twitterfacebookgoogle+register
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: Is Philippines ready for a divorce law?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #11
    Filipino hesitation for divorce

    By Mahar Mangahas

    Philippine Daily Inquirer

    9:18 pm | Friday, December 28th, 2012

    My last piece, “The popularity of legalizing divorce,” (Inquirer, 12/22/2012) showed that national sentiments on allowing legal divorce and remarriage for spouses already separated and irreconcilable had shifted from an even division in 2005 to favoring it in 2011 by a score of 50-33. It was not about facilitating escapes of those with troubled but nominally intact marriages, but about giving another chance for those with marriages already broken.

    To how many people would this apply, more or less? In the March 2011 survey which ran the item, about 1.5 percent of adults were living as single due to separation. On a base of over 55 million adults, that amounts to over 800,000 persons. They were 67 percent in favor of legalizing divorce, and 13 percent against it.

    Another 0.5 percent were living-in with a partner without marriage, after having previously been separated. These number over 250,000 persons. Their score on legalizing divorce was 69 percent in favor and none against.

    Though the percentage separated is small, their absolute number amounts to over a million persons. It is natural that they are highly in favor of legalizing divorce.

    However, the fact that opinions have generally tilted in favor of legalizing divorce does not imply that Filipinos unhappily married but still living together would rush into divorce once it is available.

    In fact, compared to other nationalities, Filipinos are the most hesitant to consider divorce as a means of escaping marital problems.

    I base this on cross-country surveys of agree/disagree responses to the following statement: “Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can’t seem to work out their marriage problems” (“Ang diborsyo ang karaniwang pinakamahusay na solusyon kung hindi maayos ng mag-asawa ang kanilang problema sa pagsasama”).

    This is an item in surveys of the International Social Survey Programme (www.issp.org) on “Family and Gender Roles,” done in 1994, 2002 and 2012. Note that it refers to a general inability to solve marital problems, of couples not, or not yet, separated.

    The ISSP member for the Philippines is Social Weather Stations, which does the ISSP surveys pro bono. SWS found 38 percent agreement, versus 49 percent disagreement, in 1994, and 36 percent agreement, versus 50 percent disagreement, in 2002, that “divorce is usually the best solution” for a couple in great difficulties with marriage. Thus disagreement was dominant in both years. The 2012 round was fielded in November, and is being processed. I will use the past tense to describe the 2002 data since they will be superseded by the 2012 data soon.

    Among the 24 nationalities in ISSP in 1994, the lowest gross agreement was by Japanese (35 percent), followed by Filipinos (38 percent). The highest gross disagreement was by Filipinos (49 percent), followed by Japanese (36 percent). The balances from 100 percent neither agree nor disagree. Because net agreement was lower for Filipinos

    (-11 = 38 – 49) than for Japanese (-1 = 35 – 36), I call Filipinos more hesitant than Japanese regarding divorce. For other nationalities, gross agreement was at least 48 percent, and net agreements were all positive.

    For the 33 nationalities surveyed in 2002, here are the gross agreement and net agreement rates (separated by a slash), arranged by net agreement:

    Brazil, 86/+74; Austria, 84/+72; Spain, 81/+70; Germany/East, 80/+70; Portugal, 78/+65; Netherlands, 74/+65; Germany/West, 74/+60; Great Britain, 62/+56; Flanders, 67/+54; Cyprus, 68/+51; Latvia, 62/+51; Israel, 67/+50; Chile, 68/+49; Bulgaria, 66/+49; Slovenia, 66/+47; Northern Ireland, 64/+45; Poland, 64/+45; Czech Rep., 63/+45; Finland, 63/+45; Mexico, 63/+42; France, 60/+41; Ireland, 61/+39; Hungary, 58/+39; Norway, 56/+37; Sweden, 54/+37; Australia, 52/+32; Slovak Rep., 55/+30; New Zealand, 52/+28; Russia, 54/+25; United States, 43/+6; Taiwan, 44/0; Japan, 35/-1, and the Philippines, 36/-14.

    In all but four countries, those saying divorce is “usually the best solution” were absolute majorities. I would not call such peoples “hesitant” about divorce.

    Note the following: 1. Catholic and non-Catholic nationalities favored divorce in more or less equal measure. Spaniards (94 percent Catholic, per Wikipedia) were third from the top, at gross 81 percent. The Irish (84 percent Catholic) were at gross 61 percent, even though divorce became legal only in 1996, six years previously.

    2. Americans had only a slight plurality, with a margin of 6 points, favoring divorce as the solution for un-resolvable marital problems. Americans were actually closer to Taiwanese and Japanese, who have very evenly split opinions, than to the other Western nationalities.

    3. Those most hesitant to resort to divorce as a solution to marital problems were Taiwanese, Japanese, and, above all, Filipinos, the three Asian groups of the ISSP network at that time.

    4. Only among Filipinos did the national balance of opinion clearly tilt against divorce. Incidentally, the balances were positive in the National Capital Region (net +4) and in the middle-to-upper ABC classes (net +5), but negative in other areas and classes.

    Going by the ISSP data, for countries of varied religions, it seems to me that the reasons for Filipino hesitation to divorce are not to be found in religion.

    * * *

    Happy New Year to All!
    FRIENDS LANG KAMI

  2. #12
    Yes to divorce

    By Peter Wallace

    Philippine Daily Inquirer

    10:32 pm | Wednesday, January 9th, 2013

    Congress is to be commended for passing some very important bills despite strong opposition to them, but bills with flaws that must have been obvious during the debates.

    One example is the recently passed Sin Tax Reform Law.

    I’m at a loss to understand why Congress would increase sin taxes by 4 percent every year. Not adjusting to inflation, that makes eminent sense. But 4 percent? Are the legislators prescient enough to know what the inflation rate will be starting 2018 or five years from now, or 10, or 20? Why not just increase by the previous year’s official inflation rate? Or at the inflation rate times “x”? I don’t expect it, but who knows, we’ve had inflation rates as high as 50.3 percent (recorded in 1984).

    Then there’s the Reproductive Health Law where pressure from the Church allowed scientific fact to be ignored. It’s a Church that has for recent centuries denied scientific fact until it could no longer do so. Why, I cannot understand. It has insisted on holding on to beliefs that were formulated when a full understanding had not yet been gained, and only reluctantly accepted these when their position became untenable.

    This is the case today on contraception. According to the book “Bioethics in a Cultural Context” by Vincent Barry (2012), in a survey of the scientific views on the beginning of life, one scientific argument supported by some Catholic theologians is that there can be no life before gastrulation. Gastrulation is when the fertilized ovum is implanted into the uterus (“Developmental Biology Online: Where Does Human Life Begin?”, Franklin College). Before that the zygote (the joining of male and female sperm and egg) can split into twins, in fact can do so till day 12. So God hasn’t yet decided what this ovum will be. How then can there be life of an individual? The British position is that life begins at the 14th day when the nervous system starts to form (Barry, 2012). The neurological view is that it’s not till the brain (which after all is where our soul resides) is forming. There’s no electrical activity whatsoever until weeks 6-8, then there’s a faint signal. It’s only by week 24 that connections that create brain functions are formed, and week 27 when cerebral electrical activity is noticeable.

    So, which is it? Whichever it is, it is NOT before the fertilized ovum attaches to the uterus wall. Some sectors accept that anything that prevents that attachment is not an abortifacient. The earth is not flat. So I’m greatly disappointed that they forced an amendment into the law that denies scientific fact. I sincerely hope that once passions die down, the next Congress will return the law to being factually correct and define contraceptives correctly.

    Now let’s start the year controversially: Let’s support Speaker Feliciano Belmonte. It’s time for divorce. It shouldn’t be controversial, but I’m sure it will be.

    Yet the Philippines is the ONLY COUNTRY in the world that doesn’t permit divorce. That includes ALL the predominantly Catholic countries in the world: Italy, the home of the Vatican (a small state, not a country, that doesn’t permit divorce; but since the Vatican is composed of mostly celibate religious, it hardly needs divorce), Spain, Poland, Colombia and Mexico—they all permit divorce even if they are 80 percent-90 percent Catholic. Maybe the Church there has opposed it, but the state has recognized the right of couples to choose the life they want.

    If everyone except you believes in or does something, isn’t it just possible you could be wrong?

    The second point is: What kind of family life? I believe God put us on this world to enjoy life, not to suffer in misery. That’s what purgatory and (for some I could name) hell are for. There are two purposes for marriage as I, a layman, see it. One is to bear children and raise them to become successful, happy adults. The second is to provide a companion to go through life with happily, contented and, can I say, in a satisfying and pleasurable companionship.

    What kind of life do two people who can’t stand each other have? What kind of environment do their kids suffer in, with two fighting, miserable parents? What chance of a successful, happy life do they have?

    I was divorced; in Australia it’s allowed. I’ve had 33 years of a wonderful life with a wonderful second wife, happy, contented and, yes, satisfied. And we have two (not 10) great kids who got a solid education and have started successful careers. My daughter is an environmental scientist helping Gina Lopez clean up the mess other Filipinos have left this country in (you should see the pigsty that was the Pasig, where it hasn’t yet been so wondrously cleaned up by Gina; this statement is unfair to pigs). My son has his own businesses in cinematography and car modification with his partner, Ian King.

    My first wife had a happy life with her second husband until she died a few years back. Would God say this is wrong? If so, it’s not a god I’d want to believe in.

    The point that the bishops can have, and I’d fully support, is that any divorce must consider what is best for the children first. This must be the primary role in the divorce court (separate courts are needed). As long as the kids will be fully supported in whatever way is best, then divorce should be granted.

    So, let’s give Filipinos a fulfilling life. Let’s allow divorce, not reserve it for the rich under the farcical excuse of annulment. The poor deserve a happy life, too. We are not trying to destroy families, we’re trying to give the best opportunity for people to have happy families. Is that so wrong?

  3. #13
    ‘Divorce bill long overdue’

    By Paolo Romero

    (The Philippine Star) | Updated January 14, 2013 - 12:00am

    MANILA, Philippines - The Gabriela party-list group urged President Aquino yesterday to keep an open mind on the pending divorce bill, saying the measure is long overdue.

    Gabriela Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan aired the call after Aquino’s spokespersons said earlier that Malacañang was not keen on the proposed divorce bill.

    Ilagan said the party respects the Palace’s opinion, but cautioned they should read the bill first before jumping to conclusions. She said Malacañang is apparently afraid of the Catholic Church.

    The lawmaker said even Gabriela knew the bill could not be tackled in the 15th Congress.

    “If we come up victorious again this coming May elections, we will re-file the measure next Congress,” Ilagan said.

    She said House Bill 1799 or the divorce bill, which she co-authored with fellow Gabriela Rep. Emerenciana de Jesus, was filed on July 27, 2010 and is now pending with the House committee on revision of laws. The measure seeks to amend the Family Code to include divorce.

    Ilagan expressed confidence the divorce option would be used responsibly by couples, based on experiences of Filipino families showing many couples whose marriages have failed resorted to separation.

    “Cases of battered women also support this. 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,” Ilagan said.

    “Divorce could actually provide protection to battered women and their children from further violence and abuse,” she added.

    The bill retains the existing remedies of legal separation, declaration of nullity of the marriage and annulment, and only adds divorce as one more remedy.

    Ilagan said couples could choose from these remedies depending on their situation, religious beliefs, cultural sensibilities, needs and emotional state.

    “While divorce under this proposed measure severs the bonds of marriage, divorce as a remedy need not be for 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,” she said.

  4. #14
    Wife of Millionaire Wins "Unprecedented" Case to Overturn Prenup Agreement

    By Beth Greenfield, Shine Staff | Love + Sex – 12 hours ago

    A Long Island mother of three has become a postnuptial hero, after a prenup nearly cost her everything. In a landmark case, Elizabeth Cioffi-Petrakis, 39, won an appeal overturning a bizarre premarital agreement with her millionaire husband. Now she says she may be entitled to half of her ex’s worth when their divorce becomes final.

    The win, say matrimonial law experts, is huge.

    “This is unprecedented in the family law world,” celebrity divorce lawyer Vikki Ziegler told Yahoo! Shine. “This is a landmark decision that will likely be litigated a great deal in the future in similar cases for those who feel their prenups are unconscionable.”

    So how did it happen?

    “I won it because I pretty much did it myself,” Cioffi-Petrakis told Yahoo! Shine. “I had three prior attorneys who messed up my case big-time. And I was pretty much dead in the water until I got educated.”

    To win the case, Cioffi-Petrakis had to prove in a Long Island court that her husband, commercial property developer Peter Petrakis, coerced her into signing the prenup. She claims he dropped the premarital bomb four days before their wedding day in 1998, leaving her with little time for a contractual dispute. She also told the court the agreement included promises her ex never intended to keep. Among those promises, she said, was that he would add her name to the deed of their Old Brookville home, and that he would destroy the prenup after the birth of their first child.

    “He claimed he was just protecting his business, and that his lawyers made him have a prenup,” Cioffi-Petrakis said. “And me, a naïve young girl, I believed it.” She added that she’d been with Petrakis since she was 18 years old—six years before they were married—and that she was so committed that she’d converted from Catholicism to his religion of Greek Orthodox.

    “I loved him, I trusted him and I believed in his word,” she explained.

    But when he did not put the house in her name, and when she first gave birth 12 years ago to twin boys (and then later to a daughter, now , the two began what would be come a years-long journey in and out of lawyers’ offices to contest the prenuptial agreement.

    Then finally, in January, a judge ruled in Cioffi-Petrakis’s favor, finding that she had successfully proven what is called “fraud by the inducement” in a contract. To do that, Cioffi-Petrakis explained, she presented the court with “patterns of behavior” to show that Petrakis “was not honest when he made the promises.”

    Ziegler, author of “The Pre-Marital Planner,” further explained the court’s decision to Shine. “Many couples discuss the terms of their prenups and say they will do or say things in the future that are not memorialized in writing,” she said. “However, this fraudulent inducement to buy a house, put the marital home in joint name and make other financial incentives after the parties wed appeared to sway the appellate panel who agreed to set aside the prenuptial agreement based on fraud.”

    Petrakis did not return a message left for him by Shine at one of his businesses, the One Stop Smoke Shop in Seaford, Long Island. His lavish Old Brookville home was featured in a 2010 New York Times story, “Over-the-Top Houses,” described as a “newly renovated shingle and stone farm ranch on 2.29 acres,” and equipped with a “lower-level nightclub” featuring a 24-foot onyx bar, 1,200-bottle wine cellar and a DJ booth. His chain of smoke shops, according to the New York Post, is worth “at least $5 million.”

    Cioffi-Petrakis told Shine that she (with much help from her parents) shelled out nearly $475,000 in lawyers’ fees over the years, and that her husband has paid more than $600,000. “And we haven’t even gotten to the divorce,” she said. Despite the fact that the couple have been estranged since 2010 when Petrakis first filed for divorce, the proceedings were put on hold by the court until the the prenup matter could be settled. Now the two will be able to move ahead to make their split official.

    The pressure of the case pushed her to extremes. “I almost took my own life because of the depression and stresses,” she said. “I wound up in the hospital with a nervous breakdown.”

    A positive outcome of the ordeal, though, has been Cioffi-Petrakis starting her own business, Divorce Prep Experts, a divorce-court advisement service, which has been slowly getting off the ground since 2008.

    “I’m not a lawyer, but I think I have advocated for myself better than any lawyer has,” she said. “My mission is to empower and protect anyone in this position. I know what to look out for, and I bring reputable professionals together to help.” Her company, she said, offers her clients invaluable advice and knowledge from judges, mediators, divorce coaches and child psychologists, in the hopes of saving time and money through the divorce process.

    “Divorce Prep Experts can save lives,” she said.

  5. #15
    Wife of Millionaire Wins "Unprecedented" Case to Overturn Prenup Agreement

    By Beth Greenfield, Shine Staff | Love + Sex – 12 hours ago

    A Long Island mother of three has become a postnuptial hero, after a prenup nearly cost her everything. In a landmark case, Elizabeth Cioffi-Petrakis, 39, won an appeal overturning a bizarre premarital agreement with her millionaire husband. Now she says she may be entitled to half of her ex’s worth when their divorce becomes final.

    The win, say matrimonial law experts, is huge.

    “This is unprecedented in the family law world,” celebrity divorce lawyer Vikki Ziegler told Yahoo! Shine. “This is a landmark decision that will likely be litigated a great deal in the future in similar cases for those who feel their prenups are unconscionable.”

    So how did it happen?

    “I won it because I pretty much did it myself,” Cioffi-Petrakis told Yahoo! Shine. “I had three prior attorneys who messed up my case big-time. And I was pretty much dead in the water until I got educated.”

    To win the case, Cioffi-Petrakis had to prove in a Long Island court that her husband, commercial property developer Peter Petrakis, coerced her into signing the prenup. She claims he dropped the premarital bomb four days before their wedding day in 1998, leaving her with little time for a contractual dispute. She also told the court the agreement included promises her ex never intended to keep. Among those promises, she said, was that he would add her name to the deed of their Old Brookville home, and that he would destroy the prenup after the birth of their first child.

    “He claimed he was just protecting his business, and that his lawyers made him have a prenup,” Cioffi-Petrakis said. “And me, a naïve young girl, I believed it.” She added that she’d been with Petrakis since she was 18 years old—six years before they were married—and that she was so committed that she’d converted from Catholicism to his religion of Greek Orthodox.

    “I loved him, I trusted him and I believed in his word,” she explained.

    But when he did not put the house in her name, and when she first gave birth 12 years ago to twin boys (and then later to a daughter, now , the two began what would be come a years-long journey in and out of lawyers’ offices to contest the prenuptial agreement.

    Then finally, in January, a judge ruled in Cioffi-Petrakis’s favor, finding that she had successfully proven what is called “fraud by the inducement” in a contract. To do that, Cioffi-Petrakis explained, she presented the court with “patterns of behavior” to show that Petrakis “was not honest when he made the promises.”

    Ziegler, author of “The Pre-Marital Planner,” further explained the court’s decision to Shine. “Many couples discuss the terms of their prenups and say they will do or say things in the future that are not memorialized in writing,” she said. “However, this fraudulent inducement to buy a house, put the marital home in joint name and make other financial incentives after the parties wed appeared to sway the appellate panel who agreed to set aside the prenuptial agreement based on fraud.”

    Petrakis did not return a message left for him by Shine at one of his businesses, the One Stop Smoke Shop in Seaford, Long Island. His lavish Old Brookville home was featured in a 2010 New York Times story, “Over-the-Top Houses,” described as a “newly renovated shingle and stone farm ranch on 2.29 acres,” and equipped with a “lower-level nightclub” featuring a 24-foot onyx bar, 1,200-bottle wine cellar and a DJ booth. His chain of smoke shops, according to the New York Post, is worth “at least $5 million.”

    Cioffi-Petrakis told Shine that she (with much help from her parents) shelled out nearly $475,000 in lawyers’ fees over the years, and that her husband has paid more than $600,000. “And we haven’t even gotten to the divorce,” she said. Despite the fact that the couple have been estranged since 2010 when Petrakis first filed for divorce, the proceedings were put on hold by the court until the the prenup matter could be settled. Now the two will be able to move ahead to make their split official.

    The pressure of the case pushed her to extremes. “I almost took my own life because of the depression and stresses,” she said. “I wound up in the hospital with a nervous breakdown.”

    A positive outcome of the ordeal, though, has been Cioffi-Petrakis starting her own business, Divorce Prep Experts, a divorce-court advisement service, which has been slowly getting off the ground since 2008.

    “I’m not a lawyer, but I think I have advocated for myself better than any lawyer has,” she said. “My mission is to empower and protect anyone in this position. I know what to look out for, and I bring reputable professionals together to help.” Her company, she said, offers her clients invaluable advice and knowledge from judges, mediators, divorce coaches and child psychologists, in the hopes of saving time and money through the divorce process.

    “Divorce Prep Experts can save lives,” she said.

  6. #16
    Disputable

    A LAW EACH DAY(KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY)

    By Jose C. Sison

    (The Philippine Star) | Updated March 13, 2013 - 12:00am

    Since we consider marriage as an inviolable social institution, absolute divorce is not allowed here. But how about a foreign divorce decree, is this recognized in this jurisdiction? This is the question raised and answered in this case of Conrad and Carmen.

    Conrad was a German citizen who married Carmen, a Filipina, in Hamburg, Germany. Their marriage was subsequently ratified here in Carmen’s hometown. Out of their union were born Gina and Karla.

    Later on however, Carmen separated from Conrad. And after 16 years of rocky marriage, Carmen already filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Conrad asked that the petition be dismissed but the RTC denied it. Then he took a series of legal moves questioning the denial of his motion to dismiss all the way up to the Court of Appeals (CA) where he filed a petition for Certiorari questioning the RTC ruling.

    Meanwhile in a summary proceeding held in a German Regional Trial Court where Carmen was not present or represented by counsel or given the chance to comment, Conrad was able to obtain a decree of divorce pursuant to the German Civil Code provision declaring that when a couple lived separately for three years, the marriage is deemed irrefutably dissolved. By virtue of said decree, the parental custody of their two children was also granted to Conrad.

    So back here, when the CA denied his petition and remanded the case to the RTC, Conrad filed a Second Motion to Dismiss before the RTC on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit as a decree of divorce had already been promulgated in Germany dissolving their marriage and granting the custody of the children to him.

    Initially the RTC granted his motion and recognized the legal effects of the divorce decree obtained in Germany as far as Conrad was concerned under the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons. In fact the RTC said that under Article 26 of the Family Code Conrad and Carmen can both remarry.

    But upon Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Carmen, the RTC, partially set aside the order of dismissal for the purpose of tackling among others the issue of the support and custody of their children. Was the RTC correct?

    Yes. As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects thereof, like the custody, care and support of the children must still be determined by our courts. A foreign judgment, such as the award of custody to Conrad by the German Court can be recognized and be effective here only if the other party involved in the judgment like Carmen in this case, has been given ample opportunity to be heard. A foreign judgment in cases of actions in personam (against a person) as distinguished from actions in rem (upon a specific thing) is only a presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest. It may be rejected by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to a party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact (Rule 39, Section 48, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).

    In this case, it cannot be said that Carmen was given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German Court with regard to the right of Conrad to have custody of their two children. The proceeding was summary, Carmen’s participation is unclear and she has not been represented by counsel. It did not touch on who was the offending spouse that caused the dissolution of the marriage. Absent any finding that Carmen is unfit to have custody of the children, the RTC was correct in setting aside the order of dismissal for further hearing to resolve the issue of parental custody (Roehr vs. Rodriguez et. al. G.R. 142820, June 20, 2003)

    * * *

  7. #17
    Belmonte changes mind, divorce law not priority

    By Christian V. Esguerra

    Philippine Daily Inquirer

    2:24 am | Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

    The reproductive health law may have successfully hurdled the congressional wringer despite stubborn opposition from the Catholic Church, but another potentially divisive measure also opposed by the Church may not be as lucky in the incoming 16th Congress.

    “It’s bound to be a divisive measure and it’s not going to be prioritized,” Speaker Feliciano Belmonte said Tuesday.

    Belmonte’s lack of enthusiasm for the divorce bill was in stark contrast to the optimism he expressed soon after the House passed the RH bill last December. At the time, he said he was in favor of the divorce bill and wanted his fellow congressmen to have the measure “at the back of our minds.”

    “I want that to remain in the consciousness of the congressmen so that, at some point, we could take it up again,” he had said then.

    He had also said he believed the bill would pass the 16th Congress.

    Despite Belmonte’s apparent change of heart, party-list Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan (Gabriela) on Tuesday said she would file the divorce bill again in the next Congress, “with a few enhancements.”

    “It may be divisive from the point of view of another sector, the Catholic Church, but it may not be divisive if the people understood, if people knew where we were coming from,” she said in a phone interview.

    In the explanatory note to the divorce bill that she had filed, Ilagan pointed out that “there are many failed, unhappy marriages across all Filipino classes.”

    An antithesis to the Gabriela bill was the one filed by Marikina Rep. Marcelino Teodoro. His proposed “Anti-Divorce and Unlawful Dissolution of Marriage Act” seeks a “guarantee that no legislation encouraging or facilitating the dissolution of marriage and recognizing divorce shall be passed.”

    In the explanatory note, Teodoro said divorce would “undermine the value of marriage by encouraging couples to put an end to their relationship instead of allowing them to reconcile immediately or fix the same over time.”

    The Gabriela bill remains stuck at the committee level where it was tackled “only in passing” during discussions on a related bill filed by Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez.

    The Rodriguez bill sought to amend the Family Code and “harmonize” it with a Supreme Court ruling on “divorce obtained by the alien spouse in another country.”

  8. #18
    Bishop vows hard fight vs divorce bill in Congress

    By Jocelyn R. Uy

    Philippine Daily Inquirer

    5:30 am | Thursday, June 6th, 2013

    MANILA, Philippines—The president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines on Wednesday said the divorce bill will struggle if pushed in the next Congress.

    Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma said that just like the divisive reproductive health (RH) law, which took so many years to be passed, the other bills of the same nature, such as the divorce bill, will not come easy.

    “I think the Philippines is not that excited in following the example of other countries. We still believe that with continued prayerful evaluation and study, [the country] will not come to that,” Palma told reporters in an interview.

    Earlier, Gabriela Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan, coauthor of House Bill No. 1799, or an Act of Legalizing Divorce in the Philippines, said she was poised to refile the measure with a “few enhancements” in the 16th Congress.

    But Speaker Feliciano Belmonte said the divorce bill was bound to be a divisive measure and won’t be prioritized in the next Congress.

    The Catholic Church has stubbornly opposed the passage of the RH law, which it said undermined the value for family and life. It is also against the other so-called “death” bills proposing to legalize divorce, same-sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia.

    Palma said the Philippines, so far, was not keen on following the footsteps of other countries that have already legalized these measures.

    “As of now, we feel that a lot of our people also have a different view with it comes to such laws,” the prelate added.

  9. #19
    More couples seek to nullify marriages in cities

    By Jocelyn R. Uy

    Philippine Daily Inquirer

    1:25 am | Tuesday, June 18th, 2013

    More couples in urban centers like Metro Manila are seeking to nullify their marriages, but overall, a drop in annulment cases in the country has been observed this year, according to Archbishop Emeritus Oscar Cruz.

    Cruz, chairman of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal, estimated that the number of marriage cases that the Church had recorded for nullity had decreased over the years by at least 10 percent to 15 percent.

    “As far as our cases here are concerned, it’s less than 10 to 15 percent, but there are also cases that go directly to Rome and no longer pass us,” Cruz told reporters on Monday.

    He said the tribunal was handling not more than 100 cases every year and out of this number, only about 9 to 10 cases got an affirmative decision.

    In 2011, the Office of the Solicitor General released data showing that annulment cases had risen by 40 percent in the last 10 years, with at least 22 cases filed every day. It also reported that the number of cases had risen to 8,282 in 2010 from 4,520 in 2001.

    ‘Canonical separation’

    Cruz acknowledged that while the Church might be observing a declining trend in annulments, it could not be true with respect to the courts since those who married civilly would need to go to the courts to obtain annulments.

    He also pointed out that in order to dissolve a bond formalized in Church, a couple must not only seek to nullify their marriage in the Church but must also file an annulment in the civil court.

    To avoid the hassles of the proceedings, Cruz said, some would rather separate on their own—referred to by the Church as “canonical separation.”

    Metro Manila and Cebu

    According to Cruz, the majority of Filipino couples seeking annulments come from the urban areas, where the influences of Western countries are more present and felt than in the rural areas.

    He said among the urban centers where the number of annulment cases were still high were Metro Manila and Cebu.

    “Marriage is more difficult in an urban setting precisely because of the influence of the First World countries, which [allow] divorce and same-sex marriage, among others,” the prelate said.

    He also said couples residing in these bustling cities were more preoccupied with matters like “questions of property and support of children.”

    “They have more concerns than those who are in the rural areas,” he added.

    Cohabitation

    Cruz also noted that fewer annulment cases were being filed in the Church because many couples were opting to practice “cohabitation,” or living together without marriage.

    “It’s becoming more and more common … there are fewer cases than before precisely because of the trend that they just live together. So if they do that, they could also part whatever time they like,” Cruz said.

    But this does not mean that fewer Filipino couples are tying the knot in church, Cruz was quick to add.

    In fact, new data collected by the CBCP showed a jump in the number of couples getting married in church, he said.

    Naga weddings

    Based on the Catholic Directory of the Philippines, 186,367 couples sought the blessings of the Church from 2012 to 2013—a 12-percent increase from the 165,100 recorded in 2010 to 2011.

    The Archdiocese of Caceres in Naga City recorded the highest number of church weddings with 23,235.

  10. #20
    ^^^ When the hell is the Catholic Church in this country finally going to accept the fact that marriages, contrary to what they teach, is not a perfect union and can at times go so wrong that the only option left is total and absolute separation? Let's not talk of those who supposedly fall out of love, or other such nonsense, but actually and practical cases such as in the case of a physically abusive spouse, or a spousal lout, or a derelict spouse. Surely staying married to such a person cannot possibly be good for anybody, and upholding such a marriage cannot possibly be what God wills.

    Plus annulment, especially the Church variety, is woefully expensive, a minimum of P150,000 for starters, and could conceivably climb to a cool P1 to 2 million if you want proceedings to go a little more expeditiously (still at least half a year). Speaking of expeditious, the typical proceedings can run up to 6-7 years, and one that is contested all the way could run well over 15-20 years.

    For an institution that prides itself in its foundations of ethics and logic the Church seems not too sensible in this regard.


 
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

 
Visitor count:
Copyright © 2005 - 2013. Gameface.ph