FAMILY CODE AMENDMENTS:ARTICLE 26 ON FOREIGN DIVORCE

(SB No. 1052 Committee Report No. 5)

By: SEN. PIA S. CAYETANO

Mr. President, I rise to sponsor Senate Bill No. 1052 under Committee Report No. 5 entitled AN ACT
AMENDING ARTICLE 26 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Mr. President, it has been two decades since the Family Code of the Philippines took effect on August 3,
1988. Throughout the decades, there have been significant developments in Philippine legislation and
jurisprudence. As such, your Committee on Youth, Women and Family Relations consulted with family
law experts and conducted a hearing to review and fill in the gaps or inadequacies of certain provisions in
the Family Code as a result of said developments.
Mr. President, there are a number of amendments that need to be presented on the floor. I will present
these amendments individually.
The proposed amendments subject of this Committee Report is on Article 26 which allows a Filipino to
contract a subsequent marriage in cases where divorce is validly obtained abroad by his or her alien
spouse.
Discriminatory to Filipino spouses
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code states: Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine
law.
Based on this Article, if the marriage of a Filipino citizen and a foreigner results in divorce which allows
the alien spouse to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall be able to also remarry.[i] Records show that the
intention of the framers of this law was to allow the Filipino spouse to remarry once the foreign spouse
had obtained a foreign divorce.
The law, however, as presently worded, has created much confusion because some judges require, in
addition to the divorce decree obtained abroad, a statement in the divorce decree or a separate
certification that the foreign spouse is capacitated to remarry, if presented.
This has proven difficult for many Filipinos because divorce decrees are worded differently all over the
world. Some provide that the marriage is dissolved, others state that the divorce is granted. Many, do not
include an explicit statement that the parties are allowed to remarry because this is already implicit in any
decree in divorce. Since the marriage ties are dissolved, it necessarily follows that the parties are free to
remarry.
It is interesting to note that during the time the Family Code was drafted, many Filipinos with alien
spouses would go to the Dominican Republic to obtain divorce decrees. The dispositive portion of their
divorce decree states that the spouses are divorced and that they are now capacitated to remarry. Article
26 followed the wording style of the divorce decrees issued by the Dominican Republic.
Guide for judges in interpreting foreign divorce decrees
Given all of the foregoing, a reasonable reading of the law should be that a Filipino spouse who has been
legally divorced by his or her alien spouse in a foreign country where divorce is allowed, should be
allowed to remarry regardless of whether or not the alien spouse is capacitated to marry according to the
laws of his or her country of origin.
Conclusion
To put Filipino and alien spouses on equal footing and prevent unintentional discrimination against our
fellow countrymen Mr. President, it is necessary that Article 26 should be amended by removing the alien
spouses capacity to remarry after the divorce as a requisite for the Filipino spouses ability to remarry.
Thus, paragraph 2 of Article 26 should simply read as follows:
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry
under the law.
Thank you, Mr. President.
[i] Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the
country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except
those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. (17a)
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or
guardians;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages
were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the
legal authority to do so;
(3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered the preceding Chapter;
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41;
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and
(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if
such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. (As amended by Executive Order 227)
Art. 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether
relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and
(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood. (81a)
Art. 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy:
(1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other persons spouse, or
his or her own spouse. (82)

Reference: Sen. Pia S. Cayetano, 2011. Retrieved from http://senatorpiacayetano.com/?p=155

PROPOSED DIVORCE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES

In 2005, party-list representative Liza Masa of Gabriela filed a divorce bill. In 2001, similar bills were
filed in the Senate (Bill No. 782), introduced by Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon, and House of
Representatives (Bill No. 878), introduced by Honorable Bellaflor J. Angara-Castillo. In 1999,
Representative Manuel C. Ortega filed House Bill No. 6993, seeking for the legalization of divorce. This
Congress (14th Congress), Gabriela again filed a bill to introduce divorce in the Philippines. Heres the
explanatory note of House Bill 3461, filed by GABRIELA Womens Party Representatives Liza Largoza-
Maza and Luzviminda Ilagan.

Underpinning this proposal is a commitment to the policy of the State to protect and strengthen marriage
and the family as basic social institutions, to value the dignity of every human person, to guarantee full
respect for human rights, and to ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. The
provisions of this bill are consistent with and in pursuit of those State policies.

In Filipino culture, marriage is regarded as a sacred union and the family founded on marriage is
considered as a fount of love, protection and care. Philippine society generally frowns upon and
discourages marital break-ups and so provides cultural and legal safeguards to preserve marital relations.
Cultural prescriptions and religious norms keep many couples together despite the breakdown of the
marriage. But the cultural prescriptions for women and men differ. Women are traditionally regarded as
primarily responsible for making the marriage work and are expected to sacrifice everything to preserve
the marriage and the solidarity of the family. While absolute fidelity is demanded of wives, men are
granted sexual license to have affairs outside marriage. Yet when the marriage fails, the woman is blamed
for its failure.

Reality tells us that there are many failed, unhappy marriages across all Filipino classes. Many couples
especially from the marginalized sectors, who have no access to the courts, simply end up separating
without the benefit of legal processes. The sheer number of petitions that have been filed since 1988 for
the declaration of the nullity of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code (commonly known as
annulment) shows that there are just too many couples who are desperate to get out of failed marriages.

Even when couples start out well in their marriage, political, economic and social realities take their toll
on their relationship. Some are not prepared to handle the intricacies of married life. For a large number
of women, the inequalities and violence in marriage negate its ideals as the embodiment of love, care and
safety and erode the bases upon which a marriage is founded. The marital relations facilitate the
commission of violence and perpetuate their oppression. Official figures support this. The 2003 report of
the Philippine National Police shows that wife battering accounted for 53.6 percent of the total 8,011
cases of violence against women. About three of ten perpetrators were husbands of the victims. Husbands
accounted for 28 per cent of the violence against women crimes. The Department of Social Welfare and
Development reported that in 2003, of the 15,314 women in especially difficult circumstances that the
agency serviced, 25.1 per cent or 5,353 were cases of physical abuse, maltreatment and battering.

Given these realities, couples must have the option to avail of remedies that will pave the way for the
attainment of their full development and self-fulfillment and the protection of their human rights. Existing
laws are not enough to address this need. To quote the Womens Legal Bureau, Inc., a legal resource NGO
for women:
The present laws relating to separation of couples and termination of marriage are inadequate to respond
to the myriad causes of failed marriages. Particularly, the remedies of declaration of nullity and
annulment do not cover the problems that occur during the existence of marriage. Legal separation, on the
other hand, while covering problems during marriage, does not put an end to marriage.

Though both divorce and a declaration of nullity of a marriage allow the spouses to remarry, the two
remedies differ in concept and basis. A declaration of nullity presupposes that the marriage is void from
the beginning and the court declares its non-existence Beyond [the] grounds specified [in the law],
declaration of nullity is not possible.

In annulment, the marriage of the parties is declared defective from the beginning, albeit it is considered
valid until annulled. The defect can be used to nullify the marriage within a specified period but the same
may be ignored and the marriage becomes perfectly valid after the lapse of that period, or the defect may
be cured through some act. The defect relates to the time of the celebration of the marriage and has
nothing to do with circumstances occurring after the marriage is celebrated. In annulment, the marriage is
legally cancelled, and the man and woman are restored to their single status.

Since August 3, 1988, couples have been given a way out of failed marriages through Article 36 of
the Family CodeThe remedy provided under Article 36 is declaration of nullity of the marriage. The
article voids a marriage where one party is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
ofmarital obligations. Consistent with the concept of void marriages (where the remedy is declaration of
nullity), the law requires that the incapacity must have existed at the time of the celebration of the
marriage In practice, Article 36 has become a form of divorce, as valid marriages are declared void every
day in the guise of psychological incapacity. The innumerable Article 36 cases brought to trial courts is
an indication of the elasticity of Article 36 to accommodate the needs of many couples desiring to
terminate their marriages. It is proof that divorce is needed in the Philippines. Article 36 provides a
remedy only for spouses who can prove psychological incapacity. The concept certainly cannot
accommodate all cases where divorce would have necessary. What we need is a divorce law that defines
clearly and unequivocally the grounds and terms for terminating a marriage. That law will put an end to
the creative efforts played daily in courtrooms across the country to accommodate a wide range of cases
in order to prove psychological incapacity. (Womens Legal Bureau, Inc., The Relevance of Divorce in
the Philippines, 1998)

Thus, this bill seeks to introduce divorce as another option for couples in failed and irreparable marriages.

This bill was crafted in consultation with women lawyers and inspired by the studies and inputs of various
womens groups and the experiences of spouses gathered by GABRIELA from its various chapters
nationwide.

The bill seeks to introduce divorce in Philippine law with a strong sense of confidence that it will be used
responsibly by Filipino couples. This confidence stems from the experiences of Filipino families that
show that separation is usually the last resort of many Filipino couples whose marriage has failed. Cases
of battered women also support this. Battered women invariably seek separation only after many years of
trying to make the marriage work; separation only becomes imperative for them when they realize that it
is necessary for their and their childrens survival. Divorce could actually provide protection to battered
women and their children from further violence and abuse. With the predominance of the Catholic faith in
the Philippines, the fear that divorce will erode personal values on marriage appears unfounded. The
experience of Italy, where the Vatican is located, and Spain, two predominantly Catholic countries which
practice divorce, supports this. Those countries have a low rate of divorce. Italy registers a 7% rate while
Spain registers 15%. The figures reflect the strong influence of religious beliefs and culture on individuals
in deciding to terminate marital relations.

Historically, divorce had been part of our legal system. In the beginning of the 16th century, before the
Spanish colonial rule, absolute divorce was widely practiced among ancestral tribes such as the
Tagbanwas of Palawan, the Gadangs of Nueva Viscaya, the Sagadans and Igorots of the Cordilleras, and
the Monobos, Bila-ans and Moslems of the Visayas and Mindanao islands. Divorce was also available
during the American period, starting from 1917 (under Act No. 2710 enacted by the Philippine
Legislature), and during the Japanese occupation (under Executive Order No. 141) and after, until 1950. It
was only on August 30, 1950, when the New Civil Code took effect, that divorce was disallowed under
Philippine law. Only legal separation was available. The same rule was adopted by the Family Code of
1988, which replaced the provisions of the New Civil Code on marriage and the family, although the
Family Code introduced the concept of psychological incapacity as a basis for declaring the marriage
void.

In recognition of the history of divorce in the Philippines, the framers of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution left the wisdom of legalizing divorce to the Congress. Thus, the 1987 Constitution does not
prohibit the legalization of divorce.

This bill is respectful of and sensitive to differing religious beliefs in the Philippines. It recognizes that the
plurality of religious beliefs and cultural sensibilities in the Philippines demand that different remedies for
failed marriages should be made available. For this reason, the bill retains the existing remedies of legal
separation, declaration of nullity of the marriage and annulment and only adds divorce as one more
remedy. Couples may choose from these remedies depending on their situation, religious beliefs, cultural
sensibilities, needs and emotional state. While divorce under this proposed measure severs the bonds of
marriage, divorce as a remedy need not be for the purpose of re-marriage; it may be resorted to by
individuals to achieve peace of mind and facilitate their pursuit of full human development. This bill also
seeks to make Philippine law consistent in the way it treats religious beliefs with respect to termination of
marriage. Philippine law through the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Presidential
Decree No. 1083 [1977]) allows divorce among Filipino Muslims, in deference to the Islamic faith which
recognizes divorce. Non-Muslim Filipinos should have the same option under Philippine law, in
accordance with their religious beliefs.

The bill proposes five grounds for divorce. All the five grounds are premised on the irreparable
breakdown of the marriage and the total non-performance of marital obligations. Thus, the bill provides
that a petition for divorce may be filed when the petitioner has been separated de facto (in fact) from his
or her spouse for at least five years at the time of the filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly
improbable, or when the petitioner has been legally separated from his or her spouse for at least two years
at the time of the filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable.

Not all circumstances and situations that cause the total breakdown of a marriage could be defined in this
proposed measure. Thus, the bill also provides that divorce may be granted when the spouses suffer from
irreconcilable differences that have caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage. Spouses living in a
state of irreparable marital conflict or discord should be given the opportunity to present their marital
contrarieties in court and have those differences adjudged as constituting a substantial ground to put an
end to the marriage.

Another ground for divorce included in the bill is when one or both spouses are psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. This provision will consequently repeal
Article 36 of the Family Code. The bill seeks to include psychological incapacity in the grounds for
divorce in the belief that the concept is consistent with the termination of marital ties rather than with a
void marriage.

The bill seeks to eliminate condonation of the act and consent to the act as grounds for denying a
petition for legal separation and, by extension, a petition for divorce. Many spouses especially women
ignore the offense because of the social and economic conditions they are in. Many women in the
marginalized sectors tend to condone the offense because they are economically dependent on their
spouses or because of the stigma attached to failed marriages. Some women who are perceived to be
condoning the acts of their husbands actually suffer from the cycle of spousal abuse such that they have
become so disempowered to address their situation.

Under this proposed measure, a decree of divorce dissolves the absolute community or conjugal
partnership of gains. The assets shall be equally divided between the spouses. However, this bill also
proposes that in addition to his or her equal share in the assets, the spouse who is not gainfully employed
shall be entitled to support until he or she finds adequate employment but the right shall only be effective
for not more than one year. This provision is meant to address the economic deprivation or poverty that
many women experience as a result of a marital break-up.

The bill also proposes that the custody of any minor child shall be decided by the court in accordance
with the best interests of the child and their support provided in accordance with the Family Court
provisions on support. Actual, moral and exemplary damages shall be awarded to the aggrieved spouse
when proper in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code on damages. The proposed measure also
provides that parties shall be disqualified from inheriting from each other by intestate succession.
Moreover, provisions in favor of one spouse made in the will of the other spouse shall be revoked by
operation of law.

The Philippines and Malta are the only two remaining countries in the world without a divorce law. This
bill is being introduced based on indications that Philippine society is ready for the legalization of
divorce.

The sanctity of marriage is not based on the number of marriages existing but on the quality of marital
relationships. When a marriage is no longer viable, divorce should be an option.

Thus, the approval of this bill is urgently requested.

Reference: Jaromay Laurente Pamaos Law Offices blog, 2008. Retrieved from https://jlp-
law.com/blog/proposed-divorce-law-in-the-philippines/
MAKE DIVORCE A CHOICE

When President Rodrigo Duterte openly shared the gossip about Senator Leila de Limas relationship
with her married driver-bodyguard, bills legitimizing divorce were filed in Congress.

Although the filing was not purposely timed to highlight the gossip, it nevertheless underscored the need
for a serious consideration of the bill this time, given the status of people in high positions in government
who are embroiled in legal and moral problems over their marital relationships.

Perhaps under this administration, logic and reason will prevail and a divorce bill will finally become law
to put an end to the hypocrisy of the societal norms and practices related to marriage.

The Philippines legally sanctioned divorce for more than 400 years until 1950, when the Americans
repealed the Spanish law based on a medieval code called Siete Partidas.

Because of intense lobbying by the Catholic Church, the Civil Code of 1950 prohibited divorce for
Filipinos. In essence, this prohibition continues to be in force under the 1987 Family Code.

Apart from the Vatican City, the Philippines a predominantly Catholic country is the only place in the
world that still outlaws divorce. Legalizing divorce is a proposal that is bitterly dividing legislators and
the public principally because of the strong Church lobby.

While the Philippine Constitution formally guarantees the separation of church and state, the Catholic
Church wields disturbing influence on politics, commenting on specific policies, which comes short of
meddling, or advising voters on candidates for office.

The Church has long been actively campaigning against what it calls the DEATH bills proposals to
allow divorce, euthanasia, abortion, total population control and homosexual marriage calling them
anti-family and anti-life.

Even before the 17th Congress convened on July 25, Representative Edcel Lagman of Albay had filed
House Bill No. 116, seeking to institutionalize absolute divorce as a means for the merciful liberation of
the hapless wife from a long-dead marriage.

On August 10, Reps. Emmi de Jesus and Arlene Brosas of the activist Gabriela Womens Party filed HB
2380, renewing the push to legalize the dissolution of marriage that Reps. Liza Maza and Luzviminda
Ilagan began during the 13th Congress in 2005.

Before this, several attempts to reinstitute divorce have taken place, from as early as 1988 when Senator
Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. filed a bill seeking to recognize marriage dissolutions in religious institutions. In
1992, Sen. Leticia Ramos Shahani filed a bill seeking the recognition of divorces obtained by Filipinos
overseas, and in 1995, Sen. Nikki Coseteng filed a resolution to enact a Divorce Code.

These proposals were, however, barely debated. In 1998, Sen. Teofisto Guingona filed a bill to delete the
provision on legal separation and to integrate it as grounds for annulment. In 1999, Rep. Manuel Ortega
of La Union filed HB 6993 to legalize divorce and in 2001 Rep. Bellaflor Angara-Castillo and Sen.
Rodolfo Biazon each filed similar bills on divorce.

The divorce bills aim to amend Articles 26 and 55 to 66 provisions on legal separation under
Executive Order No. 209 or The Family Code of the Philippines, to include divorce as a way for spouses
to end their marriages. Likewise, the bills seek to repeal Article 36 of the Family Code to make
psychological incapacity a basis for divorce rather than for annulment.
The Family Code prescribes only three options for couples who decide to end their union: declaration of
nullity under Article 36, annulment under Article 45, and legal separation under Article 55.

Data from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) show that the number of annulment cases in the
Philippines increased by 40 percent from 4,520 cases in 2001 to 8,282 in 2010.

A December 2014 survey by private polling firm Social Weather Stations (SWS) showed that 60 percent
of respondents favor divorce, with only 29 percent not in favor and 11 percent undecided. This was higher
than the results of surveys conducted in March 2011 (50 percent) and May 2005 (43 percent).

Look around you and you are likely to see at least one couple stuck in a difficult or dysfunctional
marriage, or a philanderers child. The Churchs vehement objection to divorce is anchored on the
Biblical verse What God has joined together, let no man put asunder (separate).

Opponents say marriage is a lifelong commitment and that divorce is anti-God and immoral. Is it then
pro-God and moral to stick together in an unhappy or destructive marriage, exposing the children to more
harm when the spouses are often at each others throats, threatening to kill each other, or shamelessly
engaging in extramarital affairs?

The current bill lays out five grounds for petitioning for divorce:
The petitioner has been separated de facto from his or her spouse for at least five years at the time of the
filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable;

The petitioner has been legally separated from his or her spouse for at least two years at the time of the
filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable;

When any of the grounds for legal separation has caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage;

When one or both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations; and

When the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused the irreparable breakdown of
the marriage.

Divorce has been recognized as a legitimate option for couples, particularly for women, who are trapped
in unhappy, even violent, unions. As Lagman has put it, most marriages are supposed to be solemnized
in heaven, the reality is that many marriages plummet into hell.

Marriage is a choice. Separation is a choice. Divorce should be a choice. To deny divorce is akin to
denying a right to get out of a troubled marriage, in pursuit of liberty and happiness.

Reference: Valderama, T. (2016). Make divorce a choice. Retrieved from the Manila Times,
http://www.manilatimes.net/make-divorce-a-choice/285328/

LAGMAN CALLS ON ALVAREZ TO JOIN HIM IN AUTHORING DIVORCE BILL

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman on Tuesday urged Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez to join him in authoring
a divorce bill instead of pushing for a bill allowing for the easy dissolution of marriage.
In a press conference, Lagman said two divorce bills have been transmitted to the House
Committee on Population and Family Relations, chaired by Laguna third District Rep. Sol
Aragones.
We are inviting the Speaker to co-author our bill on divorce instead of filing his own, Lagman
said.
Lagman made the statement after Alvarez in opening the second regular session called on his
colleagues to pass his bill allowing for the easy dissolution of marriage. He said the divorce is
intended to protect women from being victimized in their own marriages.
This divorce bill is not for us, men. It is for the women, Lagman said.
Lagman lamented that men easily get away with infidelity due to the absence of divorce in the
country.
The men can get away with it, with infidelity and other things, you know. But those who are the
victims which are broken beyond repair, are the wives, Lagman said.
Alvarez denied having a personal interest in pushing for an easy way out of marriage. Alvarez
has admitted to having a girlfriend, being estranged from his wife.
Ang sa akin kasi, magiging convenient siya sa mga mag-asawa na mag-resort kaagad sa policy
na ito o sa pamamaraan na ito instead of working on the relationship, Alejano said.
Alejano said he would prefer a law that would strengthen the relationship of the husband and
wife and the family.
They are in continuous conflict, in continuous adjustment also. Kailangan ang direksiyon lagi
ng pamilya is to resolve conflict, not to resort to separation or divorce. It will also strengthen the
family kasi it will also have [an] effect to the children, Alejano said.

Reference: Inquirer.net, 2017. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/917470/divorce-bill-

edcel-lagman-sol-aragones-house-committee-on-population-and-family-relations-pantaleon-
alvarez

GABRIELA REFILES DIVORCE BILL

Gabriela party-list representatives on Wednesday refiled their bill legalizing divorce in the country,
marking the fifth time the womens party-list tried to propose the measure amid stiff opposition from the
Catholic Church.
Gabriela Representatives Emmi De Jesus and Arlene Brosas filed House Bill 2380, which provides the
conditions for couples to enter into divorce.
The bill states that a couple may enter into a divorce if at least one condition is met:
 The petitioner has been separated de facto from his or her spouse for at least 5 years at the time of the
filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable;

The petitioner has been legally separated from the spouse for at least 2 years at the time of the filing
and reconciliation is highly improbable;
When any of the grounds for legal separation has caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage;
When one or both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations;
When the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused the irreparable breakdown
of the marriage.

Due to stiff opposition from the Catholic Church, the divorce bill has languished in Congress. Gabrielas
version of the bill has been languishing since the 13th Congress, the solons said.
De Jesus said it is high time divorce is legalized in the Philippines at a time women get beaten up in
abusive relationships.

Ang isang kasal o pagsasama ay sagrado kung walang karahasan at pang-aabuso at nananatili ang
respeto at pagmamahal. Ang pagtataguyod ng estado ng sanctity of marriage ayon sa Konstitusyon ay
makikita hindi sa dami ng mga taong ikinakasal sa ating bansa o sa bilang ng taon ng kanilang pananatili
sa relasyon, De Jesus said.

Brosas cited the Social Weather Stations (SWS) study that shows at least three of five Filipinos are in
favor of divorce.

Three of every five Filipinos or at least 60% are in favor of the legislation of divorce. This shows only
not just the public pulse but the de facto need for the option of divorce to be given, Brosas said.

Divorce is also not an entirely new concept in the Philippines since this has been a remedy given for
couples in irreparable marriages even during the American period, she added.
During the Ugnayan sa Batasan press briefing, deputy speaker Capiz Rep. Fredenil Castro said only
cowards support divorce because of their failure to live up to their vow of union made before the church.

Ako ay hindi sang-ayon sa divorce. Akoy naniniwala na kung ano ang sinumpahan ko sa Diyos at batas
ng tao, paninindigan ko, Castro said.
Ang mga duwag lamang ang naniniwala sa divorce, sapagkat sila ay duwag sa kanilang responsibilidad
sa pagsasama (Only cowards believe in divorce because they are cowards to the responsibility of their
union), he added.

For his part, Marikina Rep. Romero Miro Quimbo said the Philippines is not yet ready for divorce but
he supports making annulment procedures in the Family Code more accessible to the poor.

Ang mas tingin ko, palawigin natin yung existing laws natin para naman hindi panghabambuhay i-preso
ang isang tao sa isang relasyon, lalo na kung hindi na tama na sinasaktan o hindi na nagiging mabuting
ama o ina (I think that we should extend our existing laws so that people wont be imprisoned for their
whole lives in a relationship, especially when its not right and theyre being mistreated or theyre not
good parents). Family is a basic unit of society but if the family is not sustainable, if it breeds children
who would be derelicts of society because marriage is not working, then we need to take a second look,
Quimbo said.
I just think today, (Family Code) is very anti-poor. You have to have access to great lawyers and set aside
time to be able to go to court to get marriages annulled. I just think we need to make those provisions
accessible to the poor, he added.

Reference: Inquirer.net, 2016. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/802432/gabriela-refiles-

divorce-bill

DIVORCE BATTLE STARTS IN HOUSE; 2 BILLS FILED

Lawmakers appear to be on a collision course over efforts to introduce a divorce law in the country, with
two completely opposite bills pending in the House of Representatives.
Marikina Rep. Marcelino Teodoro has filed an Anti-Divorce and Unlawful Dissolution of Marriage Act
seeking a guarantee that no legislation encouraging or facilitating the dissolution of marriage and
recognizing divorce shall be passed.
Another pending bill coauthored by Gabriela Representatives Luzviminda Ilagan and Emerenciana de
Jesus seeks to amend the Family Code to introduce a divorce provision, a move floated and supported by
no less than Speaker Feliciano Belmonte soon after the House passed the reproductive health bill on third
reading.

The Teodoro proposal ensures that absolute divorce remains unacceptable in the Philippine legal system,
and maintains that legal separation can be availed of by spouses in (a) troubled marriage.
In the explanatory note to House Bill No. 2768, Teodoro acknowledged that initiatives and legislative
proposals to introduce a divorce law in the country had a worthy objective.

Value of marriage
But he said these still undermine the value of marriage by encouraging couples to put an end to their
relationship instead of allowing them to reconcile immediately or fix the same over time.
The bill imposes a penalty of imprisonment of up to six months, including a fine of up to P50,000, on a
number of prohibited acts.
They include the issuance of a decree of legal separation without the court taking necessary steps toward
the reconciliation of spouses and without determining beforehand that reconciliation is highly
improbable.
Also prohibited is the deliberate intent of any person and/or the prosecuting attorney assigned in a case
to induce collusion between the parties, as well as encourage fabrication or suppression of evidence.
In their bill, Ilagan and De Jesus argued that there are many failed, unhappy marriages across all Filipino
classes.

5 grounds of divorce
Many couples, especially from the marginalized sectors who have no access to the courts, simply end up
separating without the benefit of legal processes, they said in the explanatory note.
Their bill covers a total of five grounds for divorce, including irreconcilable differences that have caused
the irreparable breakdown of the marriage.
A separate bill by Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares does not advocate divorce, but seeks to make
annulment proceedings more accessible and less costly for the poor.
His proposal recognizes spousal violence, infidelity and abandonment as presumptive psychological
incapacity constituting ground for the annulment of marriage.
The bill aims to address the inequality and inaccessibility that have resulted from the remedy granted by
the Family Code to be free from a void marriage with a spouse who has committed abusive acts of
violence or infidelity or abandonment (of) his or her family, he said in the explanatory note.

Reference: Inquirer.net, 2013. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/335189/divorce-battle-starts-in-

house-2-bills-filed

LAGMAN FILES ABSOLUTE DIVORCE BILL

MANILA Albay Representative Edsel Lagman filed, on Thursday, a bill to allow absolute divorce in
the country, which he said would provide a merciful liberation of the hapless wife from a long-dead
marriage.
Lagman, the principal author of the Reproductive Health Law, filed House Bill No. 116.
A statement from his office said Lagman leads the campaign in the 17th Congress for the enactment of a
law on absolute divorce.
Most marriages are supposed to be solemnized in heaven, the reality is many marriages plummet into
hell in irremediable breakdown, spousal abuse, marital infidelity and psychological incapacity, among
others, which bedevil marriages, Lagman said.
The grounds of absolute divorce bill also include the grounds for legal separation and annulment of
marriage provided for in the Family Code of the Philippines.
House Bill 116 provides the following additional grounds for absolute divorce:
* when either of the spouses secures (a) a valid foreign divorce;
* canonical divorce;
* gender reassignment surgery; and
* when irreconcilable differences or conflicts exist between the married couple, which are beyond
redemption despite earnest and repeated efforts at reconciliation.
Lagman described the bill as a pro-woman legislation, noting the following:
* Traditionally, in a marriage relation, the husband is more ascendant than the wife. It is the woman who
is usually brutalized and it is the man who philanders and gets away with it.
* Under these foreboding and unequal circumstances, a wife needs an absolute divorce more than the
husband.
* In divorce proceedings, the wife as the innocent spouse, needs a court-decreed alimony and support for
the child or children under her custody with corresponding fines and contempt of court for delinquency in
providing financial support.
* Absolute divorce is not only a womens issue. It is a poor womens issue. Poor women cannot afford the
current exorbitant expense for legal separation or annulment of marriage.
* An absolute divorce is a merciful liberation of the hapless wife from a long-dead marriage.
The Philippines and the Vatican are the only two states in the world without a divorce law. The Vatican,
the seat of the Roman Catholic Church, is a city-state.

Reference: Inquirer.net, 2016. Retrieved fromhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/793589/lagman-files-absolute-

divorce-bill