Senate leaders have yet to firm up counterpart measures for the House-backed divorce bill, even as several senators thumbed it down, voicing preference for a less costly option by enacting a remedial law relaxing rules on annulment of wedding vows instead.
Majority Leader Vicente C. Sotto III admitted over the weekend he has yet to conduct a formal headcount to assess the chances of the divorce bill that was reported to have gained wide support in the House of Representatives.
In fact, on February 21, it was approved at the level of the Committee on Population and Family Relations, the first time ever that a divorce bill has reached plenary debates at the House. This emboldened Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez, an ardent supporter of the measure—and who is reported to be in an extramarital relationship—to predict that the measure could hurdle third reading by end-March. Alvarez denied his personal status has anything to do with his advocacy.
The Speaker and his rare ally from the opposition, Rep. Edcel C. Lagman of the First District of Albay, are authors of separate bills, now consolidated, seeking either divorce or dissolution of marriage.
Senate’s mood
For all of Alvarez’s confidence in getting his supermajority to approve the consolidated measure in the House, however, the outlook is totally different in the Senate.
Several senators, responding to an informal survey by the BusinessMirror, indicated strong opposition to the divorce bill, offering instead to review existing processes for civil annulment of marriages on the rocks.
Senate Minority Leader Franklin M. Drilon, in a text message, replied “NO” in all caps when asked if he will vote in favor of the divorce bill.
Drilon shared the view that the nation is better off reforming current laws on civil annulment. “I believe we can reform our laws on civil annulment to make it less tedious and less expensive.”
Explaining his strong opposition to passing a divorce law, the Senate Minority Leader invoked the Philippine Constitution, which, Drilon said, “imposes on the State the duty to protect and uphold the sanctity of marriage.”
Sen. Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva also categorically rejected the matter, telling the BusinessMirror: “I am against divorce. I think it undermines the sanctity of marriage. Couples should seriously reflect on the seriousness of marriage before entering into one.” Still, Villanueva, son of Jesus is Lord Movement leader Bro. Eddie Villanueva, acknowledged this: “The reality, though, is that not all marriages will be successful,” and offered this option instead: “I support the simplification of our annulment laws to make it effective and accessible to the poor.”
Sen. Paolo Benigno A. Aquino IV pointed out that currently, there is no bill filed in the Senate regarding divorce, “and we are not inclined to file one.” Like his peers, he supported curing instead the existing setup on annulments. “In the past, I have stated that we can make the current legal processes more affordable and accessible to our people.” Aquino has an additional option for couples separating: “We are also studying a measure where a successful church annulment will also mean a civil annulment.”
Sen. Francis G. Escudero, whose first marriage was annulled, and who has since wedded actress Heart Evangelista, said he favors “making the existing process of annulment under the Civil and Family Code more accessible and affordable instead of passing a new law on divorce.”
Sotto, who has traditionally taken a con-servative stance on issues where the Catholic Church has a strong position, called the notion of passing a divorce bill “malabo [dim].”
He said he sees a greater chance “for relaxing or loosening the grounds for annulment.” He thinks Speaker Alvarez’s so-called dissolution of marriage bill might stand a better chance, describing the Lagman bill filed by Lagman as “confrontational.”
Sotto has been married for nearly 50 years to the same woman, singer-actress Helen Gamboa, a length considered rare for showbusiness couples.
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian, who remains a bachelor at 43, has an open mind about the divorce bill, but points out that, “I don’t agree with the drive-through process kasi mabigat na usapan yan [because that’s a serious matter].” He added that, at least for him, “I want to maintain the sanctity of marriage.”
Still, Gatchalian added, “The bottom line is that, [whether it’s] divorce or annulment, you still need to go through the court process to determine the basis,” and, therefore, does not see the “vendo” or “drive-through” type of “quickie divorces” ever being approved by Philippine lawmakers. He wants, “at the same time, [to] include drug use and violence as grounds” for divorce or annulment.
In layman’s terms, divorce recognizes there was a marriage, but the State is ending it for various reasons. Annulment is premised on the fact there was never a marriage because of some congenital flaw.
Gatchalian echoed what his peers deem the bottom line in this current review of marriage and its dissolution: whatever it is, he stressed, “we also need to simplify the procedures.”
For Sen. Cynthia A. Villar, she also foresees an uphill battle for passing the divorce bill in the Senate. Villar acknowledges it is going to be a tough task getting wide public support for it, “because the Philippines is 90-percent Catholic.”
Sen. Gregorio B. Honasan II underscored the “need to have an informed debate” on any divorce bill, stressing that, “It can’t be rushed. Are we prepared to debate it intelligently? Even if we are liberal-minded, will it enhance integrity of the basic unit, the family?”
Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson Sr. took a more dismissive attitude to the debate, pointing out the obvious: “Malabo ‘yan, wala pa ngang divorce bill dito.” The chairman of the Senate’s Family Relations Committee, Sen. Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel, has yet to signal whether she will take the initiative to file the Senate version of the bill championed by Alvarez and Lagman in the House. Hontiveros is a member of the Akbayan party-list but is identified mainly with the Liberals in the minority, though, Drilon has indicated that any talk of a divorce bill, or related measures, in the Senate will not be easily dictated by partisan lines.
The mood in the Senate was summed up by Sen. Juan Edgardo M. Angara. He told he BusinessMirror: “Most would like to see annulment made easier for poor couples than under the current setup requiring psychological incapacity under the Family Code, since this entails cost and is not readily available to the poorer sectors who cannot spend for lawyers and psychologists.”
Angara added: “Having said that, many are also wary of a no-fault divorce type of law where couples can just separate because they wake up one day and decide they don’t want to be married. This might cheapen the institution of marriage and detract from its sanctity. Any divorce bill has to address these concerns to have any chance of passing.”
House measure
The House committee on population and family relations had approved last February 21 the proposed bill titled, “An Act Providing for Absolute Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage.” The overwhelming vote for it was mixed, with those in favor coming from the majority, minority and opposition blocs much to the delight of Alvarez, who noted how even the left-leaning Makabayan bloc that had always tangled with the majority on political issues voted for the measure.
Lagman, whose opposition bloc is called “Magnificent 7,” led the drafting of the conso-lidated measure of five bills seeking either divorce or dissolution of marriage. One of the few most outspoken opposers of the bill was Senior Deputy Minority Leader Lito Atienza of the Buhay party-list.
Initially, the bill’s title only mentioned “divorce.” However, Alvarez was reported to have deliberately sought the inclusion of the phrase “dissolution of marriage” to make the bill more palatable to the public.
The consolidated bill ticked off these guiding principles:
■ Absolute divorce is judicially decreed after the fact of an irremediably broken marital union or a marriage vitiated from the start;
■ The State proceedings for the grant of absolute divorce must be affordable and inexpensive;
■ Concerned spouses may either file for absolute divorce under the proposed law, or seek legal separation, annulment of marriage, or nullification of marriage under pertinent provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines. The latter provisions are not repealed;
■ A six-month cooling-off period must be observed after the filing of a petition for absolute divorce, as concerned spouses make a final attempt at reconciling; and
■ A divorce decree shall include provisions for the care and custody of children, protection of their legitimate termination and liquidation of the conjugal partnership of gains or the absolute community and alimony for the innocent spouse;
The consolidated House bill listed these grounds for an absolute divorce:
■ When the spouses have been separated in fact for at least five years at the time the petition for absolute divorce is filed;
■ It carried over the existing grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines;
■ It also carried over the existing grounds for annulment of marriage under Article 45 of the Family Code of the Philippines;
■ One of the spouses has undergone sexual reassignment surgery;
■ Psychological incapacity of either spouse; and
■ Irreconcilable marital differences and conflicts, resulting in the total breakdown of
the marriage.
Lagman was reported to have promised an inexpensive, efficient divorce process. Indigent litigants petitioners may file their petitions without paying filing fees and other cost of litigation.
The court will appoint counsel-de-officio for indigents, and assign social workers and psychologists to help them in the proceedings.
3 comments
Thecoeur.blog
Why won’t you give the majority of the masses what they want and need?!?! The poor are always the one’s to suffer because you Senators won’t open your minds to the fact that we need Divorce. Having a NO DIVORCE LAW in our country doesn’t make us better than the rest of the world. And to the SENATORS who oppose the bill, you will NEVER AGAIN HAVE MY VOTE.
till death do us part… Magkamatayan muna ang mga mag-asawa bago maghiwalay nga kasi… sadly they suggest keeping the sanctity of marriage when one or both couples have violated each other by sharing someone else’s bed or have economically abused the other, tell me if the state actually protects the spouse or the couple with these violations. yeah they said they protect the family by keeping damaged people within the family, to damage further, (on a personal level I witnessed this growing up…) It’s so sickening