them or assigned upon them. We human beings, rational that we
are, have the innate capacity to determine our own meaning and purpose. Human beings
have intrinsic value and dignity that needs to be respected. In his work, Groundwork of
Metaphysics of Morals, Kant said: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simple as a means, but
always at the same time as an end.

Therefore, we ought to respect each other, not because we want to or because we

think others deserve the same, but because it is our duty to do so – it is imperative.

Most fundamentally, respect demands that we do not take away the conditions of
moral agency or autonomy from other people. Central to Kant’s understanding of
autonomy is the ability to make up one’s own mind on the basis o relevant
information. Therefore, this will include: 1) not allowing them access to
information relevant to their own decisions or 2) not allowing them to act on the
basis of such information. On the matter of punishment, for example, it would be
insulting and a mark of disrespect if we did not punish a criminal. In punishing
people, we treat them as responsible, as full-fledged moral agents. To do less is to
show a lack of respect for them.

Respect also involves recognizing the unique value of each individual and the fact
that each person is priceless. According to Kant, if something has a relative value,
then it has a price. If it has a price, it can be replaced by something else of equivalent
value. If it has an absolute value, it has dignity and not for sale. It is also
irreplaceable. Human beings do not have a price; rather, they have absolute value,
are unique, and cannot be substituted for the other.
 CHAPTER 4
BRINGING THE YARDSTICK INTO THE CORPORATE
WORLD

I. INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapters, we have established that human beings are moral agents that as
free rational beings, we are morally responsible for the consequences of our actions; and as socio-
political beings, we share in the common burden of making this world a better place of abode. Our
moral and social responsibilities are not limited to the avoidance of evil, but extends, more
importantly I should say, to the pursuit of the common good and general welfare. And with the
growing complexities of social existence and political expectations, there arose, for the past few
decades, an emergent trend to institutionalize. ethical norms, internationalize socially accepted
behaviors and champion the fair participation in wealth diffusion.
This recognition, for example, finds manifestation in the different provisions of the 1987
Philippines Constitution that epitomize the significance of ethical considerations and social
equality:

 Article II, SECTION 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and
 guarantees full respect for human rights.
 SECTION 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous 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.
 SECTION 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation.- building, and shall
ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
 SECTION 15. The States shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and
instill health consciousness among them.
 SECTION 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
 Article XIII, SECTION 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequalities by equitably
diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
 SECTION 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create
economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.

And while ethical standards may vary depending on the school of thought upon whose ideals
they are based, there is nonetheless a consensus that standards need to be clearly formulated, firmly
established and faithfully complied with, in the different facets of society. One of these social
forces where moral and social responsibility is becoming the nascent fad is the corporate world.
As the most dominant figure in the economic sphere, the call for corporations and capitalists to
actively participate in the continuous effort to build a more progressive, just and humane society
is growing louder-a beckoning which pleads them to drop more coins in the cauldron of labor and
the poor in order to effect a social equilibrium that is slowly being reduced from a reverie into an
illusion. "
The power of corporations has grown phenomenally during the past three decades as
corporations have become more global and new markets have emerged... As a result, as companies
increase in size and geographic representation, they also increase in power. From global marketing
to global political lobbying, corporations use these resources to enhance there I ability to become
financially stronger. As a result, it could be argued that corporations have become more powerful
in many areas as compared with governments" With the growth in economic clout and influence
came the equally potent demand for more social involvement and moral accountability from the
ranks of the powerful capitalists. And while this cry has been ringing through the alleys of society
for the past few decades already, the response to it has not been as swift as needed.

And it seems that of late, this has been the vogue - both on how corporations portray themselves
and in how consumers choose the brand names they will support. This in turn led to the
solidification of the concepts of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ethical business
practices. Liz Maw, CEO of nonprofit organization Net Impact, said "As consumers awareness
about global social issues continues to grow, so does the importance these customers place on CSR
when choosing where to shop." This is the reason why most corporations and businesses are
starting to shape a self-image whose contours are not only shaded with hues of profit-making
ventures, but also tones of social and environmental involvement.

"Technology has brought global connectivity and enabled advocacy and awareness for social
situations that were once obscure," said Alexis Magnan-Callaway, whose fashion company Pax
Cult donates 10 percent of its profits to an organization of the customer's choice. "Millennials are
redefining what it means to connect and give back through this technology It's not just about having
a recycling program or sustainable products. People want to feel good about what their dollar is
doing."

These concepts will be further discussed later.

II. CORPORATE WORLD FROM THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

 Before we discuss the notion of ethics, as applied in companies and corporations, it will be
helpful to first look at the different forms through which business are conducted and their identities,
legally speaking. More specifically, we will be using the Philippine legal system as our framework.
There are at least three (3) recognized basic manners through which a person may conduct business
in the Philippines-single proprietorship, partnership and corporation.

II.A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP

Under this arrangement, a person personally conducts business under his name or a
business name. The simplest example to this would be the sari-sari stores found in almost every
corner of our streets. From a legal standpoint, a business of this kind has no personality separate
and distinct from the proprietor. In other words, in terms of liabilities, the owner and his business
are one and the same. If the business is sued, say fraud, then it is the owner who is actually being
sued. The case is different in partnership and corporation.

II.B. PARTNERSHIP

A partnership is defined under the Civil Code of the Philippines (Art. 1767) as one where
two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund
with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. An example of a partnership is a law
firm. Different from a sole proprietorship, a partnership has a separate and distinct personality
from that of the partners. It means that the properties registered under the partnership is no longer
owned by its partners. Hence, if a case is filed against the partnership, as a general rule the partners
cannot be held liable with their own personal properties.
Under Article 1772 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, a partnership must be registered
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) where its capital is P3,000 or more. Take
note, however, that the registration is not a prerequisite for the partnership to acquire a separate
legal personality from its partners. Such personality is acquired from the moment of the creation
of the partnership.

II.C. CORPORATION

A corporation, as defined under the Corporation Code of the Philippines, is an artificial

being created by operation of law, having the right of succession and the attributes and properties
expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence. As an artificial being a corporation (like a
partnership) has a separate and distinct personality from its stockholders and directors. As such,
the corporation is entitled to its own properties, and conversely, its properties are not the properties
of its stockholders, directors and officers. Even if a person owns 99% of the stocks of a corporation,
legally speaking, he/she does not own the properties that are named under the corporation.
A corporation can also incur obligations, which are not, strictly speaking the obligations of
its stockholders, directors and officers. Similarly, therefore, the personal obligations of its
stockholders, directors and officers are not the obligations of the corporation.
Unlike a partnership, however, a corporation acquires its separate legal personality only
after the issuance of a Certificate of Incorporation by the SEC

Partnership Corporation
As to the manner of creation Created by mere agreement
Commences only from the
of the partners.
issuance of the Certificate of
Incorporation by the SEC.
As to the number of Even two persons may form a Needs at least five (5)
organizers partnership. incorporators.

Authority of those who There is mutual agency in Stockholders are not in

compose partnership and each general partnership and each agents of
partner can represent and bind the corporation in the absence
the partnership. of express authority.
Transfer of Interest A partner's interest to the Corporate shares are freely
partnership cannot be transferrable without the
transferred without the consent of other stockholders,
consent of the other partners. unless there is a stipulation.
Succession There is right of succession in There is a right of succession
 partnership as death of a in a corporation.
general partner dissolves the
partnership.

III. BUSINESS ETHICS

Corporations and entrepreneurial ventures affect billions of lives. The products they
manufacture and the services they provide are inevitable parts of our everyday activities and
endeavors- as their offers cover the least of our needs to the most luxurious of superfluities. And
because of the scope of their influence to modern-day society, it is no longer acceptable lor a
corporation to experience economic prosperity in isolation from those agents impacted by its
actions. A firm must now focus its attention on both increasing its bottom line and being a good
corporate citizen. Keeping abreast of global trends and remaining committed to financial
obligations to deliver both private and public benefits have forced organizations to reshape their
frameworks, rules and business models. This led to the standardization of ethical norms within
businesses and corporations.
Simply put, business ethics are sets of principles and standards that determine acceptable
conduct in business organizations. Johnson and Scholes provide the different levels of business
ethics, as it has evolved over time:

 the macro level: the role of business in the national and international organization of
society the relative virtues of different political/social systems, such as free enterprise,
centrally planned economies, etc. international relationships and the role of business on
an international scale
 the corporate level: ethical issues facing individual corporate entities (private and public
sector) when formulating and implementing strategies
 the individual level: the behavior and actions of individuals within organizations

At the highest (macro) level, we ask the fundamental question of the role of business in
society and what governance model works best to deliver the most benefits in a moral and
responsible way. Morality itself is, of course a widely interpretable concept but for this purpose
we will assume a broad understanding: that of proper behavior and knowing the difference between
right and wrong", without specifying what constitutes right and wrong (This is a whole debate unto
itself and subject to cultural and individual relativism). Suffice it to say here that morality sets the
stage for ethics, and therefore the code of conduct by which business activity is carried out and
allowed to be carried out by national and international rules and standards.
At the corporate level, the interpretation of those rules and standards is often what defines
business ethics, affected by the specific circumstances and socio-cultural context in which the
business or public sector organization is operating. While all corporate entities in theory are
directly influenced by personal morality and ethics, in practice there is often a gap between the
behavior of individuals within the working environment and outside it. This, we would argue, is
one of the major factors leading to mistrust of big business, where the separation of ownership and
management is greatest, and so open to abuse. Even if directors/senior managers are not acting
unethically, it is likely they would act differently if the money and the company about which they
are making decisions were their own. (There are obvious exceptions as with any generalization.)
At the individual level, this separation creates a distinct ethical model business ethics-which,
depending on factors like personality, peer pressure and the socio-political environment, can be
closer or further away from the individuals own moral/ethical code of conduct. With limited
liability meaning individuals are protected this can affect smaller businesses too as the
consequences of one's actions has a greatly reduced impact on personal circumstances. Clearly,
every corporate entity is directly affected by the individual's moral and ethical stance- and any
difference between business and personal ethics is itself arguably an indictment of that individual
stance as it implies some level of double standards.
The acceptability of behavior in business is (generally) determined by customers,
competitors, government regulators, interest groups, and the public, as well as each individual's
personal moral principles and values. And while most corporate ethical standards are primarily
based upon established and well-accepted fundamental ethics, some of which have been discussed
in Chapters Two and Three, the unpredictability and volatility of the economic stadium calls for
its flexibility in adopting to the changing demands of time. The growth of the concept of business
ethics in the past few decades lends proof to this truism.
 As can be gleaned from the immediately preceding table, the progression in the scope of
business ethics is highly determined and influenced by the social issues that embraces its present
milieu and context - which is not, in any way, surprising.

IV. WHY SHOULD CORPORATIONS BE GOOD

But aside from social pressure, are there other factors that would motivate, if not compel,
corporations into becoming agents of moral and social transformations? For while the scenario of
a society composed of morally-inclined corporations would be a masterpiece of magnitude
proportion, we cannot deny the fact that one of the primary impetus for their existence is to gain
profit from their entrepreneurial ventures. And while virtue, as Aristotle put it should be the end
in itself, and the right thing or conduct, according to Kant, must be pursued as duty more than
anything else, these corporations are no angels, and charity is not their middle name.
So, what other consideration would incentivize corporations into painting their walls with
ethical touchstones and devout their resources to pressing social and environmental issues? Does
being ethical pay off at least from an entrepreneurial perspective? Will it open the floodgates for
economic success, or at least contribute to such pursuit?
The answer to all these questions is simple-not necessarily. Being ethical or socially
responsible does not guarantee business success; as a matter of fact, it even involves the risk of
commercial loss - the risk of shelling out more than what comes in; of not being able to gain
considerable return in investing in charitable works. Other than this risk, there is also that cultural
impression that sometimes dishonesty can even hasten the pecuniary growth of one's business –
that sometimes, cheating actually helps. And when confronted with condemnatory eyes, the normal
response would be "everyone does it anyway". Students cheat to pass exams, businessmen cheat
to pay less taxes, employers cheat to give less to workers, and employees cheat to get back at their
unfair bosses. David Callahan defines cheating as "any action in which an individual breaks the
rules to benefit his or her own self-interests whether it is academically, professionally, or
financially."
Callahan further states that "cheating culture is supported by a 'Winner Takes all' attitude.
Each individual will do whatever it takes to get ahead and win at every opportunity he or she has
in life. Whether it is the most billable hours of a lawyer or the largest amount of stock options by
a CEO, the competitive spirit of the cheating culture supports winning instead of playing the game
of life. Furthermore, the increased emphasis on material wealth enhances the motivation of
individuals to succeed to get their just rewards. The cheating culture also glamorizes the wealthy
and powerful and increases the temptation of all members of society to also aspire for the top of
the 'material pinnacle'. In addition, once you have reached the 'winning class', the incentives to
cheat increase because the rewards are larger and the enforcement of the rules is weak or
nonexistent.”
But while cheating has its pragmatic perks, it has, and more often than not, grave
repercussions. Take the former CEO of Yahoo, Scott Thompson, for instance.

T
Thompson had claimed he had received a bachelor's degree in accounting and computer
science from Stonehill College. In actuality, Thompson had received a bachelor of science degree
in business administration with a major in accounting from Stonehill College. By falsifying his
credentials. he apparently assumed that his additional degree would "fit more comfortably with the
expectations of a Web-based technology company such as Yahoo. The error was not discovered
by anyone within Yahoo but by one of Yahoo's investors, Daniel Loeb. Loeb did a simple Google
search and discovered the error in Thompson's resume. Yahoo did not use a background-checking
firm before hiring Thompson... Thompson had only been employed by Yahoo for 4 months and
was expected to be the person to correct the declining financial performance of the firm. Thompson
had to forfeit $22.5 million in potential stock options and a $1.5 million cash bonus and $1 million
salary.

Thompson follows a long list of top executives who misrepresented themselves by lying
about the credentials. In 2002, Bausch & Lomb CEO Ronald Zarrella falsely claimed that he had
received a master of business administration (MBA) from New York University. He offered to
resign, but the board did not accept his resignation. In 2006, RadioShack CEO David Edmondson
had to resign when he stated he had a bachelor of science degree from Pacific Coast Baptist College
when he had only a certificate, which had fewer requirements than a bachelor degree. In 2008,
Herbalife president and chief operating officer, Gregory Probert, resigned when it was discovered
that he did not graduate from California State University, Los Angeles, with an MBA. He never
completes all the requirements of the program yet claimed this credential on at least 19 different
regulatory filings. Misleading others pertaining to one's accomplishments is just one of the many
avenues available to people to use their own unethical behavior for their own personal gain

So, if the incentive to cheat is equally enticing, although similarly risky as well, what else
would motivate corporations to be honest and ethical? Actually, the truth is, neither of the other
factors in entrepreneurship, such as effective management, respectable advertising, top-notch
customer service, or even highly trained cheating strategies, guarantee instant ascent to the Mt.
Olympus of entrepreneurial deities. So, it is not a matter of whether it assures victory, but whether
it contributes positively to entrepreneurial success.
So, we ask: what does adherence to ethical standard contribute to business success then?
In a highly competitive world, sometimes it takes but one good nuance in order to set one business
or corporation apart from all the rest. That nuance might be found in creating an ethical
environment within the corporation. Most business analysts are of the suggestion that there are at
least two positive results that a corporation can derive from such endeavor: the creation of good
public image and reputation and the fostering of committed employees to the cause of the
corporation.
People buy from those they trust; investors allot capital to companies they believe will not
squander their hard-earned money; distributors deal with corporations of respectable standing. In
other words, with good reputation comes trust and confidence, which, although not necessarily,
can boost one's marketability among its stakeholders (customers, employees, suppliers,
distributors, investors, creditors, communities, governments, etc.). Enhancing public repute can be
achieved by either maintaining a good moral standing through its policies and practices, or by
participating in the resolution of social and economic predicaments.
Good reputation is commonly being tagged with socially responsible businesses and
corporations, and according to some business analysts. "The pursuit of profits and economic
progress is not a license to ignore community norms, values, and standards of respect, integrity,
and quality. Improved business performance, profits and economic progress come to those who
effectively and efficiently foster and meet the reasonable expectations of their primary
stakeholders. Success for any business is ultimately measured in profits and losses, and the socially
responsible business generates the capital and revenues required to operate and stay in business
over the long haul. The socially responsible business must generate enough revenue to cover the
real cost of capital, the risks and uncertainties of future economic activity, and the needs of its
workers and pensioners.
Other than gaining good public reputation, improving one's ethical image also creates a
healthy working environment within, which in turn molds happy and satisfied employees.
Contentment among employees would then nurture upon them a sense of commitment to the
success of the business. "There is a strong positive relationship between the ethical standards of a
firm and the commitment of its employees to the common good of the firm. Where a firm is
managed in a selfish manner, that is to say, in a manner that takes into account only the interests
of those who control it, its employees will tend to adopt the same attitude. This is in part
spontaneous 'doing as you are done by, and in part a natural response to the character of the firm's
objectives: after all, why should employees sacrifice their own individual interests in order that
some other people may enrich themselves? On they contrary, in an ethical firm employee have
reasons to trust that if the firm prospers, they will share in that prosperity.
In the best-selling book In Search of Excellence, Peters and Waterman said: "Our guess is
that those companies with overriding financial objectives may do a pretty good job of motivating
the top fifteen - even fifty. But those objectives seldom add much zest to life down the line, to the
tens of thousands (or more) who make, sell and service the product. By offering meaning as well
as money, they give their employees a mission as well as a sense of feeling great. The institution
provides guiding belief and creates...a sense of producing something of quality that is generally
valued. "
If the employees believe that there is a high level of trust within the organization, it will
reduce the employees' level of uncertainty and anxiety. As positive actions by the employees are
supported by the organization, employees' level of trust increases. Therefore, as the level of trust
increases, the employees feel more confident that following high ethical standards will be
rewarded and those who do not follow the ethical standards of the firm will be punished.
Furthermore, trust allows the employee to believe that he or she will be able to blow the whistle
on other employees who are performing unethical acts without being punished for doing so.
Managers can demonstrate their commitment in developing a trusting relationship with their
subordinates by their actions, which include being consistent and predictable, having integrity,
sharing information with the subordinates, delegating decision-making responsibilities, showing
concern for others, and standing by the employees. This pattern of behavior by the manager
strengthens the level of trust the subordinates have for the manager, which may result in the
employees being more likely to take initiative to solve problems, help colleagues support the firm,
go beyond the minimum requirements of the job, and enhance the level of loyalty they have toward
the firm.

V. CODE OF ETHICS IN CORPORATIONS

In as much as the actual conduct of ethical considerations in corporations and businesses

is far from impeccable, efforts to at least incorporate them in their policies are evident. One definite
manifestation of this attempt to integrate moral standards in corporations is through the
institutionalization of company code of ethics. While the compliance therewith might not be
flawless, and normally are nothing more than mere words glued in their walls or glorified in their
webpages, it nonetheless shows that the society is aware and is vigilant as regards the
responsibilities of these big corporations and capitalists.
Briefly, a code of ethics sets out the company's values, ethical standards, and
responsibilities. It is the law that binds the conduct of employers and employees alike. It provides
for the general ideals and values upon which a company's internal policies and external affairs are
based. Below are some examples of company code of ethics:

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY CODE OF BUSINESS

CONDUCT AND ETHICS

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (“PLDT" or the "Company") is dedicated

to doing business in accordance with the highest standards of ethics. The Company, its directors,
officers, and employees endeavor to promote a culture of good corporate governance by observing
and maintaining its core business principles of accountability, integrity, fairness, and transparency
in their relationships among themselves and with the Company's customers, suppliers, competitors,
business partners, governments, regulators and the public.
This Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the "Code") sets forth the Company's business
principles and values which shall guide and govern all business relationships of the Company, its
directors, officers and employees, including their decisions and actions when performing their
respective duties and responsibilities.

THE FOUNDATION OF BUSINESS ETHICS: PRINCIPLES AND VALUES

In simple terms, the spirit of the Code means that all actions of the Company, its directors,
officers and employees must, at all times, be consistent with the principles of accountability,
integrity, fairness and transparency which are defined as follows:

A. Accountability- We shall take full responsibility for all our business decisions,
actions/inactions, and conduct, and shall perform our duties and functions with utmost
responsibility, integrity, honesty, loyalty and efficiency. We are accountable to the Company and
its stakeholders (employees, customers, shareholders and business partners) all of whom we vow
to serve to the best of our ability.

B. Integrity - We shall act righteously, morally and legally. We shall uphold the simple truth that
'honesty is the best policy and endeavor to act under the highest standards of ethics.
C. Fairness- We shall uphold the value of justice and fair play amongst everyone we deal with,
both internally and externally, striving always to look for a win-win situation.

D. Transparency - We shall uphold the value of truthfulness in everything we do coupled with

the quality of being open to scrutiny as we provide and disclose accurate material information in
a timely manner.

STANDARDS OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS

Below are the commitments of the Company, its directors, officers and employees in their behavior
and various business dealings.
A. COMPLIANCE

1. Engage in honest conduct and comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including
prohibitions on insider trading, both in letter and spirit. Demands brought on by prevailing business
conditions or perceived pressures are not excuses for violating any law, rules or regulation.

2. Personally adhere to the standards and restrictions imposed by those laws, rules and regulations.

3. Avoid the direct or indirect commission of bribery and corruption of representatives of

governments or regulators to facilitate any transaction or gain any perceived or actual favor or
advantage, excluding permissible additional payments for routine governmental actions allowed
by all applicable laws and regulations.

B. COMPETITION AND FAIR DEALING

1. Avoid taking unfair advantage of anyone through manipulation, concealment, abuse of

privileged information, misrepresentation of material facts, or any unfair dealing practice.

2. Deal fairly with the Company's customers, service providers, suppliers, competitors and
employees.

C. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION AND PROPER USE OF PROPERTY

1. Maintain and safeguard the confidentiality of information entrusted by the Company, 'its
subsidiaries, affiliates, customers, business partners, or such other parties with whom the Company
relates, except when disclosure is authorized or legally mandated. Confidential information
includes any non-public information that might be of use to competitors, or harmful to the
Company, its subsidiaries, affiliates, customers, business partners, or such other parties with whom
the Company relates, if disclosed.

2. Follow Company policy and applicable laws regarding business records retention. Ensure that
records are not altered, concealed, destroyed or falsified to impede, obstruct or influence any
investigation by, or proceeding before any official Company committee or body, governmental,
regulatory or judicial body having jurisdiction.

3. Avoid trading any of the Company's securities or those of its subsidiaries and affiliates using
price sensitive information that is not normally available publicly, and obtained by reason of
position, contact within, or other relationship with the Company.

4. Use Company property and resources, including Company time, supplies and software,
efficiently, responsibly and only for legitimate business purposes.

5. Protect the assets of the Company from loss, damage, misuse or theft.

D. CONFLICTS OF OPPORTUNITIES INTEREST AND CORPORATE

1. Avoid any actual or apparent conflicts of interest between your private interest, including the
private interest of a member of your family, and the interests of the Company, unless you have
obtained prior approval by the appropriate approving authorities as designated in applicable
policies of the Company. Any actual or apparent conflict of interest, and any material transaction
or relationship that could reasonably be expected to give rise to a conflict of interest, should be
disclosed to the Corporate Governance Office.

2. Avoid activities and interests that could significantly affect the objective or effective
performance of duties and responsibilities in the Company, including business interests or
unauthorized employment outside the Company, the receipt from and giving of gifts to persons or
entities with whom the Company relates, as well as insider dealing.

3. Be loyal to the Company. As such, all business decisions and actions must be based on the best
interest of the Company and must not be motivated by personal considerations and other
relationships, which may interfere with the exercise of independent judgment.
4. Advance the Company's legitimate interests when the opportunity arises. Avoid competing with
the Company on a business opportunity or acquiring an interest adverse to that of the Company's.
Refrain from taking advantage of Company property, information or position, or opportunities
arising from these, for personal gain, to compete with the Company, or act against the best interest
of the Company. Directors, officers and employees who intend to make use of Company property
or services in a manner not solely for the benefit of the Company should obtain prior approval
from appropriate approving authorities as designated in applicable policies of the Company.

5. Refrain from the direct or indirect, grant or arrangements of loans to any director or officer,
including loans granted or arranged by the Company's subsidiaries and affiliates, unless such grant
or arrangement is allowed by all applicable laws and regulations.

E. DISCLOSURE

1. Publicly disclose all material information (i.e., anything that could potentially affect share price,
as well as other information), including earning results, corporate strategy, related party and off-
balance sheet transactions.

2. To the extent relevant to your area of responsibility, comply with the Company's disclosure
controls and procedures and internal controls to ensure that (i) financial and non-financial
information is properly recorded, processed, summarized and reported and (ii) the Company's
public reports and documents, including the reports that the Company files with the Philippine
Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, the Philippine and the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commissions, comply in all material respects with the applicable laws and rules.

3. Each director or officer, to the extent appropriate within his or her area of responsibility, should
consult with other Company officers and employees and take other appropriate steps regarding the
above-mentioned disclosures with the goal of making full, fair, accurate, timely and
understandable disclosure.

4. Be familiar with the disclosure requirements applicable to the Company as well as the business
and financial operations of the Company.

5. Do not knowingly misrepresent, or cause others to misrepresent, facts about the Company to
others, whether inside or outside the Company, including to the Company's independent auditors,
governmental regulators and self-regulatory organizations.

6. Properly review and critically analyze proposed disclosure for accuracy and completeness (or,
where appropriate, delegate this task to others).

7. Assess the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls and take
corrective actions with regard to any identified weaknesses or deficiencies.

F. RISK MANAGEMENT

1. Restrict or minimize undertaking of risk so as not to jeopardize shareholder value.

2. Fully assess and manage risks involved in undertaking strategies, acquisitions, activities,
products, services and other business endeavors of the Company.

G. RELATIONS WITH SHAREHOLDERS AND INVESTORS

1. Adopt strategies, actions, decisions, and transactions based on increasing shareholder value.

2. Adopt international best practices of good corporate governance in the conduct of the business.

3. Keep business and accounting records which accurately reflect the financial position of the
business and issue financial statements to ensure transparency of information.

4. Ensure an independent audit of the Company's financial statements by external auditors selected
by the Company's Audit Committee.
5. Communicate truthfully and regularly business policies, achievements and prospects.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK 162

Code of Conduct
The Philippine National Bank ("Bank") recognizes that its commitment to provide
excellent products and efficient service to its clientele can only be achieved through the continuous
and unwavering support of a highly professionalized, well-trained and disciplined workforce.
Discipline is therefore of paramount importance to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in the
business and operations of the Bank.
This Code of Conduct ("Code") is constituted to prescribe a moral code for PNB employees
which would not only instill discipline among them but would yield higher productivity at the
workplace and enhance and safeguard the corporate image of the Bank. While this Code defines
the offenses as well as the corresponding disciplinary measures that may be imposed, its overall
intent is more of prevention of the infraction rather than the administration of disciplinary
measures.

THE PHILIPPINE SEVEN CORPORATION CODE OF CONDUCT

The Philippine Seven Corporation remains committed in providing excellent customer
service in all of its business endeavors. All instruments for the fulfillment of its goals and
objectives shall be utilized with transparency as its main foundation. The company firmly believes
that business ethics is the end-result of the employee's conduct governing relationships among
themselves, directors, officers, business partners and the public.
To realize its vision and mission, all employees shall dedicate themselves in vigorous discipline in
the observance of the conduct, aligning decisions for the company's best interest and in accordance
to its business ethics, understanding that this Code shall be the best identification of the company.

The Company's Values

The Code shall be consistent with the values espoused by the company. All employees,
directors and officers, must, at all times, be consistent in following these values which are defined
as follows:

1.Teamwork: We foster an environment of synergy to attain the goals of the organization

through active participation and mutual respect

2. Integrity: We are honest and trustworthy to our fellow employees, customers and business
partners.

3. Reliability: We deliver what we promised.

4. Customer Focus: We put our customers first.

5. Results-oriented: We take the initiative to improve area of business by applying the four-step
process.

The Standards of the Code of Conduct

Below are the principles and standards of action guiding all employees, directors and officers
towards their relationship to their position, to their fellow employees and of the company's
resources:

1. Confidentiality of Information

a. Recognizes that the position with the Philippine Seven Corporation is one of the highest trusts
and confidence by the reason of his access and contact with all documents pertaining to the
business. Such trust cannot be separated from the position and the nature of work. Confidentiality
of information shall extend to store operations, support divisions, and any other affiliates or
subsidiaries.

b. To uphold the Company's trust is to protect all Information be it trade secrets or business
information that could damage, hinder or cause competitors an advantage against the Company.
In such circumstances that information is legally required, any disclosure shall be acted based on
full compliance of the law following standards and procedures set.
c. Strictly follow Company policy and applicable laws and policies, confiding with the proper
guidelines in case of doubt. Ensure that any records and documents are not concealed, altered,
destroyed or falsified to obstruct or influence the outcome of any investigation by or proceedings
before any official Company Committee or body, governmental, regulatory or judicial body having
jurisdiction.

d. Trading of business practices, information and securities in exchange for monetary benefit or a
favor shall also be construed as a violation of Company information.

2. Compliance

a. To represent the Company would require the highest form of compliance with all the applicable
laws, the rules and regulations especially prohibitions on insider trading on whichever form it take.
Discipline would counter any pressure for violating any rules and guidelines caused by the
demands of the business. There are no avenues for excuses for giving into such pressure.

b. Personally implement and apply all the standards and guidelines imposed by laws, rules and
regulations set.

c. Committed to follow the rules and regulations set forth, to comply means avoiding any instances,
be it a covert or an overt act of corruption and bribery to any government officials or regulators to
win the favor, facilitate transaction or to gain advantage for the company.

3. Decorum of Employees
a. Everyone shall treat each other as a customer. A customer might not always be right but should
always be treated rightly and with every respect due. Since everybody is a customer, any action to
tarnish credibility and personality shall be regarded as an action against the company.

b. Set aside differences that impede cooperation and communication. At the same time adheres to
the company policies and guidelines whether oral or written; withholding personal grudges and
opinions that may cause damage.

c. Being accountable relies with work responsibility; with the actions, authority and decisions
attached therein. Avoid blaming others for mistakes but take immediate action to correct the errors
made.

d. Striving to achieve the goals and deliver high quality results is to comply with standards,
following guidelines and making decisions that are based on studies.

e. Take into consideration the feelings and needs of others. Everyone shall have the opportunity to
share views and ideas provided that there are avenues available for such input.

f. Recognize the actions which were dutifully done and have contributed to the growth and goals
of the company. Avenues for commendation would be both oral and written. Diligence and hard
work shall not go unnoticed.

4. Attitudes with Superiors

a. Communicate and clarify objectives, goals and instructions; verifying if there is ambiguity.
Comply with the objective and thrust of the project.

b. Offer due respect to superiors by observing the proper communication channels and avoid using
destructive actions and uncalled for statements against superiors.

c. Implement decisions regardless of personal inhibitions or opinions maintaining the proper chain
of authority.

d. Facilitate information that can contribute at arriving on a better decision or to change strategies.

5. Management of Subordinates
a. Strictly monitor the implementation of the rules and guidelines of the company and apply
immediate remedy to settle differences and minimize conflict.

b. Avoid acts that would question the credibility of a decision both in discipline management and
designation of duty and tasks. Favoring whether in verbal or in action tarnishes directives even
when applied the best decision.

c. Observe the proper avenue of providing feedbacks among erring or non-performing employees
to lessen its impact on group morale and synergy.

d. Discipline management should always be between management and erring employees. The
proper disposal of hearing and penalty should remain as discreet as possible.

6. Managing Decisions

a. Align efforts of the individuals and the plans of the synergized groups to establish clear, specific
purpose without sacrificing the vital goals of the company.

b. Utilize data to diagnose problems, conduct market research and benchmarking activities to come
up with the best resolutions. Projects and proposals should have a clear-cut objective and should
always consider minimizing risks while maximizing profits.

c. Application of the 4-step process and determination of the root cause facilitate assessment of
the problem and lessen potential business risks that may arise in the future.

7. Proper Use of Property

a. Company properties are the resource which the company uses to conduct its business. These
include physical property such as buildings, machines and inventories, business plans and ideas,
whether stored on paper or computer media such as records, drawings, notes and memoranda made
by an employee at the period of employment in the company. It shall be used efficiently and shall
be protected from misuse, loss, damage or theft.

b. All properties owned by the Company are for conducting the company's business and are not
for personal use and consumption. Incidental personal use of telephones, computers, email and the
internet are as permitted as long as it does not distract the employee's job responsibilities and is in
compliance with relevant law and the company's ethical standards, policies and procedures.

c. The Directors, officers and employees of the Company G tare responsible for protecting the
properties of the Company from misuse, loss, damage and theft.

These conducts among employees should likewise be reflected on their business

transactions, deals and agreement complying with procedures set by the company. Every employee
shall maintain the following principles and guidelines in their business dealings and engagement:

Fair Dealing

1. Transparency would mean the disclosure of information pertinent to the line of work. It shall
cover methods, guidelines, and business process of the company to aid any organization in
conducting properly its business with the company.

2. No Employee shall exercise his power and position to side track deals and agreements in favor
of any entity that signifies intention to conduct business deals with the company.

3. Fairness shall be exercised by dealing with all franchisees, suppliers and the like in a manner of
giving equal opportunities on business ventures; evaluating transactions to the best interest of the
company alone.

Conflict of Interest and Corporate Opportunities

1. Every employee should uphold the company's interest at all times and integrate it with its own
personal interest without prejudice to the former. Regardless of consanguinal or affinity relations,
all shall adhere with the guidelines of the Company and act on the basis of the Company's interest.

2. Avoid engagement, participation or involvement of oneself, directly or indirectly in any

transaction, undertaking or business enterprise which should belong to the corporation, thereby
obtaining profits which should refer to the company or otherwise causing prejudice to the
corporation.

3. Avoid engaging in activities such as soliciting and accepting gifts and entertainment, and
accepting cash or its equivalent from vendors, suppliers, contractors or any third party.

4. Employees regardless of rank shall act with prudence and careful judgment in their relations
with all vendors, suppliers, contractors, and to any third-party providers. They shall not engage
themselves in situation and activity that can compromise their position affecting impression on
relations, casting doubts on integrity and judgment.

5. Uphold one's integrity and that of the Company by following procedures in dealing with co-
employees, government agencies, contractors and suppliers such that no employees must engage
in rigging bids, nor use their power or position to manipulate/ advance any agreement tainted with
personal gains. The integrity of the company lies within its employees. Favors have no place in
the business.

6. The Company's interest shall reign supreme in all the business decisions and actions. Therefore,
any legitimate opportunities that might arise should be advanced for the company.

Disclosure

1. All directors and employees regardless of rank shall disclose all their business/es, relationships
and affinities among franchisees, merchandisers, providers and other third-party entities dealing
with the company in aid of transparency in bidding and other procedures that requires compliance;

2. Further, they shall follow procedures regarding disclosure of information on business guidelines
and requirements unless otherwise disclosure will lead to business loss. This means familiarization
with operations and marketing procedures of the company.

3. Each director, officer or employee shall extend all appropriate and accurate information that
will lead to a sound decision,

4. Do not misrepresent or cause others to misrepresent himself or his position as well as facts about
the company which could damage the reputation of the organization or its officers causing legal
action against the company.
 CHAPTER 5
THE WORK PLACE

I. INTRODUCTION
As we have discussed in the first chapter of this book, ethics and law are not synonymous-that
what is legal is not always regarded as morally permissible. Nevertheless, an equilibrium between
morality and legality would better serve the purpose of creating a harmonious and just society. A
law, which is also ethical at least from the perspective of the culture where it is being imposed
would make compliance to legal requirements easier. Respecting other people’s civil rights and
liberties are both legally and morally amiable, for while they are manifested through the letters of
the law, most of them are based primarily upon ethical norms and considerations.
In Philippine legal system, the most basic civil rights and liberties that we enjoy are found in
the Constitution, specifically under Article III, which is commonly known as the Bill of Rights.
The provisions under the Bill of Rights aim to strike an equilibrium between the inherent and
express powers of the government and the rights of the citizenry. They serve as safeguards for our
fundamental liberty, against any governmental interference to its exercise. At the same time, the
provisions therein serve as basis for the enactment of laws and implementing rules and regulations,
which then regulates the relationship between private citizens.

II. CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE WORKPLACE: RIGHTTO DUE PROCESS OF LAW

The first provision under Article II of the Philippine Constitution provides that “No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and that no person shall
be denied of the equal protection of laws.” This clause is a “handy legal tool for the protection of
the valued rights to life, liberty and property, and all other freedoms and liberties that inhere or
adhere to them. It provides both a safeguard to ensure fairness in the proceedings that may be taken
towards deprivation of any liberty or property interests, or the impairment of any other right or
freedom, as well as the guarantee of reasonableness in the enactment of laws and other regulations
which impact life, liberty and property.
Included in the scope of the term “property” under Article III is one’s profession or
livelihood, In the workplace, therefore, one of the most fundamental civil rights being enjoyed
by both the employer and the employee is the right to DUE PROCESS - that he cannot be
deprived of his job and livelihood without due process of law. Briefly, Due Process Clause in
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so
deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a
civilized society as conceived by our entire history. Due process is that which comports with the
deepest notions of what is fair and right and just. It is a constitutional restraint on the legislative as
well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government provided by the Bill of Rights.
The guarantee of due process under the constitution is two-fold: procedural and
substantive. Procedural due process relates to the mode of procedure which government agencies
must follow in the enforcement and application of laws. “It requires the determination of what
process is due, when it is due, and the degree of what is due.” On the other hand, substantive due
process guarantees that lite, liberty and property shall not be taken away from anyone absent the
existence of a reasonable law allowing the same. “The former is essentially directed at officers
who adjudicate while the latter is directed basically at those who enact the laws. The first refers to
the guarantees of fairness in the process of determining whether a right, liberty or freedom is to be
impaired or otherwise taken away while the latter goes to the very power of the authorities to come
up with rules and other structures under which man may live and enjoy the blessings of a civilized
society, including the price that he has to pay to stay.”
The guarantee of due process under the Constitution, however, can only be applied when
there is governmental interference. The bundle of freedoms and liberties guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights is essentially directed against the State and its agencies and instrumentalities only.”
Therefore, “in the absence of government interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution
cannot be invoked. Put differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of
private individuals.” So that if the State, through the legislatures, passes a law prohibiting the
practice of a particular profession or conduct of a specific business, then those affected or
concerned may question the constitutionality or validity of the law for potential violation of the
right to due process - since in this case, there is governmental interference through the enactment
of the law. This was the issue involved in the case of City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr., wherein an
ordinance was passed by the City of Manila, prohibiting the establishment or operation of business
‘providing certain forms of amusement entertainment, Services and facilities where women are
used as tools in entertainment and which tend to adversely affect the social and moral welfare of
community. This included motels which offered short-time stay to clients. The Supreme Court
struck down this ordinance for violation of the right to substantive due process, to wit:
These lawful establishments may only be regulated. They cannot be prohibited from
carrying on their business. This is a sweeping exercise of police power, which amounts
to interference into personal and private rights which the court will not countenance.
There is a clear invasion of personal and property rights, personal in the case of those
individuals desiring of owning, operating and patronizing motels and property in terms
of investments made and the salaries to be paid to those who are employed therein. If
the City of Manila desired to put an end to prostitution, fornication, and other social
ills, it can instead impose reasonable regulations such as daily inspections of then
establishments for any violation of the conditions of their licenses or permits, it may
exercise its authority to suspend or revoke their licenses for these violations, and it
may even impose increased license.
But as regards the internal matters in the workplace or those which involves the relationship
between the employer and the employees, the civil rights and liberties enshrined in the
Constitution, as mentioned above, Will not apply. For issues which do not involve the government
we refer to other statutes and laws specifically designed to address such issues which are,
nevertheles55, still based upon the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, inside the workplace,
where employment matters are atop the list of critical concerns, we resort to the Labor Code of the
Philippines and other labor legislations. Due process under the Labor Code, which is still based
primarily upon the notion of due process under the Constitution, likewise has two aspects:
substantive, i.e, the valid and authorized causes of employment termination under the Labor Code;
and procedural, i.e, the manner of dismissal. In other words, in the termination of employees,
substantive due process mandates that an employee may be dismissed only if any just or authorized
cause provided by law and jurisprudence exists. Procedural due process, on the other hand, entails
that before an employee is dismissed, he must first be given an opportunity to explain his side and
be heard.
Article 282 of the Labor Code provides the just causes for which an employer may terminate
an employment. In dismissal for just cause, the employee is dismissed for causes which are
attributable to his fault or culpability. They are as follows:
a. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;
b. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;
d. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or
any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
e. Other causes analogous to the foregoing
 Articles 283 and 284, on the other hand, provides for the authorized causes of terminating
employment, which cover occasions that validly justifies the removal of an employee, but are
nevertheless beyond his/her control. 1hey are as follows:
a. Installation of labor-saving devices/Automation
b. Redundancy
c. Retrenchment to prevent losses
d. Closure or cessation of operation of establishment or undertaking
e. Disease
f. Other analogous cases
Other than the causes specified under the Labor Code, the employer or management can also
craft and provide for other grounds for dismissal-which can be found in their employee’s manual
or company policy. But, as mentioned above, it is not enough that an employee’s dismissal is based
on a just or authorized cause; the employer must likewise comply with the mandated procedural
steps in effecting such dismissal:
As a matter of fact…
Procedural Due Process
For termination of employment based on just causes, the following must be complied with:
a. A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds of termination,
and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.
b. A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of
counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present
his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and
c. A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due
consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his
termination.
Before an employee can be dismissed based on any of the just causes provided by law, two notices
must first be issued. The first notice is served on the employee in order to appraise him of the
ground or grounds of his/her impending termination, giving sad employee reasonable opportunity
to present his side. “Reasonable opportunity to explain his side should be construed as a period of
at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employee an opportunity to
study the accusation against him, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and
decide on the defenses he will raise against the complaint”
The second notice is served in order to inform the employee that upon due consideration, the
ground or grounds upon which his termination is based, has been properly established and proved.
The compliance to both notices is otherwise known as the Twin Notice Rule.
Sandwiched between the required notices is the critically important hearing or conference, during
which the employee, through the assistance of counsel should he so desire, can be heard and
explain his side. This hearing, however, does not require a trial-type formal hearing
The standard for the hearing requirement, ample opportunity, is couched in general language
revealing the legislative intent to give some degree of flexibility or adaptability to meet the
peculiarities of a given situation. To confine it to a single rigid proceeding such as a formal hearing
will defeat its spirit.
Significantly, Section 2(d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code itself
provides that the so-called standards of due process outlined therein shall be observed
substantially, not strictly. This is a recognition that while a formal hearing or conference is ideal,
it is not an absolute, mandatory or exclusive avenue of due process.
A hearing means that a party should be given a chance to adduce his evidence to support his side
of the case and that the evidence should be taken into account in the adjudication of the
controversy. To be heard does not mean verbal argumentation alone inasmuch as one may be heard
just as effectively through written explanations, submissions or pleadings. Therefore, while the
phrase ample opportunity to be heard may in fact include an actual hearing, it is not limited to a
formal hearing only. In other words, the existence of an actual, formal trial-type hearing, although
preferred, is not absolutely necessary to satisfy the employees right to be heard.
In the simplest sense of the word, it is enough that the employee has been given an opportunity to
present and explain his side, regardless of its form-as long as it is considerably ample and
sufficient. Neither is the participation of counsel indispensable in the discharge of due process in
the termination of an employee suffice that he was given the opportunity to choose whether he
opts to have one or not. Furthermore, in terms of the necessity of hearing, when the employee has
already admitted his guilt, then a hearing can already be dispensed with and is no longer necessary.
In sum, the procedural due process (for just causes) required by the Labor Code is considered
complied through the following: (1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should
contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the
employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period;
(2) Atter serving the irst notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference
wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to: (a) explain and clarity their defenses to
the charge against them; (b) present evidence in support or their defenses; and () rebut the evidence
presented against them by the management; and (3) After determining that termination of
employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination
indicating that: (a) all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been
considered; and (b) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment.
In case the termination is based on an authorized cause, no hearing or conference is required, as
this is more of a management prerogative. However, due process still requires that written notices
be issued by the employer. The first written notice is addressed to DOLE 30 days prior to the
intended date of termination. The rationale for this notice is to enable said office to ascertain the
verily of the cause of the removal. The second one 1s given to the employees concerned, also 30
days prior to the intended date of termination. Take note that this notice must be given individually,
and not collectively.
Where the ground for dismissal or termination of services does not relate to a blameworthy act or
omission on the part of the employee there appears to us no need for an investigation and hearing
to be conducted by the employer who does not, to begin with, allege malfeasance or nonfeasance
on the part of the employee. In such case, there are no allegations which the employee should
refute and defend himself from.

In other words, there is no necessity for a hearing prior to the termination of an employee pursuant
to an authorized cause, as he/she is not being accused of any certain misconduct that needs to be
refuted or countered. The hearing, should it arise, more likely happens after the termination, when
the validity of an employer’s resort to any of the authorized causes for the removal of certain
employees is questioned. An employee may contest, initially before the Department of Labor of
Employment, the good faith or the truthfulness of the grounds used in order to justify the
termination of services. If it can be proved that the retrenchment, for example, is ill-motivated and
its justification is illusory and has no real basis, then the termination of employees, pursuant to
this, may be ruled as invalid.
These mandates under the Labor Code, as an apparent expression of the basic civil rights
that employees ought to enjoy inside the workplace,are ultimately geared towards the protection
of another fundamental right safeguarded by our laws-i.e., right of security of tenure. The
protection to labor, as enshrined in the Constitution, does not settle with simply guaranteeing that
an employee gets nothing less than what social justice dictates. It extends to an assurance that the
employee will stay employed, unless there is reasonable ground for his/her removal. The
Constitution expressly safeguards an employee's right to security of tenure. Article XII, Section 3
of the Constitution provides that "they (employees) shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane
conditions of work, and a living wage”. Security of tenure is commonly defined as the
constitutional right granted to an employee, which generally prohibits the employer from
terminating his/her services, except for just causes or when authorized by law. Article 279 of the
Labor Code of the Philippines states that in cases of regular employment, the employer shall not
terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An
employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to his
other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld
from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
This right, however, does not extend to all kinds of employees in the same nature. The kind
of employee fully protected by this right are regular employees. A regular employee, under Article
280 of the Labor Code is one who:
a. Has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, his employment not being fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of
engagement, or seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
b. Has rendered at least one (1) year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken,
with respect to the activity in which he is employed.
Other forms of employment likewise enjoy the right to security of tenure, but only to a
limited extend. Project and seasonal employees, because of the nature of their employment, enjoy
said right only until the completion of the project or the within duration of the season, respectively
Probationary employees, on the other hand, is protected under this provision only within his/her
the probationary period, If after this period, the employee fails to pass the reasonable standards set
by the employer in order to achieve permanent status, then his removal shall not be deemed as a
violation of his right to security of tenure.
III. CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE WORKPLACE:
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
One of the main priorities of the State is to afford full protection to labor, which finds its
manifestation in the multi-faceted safeguards being extended to employment by our legal system
(at least ideally speaking). But while an individual employee can always find solace in the letters
of the law, his outcry would always be belittled by the gargantuan economic and political
supremacy that employers, particularly big and powerful companies, enjoy. Alone, an employee
would hardly prevail over the employer's fiscal prowess. But with the right number of comrades
battling for the same cause, the scale that balances the interests of labor and capital has more
chances of tipping in their favor. As the saying goes, there is strength in number.
Section 8 Article Ill of the Constitution provides that "the right of the people, including
those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged”. This is the controlling principle behind the
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION given to employees, as vested by the Constitution, and
solidified by the Labor Code. Rather than dealing with the employer alone, employees enjoy the
right to form labor organizations that would bargain with the management in their behalf. The
employees, through this mechanism, shall collectively further their rights before the
employer.These organizations are ordinarily known as LABOR UNIONS.
Pursuant to the above-quoted Constitutional provision, Article 257 of the Labor Code states
that "it shall be unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly interfere
with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to self-organization. Such right shall
include the right to form, join or assist in the formation of a labor organization of their own
choosing for purposes of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and
to engage in lawful concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual
aid and protection.” Take note how the provision used the words collective, concerted, and mutual
to connote the idea of solidarity among employees in dealing with the employer as regards the
basic terms and conditions of employment. Through collective bargaining the employees may ask
for more than the minimum standards provided under the Labor Code, such as increase in basic
salary, benefits, allowances and the like.
The right to self-organization through the formation of labor organizations is one of the
manifestations of industrial democracy, as it involves the voluntary and, as far as possible, peaceful
negotiations between labor and capital in order to arrive at an amicable, or at least fair, agreement
as regards the terms and conditions of employment. The main objective of the labor organization
is to voice out to the employer the needs and interests of the employee, which should spur from a
sound labor-management relations. This relation, furthermore, must be inter-party -i.e., it has to
rest on an essentially voluntary basis. This kind of interaction between these two forces is greatly
encouraged by the State, as a lasting industrial peace will likely result to a stronger economic
growth and development.
Article 248 of the Labor Code provides an enumeration of unfair labor practices which
violates the right to self-organization of employees:
a. Interference. To interfere with, retrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization.
- This form of unfair labor practice may come in all sorts and sizes, as long as the end
goal of the employer's actuation is to deceitfully meddle with the employer's right to
self-organization. Outright and unconcealed intimidation against unionism is the most
obvious form of interference.
- The act of discouraging membership to a labor union is also a form of unfair labor
practice. Similarly, spying upon the activities of labor unions, as well as persistent
interrogation of employees to elicit information as regards what happens during union
meetings, are also forms of interference to the exercise of right to self-organization,
which constitute unfair labor practice.
b. Yellow Dog Condition. To require as a condition for employment that a person or an
employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he
belongs.
- It is a promise exacted from workers as a condition of employment that they are not to
belong to, or attempt to foster, a union during their period of employment. The typical
yellow dog contract contains a representation by the employee that he is not a member
of a labor union and a promise by him not to join a labor union or upon joining a union
to quite his employment.
c. Contracting out. To contract out services or functions being performed by union members
when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization.
- For this act to be considered as an unfair labor practice, it must be motivated by a desire
to prevent employees from exercising their right to self-organization. If it is for valid
business purpose or end, then it will not be considered as an unfair labor practice.
Therefore, it is not a matter of whether the business is doing good or going down; the
real issue is the motivation or reason behind the contracting out of the services that
union members are performing.
d. Company-Domination of Union. To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the
formation or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or
other support to it or its organizers or officers.
- This unfair labor practice is normally characterized by any of the following: (a) the
company initiates the formation of the union, immediate granting exclusive recognition
to a union without first determining whether the union represents the majority of
employees, or the employer defrays or burdens the union expenses.
e. Discrimination. To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other conditions of
employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.
f. Discrimination because of Testimony. To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or
discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under
this Code.
g. Violation of Duty to Bargain. To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by
this Code.
h. Paid Negotiation. To pay negotiation or attorney's fees to the union or its officers or agents
as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other disputes.
i. Violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
 And to give more fangs to the enforcement of this right, Article 247 of the Labor Code
provides for the prosecution of unfair labor practices, and states that the penalty for such acts are
two-fold: civil and criminal. The civil aspect of the case is within the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and those who are found guilty shall
be liable for the payment of damages. On the other hand, the criminal aspect of the case can only
be prosecuted after finality of judgment in the labor case. But as a pre-requisite to the filing of
criminal case, there must first be a resolution by the Labor Arbiter that indeed, an unfair labor
practice has been committed. The Municipal or Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the
criminal charge, and if the respondent is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then he/she shall
be"meted with the penalty of fine and/or imprisonment.
IV. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
While the Constitution enshrines the rights of employees to security of tenure, our legal
system equally protects the right of the employer to certain prerogatives in terms of who to hire,
who to remove, how to manage his business and everything in between. "Our laws recognize and
respect the exercise by management of certain rights and prerogatives. For this reason, courts often
decline to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers. In fact, labor laws discourage
interference in employers’ judgment concerning the conduct of their business.”
Except as limited by special laws, an employer is free to regulate, according to his own
discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring work assignments, working
methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision
of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and
the discipline, dismissal and recall of work. In the same manner, in Abbott Laboratories vs. NLRC,
the Court decided that "even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it must also
protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free
will of management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied".
At the very least, the only limitation to the exercise of management prerogative would be
the principle of reasonableness and good faith. "So long as a company's management prerogatives
are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose
of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid
agreements, this Court will uphold them". Furthermore, it is also subject to the limitations imposed
by law or by the CBA, employment contract, employer policy or practice and general principles
of fair play and justice.
One of these management prerogatives is the power of dismissal, which runs counter with
an employee's right to security of tenure. But before I discuss this prerogative, let us first delve
into some recognized management rights that an employer enjoys and is legally entitled to.
IV.A. RIGHT TO TRANSFER
A transfer means a movement (1) from one position to another of equivalent rank, level or
salary, without a break in the service; or (2) from one office to another within the same business
establishment. In other words, it involves lateral movement. This management prerogative is
inherent to the right of an employer to control his business or industry effectively. The Court in
the case of Yuco Chemical Industries, Inc. vs. Ministry of Labor and Employment, as in a plethora
of other cases, the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another
within the business establishment has been repeatedly upheld; provided that there is no demotion
in rank or a diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges.
If, however, the exercise of the right is vitiated by improper motive and is merely a
disguised attempt to remove or punish the employee sought to be transferred, then the Court may
strike such transfer as invalid. It cannot be used as a subterfuge by. the employer to get rid of an
undesirable employee. The transfer, for example, of employees during the height of the labor
union's concerted activities in the company where they were active participants can be considered
as merely a ploy by the management to weaken the number and strength of the union-which sheds
bad faith on the exercise of the employers right to transfer. Furthermore, the transfer must not be
completely unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee.
However, an employee's right to security of tenure does not give him such a vested in his
position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him
where he will be most useful. An employee who refuses to be transferred, when such transfer is
valid, is guilty of insubordination or willful disobedience. In Abbot Laboratories Inc. vs. NLRC,
the dismissal of a medical representative who acceded in his employment application to be
assigned anywhere in the Philippines, but later refused to be transferred from Manila to a provincial
assignment, was held valid. The reason is that at the outset, he already agreed with the policy of
the company regarding the assignment of employees anywhere in the Philippines, as demanded by
the business operation.
Parental obligations, additional expenses that may be incurred and anguish that may be
suffered if assigned away from the family are, by themselves, not valid grounds to refuse a transfer
of assignment. The transfer from one city to another within the country is valid as long as there is
no bad faith on the part of the employer-especially if the additional expenses to be incurred by the
employee shall be defrayed by the employer.
Transfer of an employee to avoid conflict of interest is a valid exercise of management
prerogative. In the case of Duncan Association of Detailman-PGTWO vs. Glaxo Welcome
Philippines, Inc., the medical representative’s transfer of assignment was held valid as the same
was necessitated by the possible conflict of interest, since his wife holds a sensitive supervisory
position in a competitor firm who takes an active participation in the market war among
pharmaceutical companies.
Inconvenience of the transfer to the employee does not necessarily invalidate a transfer
order. In the case of OSS Security and Allied Services Inc., the transfer of a security guard from
her post in Makati to Rizal has been ruled as a valid transfer, as the same was motivated by the
request ofthe agency's client for a more disciplined service, and reason would dictate that the
renewal of the security guard's contract depended on the action taken by the agency as regards the
client's request. This is even if she had to travel a bit farther than she normally did. However, if
the inconvenience is brought about by the unreasonableness of the order, then the transfer can be
construed as invalid.
IV.B. RIGHT TO DISCIPLINE
Common sense would dictate that instilling discipline upon erring employees, as long as it
is within the bounds of reasonableness, is well within the inherent rights and prerogatives that an
employer may exercise.Otherwise, it will be prejudicial to the employer and his business if he shall
be forced to keep in his employ those who have been found guilty of misconduct specially if it is
connected with the employee's function and work. It will dishearten and undermine the efforts
exerted by other employees, if the undeserving and inept ones remain in the service.
The only criterion to guide the exercise of this right is that the policies, rules and regulations
on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the
corresponding penalties, as prescribed, commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of
the infraction-otherwise known as the proportionality rule.
The matter of imposing the appropriate penalty generally depend on the employer. In China
Banking Corporation vs. Borromeo, where the managerial employee questioned the imposition of
the accessory penalty of restitution on him without imposing the principal penalty of “written
reprimand/suspension”, it was ruled that the employers Code of Ethics expressly sanctions the
imposition of restitution apart from or independent of the other penalties. It was certainly within
the employer-bank's prerogative to impose on the respondent-employee what it considered the
appropriate penalty under the circumstances pursuant to its company rules and regulations.
Moreover, the employer has the right to impose a heavier penalty than that prescribed in
the company rules and regulations if circumstances warrant the imposition. In Cruz vs. Coca-Cola
Bottlers Philippines, Inc., admittedly, the company rules violated by the petitioner are punishable,
for the first offense, with the penalty of suspension. However, the Court affirmed the validity of
the dismissal because the respondent has presented evidence showing that petitioner has a record
of other violations from as far back as 1986, e.g. deliberate misrepresentation on two occasions,
involvement in vehicular accidents which caused damage to another car and an outlet store, several
AWOLs and has been investigated on several occasions for shortages in remittances of collections
from costumers.
But ultimately, although the employer has the prerogative to discipline or dismiss its
employee, such prerogative cannot be exercised wantonly but must be controlled by substantive
due process and tempered by the fundamental policy of protection to labor enshrined in the
Constitution.Infractions committed by an employee should merit only the corresponding sanction
demanded by the circumstances. The penalty must be commensurate with the act, conduct or
omission imputed to the employee and imposed in connection with the employer's disciplinary
authority.
IV.C. RIGHT TO PROMOTE
Promotion is the advancement from one position to another involving increase in duties
and responsibilities as authorized by law, and increase in compensation and benefits, It is the
upward vertical movement of the employee's rank or position. Any increase in salary should only
be considered incidental but never determinative of whether or not promotion is bestowed upon
an employee.
However, no matter how lofty the offer is, an employee cannot be forced to accept the
same. An employee has the right to refuse promotion.There is no law which compels an employee
to accept a promotion, since it is in the nature of a gift or reward and any person may, as a matter
of right refuse to accept a gift or reward. Moreover, promotion normally entails changes in
circumstances and responsibilities, which the employee may find as unappealing or unacceptable.
IV.D. RIGHT TO DEMOTE
Inasmuch as an employer has the right to promote, he/she also has the right to demote.
There is demotion where there is reduction in position,rank or salary as a result of a transfer. An
example of demotion is when an employee occupying a highly technical position requiring the use
of mental faculty, is transferred to another position where he/she performed mere mechanical
work.
Demotion must, nevertheless, be based on reasonable justifications and not on some
whimsical and capricious exercise of prerogative by the employer- as demotion is closely related
to, and oftentimes used as a form or mode of punishment to erring employees. Personal vendetta
on an employee is definitely not a valid ground for demoting an employee.
IV.E. RIGHT TO GRANT BONUSES
The receipt of bonus is not a demandable right. On the contrary, it is a management
prerogative, as it is something given in addition to what is ordinarily received by or strictly due
the recipient. "A bonus is not demandable and enforceable obligation, except when it is made part
of the wage, salary or compensation of the employee. But the employer cannot be forced to
distribute bonuses when it can no longer afford to pay. To hold otherwise would be to penalize
employer for his past generosity.” However, this becomes an obligation on the part of the employer
if:
a. It is stipulated in an employment contract of CBA
b. It is a company police or practice
c. It is agreed as an additional compensation which the employer agreed to give without any
condition
V. WAGES
Article 97 of the Labor Code provides a rather lengthy definition of the term "wage".
Accordingly, it is the remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed
in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or
other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a
written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered
or to be rendered and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of
Labor, of board lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee.
In common parlance, this Simply means the monetary or economic compensation that a
person is legally entitled to receive in lieu of services rendered for another. Even without being
legalistic about it, common sense would dictate that anyone who renders work for another person
is entitled to be given recompense for the same. To rule otherwise would be to foster and advocate
injustice.
Flipping the coin to its other side, it is equally true that "the age-old rule governing the
relation between labor and capital, or management and employee of a ‘fair day's wage for a fair
day's labor’ remains as the basic factor in determining employees wages. If there is no work
performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay”. In other words, an employee is entitled
to receive wage only insofar as the service he has rendered. No work, no pay-as others would put
it.
 If an employee is absent on a certain day, he should not, as a rule, be paid wages for that
day. And if the employee has worked only for a portion of a day, he is not entitled to the pay
corresponding to a full day.A contrary precept would ultimately result in the financial ruin of the
employer. But if "the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out,
suspended or dismissed, or otherwise illegally prevented from working”, then he/she deserves to
still be given compensation.
Another principle that we follow as regards the payment of wages is the principle of equal
pay for equal work, i.e. if employees are performing similar functions and responsibilities under
similar conditions, they should be paid equally. Otherwise, the arrangement will be struck down
by the courts for undue discrimination.
To say that a person rendering service for another is legally entitled to compensation is
already a redundancy. But the question is: how much? Before we answer the question as to the
amount of economic or monetary compensation that an employee must receive, it is important to
note first that the discretion of determining how much wage an employee is entitled to is not
entirely left to the whim and caprice of the employer.
John Rawls, a renowned political philosopher, believes that a good government will have
three major jobs, to wit: 1) guarantee basic rights, 2) assign basic duties, and 3) determine the
division of advantages that result from the combined efforts of the members of the society, Rawls
believes that the society best suited for happiness and justice will guarantee to every rational
citizen: 1) equal citizenship status and political liberties, 2) freedom of thought, 3) equal
opportunity (including access to education and culture), 4) free choice of occupation, 6) and a
GUARANTEED "SOCTAL MINIMUM" OR LIVING STANDARD. And in consonance to this
principle, corollary with the principles mandated by the Constitution, there is a legally recognized
and fixed amount of minimum wage.
The fixing of a minimum wage is primarily aimed at protecting the welfare of workers
who, economically speaking is at a disadvantaged stance as against powerful capitalists and
employers. By providing a rock bottom, an employee cannot receive anything less than what the
minimum wage provides as it becomes a legal compulsion over the employer. Although in the real
sense of the word, the minimum wage at present is not necessarily at that level that will grant
employees and their families decent livelihood. At any rate, with the fixing a minimum wage, the
worker is at the very least protected from sweat shop operators.
It is on this regard that the employer cannot exempt himself from liability to pay minimum
wages because of poor financial condition of the company, the payment of minimum wages not
being dependent on the employer’s ability to pay. If the employer, in truth and in fact, is already
incapable of paying his/her employees due to financial constraints or difficulties, then might as
well discontinue his/her operation or industry rather than wasting the drudgery of the employees,
who deserves nothing less than what is provided by the law.
On the other hand, "the establishment of a minimum wage also gives protection to the
enlightened employer who without any legal compulsion voluntarily pays a decent wage to his
workers against competition of the employer who pays his workers inadequate wages and thus
operate at a lower cost and sell his products at lower prices". Take note that what the law provides
is only the minimum. Through the mechanism of collective bargaining or the initiative of the
employer, an employee can get a considerably higher salary than the minimum amount mandated
by law. Through collective bargaining, the employees are able to negotiate for better terms and
conditions of employment, which are greater and higher than the minimum provided under the
law. Specifically, the most important aims of collective bargaining are:
a. To establish industrial peace by enabling capital and labor to resolve their disputes and
controversies on terms mutually acceptable and satisfactory to themselves.
b. To enhance industrial efficiency through speedy resolution of labor disputes concerning the
fixing of wages, working hours and other terms and conditions of employment, the
execution of contracts incorporating such agreements, and the adjustments or settlement of
any grievance arising thereunder.
c. To establish benefits for labor higher or greater than those fixed by law.
The negotiated contract between the exclusive bargaining representative and the employer
from the aforementioned process is known as COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
(CBA)
 The governmental agency or body that is vested with the power to fix minimum wage rates
are the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards. They determine the applicable rate in
their respective regions,provinces, or industries subject only to the guidelines issued by the
National Wages and Productivity Commission. Each region or province is assigned with their
respective board due to their varying economic and fiscal conditions, as well as the cost of living
therein.
Pursuant to Article 123 of the Labor Code, the Board is required, in the performance of its
wage-fixing functions, to conduct public hearings/consultations with prior notices to employees
and employers groups and other interested parties. During the process of wage-fixing, factors such
as fair return of capital invested, the need to induce industries to invest in the countryside and the
capacity of employers to pay are, among others taken into consideration. It is for these reasons that
the Board is tripartite in composition, comprising of representatives from the government
employers and workers. This is to ensure that all sides are heard and all possible intricacies are
accounted for.
After the aforementioned process has been concluded, the Board shall issue a Wage Order,
which shall hence contain the minimum wage and other pertinent details as regards the same.
Moreover, Article 123 mandates that the Wage Order shall take effect only after fifteen (15) days
from its complete publication in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation in the region. "It
is a fundamental rule, borne out of a sense of fairness, that the public is first notified of a law or
wage order before it can be held liable for violation thereof."
The current minimum wages per region are the following:

DATE OF NON- AGRICULTURE

REGION
EFFECTIVITY AGRICULTURE Plantation Non-Plantation
NCR April 4, 2015 P 444.00 - 481.00 P 444.00 P 444.00
CAR June 29,2015 265.00 - 285.00 255.00 - 270.00 255.00 - 270.00
I July 19, 2015 227.00 - 253.00 233.00 227.00
II January 5, 2014 247.00 - 255.00 235.00 - 243.00 235.00 - 243.00
III November 30, 2014 298.00 - 294.00 283.00 - 319.00 271.00 - 303.00
IV-A May 1, 2014 261.00 - 362.50 261.00 - 337.50 255.00 - 317.50
IV-B July 3, 2015 210.00 - 280.00 220.00 - 230.00 220.00 - 230.00
V January 10, 2014 236.00 - 260.00 236.00 236.00
VI May 2, 2015 256.50 - 298.50 266.50 266.50
VII October 10, 2015 295.00 - 353.00 275.00 - 335.00 275.00 - 335.00
VIII March 30, 2015 260.00 241.00 235.00
IX June 10, 2013 280.00 255.00 235.00
X July 3, 2015 303.00 - 318.00 291.00 - 306.00 291.00 - 306.00
XI June 1, 2014 317.00 307.00 307.00
XII August 1, 2014 275.00 257.00 257.00
XIII February 14, 2015 268.00 268.00 268.00
ARMM February 1, 2014 250.00 250.00 250.00

The rule regarding wage order issued by the Board 1s that it may not be disturbed for a
period of 12 months from its effectivity and no petition for wage increase shall be entertained
during said period, except when the Congress itself enacts a law increasing wages, or when
supervening conditions and events happen that would warrant the review of the existing wage
rates.
V.A. NON-DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS
Can an employer take away from his employees a benefit, say for example performance
bonus, which has been customarily extended to the latter for a long time already? The employer
can argue that since the grant of bonuses to employees are not really required by law, then he/she
can unilaterally withdraw the same whenever he/she wants to. While there seems to be some logic
to the argument, nevertheless, the general rule is that an employer cannot do so.
 Under Article 100 of the Labor Code, it is provided that “Nothing in the Labor Code shall
be constructed to eliminate or in any way diminish supplements, or other employee benefits being
enjoyed at the time of the promulgation of this Code”. In other words, benefits being given to
employees cannot be taken back or reduced unilaterally by the employer, because the benefit has
already formed part of the employment contract, written or unwritten.
In order for the above-mentioned rule to apply, the following must first be established:
a. The grant of the benefit is founded on an express policy or has ripened into a practice over
a long period;
b. The practice is consistent and deliberate;
c. The practice is not due to error in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult
question of law; and
d. The diminution or discontinuance is done unilaterally by the employer.

In the case of Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. NLCR (February 4, 1991), the issue was the
right of the employees over the company’s retirement plan for its workers. The employer
was of the contention that the workers have no vested and demandable rights thereunder,
the grant thereof being not a contractual obligation but merely gratuitous. At most the
company can only be directed to maintain the same but not to change its terms. It should
be left to the discretion of the company on how to improve or mollify the same. However,
the Court ruled that, invoking Article 100 of the Labor Code:

The company’s contention that its retirement plan is non-negotiable, is not well-taken. The
NLRC correctly observed that the inclusion of the retirement plan in the collective
bargaining agreement as part of the package of economic benefits extended by the company
to its employees to provide them a measure of financial security after they shall have ceased
to be employed in the company, reward their loyalty, boost their morale and efficiency and
promote industrial peace, gives “a consensual character” to the plan so that it may not be
terminated or modified at will by either party.

Furthermore, its contention that employees have no vested or demandable right to a non-
contributory retirement plan, has no merit for employees do have a vested and demandable
right over existing benefits voluntarily granted to them by their employer. The latter may
not unilaterally withdraw, eliminate or diminish such benefits.

V.B. PAYMENT OF WAGES

Are there rules provided by law in terms of when, where and how wages must be paid? Or
can the employer decide on the same by himself? Can the employer, for example, give gift
certificates or vouchers, rather than paying the employee with money for his/her wages? The Labor
Code, together with its Implementing Rules, provide for answers to these questions.
Article 102 of the Labor Code provided that “no employer shall pay the wages of an
employee by means of promissory notes vouchers coupons, tokens, tickets, chits, or any object
other than legal tender, even when expressly requested by the employee.”
From this provision, it is clear that only legal tender or money is the accepted mode of
paying an employee’s salary or wage. However, in the case of National Federation of Labor vs.
Court of Appeals the Court ruled that in certain instances salary can be paid through checks or
money orders. They are as follows:
a. It has been customary practice on the date of effectivity of the Labor Code;
b. It is necessary because of special circumstances as determined by the Secretary of Labor;
c. It is stipulated in the CBA;
d. Where the following conditions are met;
i. There is a bank or other facility for encashment within a radius of 1 kilometer from
the workplace;
ii. The employer, or any of this agents or representatives, does not receive any
pecuniary benefit directly or indirectly from the arrangement;
 iii. The employees are given reasonable time during banking hours to withdraw their
wages from the bank which time shall be considered as compensable hours worked
if done during working hours; and
iv. The payment by check is with the written consent of the employee concerned if
there is no CBA authorizing the payment of wages by bank checks.

V.C. TIME OF PAYMENT

Under Article 103 of the Labor Code, payment of wages shall be made (a) at least once
every two weeks or (b) twice a month at intervals not exceeding 16 days. However, there are
special cases when strict compliance to this rule is not required. They are as follows:
a. In case of force majeure or other circumstances beyond the employee’s control, payment
must be made immediately after such occurrence has ceased.
b. If engaged to perform a task which cannot be completed in two (2) weeks and in the
absence of CBA, the following conditions shall be complied with:
i. That payments are made at intervals not exceeding 16 days, in proportion to the
amount of works completed;
ii. That final settlement is made upon completion of the work.
V.D. PLACE OF PAYMENT
The general rule, as regards the place of payment of wages, is it shall be made at or near
the place of undertaking or job, as provided under Article 104 of the Labor Code. But under the
Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, payment outside the workplace shall be allowed under the
following circumstances:
a. When payment cannot be effected at or near the place of work by reason of the deterioration
of peace and order conditions, or by reason by actual or impending emergencies caused by
fire, flood, epidemic, or other calamity rendering payment threat impossible;
b. When the employer provides free transportation to the employees back and forth; and
c. Under any analogous circumstances, provides that the time spent by the employees in
collecting their wages shall be considered compensable hours worked.
In the same manner, no employer shall pay his employees in any bar, night or day club,
drinking establishment, message clinic, dance hall, or other similar places or in places where games
are played with stakes or money or things representing money. Except, of course, if the person is
actually employed in any of these places.
But in today’s generation, the common way of paying wages is done through banks. The
requisites for this arrangement are as follows:
a. There must be written permission of the majority of the employees concerned in an
establishment;
b. The establishment must have 25 or more employees;
c. The establishment must be located within one kilometer radius to the bank.
More specifically, payment through an ATM, is now widely practiced. But for this to be validly
effected, the following conditions must be met:
a. The ATM system of payment is with the written consent of the employee concerned;
b. The employees are given reasonable time to withdraw their wages from the banks facility
which, if done during working hours, shall be considered as compensable hours worked;
c. The system shall allow the employee to receive their wage within the period in the amount
prescribed under the Labor Code;
d. There is a bank or ATM facility within a radius of 1 kilometer from the workplace;
e. Upon the request of the concerned employee, the employer shall issue a record evidencing
payment of wages, benefits and deductions for a particular period;
f. The ATM system of payment shall neither result in diminution of benefits and privileges
of the employee nor shall the latter incur additional expenses in the process; and
g. The employer shall assume full responsibility in case the wage protection provisions of law
and regulations are not complied with under the arrangement.

V.E. DIRECT PAYMENT OF WAGES

 Article 105 specifically provides, for obvious reasons, that wages should be paid directly
to the workers to whom they are due. There are, however, certain instances which allows the
payment of wages to a person other than the worker himself, to wit:
a. In cases of force majeure such rendering such payment impossible or under special
circumstances to be determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations, in
which case the worker may be worker for the purpose; or
b. Where the worker has died, in which case the employer may pay the wages of the deceased
worker to the heirs of the latter without the necessity of intestate proceedings. The
claimants, if they are all of age, shall execute an affidavit attesting to their relationship to
the deceased and the fact that they are his heirs, to the exclusion of all other persons. If any
of any of the heirs is a minor, the affidavit shall be executed on his behalf by his natural
guardian, or next of kin. The affidavit shall be presented to the employer who shall make
payment through the Secretary of Labor or his representatives.
V.F. Prohibitions on Wages
Aside from those already mentioned previously, the Labor Code further provides for other
prohibitions as regards wages. One of these proscriptions is the non-interference in the disposal
of wages, pursuant to Article 112, which states that “no employer shall limit or otherwise
interfere with the freedom of any employee to dispose of his wages. (Furthermore) he shall not in
any manner force, compel, or oblige his employees to purchase merchandise, commodities or
other properties from the employer or from any other person, or otherwise make use of any store
or service of such employer or any other person”. For obvious reasons, even in the absence of
this provision of law, common sense would dictate that an employee should be left alone as
regards the disposal of the compensation he/she has received for the services he/she has
rendered.
This prohibition also finds company in another provision of the Labor Code, Article 116,
which provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to withhold any
amount from the wages of a worker, or induce him to give up any part of his wages by force,
stealth, intimidation, threat or by any other means whatsoever without the workers consent”
Another such prohibition under the Labor Code is found in Article 113, which avers that
“no employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the
wages of his employees”. There are, however, instances when wage deduction is allowed by law-
but with the written consent of the employee involved. They are the following:
a. SSS payments
b. PHILHEALTH payments
c. Contribution to PAG-IBIG Fund
d. Payments to third persons
e. Deductions of absences.

As regards the fourth item in the immediately preceding enumeration, the Implementing Rules of
the Labor Code”, “an employee’s payment of obligation to a third person is deductible from the
employee’s wages if the deduction is authorized in writing by the employee. The employer may
agree to make the deduction but is not obliged to do so. He must not receive any pecuniary
benefit, directly or indirectly, from the transaction
Still pursuant to Article 113 of the Labor Code, there are those allowable wage
deductions which no longer require consent from the employee - some of which are as follows:
a. In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer, and the deduction
is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance;
b. For union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his union to check-off has been
recognized by the employer;
c. In cases where the employee is indebted to the employer, where such indebtedness has
become due and demandable””
d. In court awards, wages may be the subject of execution or attachment, but only for debts
incurred for food, shelter, clothing and medical attendance;
e. Withholding tax; and
f. In cases where the employer 1s authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary
of Labor.
 Aside from those already mentioned, Article 114 prohibits an employer from requiring his
workers to make deposits from which deductions shall be made for reimbursement of Joss of or
damage to tools, materials or equipment supplied by the employer. This will only be allowed if
the employer is engaged in such trades, occupations or business where the practice of making
deductions or requiring the deposits is a recognized one.
Article 115 prohibits an employer from making any deductions from an employee for the
actual amount of loss or damage committed by the latter, except when the employee has been
given the chance to be heard as regards his culpability, and his responsibility has been clearly
shown. This prohibition is also in consonance to the constitutionally enshrined principle of a
person’s right to due process of law.
Equally prohibited by law is the refusal to pay wages as a means of retaliating against an
employee. Article 118 speaks of this prohibition, to wit: “It shall be unlawful for an employer to
refuse to pay or reduce the wages and benefits, discharge or in any manner discriminate against
any employee who has filed any complaint or instituted any proceeding (against the employer) or
has testified or is about to testify in such proceedings”.