|
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Cariño: What's in a name? (A single mother's reaction to RA 9255)
By Linda Grace Cariño
Paradigm Shift
THE NEWS has lately given significant coverage to a new law, RA 9255, "allowing" so-called illegitimate children to use the surnames of their fathers. This means that a child born out of wedlock in this country is now legally entitled to use his/her father's surname, something s/he was not entitled to as per Article 176 of Executive Order No. 209, the Family Code of the Philippines. With the latter in effect since the latter part of 1987, said child, by law, had to use his/her mother's surname.
Let me react to this as a single mother. Let, too, this article begin a series of such reactions, the series to be an endeavor I have owed friend and colleague Marilu Guieb for the past what? five years, I think. Malu would like such an endeavor to run on the pages where her Women's Feature Service prints writings that reflect a woman's viewpoint of the world.
Okay, Malu, this one's for you.
The Family Code's stipulation that a child born out of wedlock is entitled to use only his/her motherÆs name seems to be premised on the age-old adage that only a mother really knows who the father of her child is, but that she undoubtedly is her child's mother. Thus, even with a father willing to acknowledge paternity over said child, the law ruled, essentially, that the only thing sure is that the child is the woman's. Ergo, the child must bear only her name.
While there is some level of validity to that premise, it is a premise that clearly should carry onto the situation of married couples. Even here, the only sure thing is maternity, in truth. Marriage does not necessarily mean that a child born to a wife is her husband's. And let s/he who would protest that fry in hell for either lying, hypocrisy, or both.
This is not to say that all married women deliver children who are not also their husbands'. It just means that the premise that the only sure thing is maternity cuts, married state or unmarried state, right? As a matter of fact, with that premise in place, does it then not make more sense for all children to thus carry their mothers' surnames? That's paradigm shift number one of this series.
It is a difficult shift for many, so steeped in them is the paradigm in this country that a child must bear her/his father's name. So much so that a prevailing sentiment among many now that a child is by law entitled to said name is relief, maybe, or happiness, or sense that a wrong has been righted? Perhaps the lattermost, most of all.
Three points, there. First, whether the RA 9255 be in place or not, the only sure thing is still maternity. Perhaps the only sure test for paternity is DNA testing. Second, surely any child, even if created invitro, always has both a biological father and a biological mother, and ought to be "entitled" - for want of a better word - to both their names, whether or not a law says so.
Third, and to what is in truth a major paradigm problem, we live in a local culture that apparently values a man's surname over a woman's. Now why is that?
Well, whatever the reasons, it's a problem I don't have. In July of 1987, I had a baby I named John Gabriel Zadkiel. I wasn't married. And the Family Code was not yet in place. My mother, who belongs to a generation for whom single motherhood is not the done thing, maneuvered events so that my son's birth certificate was signed by his birth father. Thus, John was surnamed Valencia for some time.
It was in 1994, at a high school class reunion, when I first asked lawyer friend (now Her Honor) Claire Tabin the following questions. What legally determines a child's surname? Isn't it a choice? Shouldn't it be a choice - either parent's name serves? Can he use my name? Does he have to use his father's name? (to be continued)
(June 27, 2004 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
