A Demographic Portrait of the Filipino Family: A Glimpse from the Recent Past
Resilience and Familism: The Dynamic Nature of Families in the Philippines
ISBN: 978-1-80455-415-9, eISBN: 978-1-80455-414-2
ISSN: 1530-3535
Publication date: 10 August 2023
Abstract
The Philippines experienced several demographic and socioeconomic changes in the past decades, such as rising urbanization, educational expansion, lengthening life expectancy, and increasing overseas labor migration. These changes will have significant ramifications for families and households. For example, educational expansion may delay union formation and accelerate union dissolution. Meanwhile, the joint effect of declining fertility and increasing life expectancy can lead to population aging, which has important implications for intergenerational support and the provision of care to older adults. Against this backdrop, this chapter aims to sketch a demographic portrait of the Filipino family in the past decades, using different sources, including census and survey data. Specifically, it examines trends in union formation (marriage and cohabitation) and union dissolution (divorce and separation) in the Philippines and explores Filipinos’ attitudes toward these behaviors. It also describes trends in fertility, fertility preference, and childlessness among Filipino women. Finally, it investigates changes (or lack thereof) in household size and structure in the Philippines, including the living arrangements and intergenerational support among older Filipinos.
Keywords
Citation
Abalos, J.B. (2023), "A Demographic Portrait of the Filipino Family: A Glimpse from the Recent Past", Gregorio, V.L., Batan, C.M. and Blair, S.L. (Ed.) Resilience and Familism: The Dynamic Nature of Families in the Philippines (Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research, Vol. 23), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1530-353520230000023001
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023 Emerald Publishing Limited
Introduction
The family is the most important, most valued, and most enduring institution in Philippine society (Asis, 1994). It offers
social security, old age pensions …, care for the sick, home for the aged, counsel for the troubled, and most of all, love, affection, emotional sustenance, and social stability without which a Filipino’s life is meaningless. (Castillo, 1979, p. 103)
Data from the 2019 World Values Survey showed that almost all adult Filipinos regard their family as very important (98.2%) and agree that one of their main goals is to make their parents proud (97.2%) (Haerpfer et al., 2022). However, while the Filipino family may seem to have endured the test of time, it is not impervious to the waves of change (Asis, 1994). Over the last several decades, the Philippines has been confronted by several demographic and socioeconomic changes, such as rising urbanization, educational expansion, lengthening life expectancy, and increasing overseas labor migration. For example, the percentage of the urban population in the country increased from 51.2% in 2015 to 54.0% in 2020 (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2022b), while life expectancy at birth among Filipino men increased from 57.5 years in 1960 to 66.9 years in 2010, and from 59.0 years to 73.0 years among Filipino women (Cabigon, 2001; Philippine Statistics Authority, 2014). The increase in life expectancy, and to some extent, fertility decline, has contributed to the steady increase of older people in the Philippines from 4.5% in 1970 to 7.5% in 2015 (Abalos, 2020; Abalos & Booth, 2020). Another enduring feature of the Philippine demographic landscape is the intensification of international labor migration. Data from the Commission on Filipino Overseas showed that the stock estimate of overseas Filipinos increased from 6.97 million in 1997 to 10.24 million in 2013 or about 10% of the Philippine population. Consequently, the proportion of households in the Philippines with at least one overseas worker nearly tripled from 3.2% in 1990 to 8.0% in 2015. These changes will have significant ramifications for families and households. For example, educational expansion may delay union formation (Abalos, 2014) and accelerate union dissolution (Abalos, 2017). Meanwhile, overseas migration will lead to the physical separation of families, alter the household composition, and impact the availability of support, particularly for older adults.
Against this backdrop, this chapter aims to sketch a demographic portrait of the Filipino family in the past decades, using various sources, including census and survey data. Specifically, the study examines changes in union formation (marriage and cohabitation) and union dissolution (divorce and separation) in the Philippines and explores Filipinos’ attitudes toward these behaviors. It also describes trends in fertility, fertility preference, and childlessness among Filipino women. Finally, it investigates changes (or lack thereof) in household size and structure in the Philippines, including the living arrangements and intergenerational support among older Filipinos.
Marriage, Cohabitation, and Other Types of Relationships in the Philippines
Marriage is a highly revered institution in Philippine society (Gultiano et al., 2009). It is not only a union of two individuals but also a union of their respective families (Medina, 2015). Thus, parents try to influence their children’s mate selection process to ensure the stability of the marriage and upward social mobility of the family, particularly among the more well-off segment of society (Kabamalan, 2006; Xenos & Kabamalan, 2007). Over time, parental influence on their children’s choice of spouse persists, particularly among Filipino youth. Based on the 2002 Young Adult and Fertility Study (YAFS), a nationally representative survey of Filipino youth, 2.9% of currently married Filipino youth aged 15–24 years cited arranged marriage as their reason for getting married; this proportion increased to 9.1% in 2013. Parental involvement in selecting their children’s spouse can also be gauged in the prevalence of elopement, which is associated with “escaping” or leaving the parental abode without permission (Xenos & Kabamalan, 2007). The YAFS data indicated that the proportion of those currently in union who eloped with their current spouse or partner declined from 20.1% in 2002 to 14.3% in 2013. Based on the 2013 YAFS, their reasons for elopement include “love each other” (43.5%), parents/guardians opposed to marriage/relationship/partner or “parents/guardians are strict” (38.3%), and “got pregnant/got girl pregnant” (10.5%).
The age of marriage among Filipinos is relatively high and has continued to increase over time (Abalos, 2014; Ogena et al., 2008). It increased from 22.8 years in 1970 to 24.6 years in 2015 among women and from 25.4 years to 27.2 years among men (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2019). Increasing educational attainment may be related to the rising marriage age among Filipinos (Abalos, 2014).
Not only is the timing of marriage formation in the country changing, but also its form. Marriage in the Philippines usually takes the form of legal marriage (through a church of civil wedding) or cohabitation, but the majority of marriages are legal (Gultiano et al., 2009; Xenos, 1997). According to the 2015 Philippine census, 81.7% of the population aged 10 years and over who were in union (e.g., legally married or living-in) were legally married, and 18.3% were living together (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2017). Data from the National Demographic Survey (NDS) and National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) showed that while the total proportion of Filipino women who are in union remains relatively stable at around 60% (except in 2003 and 2008), the proportion of Filipino women aged 15–49 years who are legally married steadily declined from 54.4% in 1993 to 42.4% in 2017 (National Statistics Office [NSO] & Macro International Inc. [MI], 1994; Philippine Statistics Authority [PSA] & ICF, 2018). In contrast, the corresponding share of women who are cohabiting increased from 5.2% to 17.5% (National Statistics Office [NSO] & Macro International Inc. [MI], 1994; Philippine Statistics Authority [PSA] & ICF, 2018).
What are the reasons Filipinos are cohabiting instead of formally marrying? Nearly half (47.8%) of the 2013 YAFS respondents who are currently living-in cited economic reasons for cohabiting. Previous research indicated that these economic reasons may include the expenses to cover the costs of the wedding reception and fees to secure a marriage license and other required documents (Kabamalan, 2004). It may also include the “donation”1 to officiate the wedding ceremony, and in some cases, there is a minimum amount for this “donation’ that is quite expensive and may not be affordable for the poor (Williams et al., 2007). Other reasons why Filipinos resorted to cohabitation include legal impediments, cultural traditions, and misinterpretation of marriage laws (Kabamalan, 2004, 2011). Some of these legal impediments could be the lack of divorce law in the country, preventing those previously married from marrying again, and the absence of laws that recognize the marriage of same-sex couples (Abalos, 2023).
With the growing phenomenon of cohabitation among Filipinos, the question arises whether cohabitation serves as another path to marriage or an alternative to marriage in the Philippines. Existing evidence implies that it is more of the former than the latter. For example, the 1994 International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) survey showed that 24.8% of married respondents aged 18 years and over lived with their spouse before marriage (ISSP Research Group, 1997). Meanwhile, the 2013 YAFS data showed that 62.3% of currently married non-Muslim respondents aged 15–24 years lived with their partner before formally marrying.
Aside from consensual union or living together, another form of cohabitation is the querida system or the keeping of a second wife (Xenos & Kabamalan, 2007). There is sparse literature on the querida system in the Philippines, but anecdotes about this phenomenon abound (Kabamalan, 2006). A proxy indicator for the prevalence of the querida system is the proportion of Filipinos who have had extramarital sex (EMS). An earlier study based on the 2003 NDHS revealed that 21.6% of Filipino men in 2003 have had EMS; of those who had EMS, 79.8% had regular partners only, 5.3% had occasional partners only, and 3.4% had regular and occasional partners (Abalos, 2011). Moreover, the 2003 NDHS data indicated that the prevalence of EMS among Filipino men was higher among those who are currently cohabiting, those who have no living children, those who are undecided about their fertility preference, or whose wife was sterilized or infecund, those who belong to religions other than Roman Catholic and Islam, and those who have been drunk in the past month.
Meanwhile, the 2013 YAFS data showed that 3.1% of Filipino youth have engaged in EMS; the prevalence of EMS is more than 10 times higher among males (10.1%) than females (0.6%) (Marquez, 2016). Having EMS is strongly frowned upon in Philippine society, with 84.1% of the 2008 ISSP respondents considering this behavior always wrong (ISSP Research Group, 2018). For comparison, 54.6% of respondents in the same survey considered premarital sex (PMS) always wrong (ISSP Research Group, 2018). The strong disapproval against EMS over PMS is because EMS not only disrupts a marriage but also impacts married couples, their children, and other family members (Medina, 2015). For example, the 2013 YAFS data revealed that 23.6% of Filipino youth cited extramarital affairs as the main reason their first marriage ended.
Accompanying the changes in the timing and type of unions in the Philippines is the shift in the type of wedding ceremonies. For example, the proportion of Catholic Church weddings declined from 70.0% in 1960 to 36.2% in 2019, while the corresponding proportion of civil ceremonies increased from 21.4% to 38.6% (Bureau of the Census and Statistics, 1962; Philippine Statistics Authority, 2022a). The cost of having a Church wedding compared to a civil wedding may have contributed to the growing popularity of civil weddings.
Aside from cohabitation, other alternative types of partnerships, such as living apart together (LAT) and commuter marriages that are documented in other countries, may also exist in the Philippines. Couples in a LAT relationship are viewed by themselves and their personal network as a couple, but they do not share a common residence, while those in commuting relationships live in one home, but one (or both of them) have a second apartment where he or she stays when away from home due, to employment or education reasons (Levin, 2004). Qualitative evidence revealed that some Filipinos are in a LAT relationship (Gregorio, 2020), but there are no national estimates of this phenomenon due to limited data. Similarly, estimates of commuter marriages in the Philippines are lacking, but based on the 2017 NDHS, about 8% of Filipino women in a union were not living with their spouse or partner for reasons other than international migration in the past 24 months.
Another emerging type of relationship that has been recently documented in the Philippines is “FUBU” (“fuck buddies”) or “FB” (“friends with benefits”). This type of sexual relationship occurs when “two people who are not in a romantic relationship regularly engage in sexual intercourse” (Marquez, 2016, p. 102). Based on the 2013 YAFS data, 3.6% of Filipino youth have engaged in a FUBU; a higher proportion of males (6.6%) than females (0.7%) engaged in this sexual activity (Marquez, 2016). In addition, an earlier study by the University of the Philippines Population Institute in 2009 also showed that a significant proportion of call center (13.6%) and non-call center (7.9%) professionals with sexual experience have had a FUBU (University of the Philippines Population Institute, 2010).
The Rise of Non-marriage Among Filipinos
Along with the changing character and timing of union formation in the Philippines is the growing aversion toward marriage. This is evidenced by the increasing share of permanent celibacy, measured in terms of the proportion of never-married at ages 40–49 years. Census data indicated that the proportion of Filipinos who have never married in their 40s increased from 4.3% in 1970 to 11.3% in 2015 among men and from 7.0% to 8.8% among women (United Nations Statistics Division, 2022). Non-marriage in the Philippines is more prevalent among low-educated men and highly educated women (Abalos, 2023). These patterns where low-educated men and highly educated women experience difficulty finding partners suggest the presence of a “marriage squeeze” (Williams & Arguillas, 2012). The faster expansion of education among Filipino women relative to men and the cultural expectations that discourage women from “marrying down” or marrying someone with lower education than them may have contributed to this phenomenon. The presence of marriage squeeze, particularly among males, is also observed in China (Jiang et al., 2014). These men are referred to as “bare branches,” a term for men in the countryside who are past a certain age and unable to get married, hence are forced to remain single (Jiang & Sánchez-Barricarte, 2013). However, research also showed that the proportion of unmarried Filipino men in their 40s is almost the same for men with primary and college education (Abalos, 2023). This Philippine pattern deviates from the pattern found in other Asian countries such as South Korea, China, and Singapore, where the share of tertiary-educated men who are unmarried in their 40s is much lower than their counterparts with less than tertiary level education (Jones, 2018).
Union Dissolution
Under the Family Code of the Philippines, divorce is illegal in the country, except for Filipinos who are married to foreigners and obtain a divorce in another country and Filipino Muslims who are governed by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Lopez, 2001). This makes the Philippines the only state in the world, aside from the Vatican City, where divorce is illegal (Emery, 2013). However, the Family Code offers three measures that permit spouses to seek relief from a marriage: (a) legal separation, (b) annulment of marriage, and (c) declaration of nullity of marriage (Gloria, 2007). Civil registration data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) indicated that of the 14,264 cases of marriage dissolution processed from 1968 to 2016, declaration of absolute nullity of marriage was the most common ground for dissolution (83.6%), followed by Islamic divorce (9.1%), foreign decree of divorce (6.3%), and annulment (1.0%) (De Guzman, 2017). However, despite the availability of a legal means to end a marriage in the Philippines, Filipinos seldom resort to them due to the high costs of the procedure, the lengthy legal process involved, and the uncertainty that they will be approved (Calonzo & Cayabyab, 2013; Emery, 2013; Lopez, 2001; Taylor, 1983). Given these constraints, some couples just informally separate and are reported as separated in surveys and official statistics.
Divorce and separation in the Philippines have become more common in recent years (Abalos, 2017). Census data showed that since 1960, the proportions for both men and women have more than trebled, while the absolute numbers have gone up by at least 14 times. Specifically, the number of divorced or separated Filipino men increased from 28,988 in 1960 to 466,953 in 2015, while the corresponding numbers among women were 52,187 in 1960 and 744, 309 in 2015. As in other countries (Dommaraju, 2016), the higher rates of re-partnering among men than women could explain the higher number of women than men who are divorced or separated in the Philippines. Survey data also revealed that the percentage of Filipino women aged 15–49 years who were divorced or separated increased from 1.8% in 1993 to 3.3% in 2017 (National Statistics Office [NSO] & Macro International Inc. [MI], 1994; Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) & ICF, 2018). There are several reasons why Filipinos separate from their partners. As noted earlier, the extramarital affair was the most common reason cited by Filipino youth why their first marriage ended. Other reasons mentioned by the 2013 YAFS respondents include personality issues (10.8%), disapproval by the family (10.0%), physical and sexual abuse (6.6%), vices (5.3%), and financial matters (5.1%).
Fertility and Fertility Preferences
The total fertility rate (TFR), or the average number of children a woman would have by the end of her reproductive years if she bore children at the prevailing age-specific fertility rates (Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) & ICF, 2018), remains to be one of the highest in Southeast Asia but has slowly declined from 4.1 children in 1993 to 2.7 in 2017 (Table 1.1). The TFR in the country is generally higher among women in rural areas and those with lower levels of education (Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) & ICF, 2018). Moreover, fertility generally declined in all age groups, except among women aged 15–19 years, particularly between 1998 and 2013 (Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) & ICF, 2018). This is consistent with the country’s increasing trend of teenage pregnancy (Gregorio, 2018; Natividad, 2013). Based on the NDS and NDHS, the percentage of Filipino women aged 15–19 years who have begun childbearing rose from 6.5% in 1993 to about 10% in both 2008 and 2013 before dropping slightly to 8.6% in 2017 (National Statistics Office [NSO] & ICF Macro, 2009; National Statistics Office [NSO] & Macro International Inc. [MI], 1994; Philippine Statistics Authority & ICF International, 2014; Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) & ICF, 2018).
Trends in Wanted and Actual Fertility of Women in the Philippines, 1993–2017.
| TFR | Wanted Fertility | Unwanted Fertility | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 NDS | 4.1 | 2.9 | 1.2 |
| 1998 NDHS | 3.7 | 2.7 | 1.0 |
| 2003 NDHS | 3.5 | 2.5 | 1.0 |
| 2008 NDHS | 3.3 | 2.4 | 0.9 |
| 2013 NDHS | 3.0 | 2.2 | 0.8 |
| 2017 NDHS | 2.7 | 2.0 | 0.7 |
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and ICF (2018).
Note: NDS = National Demographic Survey; NDHS = National Demographic and Health Survey
However, not all births in the country are “wanted” or within Filipino women’s reported ideal number of children. In 1993, only 2.9 children out of the TFR of 4.1 were considered ideal or “wanted” fertility, and 1.2 children were “unwanted” or above Filipino women’s ideal number (National Statistics Office [NSO] & Macro International Inc. [MI], 1994). Over time, both wanted and unwanted fertility declined, so much so that in 2017, the total wanted fertility was 2.0 children, and unwanted fertility was 0.7 children (Table 1.1). This implies that the TFR in the Philippines would have declined to 2.0 children or slightly lower than the “replacement” fertility of 2.1 children if unwanted births were prevented (Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) & ICF, 2018).
There is a consensus between couples regarding the number of children they would have. For example, in 2017, 69.0% of currently married women reported that they and their spouse want the same number of children, while 20.3% said that their spouse wants more children than they do, and another 7.5% stated that their spouse wants fewer children than they do (Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) & ICF, 2018). Furthermore, regarding the preferred sex of children, 55.7% of Filipino women in 2008 had balanced gender preferences, and 8.9% had no gender preference, while 20.9% and 14.5% had daughter and son preferences, respectively (Fuse, 2010).
Children and Childlessness in the Filipino Family
The Filipino family is child-centered, as indicated by the sacrifices and hard work parents make for their children (Castillo, 1979; Medina, 2015). Children are considered a source of joy and support in old age. For example, almost a universal proportion (95.4%) of adult respondents in the 2012 ISSP survey agreed that “watching children grow up is life’s greatest joy,” while 8 in 10 respondents agreed that “adult children are an important source of help for elderly parents” (ISSP Research Group, 2016). Despite the hardships and challenges associated with childbearing and child-rearing in Philippines, children are hardly considered burdens or obstacles to parents’ freedom or career advancement. This is evidenced by a relatively lower proportion of respondents in the 2012 ISSP survey who agreed that “having children restricts the employment and career chances of one or both parents” (22.3%), “children are a financial burden on their parents” (21.5%), and “having children interferes too much with the freedom of parents” (18.6%) (ISSP Research Group, 2016).
The strong value placed on Filipino children begins even before the child is born. For example, the ISSP data indicated that the proportion who agreed that it is always or almost always wrong for a woman to have an abortion “if there is a strong chance of serious defect in the baby” increased from 75.9% in 1991 to 89.3% in 2008 (ISSP Research Group, 1993, 2018). Similarly, the share who agreed that it is always wrong or almost always wrong for a woman to have an abortion if “the family has a very low income and cannot afford any more children” increased from 82.9% in 1991 to 97.9% in 2018 (ISSP Research Group, 1993, 2020). The strong disapproval against abortion among many Filipinos may be due to the influence of the Catholic Church, which 80% of Filipinos adhere to.
While the presence of children is highly celebrated in most Filipino families, their absence can also be a great cause for concern. There is a common assumption that those who get married want to have children, and couples who are childless are considered unlucky and pitied upon because there must be something “wrong” with them (Castillo, 1979). The NDS and NDHS data revealed that the proportion of all Filipino women who are childless at ages 45–49 years slightly increased from 8.5% in 1993 to 9.8% in 2017 (National Statistics Office [NSO] & Macro International Inc. [MI], 1994; Philippine Statistics Authority [PSA] & ICF, 2018). Similarly, the corresponding proportions among women who are currently in union also modestly increased from 3.1% in 1993 to 4.2% in 2017 (National Statistics Office [NSO] & Macro International Inc. [MI], 1994; Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) & ICF, 2018). Childless women in the survey may include those who voluntarily chose to be childless or childfree and those who are infecund or have health conditions that prevent them from getting pregnant.
Attitudes Toward Marriage, Cohabitation, and Divorce
Concomitant with the changes in the trends and patterns of union formation and dissolution are several changes in attitudes toward these behaviors. Having children born out of wedlock is common in the Philippines but having children within marriage is still generally preferred. Based on the ISSP data, the proportion of adult Filipinos who agreed that “people who want children ought to get married” remained unchanged at around 83% in 1994 and 2012, although it dropped to 75.9% in 2002 (Table 1.2). While formal or legal marriage remains the most common type of union in the Philippines, data suggest a growing acceptance among Filipinos of non-traditional arrangements, including non-marriage and cohabitation (Table 1.2). For instance, most Filipinos disagreed with the statement that “it is better to have a bad marriage than no marriage at all,” while the proportion who agreed declined from 32.4% in 1994 to 27.4% in 2002. Table 1.2 shows that public approval for cohabitation, either as a precursor or as an alternative to formal marriage, has risen over time. The percentage of Filipinos who agreed that it is “all right for a couple to live together without intending to get married” nearly doubled from 17.9% in 1994 to 34.9% in 2012. Similarly, the proportion who believed that “it is a good idea for a couple who intend to get married to live together first” increased modestly from 31.4% in 1994 to 35.5% in 2002.
Trends in Attitudes Toward Marriage and Cohabitation: The Philippines, 1994–2012.
| Attitudes Toward Marriage and Cohabitation | 1994 | 2002 | 2012 |
|---|---|---|---|
| “People who want children ought to get married” | |||
| Agree | 82.6 | 75.9 | 82.8 |
| Neutral | 8.0 | 10.9 | 9.1 |
| Disagree | 9.4 | 13.2 | 8.1 |
| “Married people are generally happier than unmarried people” | |||
| Agree | 63.5 | 61.4 | 70.3 |
| Neutral | 20.0 | 20.0 | 16.1 |
| Disagree | 16.5 | 18.7 | 13.6 |
| “It is better to have a bad marriage than no marriage at all” | |||
| Agree | 32.4 | 27.4 | n.a. |
| Neutral | 15.0 | 14.0 | n.a. |
| Disagree | 52.6 | 58.6 | n.a. |
| “It is all right for a couple to live together without intending to get married” | |||
| Agree | 17.9 | 19.4 | 34.9 |
| Neutral | 8.8 | 12.5 | 18.8 |
| Disagree | 73.2 | 68.1 | 46.3 |
| “It is a good idea for a couple who intend to get married to live together first” | |||
| Agree | 31.4 | 35.5 | n.a. |
| Neutral | 10.3 | 13.6 | n.a. |
| Disagree | 58.3 | 50.9 | n.a. |
Source: Author’s calculation based on 1994, 2002, and 2012 ISSP Data (ISSP Research Group, 1997, 2013, 2016).
Stigma against people who are living together has also started to fade. Data from the World Values Survey showed that the percentage of Filipinos who disapproved of cohabiting couples as neighbors decreased from 21.6% in 2012 to 16.0% in 2019 (Haerpfer et al., 2022; Inglehart et al., 2014). The shift toward more liberal views on marriage and cohabitation may be due to the growing exposure of Filipinos to unconventional values and ideals through mainstream and social media. The increasing number of Filipino public figures (e.g., politicians and actors) who publicly admitted to be living together with their partner or had gone through cohabitation before marriage may have also contributed to the growing acceptance of cohabitation in the country. Finally, public approval of divorce has also grown over the years. The share of adult Filipinos who agreed that “married couples who have already separated and cannot reconcile anymore should be allowed to divorce so they can get legally married again” increased from 43% in 2005 to 53% in 2017 (Social Weather Stations, 2018b).
Attitudes Toward Sexual Behavior and Relationships of Sexual Minorities in the Philippines
Much of what we know about the Filipino family pertains to heterosexual couples, even though a significant proportion of the population belongs to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. The 2013 YAFS data show that 2.4% of Filipino male youth aged 15–24 years identified themselves as gay, while 1.9% considered themselves bisexual. Among female youths, 1.8% self-identified as lesbian and 1.6% as bisexual (Cruz, 2016). In addition, the YAFS data revealed that 15.9% and 9.8% of Filipino youth know of family members who are gay and lesbian, respectively, while less than 3% know of family members who are a bisexual man (2.3%) and bisexual woman (1.0%). Moreover, half of the Filipino youth disclosed that they have a close friend who is gay, while a third reported that they have a close friend who is lesbian. Prior research indicated that Filipino attitudes toward lesbians and gays were largely negative, and these heterosexist views were prevalent (Manalastas & Del Pilar, 2005). However, a 2019 survey data by the Pew Research Centre showed that 73% of Filipinos agreed that homosexuality should be accepted by society, which was the highest among the Asian countries included in the survey, such as Japan (68%), South Korea (44%), and India (37%) (Pew Research Center, 2020). While homosexuality is generally accepted in Philippine society, there is still strong disapproval of the sexual behaviors of people of the same sex. The ISSP data revealed that the proportion of adult Filipinos who responded that it is always wrong or almost always wrong to have sexual relations between two adults of the same sex slightly grew from 92.3% in 1991 to 94.4% in 2018 (ISSP Research Group, 1993, 2020). Similarly, the childrearing practice of homosexual couples is also not widely accepted in the country. Based on the 2012 ISSP data, less than half of adult Filipinos agreed that same-sex female couples (40.8%) and same-sex male couples (32.9%) can raise a child as well as heterosexual couples (ISSP Research Group, 2016). Finally, legislating same-sex unions in the Philippines remains a considerable challenge. According to a 2018 survey, 61% of adult Filipinos disagreed, and only 22% agreed that “there should be a law that will allow the civil union of two men or two women” (Social Weather Stations, 2018a).
Households in the Philippines
The family is the “small world” of Filipinos, and it is hard to understand the way Filipinos behave unless we have some understanding of the family and household in which they live (Castillo, 1979). Therefore, this section documents some trends in household size and structure in the Philippines to improve our understanding of the immediate social environment of Filipinos.
The household size in the country steadily decreased from 5.2 household members in 1990 to 4.4 in 2015 (Abalos & Yeung, 2023) due in part to the fertility decline. In terms of structure, nuclear households, which have been the dominant form of households in the Philippines as early as the 1960s (Arce, 1994; Castillo, 1979; Go, 1994; Liu & Yu, 1968), continue to be the most common form of households in recent years, although its prevalence declined from 69.1% in 1990 to 64.9% in 2010 (Table 1.3). Nuclear households in this study can be in the form of (1) a married/cohabiting couple with no children, (2) a married/cohabiting couple with children, and (3) a single-parent family. Of these three types of nuclear households, the couple with children was most prevalent, but its share declined from 58.1% in 1990 to 51.5% in 2010. In contrast, the share of couple-only households increased from 5.2% in 1990 to 6.7% in 2010, while the proportion of single-parent family likewise increased from 5.8% to 6.7% between 1990 and 2010. Similarly, the proportion of extended households increased modestly from 22.9% in 1990 to 25.2% in 2010. An emerging trend in the Philippines is the consistent increase in the proportion of one-person households, from 2.9% in 1990 to 6.0% in 2010 (Abalos & Yeung, 2023).
Household Structure in the Philippines, 1990–2010.
| 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-person households | 2.9 | 4.3 | 6.0 |
| Nuclear households | 69.1 | 68.5 | 64.9 |
| Married/cohabiting couple, no children | 5.2 | 6.2 | 6.7 |
| Married/cohabiting couple with children | 58.1 | 56.2 | 51.5 |
| Single-parent family | 5.8 | 6.1 | 6.7 |
| Extended family, relatives only | 22.9 | 22.3 | 25.2 |
| Composite household, family, and non-relatives | 4.3 | 3.9 | 3.2 |
| Non-family households | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| Unclassifiable | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Source: Author’s calculation using Philippine census data from IPUMS International (Minnesota Population Center, 2020).
Living Arrangements and Exchange of Support Among Older Filipinos
Based on the 2015 census, there were 7.5 million older Filipinos, representing 7.5% of the total population (Abalos & Booth, 2020). By 2025, this number is expected to reach 11.5 million or 9.9% of the total population (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2019). Providing care and support for older people is one of the concerns of an aging population (Jones, 2012) since the prevalence of ill health increases at older ages (Cruz & Saito, 2019). As with most Asian countries, the Filipino family plays a critical role in providing care and support for older Filipinos. The importance of this family caregiving is reflected in older people’s living arrangements (Medina, 2011). Table 1.4 shows that a large majority of older Filipinos live with at least one child, but the proportion in this arrangement declined from 70.4% in 1996 to 60.2% in 2018 after a slight increase to 73.9% in 2007. The decline in coresidence between 1996 and 2018 may be driven by many factors, including physical separation between children and their parents due to internal and international migration.
Living Arrangements of Older Adults in the Philippines, 1996–2018.
| Living arrangements | 1996 | 2007 | 2018 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Both Sexes | Male | Female | Both Sexes | Male | Female | Both Sexes | |
| Living alone | 4.3 | 6.4 | 5.5 | 3.3 | 5.3 | 4.5 | 11.3 | 15.0 | 13.5 |
| Living with spouse only | 8.9 | 7.2 | 7.9 | 9.9 | 6.8 | 8.1 | 11.8 | 7.7 | 9.3 |
| Living with at least one child | 72.6 | 68.8 | 70.4 | 74.5 | 73.4 | 73.9 | 63.7 | 57.9 | 60.2 |
| Other types of arrangement | 14.2 | 17.7 | 16.2 | 12.4 | 14.4 | 13.6 | 13.3 | 19.5 | 17.0 |
Sources: Cruz and Cru (2019), Cruz et al. (2009) and author’s calculation based on the 1996 Philippine Elderly Survey.
Meanwhile, the proportion of older adults who live with their spouse only slightly increased from 7.9% in 1996 to 9.3% in 2018. This pattern could be a reflection of the improvement in life expectancy (Abalos, 2020) that allows couples to have joint survivorship (Casper & Bianchi, 2002). Furthermore, living alone, especially at older ages, is frowned upon in Philippine society because it suggests that the family has reneged on its filial obligation to care for older people (Natividad & Cruz, 1997). Hence, the proportion of living alone among older people was relatively low at 5.5% in 1996, but it nearly tripled to 13.5% in 2018. Finally, it is worth noting that there are sex differences in the living arrangements of older Filipinos. Specifically, a higher proportion of older men than women live with their spouse only or with children, but there are more women than men who live alone. These differences could be due to sex differences in life expectancy, where women tend to outlive men, leaving women to live alone since they have no surviving spouse to live with.
In terms of actual provision of support, prior research indicated that the Filipino family, particularly spouses and daughters, assists older Filipinos who need help in carrying out functional activities (Abalos et al., 2018). However, this provision of assistance follows a gendered pattern, with the spouse assisting older men, whereas daughters give assistance to older women (Abalos et al., 2018). In addition, children also provide other types of support aside from helping their parents who are in poor health. Specifically, the 2018 LSAHP data showed that a great majority of older Filipinos received emotional support (81.1%), material support (74.1%), and financial support (69.9%) from their coresident children (Marquez, 2019). However, the provision of support extends beyond the household, as non-coresident children also give support to their parents, notably emotional support (86.7%), financial support (86.1%), and material support (78.8%) (Marquez, 2019). Moreover, parents are not just passive recipients of support, but they also support their children. For example, 89.3% of older Filipinos gave emotional support to their coresident children, while 37.6% gave financial support to their non-coresident children (Marquez, 2019). In addition, the LSAHP data revealed that 24.2% of older Filipinos take care of their grandchildren, either partially or fully (Cruz & Cruz, 2019). The main reasons why older Filipinos fully take charge in taking care of their grandchildren include labor migration of the latter’s parents (34.6%) and parents’ union dissolution (33.3%) (Cruz & Cruz, 2019).
Summary and Conclusion
Against a backdrop of demographic and socioeconomic changes, this study sketched a demographic portrait of Filipino families in the past decades using census and survey data. Specifically, it examined broad aspects of family-related topics, including marriage and cohabitation, divorce and separation, fertility and fertility preferences, household structure, and living arrangements of older people. It also explored Filipinos’ attitudes toward various aspects of the family.
Results showed that the timing and character of union formation in the Philippines have changed over the last few decades. Filipinos are postponing marriage to a later age, while some are forgoing marriage altogether. Some may delay entry into marriage until they can economically support their own family, while others choose to pursue higher education and career advancement over getting married. The rise of non-marriage in the country may be related to the lack of an available pool of potential partners for some segments of the population, particularly low-educated men and highly educated women. Preference for an alternative lifestyle may also contribute to this growing aversion toward marriage among highly educated Filipino men and women.
Legal or formal marriage in the Philippines has declined, while cohabitation has become more common, particularly among younger people. Economic factors were the primary reasons young Filipinos chose to cohabit and not formally marry. However, Filipinos are not entirely abandoning marriage in favor of cohabitation. Evidence suggests that cohabitation has become a pathway to marriage rather than an alternative to marriage, as a significant proportion of those who cohabit eventually marry their partner.
The changes in the timing and character of union formation in the Philippines are also accompanied by rising union dissolution cases. The increasing prevalence of cohabitation, on the one hand, and the rising cases of union dissolution, on the other hand, do not happen in isolation. Most Filipinos who have been estranged from their spouse do not have the means to end their marriage legally, so some choose a live-in arrangement with their new partner due to legal constraints. Meanwhile, the growing popularity of live-in arrangements may lead to more informal separations, as cohabiting people are more likely to separate than those legally married (Abalos, 2017). Urbanization and educational expansion may also contribute to the country’s growing prevalence of union dissolution. Research showed that exposure to urban life and a higher level of education are associated with a higher likelihood of union dissolution among Filipino women (Abalos, 2017).
Regarding family-related attitudes, the study showed that Filipinos had become more accepting of cohabitation and divorce in the country. However, while Filipinos have become more tolerant of behaviors associated with heterosexual couples, sexual behavior and family formation of sexual minorities are not yet widely accepted. At least 9 in 10 Filipinos view sexual relations between people of the same sex as wrong, 61% disagree with having a law that legalizes same-sex unions, and less than half agree that homosexual couples can raise a child as well as heterosexual couples.
The fertility rate in the Philippines has declined in recent years but is still above the replacement rate of 2.1 children and beyond Filipino women’s ideal or desired family size. This implies that some Filipino women’s births were “unwanted” or more than their desired number. The inconsistency between Filipino women’s actual and ideal number of children could be due to several factors, one of which is access to effective contraceptive methods. Based on the 2017 NDHS, only 54.3% of currently married women are using any contraceptive method, with 40.4% using any modern method and 13.9% using any traditional method.
Children are highly cherished in Filipino families. They are considered a source of joy and support in old age and are hardly viewed as a “burden,” despite the hardships associated with childbearing and childrearing. Moreover, the high proportion of adult Filipinos who reject abortion, regardless of whether the baby has a serious defect or when the family is poor and cannot afford more children, also attest to the great importance of children in Philippine society. Meanwhile, childlessness in the country is relatively low, but its prevalence has slightly increased in recent years.
The impact of changes in union formation, dissolution, and fertility can be observed by examining the Filipino household. Over time, the Filipino household has become smaller, mainly due to fertility decline. In addition, nuclear households, the dominant form of household in the country, have declined, while one-person households or living alone have increased in recent years. Population aging and increasing union dissolution are associated with the increasing rates of one-person households in the Philippines (Abalos & Yeung, 2023).
The family remains an essential source of support among older people in the Philippines. The prominence of this family support is reflected in the high proportion of older Filipinos who live with their children, although the proportion in this arrangement has declined from 70.4% in 1996 to 60.2% in 2018. In contrast, there is a slight increase in the percentage of older Filipinos who live with their spouse only and a sharper increase in the proportion who live alone. These changes in living arrangements may be due to demographic and socioeconomic factors, such as the lengthening of life expectancy and increasing migration. Older Filipinos also received support from their coresident and non-coresident children. In turn, older Filipinos also support their children, including taking care of their grandchildren.
In conclusion, while the Filipino family may have changed in size and structure and how it is formed and dissolved, it has remained constant in how it values its members, particularly the young and the old. Moreover, the Filipino family will also continue to evolve in response to the country’s continuing demographic and socioeconomic changes. Filipinos will continue to marry, but cohabitation will be essential in the union formation process. Although the evidence showed that cohabitation has become a pathway to marriage in the Philippines, it is not unlikely that it will become an alternative for some couples. Given the persistent poverty and the legal impediments in dissolving and forming a marriage in the country, cohabitation without marriage may become the only option for some Filipino couples, including homosexual couples, who wish to establish their own family.
Although the legalization of divorce in the country is less likely to happen in the next few years due to the strong opposition of the Catholic Church, we can expect the share of Filipinos who are divorced or separated to increase in the future. This increase can be related to the growing prominence of cohabitation, which is easier to dissolve than legal marriage, and the increasing economic independence of Filipino women, allowing them to leave a bad marriage or partnership.
Due to the steady fertility decline, the continuing improvement in life expectancy, and increasing international migration, Filipino households will be less nuclear and become more extended in the future. However, despite the changes in the structure and composition of Filipino households, family cohesion and intergenerational support will continue to persist due to the resilience of Filipino values and the growing importance of information and transportation technology.
Note
Giving of “donation” is mostly practiced in wedding ceremonies officiated by the Catholic Church.
References
Abalos, 2014Abalos, J. B. (2014). Trends and determinants of age at union of men and women in the Philippines. Journal of Family Issues, 35(12), 1624–1641.
Abalos, 2017Abalos, J. B. (2017). Divorce and separation in the Philippines: Trends and correlates. Demographic Research, 36(50), 1515–1548.
Abalos, 2020Abalos, J. B. (2020). Older persons in the Philippines: A demographic, socioeconomic and health profile. Ageing International, 45, 230–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-018-9337-7
Abalos, 2023Abalos, J. B. (2023). Do Filipinos still say “I do”? The continuing increase in non-marriage and cohabitation in the Philippines. Journal of Family Issues.
Abalos, & Booth, 2020Abalos, J. B., & Booth, H. (2020). Factors associated with regional variation in disability-free life expectancy based on functional difficulty among older persons in the Philippines. Asian Population Studies, 16(3), 1–23.
Abalos, Saito, Cruz, & Booth, 2018Abalos, J. B., Saito, Y., Cruz, G. T., & Booth, H. (2018). Who cares? Provision of care and assistance among older persons in the Philippines. Journal of Aging and Health, 30(10), 1536–1555.
Abalos, & Yeung, 2023Abalos, J. B., & Yeung, W.-J. J. (2023). Demographic, socioeconomic, and cultural factors for the rise in one-person households in developing countries: the case of the Philippines. Journal of Population Research.
Arce, 1994Arce, W. F. (1994). The life cycle of the household and selected characteristics: A search and discussion. Philippine Sociological Review, 42(1–4), 119–141.
Asis, 1994Asis, M. M. (1994). Family ties in a world without borders. Philippine Sociological Review, 42(1/4), 16–26.
Bureau of the Census and Statistics, 1962Bureau of the Census and Statistics. (1962). Vital statistics report: 1960. Bureau of the Census and Statistics.
Cabigon, 2001Cabigon, J. V. (2001). Complete life tables for the Philippines as a whole and Metro Manila for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 1995. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, 29(1–2), 161–209.
Calonzo, & Cayabyab, 2013Calonzo, A., & Cayabyab, M. J. (2013). More Pinoy couples seeking annulment despite high cost. http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/302435/news/nation/more-pinoycouples-seeking-annulment-despite-high-cost
Casper, & Bianchi, 2002Casper, L. M., & Bianchi, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). Changing families in a changing society. In Continuity and change in the American family (pp. 1–38). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Castillo, 1979Castillo, G. (1979). Beyond Manila: Philippine rural problems in perspective. International Development Research Centre.
Cruz, 2016Cruz, C. J. P. (2016). Gender identity and sexual orientation. In Demographic Research and Development Foundation Inc and University of the Philippines Population Institute (Ed.), The 2013 young adult fertility and sexuality study in the Philippines (pp. 154–168). Demographic Research and Development Foundation, Inc. and University of the Philippines Population Institute.
Cruz, & Cruz, 2019Cruz, C. J. P., & Cruz, G. T. (2019). Filipino older persons. In G. T. Cruz, C. J. P. Cruz, & Y. Saito (Eds.), Ageing and health in the Philippines (pp. 27–46). Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) & Demographic Research and Development Foundation, Inc.
Cruz, Abalos, Lavares, Natividad, & Saito, 2009Cruz, G. T., Abalos, J. B., Lavares, M., Natividad, J., & Saito, Y. (2009). Changing social structures and the well-being of the older Filipinos. Transactions of the National Academy of Science and Technology (Philippines), 31(2), 197–222.
Cruz, & Saito, 2019Cruz, G. T., & Saito, Y. (2019). Functional health. In G. T. Cruz, C. J. P. Cruz, & Y. Saito (Eds.), Ageing and health in the Philippines (pp. 75–88). Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) & Demographic Research and Development Foundation, Inc.
De Guzman, 2017De Guzman, E. T. (2017). Annulment and divorce statistics, Philippines: 1968–2016. Paper presented at the 10th National Convention of Solemnizing Officers, Atrium, Limketkai Mall Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City.
Dommaraju, 2016Dommaraju, P. (2016). Divorce and separation in India. Population and Development Review, 42(2), 195–223.
Emery, 2013Emery, R. E. (2013). Cultural sociology of divorce: An encyclopedia: SAGE publications.
Fuse, 2010Fuse, K. (2010). Variations in attitudinal gender preferences for children across 50 less-developed countries. Demographic Research, 23(36), 1031–1048.
Gloria, 2007Gloria, C. K. (2007). Who needs divorce in the Philippines. Mindanao Law Journal, 1(1), 18–28.
Go, 1994Go, S. P. (1994). The present and future of the family in the Philippines. International Journal on World Peace, 11(4), 61–75.
Gregorio, 2018Gregorio, V. (2018). The only exception: Teenage pregnancy in the Philippines. Review of Women’s Studies, 28, 1–28.
Gregorio, 2020Gregorio, V. (2020). Living apart together: Debates, variations, and research opportunities. Philippine Sociological Review, 68, 55–74.
Gultiano, Hindin, Upadhyay, & Armecin, 2009Gultiano, S., Hindin, M., Upadhyay, U., & Armecin, G. (2009). Marital status and psychological well-being of Filipino women. Philippine Population Review, 8(1), 16–33.
Haerpfer, Inglehart, Moreno, Welzel, Kizilova, Diez-Medrano, Lagos, Norris, Ponarin, & Puranen, 2022Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin & B. Puranen. (Eds.). (2022). World Values Survey: Round Seven - Country-Pooled Datafile Version 5.0. JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. doi:10.14281/18241.20
Inglehart, Haerpfer, Moreno, Welzel, Kizilova, Diez-Medrano, … Puranen, 2014Inglehart, R., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., … Puranen, B. et al. (Eds.). (2014). World values survey: Round six – Country-pooled datafile version. JD Systems Institute. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp.
ISSP Research Group, 1993ISSP Research Group. (1993). International Social Survey Programme: Religion I – ISSP 1991. GESIS Data Archive, ZA2150 data file version 1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.2150
ISSP Research Group, 1997ISSP Research Group. (1997). International Social Survey Programme: Family and changing gender roles II – ISSP 1994. GESIS Data Archive, ZA2620 data file version 1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.2620
ISSP Research Group, 2013ISSP Research Group. (2013). International Social Survey Programme: Family and changing gender roles III – ISSP 2002 GESIS Data Archive, ZA3880 data file version 1.1.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11564
ISSP Research Group, 2016ISSP Research Group. (2016). International Social Survey Programme: Family and changing gender roles IV – ISSP 2012. GESIS Data Archive, ZA5900 data file version 4.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12661
ISSP Research Group, 2018ISSP Research Group. (2018). International Social Survey Programme: Religion III – ISSP 2008. GESIS Data Archive, ZA4950 data file version 2.3.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13161
ISSP Research Group, 2020ISSP Research Group. (2020). International Social Survey Programme: Religion IV – ISSP 2018. GESIS Data Archive, ZA7570 Data file Version 2.1.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13629.
Jiang, Feldman, & Li, 2014Jiang, Q., Feldman, M. W., & Li, S. (2014). Marriage squeeze, never-married proportion, and mean age at first marriage in China. Population Research and Policy Review, 33(2), 189–204.
Jiang, & Sánchez-Barricarte, 2013Jiang, Q., & Sánchez-Barricarte, J. J. (2013). Socio-demographic risks and challenges of bare-branch villages in China. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 7(2), 99–116.
Jones, 2018Jones, G. (2018). Changing marriage patterns in Asia. In Z. Zhao & A. Hayes (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Asian demography (pp. 351–369). Routledge.
Jones, 2012Jones, G. (2012). Changing family sizes, structures and functions in Asia. Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 27(1), 83–102.
Kabamalan, 2004Kabamalan, M. M. (2004). New path to marriage: The significance of increasing cohabitation in the Philippines. Philippine Population Review, 3, 111–129.
Kabamalan, 2006Kabamalan, M. M. (2006). Cohabitation among youth in the Philippines (Sociology). University of Hawai’i at Mānoa.
Kabamalan, 2011Kabamalan, M. M. (2011). Cohabitation and poverty in the Philippines. In G. W. Jones, T. H. Hull, & M. Mohamad (Eds.), Changing marriage patterns in Southeast Asia: Economic and sociocultural dimensions (pp. 205–217). Routledge.
Levin, 2004Levin, I. (2004). Living apart together: A new family form. Current Sociology, 52(2), 223–240.
Liu, & Yu, 1968Liu, W. T., & Yu, S.-H. (1968). The lower class Cebuano family: A preliminary profile analysis. Philippine Sociological Review, 16(3–4), 114–123.
Lopez, 2001Lopez, J. V. (2001). The Law on Annulment of Marriage: Rules of Disengagement: How to regain your freedom to re-marrying in the Philippines: Published and exclusively distributed by Anvil Pub.
Manalastas, & Del Pilar, 2005Manalastas, E. J., & Del Pilar, G. E. (2005). Filipino attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Secondary analysis of 1996 and 2001 national survey data. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 53–75.
Marquez, 2016Marquez, M. P. N. (2016). Sexual behavior. In Demographic Research and Development Foundation Inc and University of the Philippines Population Institute (Eds.), The 2013 young adult fertility and sexuality study in the Philippines (pp. 91–106). Demographic Research and Development Foundation, Inc. and University of the Philippines Population Institute.
Marquez, 2019Marquez, M. P. N. (2019). Family support and intergenerational exchanges. In G. T. Cruz, C. J. P. Cruz, & Y. Saito (Eds.), Ageing and health in the Philippines (pp. 161–172). Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) & Demographic Research and Development Foundation, Inc.
Medina, 2011Medina, B. (2011). The family in the Philippines. In C. B. Hennon & S. M. Wilson (Eds.), Families in a global context (pp. 353–378). Routledge.
Medina, 2015Medina, B. (2015). The Filipino family (3rd ed.). University of the Philippines Press.
Minnesota Population Center, 2020Minnesota Population Center. (2020). Integrated public use microdata series, International: Version 7.3 [dataset]. IPUMS. https://doi.org/10.18128/D020.V7.3
National Statistics Office [NSO], & ICF Macro, 2009National Statistics Office [NSO], & ICF Macro. (2009). Philippine National Demographic and Health Survey 2008. NSO & ICF Macro.
National Statistics Office [NSO], & Macro International Inc. [MI], 1994National Statistics Office [NSO], & Macro International Inc. [MI]. (1994). National Demographic Survey 1993.: NSO and MI.
Natividad, 2013Natividad, J. N. (2013). Teenage pregnancy in the Philippines: Trends, correlates and data sources. Journal of the ASEAN Federation of Endocrine Societies, 28(1), 30.
Natividad, & Cruz, 1997Natividad, J. N., & Cruz, G. T. (1997). Patterns in living arrangements and familial support for the elderly in the Philippines. Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 12(4), 17–34.
Ogena, Kabamalan, & Sasota, 2008Ogena, N., Kabamalan, M. M., & Sasota, R. (2008). Changing patterns and correlates of marriage in the Philippines. Paper presented at the 8th international conference on Philippine studies, Philippine Social Science Center, Quezon City, Philippines.
Pew Research Center, 2020Pew Research Center. (2020). The global divide on homosexuality persists. Pew Research Center.
Philippine Statistics Authority, 2014Philippine Statistics Authority. (2014). Life table of the Philippines prepared by the interagency working group. Philippine Statistics Authority.
Philippine Statistics Authority, 2017Philippine Statistics Authority. (2017). 2015 census of population, report no. 2 – Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics: Philippines. Philippine Statistics Authority.
Philippine Statistics Authority, & ICF International, 2014Philippine Statistics Authority, & ICF International. (2014). Philippines National Demographic and Health Survey 2013. Philippine Statistics Authority & ICF International.
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), & ICF, 2018Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), & ICF. (2018). Philippines National Demographic and Health Survey 2017. PSA and ICF.
Philippine Statistics Authority, 2019Philippine Statistics Authority. (2019). Updated population projections based on the results of 2015 POPCEN. Philippine Statistics Authority.
Philippine Statistics Authority, 2022aPhilippine Statistics Authority. (2022a). 2019 Vital Statistics Report – Marriage Statistics Volume 1. Philippine Statistics Authority.
Philippine Statistics Authority, 2022bPhilippine Statistics Authority. (2022b). Urban population of the Philippines (2020 census of population and housing). Philippine Statistics Authority.
Social Weather Stations, 2018aSocial Weather Stations. (2018a). First quarter 2018 social weather survey: 61% of Pinoys oppose, and 22% support, a law that will allow the civil union of two men or two women. Social Weather Stations.
Social Weather Stations, 2018bSocial Weather Stations. (2018b). Fourth Quarter 2017 Social Weather Survey: 53% of Filipino adults agree to legalize divorce for irreconcilably separated couples. Social Weather Stations.
Taylor, 1983Taylor, L. A. (1983). The querida: The surrogate divorce system in the Philippines. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 11(2), 235–238.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2019United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2019). World Marriage Data 2019 (POP/DB/Marr/Rev2019).
United Nations Statistics Division, 2022United Nations Statistics Division. (2022). Population by marital status, age, sex and urban/rural residence. United Nations Statistics Division.
University of the Philippines Population Institute, 2010University of the Philippines Population Institute. (2010). Lifestyle, health status and behavior of young workers in call centers and other industries: Metro Manila and Metro Cebu. Final report submitted by the University of the Philippines Population Institute to the Commission on Population.
Williams, & Arguillas, 2012Williams, L., & Arguillas, M. J. (2012). Correlates of non-marriage in the Philippines. Philippine Population Review, 11(1), 1–25.
Williams, Kabamalan, & Ogena, 2007Williams, L., Kabamalan, M., & Ogena, N. (2007). Cohabitation in the Philippines: Attitudes and behaviors among young women and men. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(5), 1244–1256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00444.x
Xenos, 1997Xenos, P. (1997). Survey sheds new light on marriage and sexuality in the Philippines. East West Center, Program on Population (Asia Pacific Population and Policy Paper, No. 42).
Xenos, & Kabamalan, 2007Xenos, P., & Kabamalan, M. M. (2007). Emerging forms of union formation in the Philippines. Asian Population Studies, 3(3), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/1744173070
Acknowledgment
This study uses data from the Philippine Population Data Archive of the University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI) and the Demographic Research and Development Foundation, Inc. (DRDF), as well as data from the Philippine Statistics Authority and IPUMS International.
- Prelims
- Chapter 1: A Demographic Portrait of the Filipino Family: A Glimpse from the Recent Past
- Narratives of Parenthood
- Chapter 2: The Road to Visibility: IVF and Motherhood Journey of Filipino Influencers
- Chapter 3: Pregnancy, Motherhood, and Family: Stories Behind Bars
- Chapter 4: Acceptance Is Key: Toward A Framework for Understanding Serial Cohabitation
- Chapter 5: Selected Cases of Teenage Fatherhood in The Philippines: an Analysis of Risks and Resilience
- Care Provisions in/from the Family
- Chapter 6: ICT-Mediated Familial Care in Turbulent Times: Filipinos' Subjectivities, Virtual Intimacy, and Resilience Amid Social Change
- Chapter 7: An Exposition of the Multidimensionality of the Tagasalo Personality
- Chapter 8: Maintaining Personhood and Identity in Dementia: Families as Partners in Care
- Chapter 9: Sexual Identity Visibility and Compounding Stigma in the Familial Context: Life Histories Among Filipino MSMs Living with HIV
- Chapter 10: Family Relationship, Mental Well-being, and Life Satisfaction During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mediation Study Among Filipino Graduate Students
- Families of OFWs, Farmers, and Fisherfolks
- Chapter 11: Response and Coping Mechanisms of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW) Children to Parents' Separation
- Chapter 12: The Family as a Farm Institution: Cases in Japan and the Philippines
- Chapter 13: Parental Livelihood Preference for Children Among Municipal Fishing Families in South Negros, Philippines
- Representations of the Filipino Family
- Chapter 14: Self, Family, and Democracy: Individualism and Collectivism in Two Contemporary Filipino Family Films
- Chapter 15: Tunay Na Lalaki/True Manhood in the Philippines: Historical Development, Identity Formations, and Family Contexts
- Chapter 16: The Elderly in the Filipino Family
- Index