House panel approves absolute divorce bill

[Snowy79]

I've not researched it but have a Filipino friend that does Governmental research on rules and regulations.  She is under the impression that divorce goes against the constitution so that will need adjusted first and the likelyhood is it won't get changed. 

[Mike J]

5 minutes ago, Snowy79 said:

I've not researched it but have a Filipino friend that does Governmental research on rules and regulations.  She is under the impression that divorce goes against the constitution so that will need adjusted first and the likelyhood is it won't get changed. 

This article would indicate otherwise.

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1028473

MANILA -- A lawmaker in the House of Representatives on Tuesday said there is no provision in the 1987 Constitution which prohibits divorce.

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman made the statement a day after the House of Representatives started its plenary debates on a bill institutionalizing absolute divorce and dissolution of marriage in the Philippines.

"The enactment of a law on absolute divorce and dissolution of marriage is not prohibited by the constitutional tenets on marriage as a social institution and as the foundation of the family," Lagman said.

Lagman recalled that the Commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, which drafted the 1987 Constitution, were unanimous that the Congress has the authority to pass a divorce law under the present Charter.

Citing records of the proceedings, Lagman said Commissioners Fr. Joaquin Bernas, Chito Gascon, Jose Bengzon, and Maria Teresa Nieva concurred that despite the adoption of these principles on marriage and family life in the 1987 Constitution, Congress is not precluded from instituting absolute divorce.

"No Commissioner registered a dissenting view on this issue," Lagman said.

Lagman noted that similar provisions on marriage and family life are found in the constitutions of countries which allow absolute divorce like Ireland, Columbia, Bolivia, Peru, Chile, El Salvador, Portugal, Brazil, Poland, France, Saudi Arabia, the Russian Federation and Cuba, among others.

"Unfortunately, what God has put together, couples in irremediably dysfunctional marriages put asunder because of human frailty and mortal limitations," Lagman said.

"While the State protects and preserves marriages, it is also duty bound to extend protection to spouses of shattered marriages beyond repair by allowing them to secure absolute divorce and save their children from the agony and distress of being exposed to their interminable strife," he added.

The bill aims to ensure that the proceedings for the grant of absolute divorce shall be affordable, efficient and inexpensive, especially for indigent litigants or petitioners.

The grounds for absolute divorce are the existing grounds for legal separation and annulment of marriage.

Also, a possible ground for absolute divorce is the couple's separation for at least five years.

Other valid grounds include psychological incapacity of either spouse, irreconcilable marital differences, or a gender reassignment surgery of either spouse.

It also provides for a mandatory six-month "cooling-off period" between the time a petition is filed and when the court actually starts working on the case. This allows the court to exercise all efforts to reunite and reconcile the parties.

The bill penalizes spouses who are guilty of collusion with imprisonment of five years and a fine of PHP200,000.

[Snowy79]

17 hours ago, Mike J said:

This article would indicate otherwise.

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1028473

MANILA -- A lawmaker in the House of Representatives on Tuesday said there is no provision in the 1987 Constitution which prohibits divorce.

 

 

As in almost everything to do with Government wording it's open to interpretation. The 1987 Constitution states the following: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-xv/

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES – ARTICLE XV

ARTICLE XV

THE FAMILY

Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.

Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.

In her mind once it goes up the food chain it will hit a brick wall. 

[Mike J]

4 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

In her mind once it goes up the food chain it will hit a brick wall. 

Back in 2018 Duterte went on record as being against the bill.  So even if it passed he could veto it.  It would be  difficult to use the words of the constitution to try to keep a marrage together even when the couple are already legally separated.  I guess if it ever passes, we will find out.  

[Dave Hounddriver]

7 hours ago, Mike J said:

It would be  difficult to use the words of the constitution to try to keep a marrage together even when the couple are already legally separated.

To use an analogy:  Someone steals your sailboat.  You cannot get it back so you collect your insurance.  Is that sailboat still legally yours?  Would you want the law to change so that the one who stole your sailboat can claim it as his own?  Some guys would rather have a wife than a sailboat (idiots) 

[Mike J]

4 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

To use an analogy:  Someone steals your sailboat.  You cannot get it back so you collect your insurance.  Is that sailboat still legally yours?  Would you want the law to change so that the one who stole your sailboat can claim it as his own?  Some guys would rather have a wife than a sailboat (idiots) 

The insurance company would own the sailboat if/when it is recovered.  They would then sell it to recover a portion of their cost.  I agree about wives - "That boat has already sailed".  

[Freebie]

On 8/21/2021 at 11:38 AM, Reboot said:

The rest of the world is stupid.

Which is also why the rest of the world doesnt make its citizenry wear plastic shields in front of their face... If only the rest of the world followed what goes on here , we'd all be better off !

[hk blues]

10 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

To use an analogy:  Someone steals your sailboat.  You cannot get it back so you collect your insurance.  Is that sailboat still legally yours?  Would you want the law to change so that the one who stole your sailboat can claim it as his own?  Some guys would rather have a wife than a sailboat (idiots) 

 

5 hours ago, Mike J said:

The insurance company would own the sailboat if/when it is recovered.  They would then sell it to recover a portion of their cost.  I agree about wives - "That boat has already sailed".  

[graham59]

40 minutes ago, Freebie said:

Which is also why the rest of the world doesnt make its citizenry wear plastic shields in front of their face... If only the rest of the world followed what goes on here , we'd all be better off !

I'm sure he was being sarcastic though.  

[graham59]

5 hours ago, Mike J said:

The insurance company would own the sailboat if/when it is recovered.  They would then sell it to recover a portion of their cost.  I agree about wives - "That boat has already sailed".  

More common with vehicles of course, but the real loser is the poor person who, in good faith bought the stolen sailboat, which has now been tracked down by the police or insurers... to be returned without compensation to the real owner...now probably, the insurance company. 'Buyer beware'.