MANILA, Philippines

- Amid heated debates

on the Reproductive
Health (RH) bill,
lawmakers are setting
their sights on another
divisive measure: the
divorce bill.

Speaking on ANC's
"The Rundown,"
Cavite Congressman
Elpidio Barzaga says
the grounds for divorce
are stated in the
measure are too
flexible.

"There is no provision
on how long these
conditions are existing
before the parties in the
marriage can avail of
divorce."

Lawmakers have
identified several
grounds for divorce:
when the married
couple has been
separated for five years
de facto and
reconciliation is highly
improbable; the couple
has been separated for
two years before filing
for divorce; when the
grounds for legal
separation (infidelity,
psychological
incapacity and
irreconcilable
differences) are present
resulting to an
irreparable marriage.

Barzaga says divorce

would not strengthen
the nation and may
only lead to hasty
marriages.

"We have a
constitutional mandate
requiring the protection
of the family and state
as far as marriage is
concerned. According
to the framers, in order
to have a strong nation,
we must have a strong
family, and it's
necessary for the state
to solidify the family,
promote its total
development and
express the sanctity of
the Filipino family."

"If we allow absolute

divorce we may result
in hasty marriage. Our
wish for having a
strong family will not
be realized if we allow
divorce in the country.
Divorce would not
strengthen but in fact
will destroy the
family," Barzaga adds.
Unfounded fears

But former Gabriela

party-list
Representative Liza
Maza says, the fear that
most married couples
will avail of divorce is
unfounded.

"Divorce is an option
for marriages
experiencing
irreparable breakdown.
This is not for happy
marriages."

Maza adds that a

measure providing
divorce as an option
would, in fact, ensure
the survival of
problem-ridden
families.

"A strong family

marked by violence
violates the sanctity of
marriage."

"Tayo na lang po ang

bansa na hindi
nagpapahintulot sa
isang reasonable at
angkop na solusyon sa
mga sitwasyon na kung
saan na hindi na talaga
kailangang pagsamahin
pa ang mga gusto nang
hindi magsama," Maza
says.

A losing battle?

Barzaga believes the

divorce bill may be in
for a losing battle.

"The statement in
Congress is, in all
likelihood, this bill will
not be approved in
Congress because the
wives of the
congressmen will be
dictating to their
husbands not to vote
'yes' to this bill," he
says.

Maza now urges

lawmakers to look at
the merits of a culture-
sensitive divorce bill,
designed to address
present-day realities.

"If we look at the

report of the Solicitor
General, from 2001 to
2010, there's a 40%
increase in the number
of those who filed for
annulment.

"It's time to have a

dispassionate view and
look at the merits of
the proposal. The bill
has serious concerns it
wants to address. With
legal separation the
couple can't remarry...
With psychological
incapacity, you have to
prove it's present at the
time of the celebration
of marriage. These
legal remedies are
insufficient, that's why
the bill is introducing
divorce," Maza says.

"Pag naayos natin ito,

we will value marriage
more hindi yung
parang naglalaro lang."

A Social Weather
Stations survey taken
from March 4-7, 2011
shows Filipinos are
already divided on the
issue, with half of the
population (50%) in
favor of divorce for
legally-separated
couples, 33% opposed
and 16% undecided.

DIVORCE —— PROS DIVORCE —— CONS

DIVORCE BILL PROVIDES MORE AS A REMEDY

The remedy of annulment expires, and the defect may actually be cured by ratification through
free and voluntary cohabitation.
THERE IS ALREADY A REMEDY OF ANNULMENT IN OUR FAMILY CODE.
The remedy of annulment is based on specified grounds that occurred at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, such as lack of parental consent and vitiated consent (as when a
person married another at gunpoint).
 DIVORCE —— PROS
But what if the marriage worked in the first ten years, but later the parties drifted apart for
some reason or another? What if the other spouse was violent, unfaithful, indolent, or an
alcoholic or a drug addict? What if one spouse abandoned the family? These may not be used
for “annulment,” or for a marriage to be declared void under Article 36, unless it can be proved
that these are manifestations of psychological incapacity that predated the marriage.
• A divorce law will provide a remedy that Article 36 does not. Divorce does not
concern itself with validity or invalidity of a marriage. It terminates a marriage based
on a ground that occurred during the marriage, which makes the marital relationship
no longer tenable, regardless of the spouse’s psychological constitution. A divorce
law will provide a straightforward remedy to a marital failure. It will benefit Filipinos
wherever they are.
• CATHOLIC Church Need Not Worry
• There is not one but a plurality of beliefs in Philippine society. The law should only
give people a choice, to be exercised according to their own personal beliefs.
• Every day, Filipinos get married, bear children, separate and get into other
relationships, regardless of what the law says. The lack of a divorce law for non-
Muslim Filipinos complicates further the marital and family problems of many
Filipinos. Our government has clearly failed to respond to their needs. If the country
wants to move forward, it has to confront the realities of marital and family life of
Filipinos in the Philippines and abroad. It has to pass a divorce law now.
MUSLIMS ENJOY DIVORCE LAW ALREADY. So to say that divorce does not exist in
present Philippine law is not accurate. The prohibition against divorce under Philippine law
applies only to Filipinos whose marriages are not governed by the Muslim Code. Since
Philippine law on marriage applies to all Filipino citizens even though they are residing in a
foreign country, the prohibition against divorce for non-Muslim Filipinos is also a concern of
Filipino expatriates.
DIVORCE —— CONS
Article 36 declares that a marriage is void from the beginning when one or both spouses are
psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. Under Article 36, a
court does not terminate a marriage but only declares it void. One must prove psychological
incapacity by presenting evidence on three essential elements of the condition: that it already
existed before the marriage; that it is grave or serious; and that it is incurable. To do this, one
usually needs the help of a psychiatrist or psychologist to testify as an expert witness
CBCP:
Once divorce is tolerated, no restraint is powerful enough to keep public morality within the
bounds marked out or anticipated. Great indeed, is the force of example, and even greater still the
might of passion. When are we going to learn from the experience of those countries where
divorce is permitted by civil law? For as soon as divorce has become possible, quarrels,
jealousies and judicial separations increase. Wherever divorce was introduced, the abuse that
followed far exceeded anything the lawmakers foresaw. In fact, many people contrive all kinds of
fraudulent devices, such as false accusations of cruelty, violence and adultery, merely to obtain
the dissolution of a matrimonial bond of which they have grown weary. As a result of all this such
moral havoc followed that an amendment of the law has been regarded as urgently needed.
NOT ALLOWED IN THE PHILIPPINES
Our supreme law, the 1987 Philippine Constitution, provides that it is the policy of our State “to
protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the
foundation of the family” (Section 12 of Article II and Sections 1 and 2 of Article XV). “Our family
law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the
state is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy
families. The break up of families weakens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their
preservation is not the concern alone of the family members. Thus, our Constitution devotes an
entire Article on the Family, recognizing it “as the foundation of the nation”. It decrees marriage as
legally “inviolable,” thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family
and marriage are to be “protected" by the state.” (Asqueta vs. Republic, G.R. No. 180668, May
26, 2009)
 DIVORCE —— PROS DIVORCE —— CONS

Legalization of divorce threatens Filipino culture

Proposed law contributes to the proliferation of emotionally sick, morally ill, and spiritually bankrupt individuals
The proposal to legalize divorce in the Philippines will be the talk of the town once debates in congress over the measure start. There will be pros and cons
to the issue, there will be a lot of actors on the scene, and the discussion will be long and winding, something Filipinos, who are fans of soap operas, love.

Proponents for the legalization of divorce maintain that their proposal does not in any way disregard the constitutional provision to protect and strengthen
marriage and family as basic social institutions. They say they value the dignity of every human person, guarantee full respect for human rights, and will
ensure the fundamental equality of women and men before the law.
The present Family Code of the Philippines allows legal separation and annulment as legal remedies to end a marital relationship.
While legal separation prevents an abusive partner harming his/her spouse, the party abused cannot remarry. On the other hand, annulment declares a
marriage null and void, so both parties can enter into a new marital relationship.
But the process is very long and expensive, hence not practical to many poor Filipinos. The proposed amendment to the law would seem to provide a
solution to the agony caused by many failed and unhappy marriages across all Filipino classes.
This, however, would present a dilemma of conscience for many Filipinos, most of whom are Catholics who believe in the indissolubility of marriage, which
is diametrically opposed to divorce.
Secondly, Filipino culture puts the family at the center of one’s life: the main source of financial security, the fountain of one’s emotional, moral and spiritual
nourishment. The break up of family life would destroy the marital relationship and also the physical advancement, the emotional growth, the moral and
spiritual development of every member of the family, especially the children.
It appears that the proposed divorce law would be contrary to the constitutional provision to protect and strengthen marriage and family as basic social
institutions.
Making the dissolution of marriage easily available and affordable would make it easier for irresponsible partners to have legal access to multiple marital
abuse, which is detrimental to the building of a healthy society.
Given the family-centered Filipino culture, the legalization of divorce may, instead of saving the dignity of human beings, contribute to the proliferation of
emotionally sick, morally ill, and spiritually bankrupt individuals.
Filipino culture will be under attack with a divorce law. Fidelity in any relationship is a mark of the Filipino soul. And a deep sense of gratitude to one’s
source of life defines the Filipino cultural identity.
As we Filipinos say, "Those who do not know how to look back to their roots [family], cannot reach their destination."
It speaks of the fundamental role of the family as a source of one’s total security in society. A broken family (because of divorce) will unlikely sustain the
energy required for one to journey through life. It is because the person’s main source of emotional, moral and spiritual energy is destroyed.
Finally, with the legalization of divorce, the Filipino spirit is put on trial. As a predominantly Catholic country, Filipinos believe in the sacredness of marriage
and family life. Both are gifts of the ultimate source of life and love who has never abandoned His people through the course of history.
Christian history has been characterized by God’s unconditional fidelity of his love and mercy to his continually sinful people.
In the New Testament, God’s fidelity made flesh, Jesus Christ, uttered unconditional forgiveness to a sinful humanity. The human face of God’s mercy and
compassion became faithful in his relationship with man until the last drop of his blood.
Marriage, from the perspective of the Catholic faith is a sacrament. If Jesus is the sacrament of God the Father, the church is the sacrament of Jesus. And
the church, being faithful to God, in Jesus, establishes the sacraments, which are an unconditional source of God’s mercy and grace.
Marriage as one of the Catholic Church’s sacraments has this indelible identity of God’s fidelity to his people. Married couples are, therefore, called to give
witness to a life of God’s fidelity to his people by being faithful themselves throughout life. Thus, divorce is certainly opposed to a Catholic Christian marital
and family life.
Bonifacio Tago Jr. is vice president for academic programs and professor of philosophy at Good Samaritan Colleges in Cabanatuan City, Philippines. He is
currently taking up a doctorate degree in Theology in Consecrated Life at the Institute for Consecrated Life in Asia.

Divorce Is an Important Option for All Couples

This column may contain strong language, sexual content, adult humor, and other themes that may not be
suitable for minors. Parental guidance is strongly advised.

Just as the divorce bill was approved by the House on its third and final reading, I got an email from a reader
asking me to present more balanced views about the pros and cons of divorce.

One of my friends rather dismissively told me to tell the reader to refer to Google, but I said I would answer
him politely instead.

My opinion on the matter is simple and straightforward: Every civilized society should allow the legal, and as
much as possible painless, dissolution of a marriage should the parties involved wish to do so. While it
remains debatable that our own particular society is a civilized one, what with grandstanding lunatic
presidents ordering state forces to shoot female rebels in the vagina, it nevertheless behooves any
government to provide sensible and practical legal options when a marriage ends.

Because let’s face it, happily ever after is not quite everyone’s reality. Marriages end. Not all marriages end,
of course. But enough marriages end to merit a law allowing divorce to be sought and granted on any
number of reasonable grounds.

One could argue that there are legal avenues available for couples seeking to dissolve their marriages, such
as legal annulment and legal separation. However, obtaining a decree of annulment is a tiresome,
protracted, costly, and bureaucracy-riddled process that seems to require subterfuge much more than
truthfulness, as the admissible grounds applicable to the parties sometimes compel them to go to ridiculous
lengths to present their spouses as psychologically incapacitated or cruel. In fact, the more psychopathic
they make each other seem, the better chances of getting their marriage annulled. But why add a layer of
manufactured insanity to a fractured relationship that may already be brimming with acrimony?

According to Article 45 of the Family Code of the Philippines, the following are legal grounds for filing a
petition for annulment of marriage:
(1) Either party was 18 years of age or over but below 21, and the marriage was solemnized without the
consent of his parents, guardian, or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order,
unless after attaining the age of 21, he/she freely cohabited with the other party;

(2) Either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the
other as husband and wife;

(3) Consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the
facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other;

(4) The consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same
having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other;

(5) Either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity
continues and appears to be incurable; or

(6) Either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be
incurable.

Let’s say you were way over 21 when you got married; you weren’t tricked or drugged into marriage; you
contracted marriage of your own free will, being of sound mind and body; you’re not crazy—yet; you’re not
impotent, and you don’t have AIDS. But you want out of a marriage that no longer works for you and your
spouse. Perhaps one of you is having an affair. Or you’ve grown apart and no longer have a relationship
that’s fulfilling and enriching. Perhaps your spouse is verbally, emotionally, or physically abusive. Perhaps
one of you has serious alcohol or substance abuse issues. Perhaps it’s just over.

Are you condemned to remain married to each other because there is no other legal recourse but to stay
together at least legally?

It may be that a couple may choose to remain together however dysfunctional or dangerous their marriage
might be. But it is important that they have the option to end their marriage should they so wish, hence, the
necessity of divorce.
God is believed by many here to have said that what he has joined together let no man separate. I would
imagine that our notion of God has evolved sufficiently that he would, if indeed he exists, not wish for
husband and wife, or for that matter wife and wife, or husband and husband, to live in misery, or in some
cases, in fear for their lives. Surely, he would want spouses to be their best selves under the best possible
conditions that allow them to actualize their potential as human beings and find happiness, fulfillment, and
meaning—making them better partners in future relationships.

I’ve admittedly mixed Maslow and Hitchens (not to mention a bit of Stephen Fry) with God (quel heresy!) and
threw in the unavoidable splash of Oprah, but my point is, whether a marriage is solemnized in a church or a
Hindu ceremony or in a city hall, it has no legal leg to stand on, so to speak, unless it has been civilly
contracted, as Jerry Hall was said to have to have discovered, to her dismay, when she sought to divorce
Mick Jagger. Which is all moot anyway because she then went on to marry Rupert Murdoch, arguably worth
more than Sir Mick, albeit less virile at his rather advanced age. But girlfriend’s set for life.

So, you might marry in church, but if you want out, you divorce according to the law. Because, you know,
God as most people here like to think of him, isn’t exactly disposed to putting asunder what he supposedly
joined together. So, you’re better off heading to court. And you’ll need that legal document to change your
name, divide your assets, sue for custody of your children, and so on.

It’s not my place to say whether a couple should divorce or not, even if in some cases it’s evident—and
necessary—that they do. The decision to divorce is rarely taken lightly, and it is something the two parties
involved need to discuss and resolve. But divorce should be an option available to them.

B. Wiser is the author of Making Love in Spanish, a novel published by Anvil Publishing and available in
National Book Store and Powerbooks, as well as online. When not assuming her Sasha Fierce alter-ego,
she takes on the role of serious journalist and media consultant.

For comments and questions, e-mail b.wiser.ph@gmail.com.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of the author in her private capacity and do not in
any way represent the views of Preen.ph, or any other entity of the Inquirer Group of Companies.
 Divorce Pros and Cons – How to Decide If You Are Ready for

Divorce

In This Article
 Recognising your biases
 Escape a violent situation
 Attaining the respect and commitment, you deserve
 Freedom to live the life that you want
 Experience being alone
 Improve your child’s wellbeing
 Improve your relationship with your spouse
 The negative impact of divorce on your children
 Divorce is expensive and financially challenging
 Emotional implications of divorce are tough
It’s not always easy to know whether it’s time to divorce, specifically because, it can be hard to
tell whether the problems in your marriage can be resolved. Or if the issues are too big to
overcome.

Whether saving your marriage is the priority or divorce is seeming as though it could be
imminent, there are always divorce pros and cons to consider which can be useful in helping you
to make an informed decision about your marriage, or divorce.
Recognising your biases
Before you start to consider the divorce pros and cons, it’s important to recognize any biases you
might have concerning your marriage or possible divorce.

If you are experiencing a tough time in your marriage and are particularly discontent with your
spouse, you might consider divorce to be a positive solution to your marital problems. The state
that you are currently in within your marriage could cause you to focus more on pros
of separation and ignore the cons.

On the other hand, if you don’t want to divorce but are in a position where you have to consider
it, you might turn your biases toward the disadvantages of divorce.

Whatever your inclination and regardless of the state of your marriage, it’s important to consider
both sides of the coin so that you can make informed decisions about your marriage that you
won’t regret in the future.

The Pros of divorce

1. Escape a violent situation

Domestic abuse is one divorce pro that has no cons. Your safety and wellbeing should be a
priority, and you are not safe in a violent situation. Get out and get safe. There is no better choice
than to divorce.
2. Attaining the respect and commitment, you deserve
If you are considering divorce due to cheating or pushy and oppressive behavior from your
spouse (which they won’t acknowledge or change) divorce or separation will help you to regain
your self-respect. It will also open up space for you to find a new and more deserving partner in
life.
3. Freedom to live the life that you want
Marriage is all about working together, not just in day to day life but also in working towards
shared goals, communication and compromise. However, sometimes it can become impossible
(in some marriages) to comfortably attain these commitments to each other without having to
give up something that might be extremely important to you individually. This is one divorce pro
that will open up possibilities for you to live life exactly as you want it without compromise.
4. Experience being alone
Having to make all decisions based on you and your spouse as a couple can create many
limitations, and in some situations diminished opportunities. There are some wonderful
experiences that you can enjoy when you live your life independently. It can be more relaxing,
freeing, and fun.

5. Improve your child’s wellbeing

Divorce, amicable or not will affect your children, but so does arguing, or other experiences
within a rocky marriage that your children will have to live amongst. Even if you think that the
children don’t know what is going on, be assured that they do know.

They may not process what is happening in an adult way, but they know when things are right or
not. Divorce might have a positive impact on your children especially if they no longer have to
experience arguing at home. Although amicable divorces will always be much easier on your
children – so if you are divorcing, for this reason, it’s worth considering working hard to make
your divorce amicable.
6. Improve your relationship with your spouse
When you take away all of the pressure and obligations that occur within your marriage. It will
give you a sense of relief and space to build a better relationship with your spouse. Divorce
doesn’t mean you have to remove your spouse from your life, it can mean turning your
relationship into a friendship.

The cons of divorce

1.The negative impact of divorce on your children
The implication of divorce on children is an example of a divorce pro and con that can create a
challenging situation. On the one hand, your children will be better off without growing in an
unhealthy environment, but on the other, they will experience loss, fear and a sense of instability
during the process.

Make it easier on them by working with your spouse amicably, explaining what is happening
and maintaining a routine, security, and reassurance from both spouses as a matter of priority.

2. Divorce is expensive and financially challenging

Splitting up the marital home and living separately will cost more than it is likely to cost when
you are living together as a couple and a family. Also, your standard of living may be reduced.

If you have children, they need to be accommodated physically, and financially, and you’ll
probably both want to enjoy holidays with the children independently (great for the children but
not so great on the pocket!).
There will also be the cost of divorce settlements, and even in dividing up or replacing the basics
needed for a home. One of the cons of divorce is that it will hit your pocket.

3. Emotional implications of divorce are tough

You didn’t marry for your marriage to end up in divorce. You might be devastated at the thought
of separating from your spouse. The idea of spending time alone, or starting over might be
challenging. Everything that you have worked for so far in your life has broken down, and if you
have children, you’ll be likely to experience worry and guilt about how your divorce has
impacted their lives.

You might have less time for the children than you had before because of the increased financial
strain that divorce brings.

Final thought

Divorce, whether welcomed or not, is heartbreaking. The emotional implications will remain
with you for a long time, and while they will dissolve in the future, it can be very challenging in
the short to medium term. The challenges that this divorce con will bring can be tough, but they
will resolve over time.

While divorce pros and cons are all relevant, it’s important not to avoid a necessary divorce that
because of the disadvantages and vice versa. Taking time to assess divorce pros and cons can
help you gain perspective and realize the road that you might be on if you divorce, they can also
help you to take the time and effort to really consider whether divorce is the right move for you
or not.
Divorce in the Philippines – Say NO to It
by Vince Olaer | Doctrines and Theology, Featured, Morality/Immorality, Pastoral, Primary, Theology |

Divorce in the Philippines is planning to take over Filipino values and culture. It’s all over the news, the
Philippine Congress is now pushing forward the Divorce Bill right after they have put forward the
Reproductive Health Bill. This is exactly what I have been worrying about. Just a couple of weeks ago, when
I attended our Baptist Convention Meeting here in the Visayas, this issue was brought up. And just as what I
have stated, “RH Bill can also lead to the Divorce Bill” because they have the same proponents.
I know lots of Evangelical Christians are pro-RH Bill. But what they don’t know is that the proponents of RH
Bill are also the proponents of Divorce Bill. And now that they almost got what they want, they are now
preparing for another wave of controversial bill which will open a highway for immorality and degradation
of Philippine culture and religious standards and beliefs.

Here is a list of the known supporters of RH Bill and Divorce Bill

RH-Bill Divorce Bill
Liza Maza – Liza Maza
Risa Hontiveros – Risa Hontiveros
Janette Garin – Janette Garin
Edcel Lagman – Edcel Lagman
Luzviminda Ilagan Luzviminda Ilagan

Why I am Against Divorce in The Philippines

It is not what God wants.

Since I started Biblical studies nothing in the Bible that will tell you that God favored and felt better for
divorce. It was only allowed due to the hardheadedness of men. God did not made man and woman to be
united and then separated if they got into some problems.
If you fear the Lord and his commands, there is no way that you will agree on divorce. This is not what God
wants. As simple as it is. Even if some pastor and theologians quantify it as a “necessary amputation” as far
as I remember what my American Theology professor said, I would say that divorce is divorce, and God
hates it. It was only men who wants it, not God.

It is not the answer to the growing violence against women and children. Most divorce advocates gives
emphasis on the growing children and women abuse. But I really do not see it as a solution for these
problems. In fact it extends to the growing problem of immorality and sexually related diseases and
problems such as unwanted pregnancies and sexually related diseases. And I believe that you will agree
with me that these problems are a threat to women, children and even family.
But why? Simply because people were given the so-called choice and chance to change while the fact is, it
is where the so-called “rights” is abused. It is where many people make use of the right and abuse it for their
own self-centered selfish quest for happiness and will only bring them to the same situation again and again
and again. That’s why you will see people divorced not just once, nor twice, but multiple times.

It gives a wider path to domestic problems. As I mentioned earlier this right has proven to be easily
abused. And we are not actually giving people a solution to their problems, but a chance to repeat the same
mistakes. Divorce is like a medicine… but an unrecommended one.
For example, there is a an abusive husband who have been divorced by his wife. This husband will then just
look for another woman to abuse. While the woman if she’s the one having some problems, she will just look
for another guy and if things will not get well, all she has to do is to apply again for divorce. Ridiculous isn’t
it? It is just a picture of FREEDOM TO TRY MARRIAGE.

It gives a wider path for immorality and marital infidelity.

Immorality. I guess this is not so much “in” nowadays. It’s something that most people don’t want to talk
about except those that are of the religious sectors and religious people. I hate to say this but the Philippines
have a steep moral degradation and that is why most of these divorce proponents put forward a SILLY
SOLUTION for various problems.
 Did we not learn from the US? Did the stats of violence against women and children dropped by the use of
divorce law? We talk much about the positive things that we can get from the divorce law, while the negative
effects far out weighs the positive.

Here’s the summary of the advantages of divorce:

 Spouses will have a “second chance” for a happier life.
 Spouses will have a “second chance” for a non-violent life.
 …. “second chance”
 …. “second chance”
 …. “second chance”
 to be happy…
 to be happy…
 to be happy….

My goodness… is there any solid advantages of divorce bill than being self-centered and selfish reasons???
What about your family??? What about your children??? That’s what family is for… Divorce is not only anti-
Filipino, but is anti-Family and anti-marriages. It simply opens a wide range of disadvantages over the
family.

But here’s the list of what they are not talking about:
1. One out of every two marriages ends in divorce.
2. In 1991, only 50.8% of American children were living with a mother and a father. The numbers have
worsened since that study.
3. Approximately 4% of American children are living only with their father.
4. The vast majority of children who are raised in a two-parent home will never be poor during childhood. By
contrast, the vast majority of children who spend time in a single-parent home will experience poverty.
5. Children from female-headed homes are five times as likely to be poor as children in two-parent families.
6. Four times as many divorced women with children fell under the poverty line than married women with
children.
7. Children from disrupted marriages experience greater risk of injury, asthma, headaches, and speech
defects than children from intact families.
8. Suicide rates for children of divorce are measurably higher than for children from intact families.
Read more about the Side Effects of Divorce and see that there are more side effects than that of a solution.

So What’s The Real Answer?

Fear of God and teach Morality… Morality… and Morality…. If we have the fear of God and we understand
what morality means, then we understand the real answer to the growing problems related to violence
against women and children.

Divorce is definitely NOT a TRUE medicine nor a solution to the growing domestic problems. I see it just
like illegal drugs which may have a little benefit of easing the pain of the patient. But in most cases, it is an
addictive medicine that can kill and destroy life and relationships.
And finally, let me state this as Filipino as possible:

HWAG PO TAYO MAGING “GAYA-GAYA SA IBANG BANSA”. Nag-approve lang ang Malta na magkaroon
sila ng divorce, tayo gusto na rin natin. Wala na bang maisip na batas ang mga Congressman and
Congresswomen natin kundi mga gaya-gaya na batas?

It is NOT TRUE that you will be happy with second chance. It is NOT TRUE that you will gain your
happiness back when your marriage fail and divorce is the solution. The only solution for marital problems is
to adhere what the word of God says….

“Wives, submit to your husbands. Husbands, love your wife as you love yourselves…” (Ephesians 5:22-33).
This is where you gain happiness and fullness of marital life and your family.
What is the positive side of legalizing divorce in the Philippines?

It would be of great benefit to poor women who want to move on from do nothing spouses. Here are the
laws governing infidelity:

The law discriminates against wives. The crime of adultery can be committed only by a wife and her
paramour. The husband need only prove that his wife had sexual intercourse with a man other than
him.

The crime of concubinage can be committed only by a husband and his concubine, but it requires that
the wife must prove that her husband has kept a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or has had sexual
intercourse under “scandalous circumstances” or lived together with his mistress in any other place.

The penalties are also quite different. For adultery the guilty wife and her paramour may be
imprisoned for up to 6 years

For concubinage, the husband may be imprisoned for up to 4 years and 1 day, while his concubine
may be merely “banished” but may not be imprisoned.

By banished, that means has to move to another purok or barangay, i.e. the smallest subdivision of her town.

Now why is this important. Let me give you an example of my wife’s 32 year aunt. I actually met her about 5
years before my wife online. Her oldest daughter is 19. The father of that daughter is her husband’s father.
He got her and his own daughter (Aunties BFF) drunk and raped them both. Apparently this was a common
thing he did to his own daughter and since the other sixth grader was drunk and passed out too he thought
why not. He was never convicted, because the judge refused to hear the case and blamed the wanton girls.
When she was 18 he pretty much forced auntie’s parents into having this high school drop out who had a
kid to marry his own 30 year old son since no one else would want her. They have a daughter almost
immediately, during which time he gets 2 other girls pregnant that she didn’t know about and by girls they
were 13 and 15. They go on to have 3 more children together and he goes on to have 9 more with other
girls 16 and under usually by flashing his family wealth around and pulling the same kind of shit his father
did. He disappeared when she was pregnant with their 8 year old (my guess a couple of fathers came
looking to kill him). Everyone thinks he is now in Malaysia. But every time the law or some mother comes
looking for him the family says we haven’t seen him, ”we don’t even know if he is alive,” but as soon as
Auntie starts looking at another man they start howling about how she is a married woman and they will
press adultery charges against her and her man. For the record unless she can prove he is dead, he is
assumed to be alive and thus her legal husband, and therefore cannot remarry.

With legal divorce here, she and a few million women in similar circumstances could end this petty bullshit
and move on with their lives. However that just isn’t going to happen as the rich can already dissolve their
marriages quite easily through annulment and foreign divorces followed by remarriages, where as keeping
divorce illegal benefits the oligarchy by ensuring these women remain poor and so do their kids.

You know, one of the things young Filipinos love to say when it comes to love is “Walang forever” (There’s
no forever).

In the context of marriage, that’s sometimes true. Not every couple lives happily ever after. Once the
honeymoon is up, complacency arises. Either the man or the woman (or both) becomes complacent. The
devotion they used to show to each other when they dated, their matrimonial vow of living together in unity,
till death do them part, were all for show.

Others rush into marriage so fast, they didn’t afford themselves time to vet each other—their strengths, their
weaknesses, seeing how well they manage their finances, their anger.

What results afterwards?

They realize that they were never compatible from the outset.

The fights ensue, becoming more and more frequent. What exacerbates this when one or both partners are
close-minded, refusing to admit their faults. No chance for reconciliation to settle their differences. And from
there, the grudges (and then domestic violence) grow.

Christians here refuse to acknowledge that this happens, or if they do acknowledge it, they still invoke God’s
law to justify preserving the failed marriage. Marriage is indissoluble, they say.

But sorry, we’re practical folk. Marriage, if it fails, is not. There’s no reason that the battered and bruised wife
should associate with her alcoholic husband just because “God says so”. That’s a flimsy and weak argument
that only takes into account what Church teachings say, and ignores the anguish, the suffering and torture
she feels.

In short, divorce provides a way out for people who feel that their marriage is destroying them holistically
than building them and their family, especially in the context of domestic abuse.

House panel OKs bills legalizing divorce

By Crissy Dimatulac and Glee Jalea, CNN Philippines
Published Feb 5, 2020 12:32:47 PM
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, February 5) — A House committee on Wednesday has approved three measures seeking to legalize
divorce in the Philippines — the only remaining state aside from Vatican City that has no divorce law.

These measures — House bills 100, 838 and 2263 — will be consolidated by a technical working group before it will be put to plenary
discussion.

Absolute divorce validates the separation between married couples as total and final, allowing the husband and wife to return to their
status of being single with the right to contract marriage.

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, who has long been advocating for the passage of a divorce bill, will head the technical working group.

"Divorce is not a monster that will destroy marriages and wreck marital relationships. Let us be clear about this — the monsters that
lead to the demise of a marriage are infidelity, abuse, financial problems, lack of intimacy and communicaiton, and inequality," said
Lagman, who authored House Bill 100 or the Absolute Divorce Bill of 2019.
“It is safe to say that a divorce bill has been approved by the panel subject to consolidation by a TWG, which will meet on 12 February
2020", he added.

Other members of the TWG are Gabriela Rep. Arlene Brosas, A Teacher Party-list Rep. Victoria Umali, Negros Occidental Rep. Juliet
Ferrer, and Bukidnon Rep. Ma. Lourdes Acosta-Alba.

Despite this development, religious groups, pro-family advocates who were present in the hearing, and even fellow lawmakers
expressed their disapproval of the measure.

For one, CIBAC Party-list Rep. Bro. Eddie Villanueva said that the measure only makes marriage “cheap” as the grounds used as
bases for divorce are not in favor of strengthening families.

“What we really need is to improve the annulment process and make it pro-poor in terms of cost and time. It may necessitate an
executive action or a legislative one, but certainly not a divorce bill,” said Villanueva.

Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano himself has previously expressed in the past that he does not believe in divorce as a solution to troubled
marriages. However, he said that he will still allow a "free and open debate" among his fellow lawmakers, should it be taken up in the
lower chamber again.

Before the 17th Congress adjourned, the House approved on third and final reading its previous version of the absolute divorce bill.
However, this measure was rejected by the Senate.

Divorce bill hurdles House

committee level
The Philippines is the only other country without divorce, aside from Vatican City
MANILA, Philippines – The bill that would legalize absolute divorce in the Philippines is once
again moving under the Duterte administration, after a House committee approved the measure
on Wednesday, February 5.

The House committee on population and family relations unanimously approved House Bill
(HB) No. 100 or the proposed Absolute Divorce Act authored by longtime advocate and Albay
1st District Representative Edcel Lagman.
Panel chairperson Maria Lucille Nava also appointed Lagman to head the technical working
group that would consolidate HB No. 100 with the other divorce bills penned by Gabriela
Women's Party Representative Arlene Brosas and Davao del Norte 1st District Representative
Pantaleon Alvarez.

Alvarez had been the Speaker when the House, under the previous 17th Congress, approved
the divorce bill for the first time under President Rodrigo Duterte's term. This was also the
farthest the measure has reached in the Philippines, which is the only other country without
divorce, aside from Vatican City.

On Wednesday, Lagman himself moved for the approval of his bill, citing Section 48, Rule X of
the House rules, which states that bills that have been identified as priority measures of the
House and were approved on 3rd reading in a previous Congress may already be approved at
the committee level.

In his defense of the divorce bill, Lagman said it "may be distressing, but it is far from a death
sentence."

"In fact, it can often save people from relationships and situations that can inflict more long-term
emotional, psychological, and phsyical damage," Lagman said.

"Divorce is not a monster that will destroy marriages and wreck marital relationships. Let us [be]
clear about this – the monsters that lead to the demise of a marriage are infidelity, abuse,
financial problems, lack of intimacy and communication, and inequality," he added.
Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano already said he will not support the passage of the divorce bill,
but vowed not to get in the way should a majority of House members back the measure once it
reaches the plenary.

"Some believe that divorce is the solution, some like me do not believe that divorce is the
solution.... But we are not stopping any of the committees from discussing all of these bills. I
can tell you my personal stand, but hindi naman 'yung personal stand ko lang 'yung
masusunod, 'di ba (but my personal stand isn't necessarily the view that would prevail, right)?"
Cayetano said in October 2019.

In the Senate, the divorce bill remains pending at the committee level following strong
opposition from conservative senators. – Rappler.com

House panel approves divorce bill

MANILA, Philippines — A committee in the House of Representatives approved in

principle yesterday the Marriage Dissolution Bill, a measure equivalent to divorce in
other countries.
House Bill 100, principally authored by Albay 1st District Rep. Edcel Lagman, was
shelved in April 2018 and refiled in July 2019 under the 18th Congress.
Speaking before the House committee on population and family relations, Lagman
said the proposed measure is a consolidated version of three divorce bills.
Prior to its refiling, the House in the 17th Congress (July 2016-June 2019) voted to
pass the bill endorsed by then-speaker Pantaleon Alvarez through a vote of 134-
57-2.
“It is safe to say that a divorce bill has been approved by the panel subject to
consolidation by a TWG (technical working group), which will meet on Feb. 12 (this
year),” Lagman said.
His colleagues in the TWG are Reps. Arlene Brosas of women’s group Gabriela;
Ma. Victoria Umali of A-Teacher party-list; Juliet Marie Ferrer of Negros Occidental,
and Ma. Lourdes Acosta-Alba of Bukidnon.
“These (bills) should be prioritized and may be disposed of as matters already
reported, upon the approval of majority of the members of the committee present,
there being a quorum,” the congressman said.
Alvarez, who still represents the first congressional district of Davao del Norte, said
the Philippines and Vatican City – where Pope Francis and his fellow celibate
cardinals reside – are the only places around the globe that do not have any law on
divorce.
“Dalawa na lang po tayo, ang Pilipinas at ang Vatican ang walang divorce law sa
buong mundo,” he said.
Since none among the cardinals and priests in the Vatican are even married,
Alvarez said: “So, we’re the only ones (without a divorce law) to be precise.”
The Philippines, the only Christian nation in Asia, has 85 percent of its 105 million
population counted as Catholics. In contrast, Vatican City only has a population of
801 based on 2018 statistics.
But Deputy Speaker Eddie Villanueva, of Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption
(CIBAC) party-list, objected to the approval of Lagman’s bill.
“The passage of a divorce bill is practically unnecessary. First, it does not address
issues of high cost of litigation and slow-grinding disposition of cases, which are the
real problems encountered by those seeking relief from troubled marriages,” he
said.
“Second and more importantly, it is a clear defiance to God and to the Constitution
because it will terribly degrade the sacrosanctness of marriage as an inviolable
institution,” he said.
Villanueva, an evangelist and head of the Jesus is Lord Movement, insisted that
state-sanctioned divorce would only ruin the sanctity of marriage and destroy
families.
“The divorce bills filed in Congress simply enumerate and consolidate remedies for
broken marriages already existing in our current laws. That is why the divorce bill is
unnecessary,” he said.
Lagman countered: “Divorce will not destroy marriages because there is no more
marriage or happy union to speak of when couples reach the difficult decision to
seek divorce.”
Republic vs. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo GR No. 221029;

April 24, 2018

FACTS:

Marelyn Tanedo Manalo was married in the Philippines to Yoshino Minoro, a Japanese national. She divorced Minoro in Japan and a Japanese court issued the
divorce decree dated December 6, 2011.

On January 10, 2012, she filed in the RTC of Dagupan City a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Manila, pursuant to
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. She also prayed that she be allowed to use her maiden surname: Manalo. She claims there is an imperative need to have the
entry of marriage cancelled so that it would not appear that she is still married to a Japanese national who is no longer married to her, and so that she shall not
be bothered and disturbed by said entry should she decide to remarry.

The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Dagupan questioned the caption of the petition and alleges that the proper action should be a petition for recognition
and enforcement of judgment; this was admitted by Manalo and accordingly amended the petition.

RTC Ruling: Petition denied.

The divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should not be recognized based on Article 15 of the New Civil Code.

Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition, and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even
though living abroad.

CA Ruling: RTC ruling was overturned.

Article 26 of the Family Code is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree they obtained makes the
latter no longer married to the former, capacitating him to remarry. Conformably with Navarro, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary Ermita, et al. ruling, the meaning of the
law should be based on the intent of the lawmakers. In view of the legislative intent behind Article 26, it would be the height of injustice to consider Manalo as
still married to the Japanese national who is no longer married to her. The fact that it was Manalo who filed the divorce case is inconsequential.

ISSUE: W/N a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment
against his/her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry.

RULING: YES, pursuant to Par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code. However, this case was remanded to the RTC to allow Manalo to prove the Japanese law on
divorce.
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), 3637 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. (As amended by Executive Order 227)

Plain-Meaning Rule or Verba Legis Rule]

Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not demand that
the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not distinguish whether the Filipino souse is
the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding. The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used words
advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statue. Verbal egis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute
there should be no departure.

[The spirit of the law and the true intent of the legislature prevails]

Assuming arguendo that the word “obtained” should be interpreted to mean that the divorce proceeding must be actually initiated by the alien spouse, still, the
Court will not follow the letter of the statute when to do so would depart from the true intent of the legislature or would otherwise yield conclusions
inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. Laws have ends to achieve, and statutes should be so construed as not to defeat but to carry out such ends and
purposes.

The purpose of Par. 2 of Art.26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree
that is effective in the country where it was rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino souse. The provision is a corrective measure to address an anomaly
where the Filipino souse is tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her country.

[Regardless of who initiates the foreign divorce proceeding, a favorable decree has the same effect upon the Filipino spouse]

Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien
spouse to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be without a husband or wife. A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce
proceeding is in the same place and in like circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision
should not make a distinction. In both instance, it is extended as a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on Filipinos whose marital
ties to their alien souse are severed by the operation of the latter’s national law.

[Par. 2 of Art.26 violates the Equal Protection Clause - Sec. 1 Art. III of the Constitution]

The limitation of the provision only to a foreign divorce initiated by the alien souse is unreasonable as it is based on superficial, arbitrary, and whimsical
classification.

A Filipino married to another Filipino is NOT similarly situated with a Filipino married to a foreign citizen. There are real, material, and substantial differences
between them. Ergo, they should NOT be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and liabilities imposed. There are political, economic, cultural, and religious
dissimilarities as well as varying legal systems and procedures, all too unfamiliar, that a Fililpino national who is married to an alien souse has to contend with.
More importantly, while a divorce decree obtained abroad by a Filipino against another Filipino is null and void, a divorce decree obtained by an alien against his
or her Filipino spouse is recognized if made in accordance with the national law of the foreigner.

On the contrary, there is NO real and substantial difference between a Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceedings and a Filipino who obtained a divorce
decree upon the instance of his/her alien spouse. In the eyes of the Philippine and foreign laws, both are considered as Filipinos who have the same rights and
obligations in an alien land. The circumstances surrounding them are alike. Were it not for Par. 2 of Art 26, both are still married to their foreign spouses who are
no longer their wives/husbands. Hence, to make a distinction between them based merely on the superficial difference of whether they initiated the divorce
proceedings or not is utterly unfair. The treatment gives undue favor to one and unjustly discriminate the other.

The differentiation in Part. 2 of Art. 26 is arbitrary. There is inequality in treatment because a foreign divorce decree that was initiated and obtained by a Filipino
citizen against his or her alien spouse would not be recognized even if based on grounds similar to Arts. 35, 36, 37, and 38 of the FC. In filing for divorce based on
these grounds, the Filipino spouse cannot be accused of invoking foreign law at whim, tantamount to insisting that he or she should be governed with whatever
law he or she chooses.

[Other topic which might be asked in the recit/exams]

2 Types of Divorce

Divorce, the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after marriage, are of 2 types:

(1) absolute divorce or a vincula matrimonii, which terminated the marriage, and

(2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro, which suspends it and leaves the bond in full force. In our jurisdiction, the following rules on divorce exist:

1. The Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence our courts cannot grant it.
2. Consistent with Art. 15 and 17 of the NCC, the marital bond between 2 Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce obtained abroad.
3. An absolute divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their
respective national laws.
4. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former is allowed to contract a subsequent marriage in case the absolute divorce is validly
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.