Divorce Unconstitutional

7/24/2019 Divorce Unconstitutional

1/27

Allowing Absolute Divorce in thePhilippines

Divorce is a controversial topic, except that its often discussed with hushed voices. Many

are just waiting for the right opportunity to end their respective marriages, and the reasons

are diverse physical abuse (against the spouse andor the children!, sexual in"delity,

irreconcilable di#erences and con$icting personalities, gross irresponsibility, loss (and

transfer! of a#ection, among others. %nfortunately, these grounds are not enough to severe

the marital bond through annulment. &n lieu of divorce, married persons resort to annulment

and accordingto the 'ce of the )olicitor *eneral (')*!, there is an alarming increase in

the number of annulment cases in the +hilippines. he number of annulment cases "led in

courts, which never breached the -,/mar0 prior to 12, rose to -,345 (12! and -,-64

(1-!.

Existing Philippine Laws regarding Divorce

+hilippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce, but divorce was available in certain

periods in +hilippine history. Divorce was allowed under the Divorce 7aw of 383- (9ct :o.

1-3! and during the ;apanese occupation, pursuant to


2/27

&n 16, party/list representative 7iCa Masa of *abriela "led a divorce bill. 9ccording to ep.

Masa, the annulment process has been expensive for most >ilipinos and has not been

responsive to the needs of women, particularly those su#ering from marital abuse.B &n 13,

similar bills were "led in the )enate (Eill :o. -51!, introduced by )enator odolfo *. EiaCon,

and Fouse of epresentatives (Eill :o. 5-5!, introduced by Fonorable Eella$or ;. 9ngara/?astillo. &n 3888, epresentative Manuel ?. 'rtega "led Fouse Eill :o. 2884, see0ing for the

legaliCation of divorce. he highlights of the explanatory note of Fouse Eill :o. 2884, in

support for divorce, areG

Not all marriages succeed as a permanent union. An increasing number of married

individuals nd themselves subjected by their marriage partners to physical violence,

grossly abusive conduct and other acts of or oenses that rather than promote blissful,

harmonious conjugal and family life impair, debase or destroy the legitimate ends of the

marriage relationship. The bill seeks to give spouses which are shacked by an irretrievablybroken marriage the freedom to remarry and possibly succeed in attaining a stable and

fullling family life.

Divorce is not a novel legal right. The amily !ode sanctions relative divorce "a mensa

et thoro#. $egal separation is a recogni%ed remedy for victims of failed marriages. &ur civil

laws on marriage justify and allow the separation of married individuals but does not confer

them the legal right or remedy to e'tricate themselves from the ordeal of a broken

marriage.

Divorce is not exclusive to contemporary times. (efore the )panish colonial rule in the

early *+th century, absolute divorce had been widely practiced among our ancestral tribes

the Tagbanwas of alawan, the -adang of ueva /i%caya, the )agada and 0gorot of the

!ordilleras, the 1anobo, (ila2an and 1oslems of /isayas and 1indanao islands, to name a

few.

There were prior divorce laws. 0n *3*4, Act 54*6 allowed divorce on the grounds of

adultery on the part of the wife and concubinage on the part of the husband. 7uring the

8apanese &ccupation, a new law on absolute divorce, 9.&. o. *:*, was promulgated

providing for ten grounds for divorce. These laws are no longer in eect.

(ased on the increasing number of failed marriages which connes many of our citi%ens to a

perpetual state of marital limbo, it has become morally and socially acceptable for many

ilipinos to grant spouses of broken marriages the legal right to remarry. The present

grounds for legal separation which are recogni%ed in our society as justiable bases for
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080210-117984/OSG-alarmed-by-rising-marriage-annulment-caseshttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080210-117984/OSG-alarmed-by-rising-marriage-annulment-caseshttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080210-117984/OSG-alarmed-by-rising-marriage-annulment-caseshttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080210-117984/OSG-alarmed-by-rising-marriage-annulment-cases


3/27

relative divorce should be re2enacted as lawful grounds for absolute divorce. 0n addition, it is

recommended that ;irreconcilable marital dierences< be included in our present civil laws

as a justiable cause for absolute divorce because not all circumstances and situations that

vitiate the institution of marriage could be specically categori%ed and dened by our

lawmakers. )pouses living in a state of irreparable marital con=ict or discord should be

given the opportunity to present their marital contrarieties before the courts and have such

dierences adjudged as substantial grounds to dissolve or sever the legal bond of marriage.

&n addition to these reasons, there are criticisms that the existing laws on annulment are

anti/poor, as the high cost needed to pursue a case for annulment prevents the poor from

securing one. his, however, is the very reason cited by those who oppose divorce the

high cost is intended to discourage the people from tri$ing with marriage. 9llowing divorce

would serious wea0en the institution of marriage. 9nyone could decide to get married

without thin0ing twice because they can get out of the marriage easily with divorce. &f thecurrent increase of annulment cases is alarming, imagine how the allowance of divorce

would greatly increase the "gure. 'ther arguments against the legaliCation of divorce are

contained in the +osition +aperof the ?ommission on Fuman ights (?F! against these

bills. he highlights areG

*. The proposal to legali%e absolute divorce with the right to remarry violates relevant

international instruments on human rights, particularly Article *+"># of the ?nited ation

7eclaration of @uman ights.

5.The innocent spouse and the children in most cases may suer economic diBculties.

Aside from being abandoned by the guilty spouse, the innocent spouse and children, in most

cases, will suer untold economic diBculties. The divorced spouses who will remarry will

have to maintain another family of their own.

>. The human rights of the innocent spouse is violated. The guilty spouse in the divorce case

is allowed to abandon or neglect his obligation to provide company and care of the innocent

spouse and the children, thus violating Article +C of the amily !ode which readsD ;The

husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and delity and

render mutual help and support.


4/27

society. A divorce invites another divorce. The innocent spouse who has not contravened

any law is unlawfully deserted.

E. Absolute divorce is destructive of the family as a social institution mandated under the

!onstitution. &ne of the basic policies of the )tate, as declared in the principles of thehilippine !onstitution readsD ;The )tate recogni%es the sanctity of family life and shall

protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. 0t shall eFually

protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and

primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the young for civic ineBciency and the

development of moral character shall receive the support of the government.


5/27

state policy on ImarriageIand the Iinviolability of marriageIare found in the "#$%Constitution and the Article " of the Family Code, respectively. I&ou have to amend theConstitution first in order,IAlbano told the 'anila (tandard. (ection ) of Article *+ of theConstitution provides that Imarriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of thefamily and shall be protected by the (tate,Ihe noted. Ihe mere filing of those bills was

unconstitutional.IProposals on divorce were revived at the ouse of epresentatives after'ariina ep. 'arcelino eodoro filed his so-called Ianti-divorce billI/0 1%2 Ito strengthenthe family as the nationIs foundation by maing sure the bond of marriage remains intactIunless on grounds prescribed by e3isting law on the matter.IIeodoroIs measure was tocounter 4abriela ep. 5u6viminda !laganIs divorce bill. !n the "7th Congress, !lagan filed 0"%## on five grounds for divorce, including Iirreconcilable differences that have caused theirreparable breadown of the marriage.IAlbano said both proposals were not legally tenablewhile underscoring the Family Code, stating that marriage Iis the foundation of the family andan inviolable social institution whose nature, conse8uences, and incidents are governed by law,

and not sub9ect to stipulation, e3cept that marriage settlements may fi3 the property relations

during the marriage.I'alacaIang distanced itself from the measure being pushed by its ally,(peaer Feliciano 0elmonte :r. Presidential Communications Development (ecretary amonCarandang said the Palace was Inot even thiningIabout the bill.

Divorce law unlikely0y :ess Dia6/he Philippine (tar2 ; - ")?==am

'AN!5A, Philippines - !locos Norte ep. odolfo Fari@as said yesterday Congress can approve a bill

allowing divorce in the country, but if it becomes a law, the (upreme Court will surely strie it down asunconstitutional.

A divorce law could be easily challenged as unconstitutional before the (upreme Court,B he said.

Fari@as said Article *+ (ection ) of the Constitution titled he FamilyB provides? 'arriage, as an

inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the (tate.B

e said the Constitution une8uivocally declares that marriage is an inviolable social institutionB and that

the state, including Congress, shall protect it.B (o how could the (tate or Congress pass a law

destroying or violating marriageB he said.

Fari@as said the constitutional provision on the inviolability and sanctity of marriage should first be

amended before Congress can enact a law allowing divorce.

e made the statement as womens party-list group 4abriela announced that it would file again the

divorce bill that previous Congresses have refused to pass.
http://www.philstar.com/author/Jess%20Diaz/http://www.philstar.com/author/Jess%20Diaz/


6/27


7/27

he Fouse committee on revision of laws began on Kednesdaymorning initial deliberations on the +hilippine divorce bill, days after


8/27

'AN!5A, Philippines A lawyer who has challenged the eproductive ealth /2 law before the (upreme Court

believes legali6ing divorce in the Philippines is unconstitutional.

Atty. :ames !mbong, son of Catholic 0ishopsG Conference of the Philippines legal counsel :o !mbong, said a divorce

law would have a tremendous effect on Philippine society by weaening marriages and families.

As long as we have the Constitution that we have now, definitely divorce is not there to strengthen the family. he

natural effect of divorce -- as the proponents say, divorce maes the life of the former wife or spouse better but the

immediate effect there is the family is broen because you dont have the natural parents,B he told ANCs eadstart.

!mbong said not every trend outside of the Philippines should be followed. his, amid reports that aside from the

+atican, the Philippines is the only country in the world that does not have a law on divorce.

e said people in unhappy marriages can have their marriages annulled or undergo legal separation.

Hur Constitution states that the family is the foundation of our nation. ! am not saying we dont care about the wife

who is battered or the children that are abused by the father, the broen marriage. here are more foundational

principles that we have to preserve even if there are broen marriages,B he said.

5 grounds for divorce

!n the interview, 4abriela ep. 5u6 !lagan said the party-list groups push for a divorce law is a response to the clamor

of many Filipino women who are seeing another legal remedy to problems with their marriages.

he party-list lawmaer said many spouses do not want their marriages annulled because one has to be declared

psychologically incapacitated for the plea to be approved. (he added ma9ority of people cannot afford annulment

because it is e3pensive.

!lagan said other spouses also do not want legal separation because it bars them from marrying again.

he lawmaer listed 7 possible conditions for granting divorce in the Philippines under ouse 0ill No. "%## or An Act

!ntroducing Divorce in the Philippines?

". !f the couple has been separated at least 7 years and there is no more chance of reconciliation.

). !f the couple has been legally separated for at least ) years at the time of the filing for divorce.

1. Psychological incapacity

>. Abandonment, marital infidelity or domestic violence or any of the grounds for legal separation

7. !rreconcilable differences

!mbong, however, noted that it would be very easy to simulate grounds for divorce under the proposed bill.

e said his e3perience woring at the Hffice of the (olicitor 4eneral showed him how some legal practitioners and

psychologists would try to use abuse the grounds needed to grant annulment or legal separation.


9/27

e also re9ected the reasoning that other Filipinos should have the same privileges as 'uslims, which are allowed to

divorce under the sharia court.

he Constitution allows us to recogni6e the customs, traditions and cultural heritage of the region of the 'uslims. Ie

have personal 'uslim laws. his is not a grant of divorce simply because they lobbied for it, they made studies. hisis older than us. his is their culture. !t is a matter of political wisdom that the Constitution and our government is

recogni6ing the tradition of divorce. Ie dont have that,B he said.

!n the interview, !lagan said there were a total of $,)$1 cases filed for nullification of marriages in )="=. his is nearly

double the >,7)= cases of nullity filed in )==".

!mbong said wives who have cheating spouses can always file for annulment or legal separation. old that the

annulment process could easily cost P1==,===-P7==,===, he said? hats besides the point. :ust because it is legally

e3pensiveJIe are taling about a law that grants a right to people rich or poor.B

Constitution protects sanctity of marriage

!locos Norte ep. odolfo Fari@as yesterday ased divorce advocates in the 5ower Chamber to first wor to amend

the Constitution before moving to legali6e divorce in the country.

Fari@as said if 4abriela party-list eps. 5u6viminda !lagan and Kmmi de :esus are determined to pursue the passage

of the ouse 0ill /02 >>=$ otherwise nown as the divorce bill, Article *+, (ection ) of the "#$% Constitution, which

protects the sanctity of marriage, must be amended.

As ! opined in one of the hearings of a similar bill in the previous Congress, a divorce law could be easily challenged

as unconstitutional,B he said.

Citing Article *+, (ection ) of the "#$% Constitution, Fari@as said marriage is an inviolable social institutionB and

shall be protected by the (tate.B

Fari@as is doubtful that 0 >>=$ would be passed and enacted into law, saying that it could face a legal battle

because of its infirmities.

!t is unconstitutional. (o how could the (tate pass a law destroying or violating marriage he Constitution has to be

amended first,B he pointed out.

Kven ouse (peaer Feliciano 0elmonte :r. maintained that the measure would not prosper this "Lth Congress,

stressing that it is not included in the list of their legislative priorities.

he militant 4abriela womens group has been pursuing the passage of the divorce bill since the "1th Congress.

>=$, divorce will be granted to the following? when petitioner who has been separated de facto from his or

her spouse for at least five years and reconciliation is highly improbableM when petitioner who has been legally


10/27

separated from his or her spouse for at least two years and reconciliation is improbableM and when any of the grounds

for legal separation under paragraph /a2 of Article 77 of the Family Code has caused the irreparable breadown of the

marriage.

Ihen one or both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligationsM and

when the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused irreparable breadown of the marriage arealso among the grounds for divorce as stated in the bill.

ead more at http?EEwww.mb.com.phEconstitution-protects-sanctity-of-marriageEOC6>dCDsvmw"g8b.##

Divorce bill unconstitutional

http://yats.us.cloudlogin.co/clearwaterphilippines/wordpress/2011/06/divorce-bill-unconstitutional/

hursday! "une 2! 2011

#$%&'$ ( he proposed )easure see*ing the legali+ation o, divorce in the country )ay not be

approved a,ter several law)a*ers epressed their opposition during a ouse co))ittee hearing

ednesday.

agayan de ro epresentative u,us odrigue+ said ouse 3ill 1455 ,iled by abriela epresentatives

7))i de "esus and 'u+vi)inda &lagan is against the spirit and tet o, the 1584 onstitution.

odrigue+ cited $rticle 19! ection 2 o, the onstitution! which states: ;#arriage! as an inviolable

social institution! is the ,oundation o, the ,a)ily and shall be protected by the tate.as ?uipped.;&, there is a need ,or a divorce! the onstitution has to be a)ended ,irst!< he added.

&ndependent pollster ocial eather tations @A! however! showed ednesday that public support

,or divorce ,or separated couples vastly i)proved over the past si years.

he non-co))ission survey o, ! conducted between #arch B and 4! revealed that one in two

=ilipinos are now bac*ing the )easure.

a)on asiple! eecutive director o, the &nstitute ,or Colitical and 7cono)ic e,or)! told un.tar that

divorce is not yet a )ature issue! thus there is possibility that the ,igures )ay change.

he Chilippines loo)s to be the lone country without a divorce a,ter residents o, tiny 7uropean state

#alta voted to legali+e the controversial )easure strongly opposed by the atholic hurch.

he divorce bill in the country will have to be approved at the ouse co))ittee on revision o, laws

be,ore )e)bers o, the ouse o, epresentatives debate on it in the plenary.he legislation has been ,iled since the 1th ongress by then-abriela congresswo)an 'i+a #a+a.

3ut lawyer "o &)bong! legal counsel o, the atholic 3ishops on,erence o, the Chilippines @3CA!

asserted that divorce is against the onstitution.

he absence o, an absolute divorce in the country has actually *ept )arriages together! he said.

;ow )any divorces can one haveE ow )any spouses can one abandonE Divorce begets divorce. &s it

correct to clai) that absolute divorce is the last resortE< &)bong said.

Cro-)arriage bill
http://www.mb.com.ph/constitution-protects-sanctity-of-marriage/#ZCzH4dCDsvmw1gqb.99http://www.mb.com.ph/constitution-protects-sanctity-of-marriage/#ZCzH4dCDsvmw1gqb.99


11/27

&)bong also decried why )e)bers o, ongress propose legislation that would nulli,y )arriage! but no

)easures have been proposed to strengthen )arriages.

'awyer 7valyn Frsua! a pro,essor at the Fniversity o, the Chilippines ollege o, 'aw! )eanwhile! said

the =ilipinos cannot continue to oppose the divorce law si)ply because they are allergic to the ter)

;divorce


12/27

lar* is already a popular destination ,or gol,ers ,ro) #anila. lar* =reeport o,,ers so)e o, the best

gol, courses in Ca)panga and outshines )any gol, clubs and gol, courses elsewhere in the Chilippines.

$bsolute divorce is a declaration by a court that a )arriage has been dissolved. ence! absolute

divorce is a Kudicial dissolution or ter)ination o, the bonds o, )atri)ony. &t occurs because o, )arital

)isconduct or other statutory cause arising a,ter a )arriage cere)ony! with the result that the status

o, the parties is changed ,ro) coverture to that o, single persons. $n absolute divorce can only be

obtained by a Kudg)ent o, the court ,inding that all o, the legal re?uire)ents have been )et.

e)arriage is legally i)possible until an absolute divorce Kudg)ent has been entered.

Philippines (tands All but Alone in 0anning Divorce

Posted on :une "$, )="" by Carlos . Conde

- See more at:http://carlosconde.com/2011/06/18/philippines-stands-all-but-alone-in-banning-divorce/#sthash.Pcom!".dpu

By CARLOS H. CONDE

Published: June 17, 2011

The New York Times

$%&'(% ) *hen citi+ens o the small $editerranean nation o $alta voted in a reerendum last month to legali+e

divorce, the reignited debate in the Philippines, one o the last countries, along ith atican it, here divorce is

still banned.

as later, the issue suraced at a hearing in the Philippine ouse o 3epresentatives on a long-dormant bill.

45he global realit is that divorce has been recogni+ed as a legitimate option or couples, particularl or omen, ho

are trapped in unhapp, even violent, unions, said (u+ 'lagan, a congressoman representing the abriela *omen7s

Part and co-author o the bill. 4' the can do it in $alta, e can do it here. (et us not remain in the ar %ges.

!ut the re-emergence o the divorce proposal has inlamed opponents in this overhelmingl 3oman atholic

countr and riled the church authorities, ho have called it part o an 4orchestrated ar against the 9ilipino amil.

scar . ru+, a retired archbishop ho is no the leading church voice against the bill, said 9ilipino atholics should

not be ashamed that the are global holdouts on divorce.

45hat is a distinction that e should all be ver proud o, %rchbishop ru+ said. 4't sas that e are not one o those

ho believe the amil can be destroed.

ivorce is not an alien concept in the Philippines; it as legal during the


13/27

until this month, together ith other proposals to amend the 9amil ode, hich as passed in 1=8@ to supplant

sections o the ivil ode concerning marriage.

Aven ith the greater attention to the Philippines7 isolation on this issue ater the $alta vote, the bill is not eBpected

to be approved soon. atholic leaders have voed to campaign hard against it. pponents in ongress sa the ill

ight it all the a to the Supreme ourt i necessar. 3uus 3odrigue+, a conservative congressman, called the billunconstitutional and divorce unnecessar.

President !enigno S. %Cuino ''', ho has clashed ith the atholic hurch over other legislation ) the 3eproductive

ealth !ill, hich sees to guarantee access to birth control inormation and methods but hich the church has

assailed as pro-abortion ) has distanced himsel rom the divorce bill.

4't is not a priorit, and ' don7t see it becoming a priorit even in the near uture, he said recentl. 45he sanctit o

amilies is ver important to us.

%rchbishop ru+, the ormer bishop, rued hat he sa as a pattern o anti-amil measures, ith the 3eproductive

ealth !ill being debated in ongress and no the divorce bill.

4*hat the ill do neBtD he ased in an intervie. 4%llo same-seB marriage hereD

5he Philippines, he said, aces so man problems 4and et e are bogged don b all these attacs against the amil.

!ut proponents o the bill, hile recogni+ing the diicult o passing it, are undeterred.

4$an 9ilipinos, especiall omen, are trapped in abusive and unhealth relationships, and the remedies aorded

them are inadeCuate, said $s. 'lagan.

45he introduction o divorce in the Philippines ill provide an additional option to omen ho see to get out o

abusive and unhapp marriages, said (ana (inaban, secretar general o the abriela *omen7s Part.

5he 9amil ode currentl provides three options or spouses ho ant to get out o their marriage: legal separation,

annulment or a declaration o nullit o marriage. (amaers ho advocate the legali+ation o divorce sa those are

inadeCuate.

'n a legal separation, the note, spouses cannot remarr because the marriage is not dissolved. %n annulment, hich

reCuires the testimon o pschiatrists that one part is pschologicall too incapacitated to sustain the marriage, is

tpicall too complicated and costl or most people to pursue. % declaration o nullit reCuires a court to ind that the

marriage as never valid to begin ith because o actors lie raud.

%ccording to government records, thousands o 9ilipinos have iled or separation, mostl or inidelit, phsicalabuse and abandonment. %nd the numbers are groing. %ccording to the ice o the Solicitor eneral, @,@?E

petitions or legal separations, annulments and declarations o nullit o marriage ere iled in 200@, compared ith

>,?20 in 2001.

% surve done in $arch and released this month b the Social *eather Stations, an independent polling compan

based in $anila, ound that ?0 percent o respondents avored legali+ing divorce, up rom >E percent in a similar

surve in 200?. 5hirt-three percent ere opposed and 16 percent undecided, ith a margin o error o E percentage

points.


14/27

4(et7s not be hpocritical about this, $s. 'lagan said. 45he church itsel grants annulments.

She calls her bill 4divorce, 9ilipino-stle because o its stringent reCuirements or applicants, among them that

petitioner and spouse have been legall separated or at least ive ears.

45here on7t be an !ritne Spears marriages under our divorce la, said $s. 'lagan, reerring to the singer7smarriage to her high school seetheart in 200>, hich lasted less than three das.

% version o this article appeared in print on "une 18, 2011, in 5he 'nternational erald 5ribune ith the headline:

Philippines Stands %ll but %lone in !anning ivorce.

- See more at:http://carlosconde.com/2011/06/18/philippines-stands-all-but-alone-in-banning-

divorce/#sthash.Pcom!".dpu

1=86 Philippine onstitution and ivorcehttp://ovc.blogspot.com/201E/01/1=86-philippine-constitution-and-divorce.html

The State reconi!es the sanctit" o# #amil" li#e and shall $rotect and strenthen the #amil" as

a basic autonomous social institution%& '(rticle 2, Section 12)

(et it be ormall and eBpressl said that hile someone must be good or something, not

everone hoever is it or marriage intents and purposes. 5his is a don-to-earth realit that is

sCuarel premised on the inherent nature o and obligations intrinsic to marriage)such as the

reCuirements o mental composition, emotional constitution and phsical mae-up o the

concrete man and/or oman concerned. ne thing is the plain desire o getting married but

deinitel something else is to have the itness, the capacit or aptitude or getting married.

't is understandable hereore that more and more couples do not get married at all)but

simpl unite and separate at ill. 'n act, more and more married men and omen get married

and eventuall come to part as at ill)ith or ithout having children. 5hus it is too that

more and more children rom 4broen amilies become conused, angr and/or bitter even as

the gro in ears and reali+e their predicament o groing ithout the parenting presence o

their athers and/or mothers.

%nd et, there are individuals ho urthermore even ant to introduce and legali+e divorce in

the countr)as i the act o divorce and the divorce mentalit ould promote the right

understanding and proper living o the realit o marriage. 5he truth o the matter is that

divorce promotes divorce Fust as the possibilit o divorce alread eaens the resolve to get
http://carlosconde.com/2011/06/18/philippines-stands-all-but-alone-in-banning-divorce/#sthash.PcomGBJf.dpufhttp://carlosconde.com/2011/06/18/philippines-stands-all-but-alone-in-banning-divorce/#sthash.PcomGBJf.dpufhttp://carlosconde.com/2011/06/18/philippines-stands-all-but-alone-in-banning-divorce/#sthash.PcomGBJf.dpufhttp://carlosconde.com/2011/06/18/philippines-stands-all-but-alone-in-banning-divorce/#sthash.PcomGBJf.dpufhttp://carlosconde.com/2011/06/18/philippines-stands-all-but-alone-in-banning-divorce/#sthash.PcomGBJf.dpuf


15/27

married or a lietime)in accord ith their on human dignit and pursuant to the inherent

rights o the children born o their union.

ivorce is not merel a direct contradiction o the standard $arriage os, but also a standing

contradiction o the 9amil ode o the Philippines and urthermore a blatant contradiction othe onstitution o the Philippines. ence, 9ilipinos ho ant divorce introduced and legali+ed

in the countr, sa but one and the same thing: hange the oring o the $arriage osG

hange the Philippine onstitutionG hange the 9amil ode o the PhilippinesG o

convenientG o grossG

5hus it is that in the conteBt o a divorce provision, the constitutional principle o the 4sanctit

o amil lie is but a big Foe. 5hat the above lieise constitutional resolve to 4protect and

strengthen the amil is simpl a big lie. %nd that the eCuall constitutional consideration o

the amil as a 4basic autonomous social institution is but a blatant arce. *hat a pitG *hat adisasterG

Divorce

>iled underG


16/27

divorce already weaens the resolve to get married for a lifetimeQin accord with their own human dignity

and pursuant to the inherent rights of the children born of their union.

Divorce is not merely a direct contradiction to the standard 'arriage +ows, but also a standing

contradiction of the Family Code of the Philippines and a blatant contradiction of the Constitution of the

Philippines. ence, Filipinos who want divorce introduced and legali6ed in the country, say but one andthe same thing? Change the woring of the 'arriage +owsR Change the Philippine ConstitutionR Change

the Family Code of the Philippines.

hus it is that in the conte3t of those pushing for the legislation of divorce, the constitutional principle of

the sanctity of family lifeB becomes but a big 9oe. hat the constitutional resolve to protect and

strengthen the familyB is simply a big lie. And that the e8ually constitutional consideration of the family as

a basic autonomous social institutionB is but a blatant farce. Perhaps there is really a need to brace up for

what loos lie a looming disaster.

Three faces of evangelization

H better understand the New Kvangeli6ation, let us first place it within the comprehensive conte3t of the

Churchs mission of Kvangeli6ation. In its precise sense, Evangelization is the missio ad

gentesdirected to those who do not know Christ. In a wider sense, it is used to describe ordinary

pastoral work, while the phrase New Evangelization designates pastoral outreach to those who no

longer practice the Christian faith/Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on (ome

Aspects of Kvangeli6ation, December 1, )==%, ")2.

he New Kvangeli6ation, therefore, is primarily addressed to the bapti6ed in the Christian Iest who are

e!periencing a new e!istential and cultural situation, which, in fact, has i"periled their faith and their

witness.his is a situation which Pope 0enedict *+! has described as an Sinterior desert which #has

virtually eli"inated any $uestion of %od/*!!! Hrdinary 4eneral Assembly of the (ynod of

0ishops, Instru"entu" &aboris, $L2. !t is a crisis bearing in itself traces of the e!clusion of %od fro"

peoples lives, or a generalized indifference toward the Christian faith itself, to the point of atte"pting to

"arginalize it fro" public life/0enedict *+!, Address to the Pontifical Council for Promoting New

Kvangeli6ation, 'ay 1=, )=""2.

0ut in fact the cultural situation so described applies as well to certain parts of Africa, Asia-Hceania, and

(outh America. eferring to Africa, Pope 0enedict *+! observed that the situation in the continent call

Christians to reawaken their enthusias" for being "e"bers of the Church'to live the %ood News asindividuals, in their fa"ilies and in society and to proclai" it with fresh zeal to persons near and far/Post-

(ynodal Apostolic K3hortation(fricae )unus"L=, )=""2.

Ihile the Christian Iest must deal with the challenge of secularism, materialism, and relativism leading

to the abandonment of faith, the same problem to a lesser degree is posed to the younger Churches,B

especially those sectors that are highly influenced by great social and cultural changes. hese, too, are

fertile ground for the New EvangelizationB /Instru"entu" &aboris$#2.


17/27

'ore specifically, following the lead of 0lessed Pope :ohn Paul !! /*ede"ptoris )issio, 1%-1$2 the New

Kvangeli6ation has to be directed to the cultural, social, political, economic civic, scientific and

technological, communications and religious dimensions of life. All these have been deeply influenced by

the globali6ing secularist and materialist culture.

he pastoral situation calls on the whole Church, the faithful, to participate in overco"ing the separationof the %ospel fro" life and reconstructing, in the everyday activities of the ho"e, work and society, the

unity of life which finds its inspiration in the %ospel and, in the sa"e %ospel, the strength to realize it

fully/cf. :ohn Paul !!, Post-(ynodal Apostolic K3hortation Christifideles &aici1=, "#$$2.

7ac0 of divorce law nothing to be proud ofR+ia ?ayetano

ead moreG [email protected]/of/divorce/law/nothing/to/be/proud/of/pia/cayetanoPixCC==*o5lia>ollow usG Sin@uirerdotnet on witterQ in@uirerdotnet on >aceboo0

MANILA, PhilippinesThe absence of a divorce law in the Philippines is nothing to

be proud of, according to Sen. Pia a!etano who considers the lac" of a divorce

provision in the countr!#s laws to be discri$inator!.

%&e consider that a discri$inator! practice because $an! wo$en are forced to sta! ina $arriage that is har$ful to the$, either ph!sicall! or e$otionall!. I spea" of it fro$

a wo$en#s perspective, but it doesn#t $ean that it cannot appl! also to $en,' said

a!etano, who chairs the Senate co$$ittee on wo$en, fa$il! relations and gender

e(ualit!.

The senator said she was considering holding hearings on divorce but was not sure her

colleagues in ongress would e$brace such a bill, even though a recent Social

&eather Stations )S&S* surve! showed that $a+orit! of ilipinos want to legali-e

divorce.

The influential atholic hierarch!, the atholic ishops onference of the

Philippines, is strongl! opposed to a divorce law.

According to a!etano, there was nothing to be proud of in the fact that the

Philippines, e/cept for the 0atican, is the onl! countr! in the world that still does not

allow divorce.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/681159/lack-of-divorce-law-nothing-to-be-proud-of-pia-cayetano#ixzz404Go8liahttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/681159/lack-of-divorce-law-nothing-to-be-proud-of-pia-cayetano#ixzz404Go8liahttp://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bSAw-mF-0r4Q-4acwqm_6r&u=inquirerdotnethttp://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bSAw-mF-0r4Q-4acwqm_6r&u=inquirerdotnethttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/681159/lack-of-divorce-law-nothing-to-be-proud-of-pia-cayetano#ixzz404Go8liahttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/681159/lack-of-divorce-law-nothing-to-be-proud-of-pia-cayetano#ixzz404Go8liahttp://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bSAw-mF-0r4Q-4acwqm_6r&u=inquirerdotnethttp://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bSAw-mF-0r4Q-4acwqm_6r&u=inquirerdotnet


18/27

%It doesn#t sa! an!thing for us. &hat does it $ean1 That we are self2suffering1 That

we allow wo$en, or $en for that $atter, to sta! in horrible relationships and possibl!

not even be good parents to their children si$pl! because our law does not recogni-e

that the! should live separate lives1' she said.

Those not in favor of divorce need not avail the$selves of it, but the! should notdeprive other ilipinos of the right to divorce, the senator said.

a!etano said no divorce bill has been filed in the Senate, but there are bills to e/pand

legal separation and the definition of annul$ent, and she can use these to initiate the

deliberations on divorce.

3arlier, a!etano#s co$$ittee discussed laws discri$inator! against wo$en,

including the a$il! ode and its lac" of a divorce provision. The senator said she

would loo" into whether these earlier discussions could be $ade to e/tend into a

hearing on divorce or if a new resolution needed to be filed.

There could be a redefinition of how to ter$inate or change the status of a $arriage,

she said.

%M! (uestion reall! was4 5ow far will this go1 ut I a$ happ! to be part of it and to

introduce it,' she said.

In the 5ouse, Spea"er eliciano el$onte 6r. said he did not thin" ongress would

pass a divorce bill even if $a+orit! of ilipinos want it.

%I don#t thin" it has an! chance to pass the 78th ongress,' said el$onte, referring

to the divorce bill filed in the 5ouse b! 9abriela part!2list $e$bers Lu-vi$inda

Ilagan and 3$$i de 6esus.

el$onte cited the atholic hurch#s opposition to divorce as the $ain stu$bling

bloc" to such a proposal supported b! 8: percent of ilipinos as shown in the S&S

surve!.

Ilocos Norte ;ep. ;odolfo ari


19/27

72AP part!2list representative Silvestre ello III, a for$er +ustice secretar!, said a

divorce law would be seen as destro!ing the fa$il! in a countr! do$inated b!

atholics.

;ead $ore4 [email protected]/of/divorce/law/nothing/to/be/proud/of/pia/cayetanoPixCC==F3 in@uirerdotnet on >aceboo0

Filipino-(tyle Divorce, Anyone

!s divorce set to become legal in the Philippines For the sae of women

trapped in failing marriages, lets hope so.

By Mong Palatino

:une "L, )=""

5here are onl to countries in the orld ithout a divorce la: $alta and the

Philippines. !oth are atholic-dominated nations governed b politicians ho are araid

to antagoni+e the bishops ho seem to be more popish than the pope in their dogmatic

interpretation o the ol Scriptures. !ut $alta is eBpected to inall enact a divorce la

ater its citi+ens recentl approved the measure through a reerendum. *hat no or the

PhilippinesD

% divorce bill is pending in ongress, but its authors are less orried that $alta ould

beat the Philippines in legislating divorce than the disturbing act that 9ilipino omen

have e and limited options to get out o ailed marriages.


20/27

5he proposed divorce la ould address the limitations o these eBisting legal remedies

b eBpanding the grounds o separation. ivorce is granted i these grounds are met: e

acto separation rom his or her spouse or at least ive ears at the time o the iling o

the petition and reconciliation is highl improbable; (egal separation or at least to

ears at the time o the iling o the petition and reconciliation is highl improbable;

*hen an o the grounds or legal separation have caused irreparable breadon o themarriage; *hen one or both spouses are pschologicall incapacitated to compl ith

the essential marital obligations; and hen the spouses suer rom irreconcilable

dierence that have caused the irreparable breadon o the marriage.

5he ive valid grounds listed above are there to discourage and prevent no-ault divorces

or (as egas-stle divorces. 5he proposed divorce bill also has some interesting

provisions that might be uniCue to the Philippines, lie asing couples to see

reconciliation beore petitioning or divorce, eBtending legal and personal assistance to

poor couples ho ant a divorce, and prescribing a siB-month period or the courts to

settle divorce cases. ivorces obtained b 9ilipino citi+ens abroad ill be deemed validas ell.

5he intended beneiciaries o the bill aren7t rich couples ho can aord eBpensive

annulment proceedings, but poor omen ho are trapped in dead-end marriages.

%ccording to government igures, hich should be considered conservative, an average

o 22 annulment cases are iled everda all over the countr. 'n 2010, the number o

annulment cases as >0 percent higher than 10 ears ago.

't7s crucial to note that in 200@, the ice o the Solicitor eneral reported that =2

percent ho iled or annulment petitions ere 3oman atholics. %s eBpected, 61

percent o petitioners ere emales. uring the same ear, the police said that a omanis battered ever one hour and ?0 minutes in the Philippines.

ritics o the divorce bill aver that divorce is alien to Philippine culture and that it7s a

bad *estern legac. 5he are rong, since absolute divorce as popularl practiced

among ancestral tribes in the countr prior to the arrival o Spanish coloni+ers in the

16th centur. ivorce as also available during the %merican period starting 1=1@. 't

as onl in 1=?0, hen the ne ivil ode too eect, that divorce as disalloed in the

countr.

pponents o the bill also argue that passing a divorce la ould be unconstitutionalsince the 1=8@ onstitution eBplicitl mentions the need to protect the sanctit o

marriage. !ut the same onstitution is silent on divorce, thereb not prohibiting its

legali+ation.

ivorce ouldn7t necessaril destro the oundation o the amil, as has been shon b

'tal and Spain, to predominantl atholic countries ith lo rates o divorce. ' a

couple are happ, the ouldn7t ile or divorce ana. !ut it7s a realit that man are


21/27

suering in abusive and irreparable marriages. *h den them the chance to regain

their libert and happinessD

5he chances o legislating divorce in the Philippines is slim toda since ongress has et

to inish deliberations on the eCuall, i not more controversial, 3eproductive ealth

!ill. !ut it7s the dut o the government to protect the rights o all its citi+ens, hetheratholic or not. %nd this dut should include, among other things, the granting o the

right o individuals, especiall omen, to end a bad marriage and see a ne lie.

Philippines Divorce Law?

he Philippines, one of a tiny number of countries to still outlaw divorce, is nowengaged in a serious legislative debate as to whether to legali6e divorce. he

committee on revision of laws has 9ust held its first hearing on ouse 0ill "%## /An Act!ntroducing Divorce in the Philippines2. Hne epresentative insisted that the divorce billcontravenes a provision in the Constitution concerning the inviolability of marriageB andthe states mandate to protect it, insisting that the Constitution would need to beamended prior to any bill purporting to legali6e divorce. Another epresentativeasserted that if divorce is unconstitutional, then annulment and legal separation whichare allowed under Philippine law, would also be unconstitutional.Another argument, citing

American practices such as Kli6abeth aylors si3 divorces, was that having a divorce law would open

the floodgates for marriages and families to be broen . . . by mere irreconcilable differences.B

A lawyer and law professor, Kvalyn


22/27

9amil (a: &o ivorce in the

Philippines !


23/27

'or 'ili"ino citiens, on te oter and, wo see7 to dissolve teir%arria#e $or "ur"oses o$ re%arria#e, !ili""ine law #rants te% treere%edies in "ro"er cases, to wit1

(. 'ile a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, in caseo$void (arriages2

3. 'ile a Petition for Annulment of Marriage, in case o$ voidable orannullable (arriages2 and8. 'ile a Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death, in case te

"resent s"ouse as well?$ounded belie$ tat is or er s"ouse wo asdisa""eared $or $our consecutive years, or two years were tere wasdan#er o$ deat, is dead.

)

Divorce is ecogni6ed in the Philippines

Issue:: Divorce is not applicable because of Art. 15 of the Civil Code.

Argument in favor of non-recognition of Divorce:

The Civil Code provides that:

Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or the status, condition and legal capacity o

are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad.

Petitioner in this instance is legally incapacitated to enter into a divorce proceedings in anothe

In this connection, the Supreme Court held that:

It is therefore a serious question whether any foreign divorce, relating to citizens of the

islands will be recognized in this jurisdiction, except it be for a cause, and under conditions for

words of the Philippine Islands would grant a divorce. The lower court in granting relief as p

frankly stated that the serving of the divorce, the contracting of another marriage and the bri

the world innocent children brings about such a condition that the court must grant relief. The of the existing divorce law of the Philippine islands are well known to the members of the legisla

of no moment in this litgation what the personal views of the writer on the subject of divorce ma

the duty of the courts to enforce the laws of divorce as written by the legislature if they are cons

Courts have no regret to say that such laws are too short or too liberal.
https://juanknows.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/family-law-what-are-void-marriages-in-the-philippines/https://juanknows.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/family-law-what-are-void-marriages-in-the-philippines/https://juanknows.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/family-law-voidable-or-annuallable-marriages-in-the-philippines/https://juanknows.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/family-law-voidable-or-annuallable-marriages-in-the-philippines/http://www1.lepitenbojos.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=376:divorce-is-recognized-in-the-philippines-&catid=59:legal-noteshttps://juanknows.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/family-law-what-are-void-marriages-in-the-philippines/https://juanknows.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/family-law-voidable-or-annuallable-marriages-in-the-philippines/https://juanknows.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/family-law-voidable-or-annuallable-marriages-in-the-philippines/http://www1.lepitenbojos.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=376:divorce-is-recognized-in-the-philippines-&catid=59:legal-notes


24/27

Litigants by mutual agreement cannot compel the courts to approve their own actions or p

personal relations of the citizens of these Islands to be affected by decrees of foreign courts in

which our government believes is contrary to public order and good morals. Holding the abo

becomes unnecessary to discuss the serious constitutional questions presented by appellant

assignment of error. (Barreto Gonzales v. Gonzalez; 58 Phil 67).

Argument: Divorce is Recognized in the Philippines

Par. 2, Art. 26 of the Family Code allows the Filipino spouse to remarry in cases where h

foreigner spouse has obtained a valid divorce. The decision is contrary to law because Art.

Civil Code is not the applicable law in this instant case. The applicable provision is found in th

paragraph of Art. 26 of the Family Code that states that:

Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in fo

country where they are solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this count

those prohibited under Articles 35(1),(4), (5), (6), 36, 37 and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a

thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry,th

spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

This is the case of a Filipino wife who was married to a Japanese husband, the latter sub

secured a divorce in Japan, based on Japanese law.

Alicia V. Sempio-Dy, in her book Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines,expl

background behind the second paragraph of Art. 26:

Under the second paragraph of the above Article, where a Filipino is married to a foreigne

latter thereafter obtains a valid divorce abroad capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipin

shall likewise have the capacity to remarry under the Philippine law.

The provision was not originally approved by the Civil Code Revision Committee b

presented and approved at a Cabinet meeting after Pres. (Corazon) Aquino had already s

Family Code as Exec. Order No. 209. Hence, the President promulgated another Executive

227-amending Art. 26 of the Code by including this provision as a second paragraph therein.


25/27

The idea of the amendment is to avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino as being still mar

or her alien spouse, although the latter is no longer married to the Filipino spouse because

had obtained a divorce abroad which is recognized by his or her national law.

The amendment will also solve the problem of many Filipino women who, under the Civil

still considered married to their alien husbands even after the latter have already validly divor

under their (the husbands) national laws and perhaps have already married again. (Emphasis s

Par. 2, Art. 26 of the Family Code is the controlling law in this instant case, being a specific prov

not Art. 15 of the Civil Code which is a general provision.

It is also a more recent law, since the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988 whereas the C

took effect on August 30, 1950.

Supreme Court jurisprudence affirms that a divorce obtained abroad may be recognized in the

Philippines to enable the Filipino spouse to remarry.

In fact, even before the enactment of the Family Code, the Supreme Court already recognized d

the 1985 case of Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr. (G.R. No. L-68470, 8 October 1985, 139 SCRA 139

It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only

nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contr

concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which

recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In this

divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of Ame

under which divorce dissolves the marriage. As stated by the Federal Supreme Court of t

States in Atherton vs. Atherton, 45 L. Ed. 794, 799:

The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a court of c

jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic relation of husband and wife, and to

both from the bond. The marriage tie when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind

husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law. When the law pr

the nature of a penalty. that the guilty party shall not marry again, that party, as well as the ot

absolutely freed from the bond of the former marriage.


26/27

Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner.

have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise co

conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which validly

jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by

representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner has to be consi

married to private respondent and still subject to a wife's obligations under Article 109, et. s

Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe res

fidelity, and render support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of

with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own

the ends of justice are to be served.

In a subsequent case, Llorente vs. Ca (G.R. No. 124371, 23 November 2000, 345 SCRA 5

the Supreme Court again stated:

In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. we held that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article

Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the sa

considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. In the same case, the Court

aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law.

Citing this landmark case, the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals that once prrespondent was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce from petitioner, the

Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from

In Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera,we recognized the divorce obtained by the respondent in his co

Federal Republic of Germany. There, we stated that divorce and its legal effects may be reco

the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our ci

the status of persons.

For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the Court of Appeals must be reversed.

that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo H. Llorente from his first wife Paula was valid and recogniz

jurisdiction as a matter of comity. Now, the effects of this divorce (as to the succession to the e

the decedent) are matters best left to the determination of the trial court.


27/27

In Garcia vs. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001, the Supreme Court said:

At the outset, we lay the following basic legal principles as the take-off points for our d

Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. A

between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because of Aand 17 of the Civil Code. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of t

Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is "validly obtaine

by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry."

The latest landmark decision involving par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code is that of Repu

Philippines vs. Cipriano Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005, in which the Supreme C

that a Filipino citizen who has been divorced by a spouse (who is formerly a Filipino) and

acquired a foreign citizenship, may also remary.

The Supreme Court said:

Nevertheless, we are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Co

No. 209, as amended by E.O. No. 227), should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who ha

divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry.

The Supreme Court required that for a foreign divorce decree to be recognized by the Philippi

the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foallowing it.

Documents

Divorce Unconstitutional