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

DIVORCE BILL PROVIDES MORE AS A REMEDY

THERE IS ALREADY A REMEDY OF ANNU
The remedy of annulment expires, and the defect may actually be cured by ratification through
free and voluntary cohabitation. The remedy of annulment is based on speci
celebration of the marriage, such as lack of
person married another at gunpoint).

But what if the marriage worked in the first ten years, but later the parties drifted apart for Article 36 declares that a marriage is void fro
some reason or another? What if the other spouse was violent, unfaithful, indolent, or an psychologically incapacitated to perform the
alcoholic or a drug addict? What if one spouse abandoned the family? These may not be used court does not terminate a marriage but only
for “annulment,” or for a marriage to be declared void under Article 36, unless it can be proved incapacity by presenting evidence on three e
that these are manifestations of psychological incapacity that predated the marriage. existed before the marriage; that it is grave o
usually needs the help of a psychiatrist or ps
• 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.
CBCP:
Once divorce is tolerated, no restraint is powerf
bounds marked out or anticipated. Great indeed
might of passion. When are we going to learn fr
divorce is permitted by civil law? For as soon as
jealousies and judicial separations increase. Wh
followed far exceeded anything the lawmakers f
fraudulent devices, such as false accusations o
the dissolution of a matrimonial bond of which th
moral havoc followed that an amendment of the

NOT ALLOWED IN THE PHILIPPINES

MUSLIMS ENJOY DIVORCE LAW ALREADY. So to say that divorce does not exist in Our supreme law, the 1987 Philippine Constitut
present Philippine law is not accurate. The prohibition against divorce under Philippine law protect and strengthen the family as the basic a
applies only to Filipinos whose marriages are not governed by the Muslim Code. Since foundation of the family” (Section 12 of Article II
Philippine law on marriage applies to all Filipino citizens even though they are residing in a law is based on the policy that marriage is not a
state is vitally interested. The State can find no
foreign country, the prohibition against divorce for non-Muslim Filipinos is also a concern of
families. The break up of families weakens our
Filipino expatriates. preservation is not the concern alone of the fam
entire Article on the Family, recognizing it “as th
legally “inviolable,” thereby protecting it from dis
and marriage are to be “protected" by the state.
26, 2009)
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.

Hey