FACT-CHECK PH
  • Home
  • Fast Facts
  • Fact-Check
  • The Fact Pattern
  • Facts by Law
No Result
View All Result
FACT-CHECK PH
  • Home
  • Fast Facts
  • Fact-Check
  • The Fact Pattern
  • Facts by Law
No Result
View All Result
FACT-CHECK PH
No Result
View All Result

What is ‘force majeure’ under Philippine Law?

Shekinah Jedidiah M. Alima by Shekinah Jedidiah M. Alima
May 30, 2026
in Fact-Check
Reading Time: 2 mins read
A A
0
What is ‘force majeure’ under Philippine Law?
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

The debate over “force majeure” ignited when Senator Robinhood Padilla raised the issue during a Senate plenary session on May 28.

The conflict emerged when the majority bloc sought to modify Senate rules to permit lawmakers to join sessions and cast votes remotely through videoconferencing for any valid reason.

To justify the amendment’s urgency, Senator Padilla asserted that the Philippines is already facing force majeure, pointing to Middle East tensions, the China-Taiwan geopolitical dispute, and severe weather risks from El Niño and La Niña.

This French term translates to “superior force,” describing acts of God or situations beyond human control. Under Philippine law, particularly Article 1174 of the Civil Code, force majeure refers to a fortuitous event or act of God that is entirely unforeseen or unavoidable.

The Supreme Court states this defense applies only when the event was unavoidable, beyond human control, and made compliance absolutely impossible, while merely difficult or costly does not qualify.

Senator Padilla’s assertions are legally flawed because distant international conflicts and predicted weather patterns do not physically stop Philippine lawmakers from attending sessions in Pasay City.

Opposing senators rapidly challenged his claims, pointing out that the real reason for the sudden push for remote attendance provisions was to accommodate Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, who had skipped physical sessions to avoid an impending International Criminal Court arrest warrant.

Allowing a broad and incorrect use of force majeure could create a dangerous precedent in Philippine law and governance. 

If distant wars or predictable weather conditions were accepted as excuses, people could easily avoid their legal responsibilities and obligations. Ultimately, diluting the strict legal requirement of Article 1174 would seriously disrupt commercial stability, since businesses could routinely breach contracts by blaming external global events that genuinely do not prevent them from fulfilling their obligations.

Author

  • Shekinah Jedidiah M. Alima
    Shekinah Jedidiah M. Alima
Tags: fact-check
Previous Post

FACT CHECK: Lacson did not demand Marcos’ resignation

Next Post

FACT-CHECK: Why Did the Supreme Court Deny Bato Dela Rosa’s TRO Request? 

Related Posts

FACT CHECK: Rep. Leila de Lima, VP Sara Duterte nagkasagutan habang nasa Impeachment Trial
Fact-Check

FACT CHECK: Rep. Leila de Lima, VP Sara Duterte nagkasagutan habang nasa Impeachment Trial

Isang video ang kumalat kung saan mapapanood ang pagtatalo ni Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima at Vice...

by Bea Allyson Alimangohan
July 26, 2026
FACT-CHECK: Oscar-winning director Christopher Nolan is directing a Rene Baterbonia biopic
Fact-Check

FACT-CHECK: Oscar-winning director Christopher Nolan is directing a Rene Baterbonia biopic

CLAIM: A viral Facebook post falsely claims that acclaimed filmmaker Christopher Nolan is set to direct a biopic about...

by Francine Tosoc
July 24, 2026
FACT CHECK: Claims that Sandro Marcos said he is ready to succeed his father in 2028 are false
Fact-Check

FACT CHECK: Claims that Sandro Marcos said he is ready to succeed his father in 2028 are false

FALSE. A Facebook post claims that Ilocos Norte 1st District Rep. Sandro Marcos said, "Kung ibigay niyo sa akin...

by Francine Tosoc
July 22, 2026
FACT CHECK: Senators Marcoleta, Estrada have not been declared as ‘political prisoners’
Fact-Check

FACT CHECK: Senators Marcoleta, Estrada have not been declared as ‘political prisoners’

There is no court ruling or legal determination declaring Senators Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada as "political prisoners."

by Shannah Aquino
July 22, 2026
Next Post
FACT-CHECK: Why Did the Supreme Court Deny Bato Dela Rosa’s TRO Request? 

FACT-CHECK: Why Did the Supreme Court Deny Bato Dela Rosa’s TRO Request? 

Fact-Check PH

Independent fact-checking initiative committed to truth, context, and accountability.

Explore

  • About Us
  • Fact-Check
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

Connect

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • Email Us

© 2026 Fact-Check PH All rights reserved.

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy
  • Sitemap
No Result
View All Result
  • Homepage
  • Fact-Check
  • The Fact Pattern
  • Fast Facts
  • Facts by Law

© 2026 Fact-Check PH. All Rights Reserved.