Jose Cristobal C.

Liwanag
Persons and Family Relations

Position Paper
Marriage Solemnized Through Zoom or Any Virtual Means, Can it be Valid?

No, a marriage solemnized through Zoom, holographic technology, augmented or

virtual reality or any virtual or telecommunication/videoconferencing means is not valid
under the Family Code of the Philippines.

Article 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines states that the essential requisites
for a valid marriage are:

xxx

1. Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female;
2. Their consent freely given in the presence of a solemnizing officer.

xxx

Further, Article 3 of the Family Code further states that formal requisites of a
valid marriage are as follows:

Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:

1. Authority of the solemnizing officer;

2. A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this
Title; and
3. A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the
contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that
they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses
of legal age.

Moreover, Article 4 of the same Code states that the absence of any of the
aforementioned essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio,
and “An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage
but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and
administratively liable.”
 From the aforementioned provisions of the Family Code, virtual presence of any
or both parties to the marriage through Zoom, hologram, augmented reality and other
virtual means is not to be construed as within the ambit of No. 3, Article 3 of the Family
Code. The aforementioned provision is legally contemplated to mean personal
appearance, as in appearance in the flesh, before a solemnizing officer and not less than
two witnesses of legal age. Such a virtual ceremony would not even be allowed to take
place at all by a solemnizing officer, hence the only recourse by the engaged couple
would be to appear personally and then proceed with the ceremony.

If the solemnizing officer proceeds to do a marriage ceremony with an

irregularity, the officer may become civilly, criminally and administratively liable, as in
the case of Ronulo v. People of the Philippines (2014). The petitioner was an “Aglipayan”
priest who proceeded with the marriage ceremony even if the couple about to get
married did not have a valid marriage license. He was found guilty of violating Article
352 of the Revised Penal Code and was penalized in accordance with the Marriage Law.1

The COVID pandemic made it very difficult for marriage ceremonies to take
place. Strict guidelines or even outright disallowance of mass gatherings to prevent the
spread of the virus had made it hard for couples to tie the knot. Many couples planning
to get married had to defer their marriage ceremonies to a later date or even outright
cancel them. The strictest COVID-19 lockdown measures implemented in the
Philippines in 2020 led to a significant decrease in the number of registered marriages,
with 240,775 marriages recorded, representing the lowest number of marriages in the
country in 50 years. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), the number
of marriages in 2020 was 44.3% lower than the 431,972 marriages registered in 2019,
and the lowest annual number of marriages recorded since 1970.2

Hence, not wanting their “I do’s” to be barred by the virus, there has been a
clamor by some for virtual marriage ceremonies to be allowed in this jurisdiction. In
2021, House Bill 7042 or the Virtual Marriage Bill was proposed. The bill provides that
no marriage shall be valid unless the essential requisites are met, including the legal
capacity of the contracting parties, consent freely given in the presence of the
solemnizing officer, and presence, which may be either physical or virtual. If virtual, the
contracting parties must be physically present together in the same location.

The bill defines "virtual" as "the use of video, audio, and data transmission
devices that allow people from different physical locations to simultaneously
1
Ronulo v. People of the Philippines, GR. No. 182438 (2014)
2
Inquirer.net. (n.d.). Love in the time of COVID: Marriages in PH fell to 50-year low in 2020. Retrieved
from
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1537501/love-in-the-time-of-covid-marriages-in-ph-fell-to-50-year-low-in-2020
communicate, see, and hear each other." Representative Ron Salo of Kabayan, the
author of the bill, proposed that both audio and video are required for the identification
of the contracting parties. Further, he proposed that the legal meaning of "presence" or
"personal appearance" as an essential requisite for the validity of marriage be construed
liberally to include virtual presence or presence through video conferencing, especially
amid the pandemic. This means that in a virtual marriage, the male and female spouses
to be wed would be together in the same location, but their presence before the
solemnizing officer would be remote or virtual. It did not allow couples to marry
virtually if they are in different locations3.

The bill did not become a law, perhaps due to the easing of strict COVID
lockdowns and near eradication of the COVID19 virus as a consequence of the
government’s effort in mass vaccination programs and more targeted approach in
dealing with local outbreaks in pockets of population.

Even if the pandemic is virtually over now, should virtual marriages be allowed?
Some couples did not like the idea, even outright saying that such a marriage would not
be like a “real” marriage, lacking the intimacy that physical weddings have especially
during the exchange of vows. As a supposedly once in a lifetime event, it should be
celebrated with close friends and families. On the other hand, couples who have very
tight budgets or who are under circumstances where physical marriage is practically
impossible welcome the measure proposed, stating that it is a time-saver and is much
cheaper than getting married in a church or any other venue.4

Marriage is also one of the seven holy sacraments in the Roman Catholic
religion.5 As a country with a predominantly Catholic population, priests are the number
one solemnizing officer in terms of population. They were quick to dismiss the measure,
stating that such virtual union diminishes the essence and dignity of the marriage itself.
More importantly, they have evinced that it is difficult to ascertain in the online/virtual
setup if the parties were freely giving their consent to get married, a sentiment shared
with the Commision on Human Rights.6

In the United States, only one state allows totally virtual marriages: Utah. Unlike
the proposed measure in our jurisdiction, in Utah, the parties who wish to get married
3
Philippine News Agency. (n.d.). House panel pushes for virtual marriage bill. Retrieved from
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1152475
4
Manila Bulletin. (2021, February 13). Do you want to have a virtual marriage? Retrieved from
https://mb.com.ph/2021/02/13/do-you-want-to-have-a-virtual-marriage/
5
The Holy See. (n.d.). Catechism of the Catholic Church. Retrieved from
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3E.HTM
6
Manila Bulletin. (2021, February 13). Do you want to have a virtual marriage? Retrieved from
https://mb.com.ph/2021/02/13/do-you-want-to-have-a-virtual-marriage/
need not to be in the same place together nor even be in the United States to get
married. However, the officiant of such a virtual wedding needs to be from Utah. Since
May 2020, the Utah County clerk and auditor’s office in Provo has performed virtual
weddings for over thousands of international couples, including brides and grooms from
Azerbaijan, China, Estonia, Finland, Denmark, France, Guam, Iceland, Kenya and
Madagascar. More than an affirmation of their love, some of the couples who married
virtually under Utah state law during the height of the pandemic got another benefit -
bypassing travel restrictions. The accompanying marriage certificate affords individuals
the opportunity to navigate around travel constraints. As a prerequisite for visa
applications, this granted couples the ability to traverse international borders, even
amidst stringent restrictions that might impede the entry of most visitors.7

Should such a measure be allowed under our jurisdiction as an option, even if the
pandemic is virtually over now? In my opinion, it should be. As a country which has one
of the highest numbers of overseas workers, they are one of the stakeholders that stand
to benefit the most from it. Since most of the migrant workers have opted to go abroad
due to financial reasons, a virtual marriage and the plethora of benefits that comes with
marriage would enable them to get the benefits of marriage sooner than if they were to
wait to get home and perform such a ceremony physically in person. A virtual marriage
means that they can get married without missing work or taking a vacation for a long
time. Less missed work equates to more take home pay, which was the primary reason
why they wanted to work overseas in the first place.

Some legal benefits include: tax benefits, where married couples can enjoy tax
benefits such as filing joint tax returns and claiming additional personal exemptions.
Inheritance rights, where spouses automatically inherit each other's estates without
having to pay estate taxes. Other benefits include privileges as next-of-kin in legal
proceedings. This enables them to make medical decisions for their spouse if he or she
becomes incapacitated. They can also sue for wrongful death if their partner died.
Furthermore, married people could also decide if their spouse should be buried or
cremated.

In conclusion, currently, virtual weddings are not valid under this jurisdiction but
such an option would be beneficial if passed by the legislative body, most especially for
our OFWs who are far away from their significant others, not only as an affirmation of
the love between them but also as for the legal benefits of marriage that will be afforded
to them by law.

7
The New York Times. (2021, September 17). Utah County has the most marriages in the U.S. So why
are local officials making them harder to get? Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/style/utah-county-weddings-virtual.html