Republic of the Philippines

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE
Quezon City
SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
House Bill No. 1809
Intruduced by: Manuel Adolfo A. Laza
EXPLANATORY NOTE

Marriage is an institution protected by the laws of God and the Constitution. Section 12, Article I1 of
the Philippine Constitution says, The State recognizes the sanctity of life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous institution The State recognizes the sanctity of life and
shall protect and strengthen the family as u basic autonomous institution The State recognizes the
sanctity of life und shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous institution.
Actuality tells us that there are many failed, unhappy marriages across all Filipino classes. Many
couples especially from the marginalized sectors, who have no access to the courts simply end up
separating without the benefit of legal process. The sheer number of petitions that have been filed since
1988 for the declaration of nullity of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code (commonly
known as annulment) shows that there are just too many couples who are desperate to get out of
failed marriages.
Even when couples start out well in their marriage, political, economic and social realities take their toll
on their relationship. Some are not even prepared to handle the intricacies of married life. For a large
number of women the inequalities and violence in marriage negates its ideals as the embodiment of
love, care and safety and erode the bases upon which marriage is founded. The marital relations
facilitate the commission of violence and perpetuate their oppression.
Women are traditionally regarded as primarily responsible for making the marriage work and are
expected to sacrifice everything to preserve the marriage and the solidarity of the family. While
absolute fidelity is demanded of wives, men are granted sexual license to have affairs outside marriage.
Yet when marriage fails, the woman is blamed for its failure.
Sometimes, it can even be morally necessary, when its about shielding the weaker spouse or young
children from the more serious wounds caused by intimidation and violence, humiliation, and
exploitation.
While most marriages are supposed to be solemnized in heaven, the reality is many marriages plummet
into hell -- in irremediable breakdown, spousal abuse, marital infidelity and psychological incapacity,
among others, which bedevil marriages.

While the State continues to protect and preserve marriage as a social institution, it gives the
opportunity to spouses in irremediably failed marriages to secure an absolute divorce decree under
limited grounds and well-defined procedures to avoid abuse, save the children from the pain and stress
of their parents marital clashes, and grant the divorced spouses the right to marry again for another
chance to achieve marital bliss.
Poor women cannot afford the current exorbitant expense for legal separation or annulment of marriage.
An absolute divorce is a merciful liberation of the hapless wife from a long-dead marriage.
The bill seeks to present divorce in Philippine law with a strong sense of assurance that it will be used
responsibly by Filipino couples. This assurance stems from the experiences of Filipino families that
show that separation is usually the last means of many Filipino couples whose marriage has failed.
Battered women invariably seek separation only after many years of trying to make the marriage work.
Separation only becomes imperative for them when they realize that it is necessary for their and their
children's survival. Divorce could actually provide protection to battered women and their children
from further violence and abuse.
Historically, divorce had been part of our legal system. Hence, the history of the customs and practices
of the Philippine tribes including past Philippine laws, absolute divorce was already practiced. Before
the Spanish colonial period, certain Philippine tribes already practiced absolute divorce. Among them
were the Gaddang of Nueva Vizcaya, the Igorot and Sagada of the Cordilleras, the Manobos, Bila-ans
and Moslems in Mindanao, and the Tagbanwas of Palawan. When the Spaniards colonized the
Philippines, the only divorce law adopted by the government was the Siete Partidas of the Spanish Civil
Code of 1889. This law only allowed legal separation. When the Americans took over, they
established a system of government similar to that of the mainland. This also includes a divorce law,
which was enacted by the Philippine Legislature in 1917 through ACT No. 2710. Under this ACT,
divorce was allowed on grounds of adultery.

This bill is humble of and sensitive to differing religious beliefs in the Philippines. It recognizes that the
plurality of religious beliefs and cultural sensibilities in the Philippines demand that different remedies
for failed marriages should be made available. For this reason, the bill retains the existing remedies of
legal separation, declaring of nullity of the marriage and annulment and only adds divorce as one more
remedy. Couples may choose from these remedies depending on their situation, religious beliefs,
cultural sensibilities, needs and emotional state. While divorce under this proposed measure cuts the
bonds of marriage, divorce as a remedy need not be of the purpose of re-marriage; it may be resorted to
by individuals to achieve peace of mind and facilitate their pursuit of full human development. This bill
also seeks to make Philippine law consistent in the way it treats religious beliefs with respect to
termination of marriage.
Another ground for divorce included in the bill is when one or both spouses are psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. This provision will consequently repeal
Article 36 of the Family Code. The bill seeks to include "psychological incapacity" in the grounds for

divorce in the belief that the concept is consistent with the termination of marital ties rather than with a
void marriage.
This bill seeks to eliminate "condonation of the act" and "consent to the act" as grounds for denying a
petition for legal separation and, by extension, a petition for divorce. Many spouses especially women
ignore the offense because of the social and economic conditions they are in. Many women in the
marginalized sectors tend to condone the offense because they are economically dependent on their
spouses or because of the stigma attached to failed marriages. Some women who are perceived to be
condoning the acts of their husbands actually suffer from the cycle of spousal abuse such that they have
become so disempowered to address their situation.
The sanctity of marriage is not based on the number of marriages existing but on the quality of marital
relationships. When a marriage is no longer viable, divorce should be an option.
For the interest of the future generation, passage of this bill is earnestly sought.

MANUEL ADOLFO LAZA