Philippine Law

In the Philippines, there is no specific law that thoroughly discuss Sumptuary

Laws during and after a Pandemic or other Times of National Calamity or Emergency.
Up to date, the Congress is yet to pass a law providing for the specific acts that is
punishable and its corresponding penalties

However, a Sumptuary provision can be found in Republic Act No. 386 also
known as the Civil Code of the Philippines. The Civil Code provides:

Article 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during

a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the
courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.

It would appear based on the provision that there are three (3) requisites:
1. There must be an acute public want or emergency;
2. There must be a thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or
display; and
3. Only government or private charitable institutions could file the action seeking
to stop the thoughtless extravagance.
Article 25 is vague in terms of the meaning of thoughtless extravagance since
such statement is subjective. Meaning, what is thoughtless extravagance for one person
might not be for others. The provision failed to specify what constitutes thoughtless
extravagance and even the Supreme court has yet to discuss this provision because up
to date, there is no reported jurisprudence which involves the stopping of a thoughtless
extravagance. The provision is also restrictive on who can file an action to stop such
thoughtless extravagance since it limits only to the government or private charitable
institutions. It is perceived many times that it is the government itself which is often
guilty of extravagance for pleasure or display. Also, government institutions are not
expected to file suits against their own government. 1
According to a civil law author the rationale of Article 25 of the Civil Code is
“When the rich indulge in thoughtless extravagance or display during a period of acute
public want or emergency, they may unwittingly kindle the flame of unrest in the hearts
of the poor who thereby become more keenly conscious of their privation and poverty
and who may rise against the obvious inequality.” 2
The intention of the law is salutary to the country because it is geared towards
the prevention of social unrest, agitation, turmoil and dissatisfaction. Feelings of envy
and deprivation in the minds of the underprivileged will be inflamed if they see and
perceive extravagant indulgences in frivolities and ostentations in time of public want
and need. 3 It seeks to prevent inconsiderate and ostentatious activities during times of
emergency.4 Thoughtless extravagance during emergencies may incite the passions of
those who cannot afford to spend.5

Application of Article 25 of the Civil Code

Article 25 of the Civil Code was applied or cited few times in different executive,
administrative and general orders in national and local level. The following are as
follows

1. General Order No. 15 issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos;

2. Administrative Order by Baguio Mayor Reinaldo Bautista;

1
Pineda, E. L. (n.d.). Persons and Family Relations (2010 ed., Vol. 1). Central Book Supply Inc.
2
Tolentino, I Civil Code of the Philippines [1990], p. 91
3
Pineda, E. L. (n.d.). Persons and Family Relations (2010 ed., Vol. 1). Central Book Supply Inc.
4
Sta. Maria, M. (n.d.). Persons and Family Relations (2010 ed.). Rex Bookstore.
5
Paras, E. L. (n.d.). Civil Code of the Philippines (16th ed., Vol. 1). Rex Book Store.
 3. Executive Order 25 by Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte; and
4. Executive Order No. 35 by Koronadal City Mayor Eliordo U. Ogena.

General Order No. 15 issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos

Former President of the Philippines, Ferdinand E. Marcos, reiterated the

application Article 25 of the Civil Code in issuing General Order No. 15. Pursuant to
Proclamation No. 1081, placing the entire Philippines under martial law, he issued
General Order No. 15 which provides that:
xxx
“I, do hereby call upon every resident and citizen of the Philippines, including all
elective local officials from provincial governors and city mayors down to barrio
captains and councilmen, to avoid and prevent, as the case may be, ostentatious
display of wealth and extravagance, including lavish town fiestas or social
gatherings. To this end, they are directed to limit town fiestas and other local
festivities to one day, which should be as simple and economical as possible.”
xxx
Article 25 was mentioned in the “whereas clause” of General order reiterating
that thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of
emergency is prohibited.

Administrative Order by Baguio Mayor Reinaldo Bautista

In 2008 the Baguio mayor Reinaldo Bautista, through an administrative order,

suspended the issuance of permits for motorcades along Baguio’s roller-coaster roads.
This administrative order is grounded upon the rise of the prices of commodities in the
Philippines. He directed the Baguio police to deny outright applications for motorcades
in the face of the rising costs of petroleum products and basic commodities such as rice.
He cited Article 25 of the Civil Code that prohibits “thoughtless extravagance in
expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency”.
The Mayor said that there exists “acute public want”, thereby “making expenses for
promotion of business and/or special activities through the holding of motorcades fall in
the category of ‘thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure’”. He also said that
banning motorcades will encourage a healthier, cost efficient, and environmental-
friendly way of promoting businesses and events by walking. 6

COVID-19 threat in the Philippines

On March 8, 2020, President Rodrigo R. Duterte, through Proclamation No. 922,

declared a State of Public Health Emergency throughout the Philippines in order to
capacitate government agencies and Local Government Units to immediately respond
and act with respect to the threat that is brought by the COVID-19. The proclamation
stressed the importance of the LGUs in the curtailment and elimination of the COVID-19
threat. Section 2 of the Proclamation provides:

“All government agencies and LGUs are hereby enjoined to render full
assistance and cooperation and mobilize the necessary resources to undertake
critical, urgent, and appropriate response and measures in a timely manner to
curtail and eliminate the COVID-19 threat.”7

President Rodrigo Duterte stressed that the LGUs has a vital role in addressing
the problem caused by COVID-19. In line with this, he encouraged the Local
6
Dacawi, R. (2008, July 13). Baguio mayor bans motorcades; cops ordered: Don’t issue permits. Northern
Philippine Times. Retrieved from http://northphiltimes.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-news-baguio-city_13.html
7
Section 2, Proclamation No. 922
Government officials to exercise their executive and legislative power in order to make
take immediate actions to lessen the spread of the virus and to be able to treat those
who are affected.

Executive Order 25 by Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte

Recently, in light with the recent worldwide pandemic caused by the Coronavirus
(COVID-19), Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte issued Executive Order No. 25 dated April
17, 2020. It provides that Davao City shall be in a “Period of Mourning and Vigilance”
beginning April 17, 2020 to December 31, 2020. The “whereas” clause of the EO
provides for the rationale of the declaration stressing that there is a need to emphasize
the value of sympathy for the families of front liners who died and who will die because
of Covid-19 and that there is a need to impress upon everyone the value of  empathy for
those who are suffering and will continue to suffer the after effects of the pandemic. EO
No. 25 mandates that all city and national events and celebration shall be cancelled.
Even barangays are mandated to refrain from having extravagant celebration of their
fiestas such as araw ng barangay. Section of 5 of the EO provides that private parties
should be kept low key and modest and big celebrations are advised to be postponed
until the following year. Executive Order No. 25 emphasizes the application of Article 25
of the Civil Code to wit:

Section 7. During this period, the City Government shall file actions on the basis
of Article 25 of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws in cases of thoughtless
extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display.

Executive Order No. 35 by Koronadal City Mayor Eliordo U. Ogena.

Similarly, Koronadal City Mayor Eliordo U. Ogena issued Executive Order No.
35, series of 2020, imposing Government and Communal austerity in its operation and
daily living. The EO encourage everyone to extend empathy and concern to those who
have died and who are currently suffering caused by COVID-19. Similar to the
Executive Order of Davao City, EO 35 cancels all events and celebrations of the
government and mandates that private parties shall be kept lowkey and modest. It
provides that violation of such order shall be considered a breach of Article 25 of the
Civil Code and other pertinent laws. The Executive Orders by Davao and Koronadal
City are basically the same.

In 2002, where the Philippines is experiencing economic crisis, the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Nueva Vizcaya issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan members from buying 13 luxury vehicles worth P7
million for their own individual use. The 20-day TRO stopped the provincial board
members from implementing their own approved appropriation ordinance that would
entitle each of them to own a luxury service vehicle at public expense. The complaint
was filed by Leonardo Perez Jr., also a board member in the said province. He stated in
his complaint that purchasing luxury cars is a neglect of the call of President Arroyo for
all public officials to initiate actions with respect to the economic crisis the country is
facing that time. Perez said that "Under the provisions of the Civil Code (Article 25),
these officials could be charged for lavish spending based on the present economic
hardship we are in."8

Sumptuary Laws are also present in the Philippine laws and it is applicable even
though there is no pandemic or national emergency or calamity. For public officials,
Section 1 of Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:

8
Serrano, B. (2002, November 18). Vizcaya provincial board stopped from buying luxury cars. Philstar Global.
Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com/nation/2002/11/18/184426/vizcaya-provincial-board-stopped-buying-
luxury-cars
 Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

This provision is also reiterated in Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, to wit:
Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. – (A) Every
public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal
conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:
xxx
(h) Simple living. – Public officials and employees and their families shall lead
modest lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in
extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.

The above-mentioned are considered austerity laws and can also be related to
sumptuary laws which tends to regulate consumption of public official. It mandates
public officials to live a simple and modest lives. The Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. 6713 provides that Officials and employees and their families shall
lead modest and simple lives appropriate to their position and income. They shall not
indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form. It defined “modest
simple living” as:

“Basically, modest and simple living means maintaining a standard of living

within the public official or employee’s visible means of income as correctly
disclosed in his income tax returns, annual statement of assets, liabilities and net
worth and other documents relating to financial and business interests and
connections.”

In conclusion, the Philippines is yet to legislate a definite law that provides for the
regulation of thoughtless extravagance during a national emergency. Although there are
some instances that Article 25 of the Civil Code was applied, our Congress needs to
legislate in order to regulate thoughtless extravagance and ostentatious display of
wealth and clearly and set forth specific guidelines in terms of its applicability.