BY IME SORNITO, GEROME DALIPE, and MA. THERESA LADIAO
ILOILO City – The House of Representatives approved House Bill 9349 (Absolute Divorce Act) with lawmakers from the city and province of Iloilo divided on the matter.
Of the 131 lawmakers who voted “yes” to the bill, five were Ilonggos – 1st District’s Cong. Janette Garin, 2nd District’s Cong. Michael Gorriceta, 3rd District’s Cong. Lorenz Defensor, 4th District’s Cong. Ferjenel Biron, and Kabataan party-list’s Cong. Raoul Manuel.
On the other hand, of the 109 lawmakers who voted against, three were from Iloilo – 5th District’s Cong. Raul Tupas, Uswag Ilonggo party-list’s Cong. James “Jojo” Ang, and Iloilo City Lone District’s Cong. Julienne Baronda.
The bill aims to introduce absolute divorce as a legal option for irreparably broken marriages, detailing specific grounds and procedures intended to protect children from marital discord and allow individuals to remarry.
Defensor emphasized the bill’s benefits for those trapped in abusive relationships.
“This bill gives individuals, especially women, a chance to start anew,” he said, pointing out that it has been meticulously crafted, requiring a judicial review of divorce petitions, which distinguishes it from a “no fault” divorce.
This is not the type of divorce where “you just sign a document and end your marriage,” said Defensor. “You have to file a petition (and cite grounds for seeking it).”
Defensor, who is married and describes himself as pro-family, argued that the bill contains numerous safeguards and is designed to alleviate the emotional and financial burdens associated with annulments.
“Divorce under this bill is not only simpler and less expensive but also equipped with stringent checks to prevent misuse,” he added.
Annulment, Defensor said, is expensive and because of its lengthy process, it becomes a venue for corruption inside the court itself.
Gorriceta shared a similar view after reviewing materials from advocates of the bill.
“Initially, I was hesitant,” he said, but understanding the plight of abused women shifted his perspective.
The bill is not lenient, he added, and ensures that only those truly at risk can start over. “The court and the judge will examine it if the partner is really at risk.”
However, the bill faced opposition as well. Baronda cited constitutional protections of marriage as her reason for voting against the bill.
According to Baronda, Section 2, Article XV of the 1987 Constitution states in no uncertain terms that marriage is “an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family that shall be protected by the State.”
She also cited what is in Article 1, Title I of the Family Code of the Philippines that defines marriage as 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.
“From the foregoing provisions, it is crystal clear that the State views marriage as inviolable and permanent. It is thus the position of this representation that once contracted, this sacred union should be protected. Once the divorce bill is allowed, abuses might become rampant,” Baronda warned.
“Trial and error” marriages might become a thing, she said, and this would “not only destroy the family but also (adversely) affect the lives of children in unimaginable ways.”
“Safeguards should be in place to ensure that only legitimate marriages that are in limbo are dissolved not in a summary judicial proceeding but upon a judicious determination of all evidence presented after trial,” stressed Baronda.
Tupas also voted “no”, citing the sanctity of marriage as a crucial factor. He said marriage is more than a contract; it is a covenant that should not be easily dissolved.
Tupas also said existing legal remedies like annulment, though imperfect, already provide a framework for addressing marital issues.
Similarly, Cong. James “Jojo” Ang of the Uswag Ilonggo party-list expressed his concerns about divorce, noting that his “no” vote “sprang from my personal views and beliefs – values I firmly stand by.”
Although the bill has its own merits, Ang believes “in the sanctity of marriage and Filipino values of faith and family.”
“The absolute Divorce Bill may also undermine the efforts toward reconciliation and mending broken relationships between husband and wife, which ultimately results in a broken marriage affecting children,” warned Ang.
“We currently have laws that allow the nullity of marriage. I believe that these laws are properly in place to address the legal concerns of those who want to end a subsisting marriage,” he added.
Ang said his “no” vote “reflects my firm belief that God is the center of a relationship, especially in marriage, and that this faith will continue to strengthen the Filipino family – the very fabric and foundation of our nation.”
As of this writing, Garin, Biron and Manuel were yet to respond to requests for them to explain their votes.
The bill stipulates the grounds for absolute divorce, which include psychological incapacity, irreconcilable differences, domestic or marital abuse, when one of the spouses undergoes a sex reassignment surgery or transitions from one sex to another, and separation of the spouses for at least five years.
The grounds for legal separation under the Family Code of the Philippines can also be considered grounds for absolute divorce. These include:
* Physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;
* Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation;
* Attempt of the respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution;
* Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than 6 years;
* Drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, or chronic gambling;
* Homosexuality of the respondent;
* Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage;
* Marital infidelity or perversion or having a child with another person other than one’s spouse during the marriage;
* Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner; and
* Abandonment of the petitioner by the respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year
The grounds for annulment of marriage under the Family Code of the Philippines are also grounds for absolute divorce./PN
