Despite the opposition from Malacañang, the House of Representatives on Monday approved on third and final reading a measure institutionalizing absolute divorce and dissolution of marriage in the Philippines.
Voting 134 affirmative, 57 negative and two abstention, members of the lower chamber
approved House Bill (HB) 7303, or the Absolute Divorce Act of 2018, which seeks to institutionalize absolute divorce and dissolution of marriage in the country.
The bill will now be transmitted to the Senate for its own deliberation. The measure refers to absolute divorce as “the separation between married couples that is total and final where the husband and wife return to their status of being single with the right to contract marriage again.”
Under the bill, petition for absolute divorce or dissolution of marriage shall be filed in the proper court by the interested party or parties within five years of the accrual or cause of action.
The measure also provides for the finality of the decision or decree. Except for decisions or decrees in summary proceedings, it shall immediately be executory, barring an appeal before the Court of Appeals.
It added that petitioners seeking divorce are ensured inexpensive and affordable court proceedings in securing an absolute divorce decree.
The bill also states that grounds for the grant of an absolute divorce decree shall include the reasons for legal separation and annulment of marriage under the Family Code, de facto separation for at least five years, legal separation by judicial decree for at least two years, psychological incapacity, gender-reassignment surgery, irreconcilable differences and joint petition of spouses.
In addition, the measure said overseas foreign workers shall be given priority with respect to court hearings. The court shall set the reception of evidence, upon availability of the petitioners, for not more than two consecutive days.
Summary judicial proceedings, or the expeditious manner of resolving a divorce petition without regard to technical rules, are also provided for under the bill. Petitioners may or may not be assisted by a lawyer in summary judicial proceedings, and the proper court may allow presentation of evidence ex parte, as needed.
Grounds under summary judicial proceedings include when one of the spouses has contracted a bigamous marriage or has been sentenced to imprisonment for six years, among others.
Except for grounds under summary judicial proceedings, the court shall start trial only after a six-month cooling-off period after the filing of a petition. During this time, the court shall exercise all efforts to reunite and reconcile the parties and the court shall await the submission of the report of the public prosecutor.
The mandatory cooling-off period shall not apply in cases that involve acts of violence against women and/or children of the petitioner, under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. Neither shall it apply in cases involving an attempt against the life of the other spouse, a common child or a child of the petitioner.
If the petitioners agree to reconcile, the court shall recognize the reconciliation through a joint manifestation under oath duly signed by the petitioners and submitted to the same court where the divorce petition was filed.
Unconstitutional
Senior Deputy Minority Leader Lito Atienza of Buhay on Monday criticized the leadership of the lower chamber for passing the proposed divorce law.
According to Atienza, the proposed law is against the Philippine Constitution. “It is definitely unconstitutional. It is expressly stated in Article XV on The Family, Section 2, that ‘Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.’”
“The Constitution is very clear and there is no room for misinterpretation. So, how can they interpret their proposed law as constitutional. Every definition that can be found on the word inviolable states that it is unassailable, cannot be broken, cannot be interchanged and anything inviolable is considered hallowed, holy, sacred, sacrosanct and untouchable,” he said.
Atienza welcomed President Duterte’s stand against the passage of the divorce law.
“We welcome and fully appreciate President Duterte’s stand against the divorce law. The
President has saved the Filipino family with his strong position against divorce. We strongly agree with the President that divorce would be very detrimental to mothers and children,” Atienza said in reaction to the statement of Presidential Spokesman Harry L. Roque Jr. that the President is against the proposal.
Atienza had earlier expressed his strong opposition to HB 7303 during plenary deliberations.
“We admire the President’s display of strength and character. He did not allow himself to be stampeded by the mob on this critical issue. His strong leadership will forever be remembered for saving the Filipino family and future generations. I am sure that, with his strong position against divorce, this bill will most likely be relegated to the archives [in Congress, particularly the Senate],” Atienza said.
The Gabriela party-list said the divorce bill was filed in response to the clamor of women trapped in abusive relationships and “the need for the government to provide another option for irreparable marriages, in recognition of this reality.”
“It is not at the President’s bidding that we file legislation. Let the legislative bill take its course,” it added.
Moreover, Party-list Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay, one of the principal authors of the bill, said the institution of absolute divorce and dissolution of marriage is definitely not for couples in harmonious, happy and vibrant marital relationships, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of Filipino spouses.
“It is a legislation for exceptional cases when the marital bond is irremediably severed, since marriage still is a human institution, which could collapse and wither because of human frailty and mortal limitations. Unfortunately, what God had put together, couples in shattered marriages beyond repair have put asunder,” Lagman said.
“In divorce and dissolution of marriage proceedings, there is no more marriage to protect or union to destroy because the marriage has long perished.
2 comments
divorce has no place in the constitution, except when the church is the state an governing body
which they are NOT
The Catholic Church goes beyond what principles that have been but in place by the Creator in regards to divorce. There are only two grounds, death of one mate and adultry.
Separation of mates due to physical, verbal abuse would be a personal decision but remember, God, the Almighty, is a God of love, he would not expect an individual to stay in such a relationship.