Should divorce be legalized in our country?

Actually there is a law made for absolute divorce but this is not enforced because
our government changed the time we gained our independence. Up to now we
have divorce but relative. I agree with the negative side that it is possible to have
a divorce with certain cases and restrictions. We avoid other countries with easy
divorce process. We value marriage because in marriage, there begins the life of
two persons.

Under Sec. 12 Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides that the State recognizes
the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution.

Man and wife reuniting in one. Their union may be blessed with children. That's
where the family will be. So as much as possible, we protect the family. We have
many differences and problems. Throughout the years the stability of marriage can
be tested. This includes infidelity, mistrust, financial problems, sickness and in
health. It is up to us to continue the marriage because of marriage, a family is
formed. But with other groups, families can be formed as well. It's not good that
the two of them are going to separate because they just saw the text message on
the phone. Someone just separates because they can't. And they need to focus on
their career and meet other partners. If a partner is abused, there are other laws
to arrest the person who abuses him. Or you just want to break up because you
don't want him alone. There are many circumstances that need to be carefully
considered in order to implement Absolute divorce.

To me, the value of marriage must be protected. It's not a game that if you don't
want it, you can play it right away. Or you just want a new phone because it has
new features. What is that? Cell phone? Even if he has the money to pay for the
divorce or he still owes a divorce, that's not good. The man and the woman
promised to be together. They were promised to be together but not to the ledge
that you would make them. They do not belong to Just to be hurt. Spouses have
time to separate but they can return. If that's not possible, then it's not. They are
now divorced and have their own partner but since they are married to the first
partner, they cannot remarry. So they learned it. They want to get married, so they
can stand up for their marriage. They must have decided to get married. Of course,
for every decision we make, there is consequence. Thus, they were long before

1987 Philippine Constitution

Civil Code of the Philippines
they were married in the Philippines. But they do not take it seriously. So they
stand for their marriage. If they don't want to, they will suffer. They are separated
but married, still married.

Under Article 1 of the Family Code, “Marriage is a special contract of permanent

union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the
establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an
inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are
governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements
may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this
Code”.

Marriage being the foundation of the family, and the family is the foundation of
the country. If you allow divorce, then you are destroying the very foundation of
the family. In effect, you are destroying the foundation of the country. This is
binding even if you are not Catholic or Catholic. Marriage is sacred. Not only man
married them but also God the Father.

Family Code states that the marriage is a special contract of permanent union
between a man and a woman for establishment of conjugal and family life. This
provision is so intimately related with the word of God that let no man put asunder
what God has join together. Therefore the state protects the sanctification of
marriage because it is divine instruction which inviolable institution. They have
been blessed and in the presence of many people, with all their hearts shouting
that they are getting married. Then they are suing the government to change the
law. Don't be that way. If so, I will not allow it. And if a man simply marries a woman
or man to make a punching bag or scoff or nothing or to hurt or abuse or betray or
cheat, that is not marriage so it can be revoked. There is a law for such cases and
it is called annulment of marriage because it is not really a marriage or have no
intention of one or two people getting married so this marriage can be void.

The constitution mandates the state to protect the sanctity of marriage, as such it
will not recognize dissolution of marriage unless those allowed by law under the
family code. Divorce simply for irreconcilable difference without the grounds
provided in the family code is an attack on the institution of marriage,
notwithstanding religious beliefs. However the grounds should be expanded as
modern problems require modern solution.

1987 Philippine Constitution

Civil Code of the Philippines
 Should death penalty be uplifted?

I agree with the negative side, that death penalty in the Philippines should not be
uplifted. Death penalty is not the answer it will never be. Even the first world
country that practice death penalty still not satisfied with the result you want to
know why? Because they're guilty of executing innocent people 1000 criminal
executed will never justify 1 innocent people that is wrongfully executed. There is
no guarantee or proof that Death penalty works as a deterrent in fact death
penalty is considered useless. Reason why to death penalty and why not.

That for deterrence, there is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a
better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A survey of the former and
present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies found
that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any
deterrent effect from the death penalty.

Taking one's life or revenge, it is an easy get away for the criminal because they're
dead. You were left with memories, regrets and hatred. You're mentally suffering
and the criminal is not.

And also prison cost a lot. It is true because our prison is crowded therefore needed
lots of fund but the reason why it is crowded is because there's a lot of people that
is undergoing a trial, awaiting for their trial or waiting for the final judgement.
There can be people that is not guilty perhaps victim of power abuse but they're
stuck in the prison because our justice system is slow and corrupt ergo we can't
practice death penalty there is no guarantee or proof that Death penalty works as
a deterrent in fact death penalty is considered useless.

And because for the simple reason that an innocent person may be executed. We
can say that it is right to execute a hardened criminal, but the justice system is not
perfect. If one day, the real person admits that he did the crime, and the one who
is executed is an innocent one, you can't bring back their life.

And it is also against the law of God, thou shall not kill. And we are one of the
signatories on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Convention on the
Sanctity of life and respect for human dignity. Death penalty is not deterrent in the

1987 Philippine Constitution

Civil Code of the Philippines
commission of a crime and our five pillars of Justice System is not perfect, we have
rotten police force, corrupt Prosecutors and members of Judiciary, only the poor
who cannot afford to hire the legal services of a good lawyer will be convicted and
hanged to death, similar to the “tokhang”, only slum dwellers are the common
casualties on the hoax war against illegal drugs.

No one has the right to take one's life but the one who gave it. Since our country
is predominantly Catholic, this religion-based argument is usually advanced. It is
the argument of statistics. Proponents of anti-death penalty restoration most of
the time advances the argument that in all countries in the world which uses death
penalty as a deterrent of crimes have proven to be ineffective. Our justice system
is somehow guided by the restorative and rehabilitative principle. For this reason,
the best way to grant an offender a second chance is by giving him this opportunity
through the help and guidance of our penal institution. This cannot be most likely
done if death penalty is impose on the offender.

For me, it is the justice system flaws which may cause the death penalty injurious
rather than lowering the commission of crimes. Death penalty has long been
proven in other countries to have curtailed and prevented indulging in crimes.
While the justice system determines the capacity of the country to handle and
resolve cases religiously without collaterally putting innocent lives at stake in as
much as the justice system of the Philippines has still more jobs to do along such
issues, then the Philippines is not a venue for Death Penalty.

Lastly, there is a school of thought that believes that the acts of an offender are
not his own but a product of social evil, of which the society per se must be held
to be liable. On this ground, the society must provide the means and ways to
reform and redeem the offender from his anti-social acts.

1987 Philippine Constitution

Civil Code of the Philippines