About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of House hearing on absolute divorce (Population and Family Relations) — May 11, 2026 from ANC 24/7, published May 11, 2026. The transcript contains 11,239 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"Bill, a measure designed to rescue them from the trap of sustained human rights violations within their own marriages. Section 2 of Article 15 of the Constitution unequivocally declares that marriage, the foundation of the family, is an inviolable social institution and that shall be protected by..."
[0:00] Bill, a measure designed to rescue them from the trap of sustained human rights violations
[0:05] within their own marriages. Section 2 of Article 15 of the Constitution unequivocally declares
[0:14] that marriage, the foundation of the family, is an inviolable social institution and that
[0:21] shall be protected by the state. Divorce advocates assert that legislating divorce is a state
[0:28] protection of marriage from further dysfunctionality. Violence, abuse, and exploitation. Hence, the
[0:37] Constitution does not prohibit Congress from legalizing divorce. In fact, the framers of the
[0:44] 1987 Constitution, led by Father Joaquin Bernas, did not consider the mandate of the state to protect
[0:52] the inviolability of marriage as a bar to the enactment of a divorce law. With the Declaration
[1:00] of Policy of House Bill 655 and other divorce bills clearly states that, and I quote, while
[1:07] the state continues to protect and preserve marriage as a social institution and as a foundation
[1:14] of the family, it shall also give the opportunity to spouses in irremediably failed marriages
[1:21] to secure an absolute divorce decree as an alternative mode for the dissolution of an irreparably broken
[1:29] or dysfunctional marriage under the limited grounds and well-defined judicial procedures. Save the
[1:37] children from the pain, stress, and agony of consequent their parents' constant clashes or irreconcilable
[1:45] differences and grant the divorced spouses the right to marry again if they choose to marry again.
[1:52] It should be underscored that the salient features of the divorce bills all seek to respect, protect,
[2:00] and promote the sanctity of marriage, and these include among others. Should absolute divorce be reinstituted,
[2:08] the national government shall, through the DSWD, implement community-based prenuptial,
[2:14] conciliatory phase or cooling-off counseling and post-matrimonial programs and activities
[2:21] aimed at strengthening the marital and family life of Filipinos. A 60-day cooling-off period is mandatory
[2:30] after the filing of the petition for absolute divorce. The proper family court shall exercise
[2:36] all efforts to reunite and reconcile the concerned spouses during this period. This cooling-off period
[2:44] shall not apply in cases involving acts of violence under RA 9262 or attempt against the life of the other
[2:54] spouse or a common child or a child of the petitioner. Neither is the 60-day period required for petitions
[3:02] under summary judicial proceedings. Reconciliation may be affected during the pendency of the divorce
[3:11] proceedings or after the finality of the divorce decree. The divorce decree shall include provisions for the
[3:19] care, custody, and support of children, protection of their legitim, termination, and liquidation of the
[3:27] conjugal partnership of gains or the absolute community, and alimony for the offenders.
[3:34] Absolute divorce shall be judicially decreed after the fact of an irremediably broken marriage.
[3:43] No decree of absolute divorce shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment.
[3:50] Collusion between spouses to secure a divorce decree or one spouse coercing the other to petition for divorce
[3:58] shall be punished by five years imprisonment and a fine of 200,000 pesos.
[4:05] All these features, Mr. Chairman, honorable guests, members of the committee, all these features of the proposed divorce law show that it does not recognize no fault, quickie, drive-through, email, or notarial divorce.
[4:22] There are required reasonable and valid grounds for divorce and a petition has to go through a stringent judicial process as the re-institution of divorce is committed to the protection of the family and the sanctity of marriage.
[4:39] Divorce is an option, along with annulment of marriage, legal separation, or dissolution of marriage based on psychological incapacity under the family code.
[4:54] However, the three other options offer a legal separation.
[5:00] In legal separation, the judicially separated spouses cannot remarry, unlike in absolute divorce.
[5:06] In annulment and dissolution of marriage based on psychological incapacity, the causes must exist before or contemporaneous with the celebration of the marriage.
[5:19] While most of the grounds for divorce happen after the marriage and during cohabitation.
[5:29] Ang diborsyo ay hindi para sa lahat na may kontrata ng kasal.
[5:34] Ito ay opsyon para sa mga taong ang kanilang kasal ay naglaho na.
[5:38] Inabuso, sinaktan, inapi, pati ang mga anak ay nadadamay sa karahasan, o ang pamilya ay tuluyan ng inabanduna.
[5:47] Tungkulin po ng Estado na agaran at epektibong matugunan ang ganitong malalang sitwasyon upang mailigtas sa mga inaabuso at sinasaktan, lalong-lalo ng mga nanay at kanilang mga anak.
[6:02] Ang pagsasabatas at pagbabalik sa legal na diborsyo ay napatunayan ng maraming pananaliksik o pag-aaral bilang isang epektibong alternatiba sa naturang toxic o nakakalasong sitwasyong pambahay.
[6:17] Ayon sa mga pag-aaral, ang mga anak ng mga diborsyadong magulang ay nakakabangon sa pagkalugmok, nagiging mapagmahal at malayang nakakapagpasya at kumilos.
[6:28] Ang diborsyo ay hindi naman bago sa Pilipinas. Bago pa tayo sinakop ng Espanya, ang ating mga ninuno ay mayroon ng diborsyo.
[6:39] Mayroon ding limitadong diborsyo nung panahon ng sinakop tayo ng Estados Unidos.
[6:44] At ang mga dahilan upang mag-diborsyo ay pinalawak sa ilalim naman ng rehime ng mga Japon.
[6:50] Nang isinabatas ang civil code ng Pilipinas, inalis ang absolute divorce.
[6:57] Legal na paghihiwalay lamang ay pinatupad, maliban sa komunidad ng mga Muslim kung saan patuloy na umiiral ang ganap na diborsyo.
[7:06] Ang kasalukuyang family code ng Pilipinas naman ay kinikilala ang legal separation, annulment of marriage, and declaration of nullity basis sa psychological incapacity.
[7:19] Subalit, ang mga remedyong ito ay limitado at hindi nagbibigay ng full relief at sobrang mahal o magastos.
[7:27] At matagal ang proseso para mapa-aprobahan ang petisyon.
[7:34] Samantala po, ayon sa Section 27 ng House Bill 655 at iba pang mga panukalang batas hingil sa diborsyo,
[7:44] ang bayad sa abogado kasama ng acceptance, appearance, and success fees ay hindi hihigit sa P50,000.
[7:52] Para sa buong proceedings, magamat pwede namang mas mataas depende sa kasunduan na nagpe-petisyon at ng kanyang manananggol.
[8:01] Sa annulment, ayon sa isang abogado, tinatayang umaabot ang kabuuhang attorney's fees sa P400,000 o halos kalahating milyon at napakabagal ng proseso.
[8:15] Sa kaso naman ng naapurbado ng aplikasyon sa Court Assisted Petition na ang mga ari-arian ay hindi hihigit sa P2,500,000,
[8:25] hindi kailangan magbayad ng filing fee at iba pang bayarin sa litigasyon.
[8:30] At ang family court ay magtatalaga ng abogado para sa kanya.
[8:35] Ibig pong sabihin ito, ang kahirapan ay hindi magiging hadlang sa pagkamit ng divorce decree.
[8:44] Walang malapagong na proseso sa pagkuhan ng divorce decree.
[8:51] Dahil ayon sa panukalang batas, pakatapos ng 60 araw na cooling off period, at hindi nagkasundo ang mag-asawa,
[9:00] ang Korte ay dapat agarang simulan na ang trial o pagdinig sa petisyon ng Korte.
[9:06] At ang Korte, abay mandatong magdesisyon sa loob ng isang taon, pakalipas ng 60-day cooling off period.
[9:15] The failure of the state to reinstitute absolute divorce is a grave violation by omission or inaction of the duty bearer,
[9:26] the state of women's and children's rights.
[9:29] Two, security of person or against physical or psychological violence and threats to personal safety.
[9:37] Protection from cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment.
[9:42] Respect for human dignity and self-worth.
[9:45] and other specific rights of women and children guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and relevant international human rights instruments.
[9:55] Re-instituting absolute divorce means restoring these basic human rights to numerous Filipinos,
[10:03] generally wives, mothers, and their children.
[10:07] As lawmakers, let us not temporize in respecting, protecting, and fulfilling the rights of the victims of our failure to legislate divorce.
[10:19] As my late father, Congressman Edsel Silagman has said,
[10:25] we have to remind people that the Philippine Congress does not legislate for a particular religion alone.
[10:33] Our laws are for everyone.
[10:35] All Filipinos should be able to decide for themselves whether to get a divorce, undergo legal separation or annulment,
[10:45] or even continue to make their marriage work based on their individual situation, specific experiences, personal beliefs, and religious convictions.
[10:56] But we must remember that love, trust, and respect, which are the veritable foundation of marriage and family, are voluntary, mutual, and earned.
[11:13] And when they are lost, no amount of compulsion by custom or religion can restore their value.
[11:21] Mr. Chairman and the honorable members of the committee, Congresswoman Sarah Jane Elago is here, another author.
[11:31] But may I respectfully suggest that House Bill 655 be adopted as the working draft or template for consideration during the deliberation of the technical working group.
[11:45] This version, House Bill 655, is the same version as was approved in the 19th Congress of third and final reading.
[11:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[11:57] The chair would like to express our appreciation for the very intellectually expressed position on House Bill number 655 by the honorable
[12:28] Secretary of State to the Secretary.
[12:29] of State of State of State to the Secretary of State of State of State to the Secretary of State of State of State.
[12:35] Since the secretary of State of State, Mr. President and the想 of the Secretary of State.
[12:40] In the meantime, the chair would like to acknowledge the presence of the honorable president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of the 2nd District of Pampanga
[12:55] Ma'am, good morning, ma'am, of the 2nd District of Pampanga, and the Honorable Sarah Jane I.
[13:03] Ilago of Gabbrella, part least.
[13:10] So we'd like also to request our, yeah, the Honorable Sarah Jane Ilago is the author also
[13:23] of House Bill 4781.
[13:26] In the meantime, the Chair would like to request our Secretary to acknowledge the presence
[13:36] of our resource persons, guests, and other proponents of these different bills on absolute
[13:53] divorce.
[13:57] Good morning, Mr. Chair.
[13:58] Good morning, everyone.
[13:59] The authors of the proposed absolute divorce include Rep. JCM Avalos, Rep. Benitez, Javier
[14:13] Miguel, Rep. Antonio Tino, Rep. Renee Luisco, Deputy Minority Leader Shello Criselle Lagman,
[14:22] she is present, Rep. Kaka Bagau, Rep. Ralph Wendell Tulfo, Rep. Jocelyn P. Tulfo, Rep. Jonathan
[14:33] Kitt Flores, Rep. Sia Ur, Roman, Sia Alonto Adjong, Rep. Sara Jane Ilago, Ma'am Ilago is present,
[14:42] Rep. Francisco Barsaga, Rep. Dada Kiram Ismula, Rep. Jose Manuel Tadeo Che El Diocno, and Rep.
[14:51] Percival Percy Sendania.
[14:53] For our resource persons, guests present today, we have the representative of the DSWD, we have
[15:05] ASEC Sabaden-Assis, and Director April Ann Dizon.
[15:10] From the Office of the Solicitor General Attorney Darlene Barberabe, the representative is Solicitor
[15:21] Joseph Roman De Paquesta, and Ms. Monica Aniap. And then from the Department of Foreign Affairs,
[15:36] we have Mr. Manuel A. Ayap, and Mr. Rens Alrec R. Alinas. The legal consultant,
[15:51] Justicia Nang Tahanan, we have the spokesperson, Coalition of Christians for Change, Attorney
[15:58] Josephine, Josephette De La Cruz. And then we have from the UP Gender Law and Policy Program,
[16:07] Professor Leo Batad. From the Divorce Pilipinas Coalition, Ms. Alpa Joy Alpawafara. The National
[16:21] Commission on Indigenous Peoples, we have Attorney Shedeler Pormanes Pormanes, and Director Angelo
[16:30] Salido. From the PSA, we have Mr. Emilio Cherubin Jr., and Mr. Alexander P. Pilipinas. From the
[16:46] Philippine Commission on Women, Attorney Maria Sofia Isabela Di Castro, and Ms. Jansen Mika Fajardo.
[16:58] From the Philippine Association of Civil Registrars, we have Ms. Lucena Flores. From the Alliance of Families
[17:12] for Mental Health, Inc., we have Ms. Salit Domingo Bungalota. And then, Daligaya ng Panginoon. We have
[17:21] Attorney Lalay D. Guzman. Lastly, from the Luzon Convention of Southern Baptist Churches,
[17:29] Attorney Roger Terence P. Camua. That would be all, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
[17:42] We will now proceed with the manifestation and the support of House Bill No. 4781 by the Honorable Sarah Jane Elago. Please.
[17:57] Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, esteemed colleagues, and honored guest, good morning.
[18:07] Ang representasyon na ito mula sa Gabriela Women's Party ay nasa harap nyo ngayon upang isponsor ang House Bill No. 4781 and Act Reintroducing Divorce in the Philippines.
[18:18] Since the 11th Congress, Gabriela Women's Party has been advocating and filing a bill to allow divorce in the Philippines, recognizing the pervasiveness of domestic violence against Filipino women and their children.
[18:32] Base ho sa 2025 Philippine National Demographic and Health Survey ng Philippine Statistics Authority, 15.4% ng mga kababaihang Pilipino between the ages 15 to 49 nakaranas ng iba't ibang forma ng pisikal, sekswal, o emosyonal na abuso sa kamay ng kanilang intimate partner o asawa.
[18:53] 41% ng mga diborsyado, hiwalay, o nabyuda ng mga babae ay nakaranas ng abuso mula sa dati nilang mga asawa.
[19:01] Ang intimate partner violence ay sa pangkalahatang bumababa habang tumataas ang household wealth with 19.1% in the poorest quintile and 10.6% in the richest quintile.
[19:15] And according to the Protective Services Bureau of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, 6,883 cases of violence against women and their children were recorded and handled by the PNP from August to November 2025 alone.
[19:28] In recognition of the prevalence of domestic abuse and the limited grounds given to abused women to severe the bonds of violent marriages, this bill seeks to give an additional option to opt out of a toxic relationship.
[19:42] Ang panukalang batas na ito ay hindi pinipilit sa kahit sinuman, bagkos ito ay ipinapanukala para magbigay ng pagkakataon para sa mga nangailangan.
[19:54] The bill gives comprehensive grounds for divorce and is designed for accessibility and affordability.
[20:00] There is free legal service for court-assisted petitioners with limited finances and there is also a cap on attorney's fees.
[20:08] Depending on the ground for divorce, a summary judicial proceeding can be availed of,
[20:13] while recognition of foreign divorce or religious decree of divorce can be done through administrative proceedings.
[20:19] Expert testimony is not mandatory.
[20:22] OFWs are given priority hearing dates to expedite proceedings requiring their personal appearance.
[20:28] Ang mga provision po na ito, ng panukalang batas na ito ay hindi lamang limitado sa court proceedings.
[20:34] The bill also provides for community-based programs led by the DSWD.
[20:39] Ang pakayhon ng panukalang batas na ito ay hindi para pahinain ang institusyon ng kasal,
[20:45] bagkos nagbibigay ito ng makataong solusyon kapag ang kasal, kapag ang marriage ay nakakasama na at hindi na maaayos pa.
[20:53] The Consolidated Bill to Reintroduce Divorce in Philippine Law has been approved on third reading by the 19th Congress.
[21:00] Now for the 20th Congress, let us as lawmakers emancipate abused women from marital or domestic abuse.
[21:07] Hindi divorce ang nakakasira ng marriage, kundi ang abuso at karahas ang dinadanas ng kababaihan at ng kanilang mga anak sa kamay ng kanilang asawa.
[21:17] Maraming salamat po.
[21:19] At bukas din ang representasyon na ito sa mungkahin representative lagman na gamitin bilang working draft para sa technical working group
[21:27] kung magkakaroon man ang bill na naipasa na ng kapulungan na ito noong 19th Congress.
[21:33] Maraming salamat, Mr. Chair.
[21:34] Thank you very much, Honorable Sarah Jane Elago of Gabriela, for your very good support, reasonable support for your bill.
[21:53] We will now proceed with another author, the Honorable Dada Kiram Ismola, the author of House Bill No. 6352.
[22:10] You may now proceed, ma'am.
[22:11] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[22:14] As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.
[22:18] Mr. Chair, I am proud to sponsor Akbayan Party List House Bill No. 6352 or ang Absolute Divorce Bill.
[22:28] Bilang isang moro, kinikilala ng kultura ng mga Pilipinong Muslim ang realidad.
[22:33] Ang pagsasamang wala ng pagkalinga ay hindi pwedeng ipilit kung may kaakibat ng pagdurusa.
[22:42] Sa ilalim ng Code of Muslim Personal Laws, kaming mga Muslim ay may karapatan sa talak o fasak, mga legal na paraan ng divorce kapag may kaso ng una, neglect o kapabayaan, pangalawa, cruelty o pananakit at pang-aabuso at iba pang mga grounds.
[23:01] Kung ang mga Pilipinong Muslim ay nabibigyan ng ganitong karapatan, bakit natin ipinagkakait ang parehong proteksyon sa ating mga kababayan na hindi Muslim?
[23:14] In the same way, na if may isang Pilipino na ikinasal sa isang foreigner at nagkaroon ng valid divorce abroad, kinikilala ng Estado ng Pilipinas ang divorce at pinapayagan ang Pilipino na mag-remarry.
[23:30] Kung pinapayagan ang divorce sa mga moro at sa ilang mga Pilipinong may valid divorce abroad, bakit natin hinahayaan ang karamihan ng mga Pilipinong nakakadena sa mga abusive and harmful marriages?
[23:47] Ito ay usapin ng equal protection sa ilalim ng ating konstitusyon.
[23:52] Walang Pilipino ang dapat maging second-class citizen pagdating sa karapatang magkaroon ng bagong simula.
[24:02] Ang mga panukalang ito ay naglalayong itama ang inequality sa ating bansa sa pamamagitan ng pagtatag ng absolute divorce bilang isang legal na remedyo.
[24:14] Sa ilalim ng Pilipino na ito, kinikilala natin ang mga makatotohanang basihan para sa paghihiwalay.
[24:22] Una, limang taong consecutive years of separation.
[24:27] Pangalawa, ang pagkakaroon ng final decree ng divorce mula sa ibang bansa.
[24:33] Pangatlo, at ang seryosong kaso ng panggagahasa ng asawa laban sa kanyang kabiyak.
[24:41] Ilan rin sa mga magiging grounds ng divorce sa ilalim ng Bill na ito ay ang mga grounds ng legal separation sa ilalim ng Family Code with important clarifications.
[24:55] That physical violence need not be repeated.
[24:59] That sexual orientation alone is not a ground unless tied to infidelity.
[25:05] Higit sa lahat, binibigyang lunas natin ang mga irreconcealable marital differences o ang tuluyang pagguho ng relasyon na hindi na maaayos ng anumang pagsisikap.
[25:20] Hindi rin natin pababayaan ang mga anak.
[25:23] Ang kustudiya at suporta ay laging nakatuntong sa best interest of the child, lalo na sa mga batang wala pang pitong taon.
[25:34] At dahil ang katarungan ay hindi dapat para sa mayaman lamang tinitiyak ng Bill na ito ang access para sa indigent,
[25:44] legitant sa pamamagitan ng fee waivers, counsel de oficio, at psychosocial support services.
[25:53] Sa ating divorce bill, ang mga support orders ay immediately executory at may kapangyarihan ang korte para sa income withholding laban sa mga magulang na hindi nagbibigay ng suporta sa kanilang mga anak.
[26:10] Mr. Chair, isinusulong natin ang divorce bill dahil pinapahalagan natin ang kaligtasan at dignidad ng bawat pamilyang Pilipino.
[26:21] Sa pamamagitan ng batas na ito, binibigyan natin ng pagkakataon ng ating mga kababayan na makawala sa mga abusadong relasyon at mahanap ang tunay na kalinga para sa kanila at sa kanilang mga anak.
[26:38] Sa diwa ng katarungan at pantay na karapatan, muslim man, kristyano o anumang paniniwala, ipasa na natin ang absolute divorce bill na ito.
[26:49] Shukran, maraming salamat, assalamualaikum.
[26:57] Thank you very much, Honorable Tada Hiram Ismula.
[27:15] We'd like to acknowledge at the same time call for her manifestation and support of her bill, Honorable Renee Lewis Coe of Kabataan.
[27:32] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[27:37] Mr. Chair, I would like to deliver a short sponsorship speech if it could be placed on the record.
[27:45] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[27:47] Mr. Chair, I rise today to sponsor a bill rooted in compassion.
[27:53] It is not, as many might say it, for the destruction of families but in the defense of human dignity.
[28:02] This measure seeks to provide a long overdue legal remedy for countless Filipinos trapped in failed and irreparable marriages, the option of absolute divorce.
[28:13] Our current laws offer only incomplete solutions.
[28:18] Legal separation does not terminate the marriage.
[28:21] Annulment and declaration of nullity are restrictive, often inaccessible, and financially prohibitive, especially for the poor.
[28:29] They require proving a defect existing at the time of the wedding, ignoring a myriad of realities, violence, abandonment, incompatibility that destroy a marriage after it has begun.
[28:44] The creative, costly, and often fraudulent use of quote-unquote psychological incapacity to escape these bonds is a testament to the system's failure.
[28:54] It is a judicial fiction that underscores a simple truth.
[28:57] Our people need a clear, honest, and accessible way out.
[29:02] The social realities are stark.
[29:05] Official data show that over 14% of married women suffer physical violence from their husbands.
[29:11] The economic crisis, the labor export policy tearing families apart and often making the victim, the youth, the children of these couples,
[29:20] and the relentless pressures of daily life strain marital bonds to breaking points.
[29:26] Petition rates for nullity have more than doubled in a decade, with nearly 30 families seeking relief in our courts every single day.
[29:35] This does not account for the thousands who simply separate without legal recourse, living in limbo, or those who seek divorce through foreign courts.
[29:44] We are the last country in the world without this law, forcing our citizens into legal contortions or silent suffering.
[29:52] To clarify, this bill is not an attack on marriage.
[29:55] It is a defense on its true sanctity, which lies in the quality of the relationship and not its enforced permanence.
[30:04] It reflects our pluralistic society by adding divorce as an option alongside existing remedies.
[30:11] It is historically grounded.
[30:13] Divorce was practiced in our pre-colonial societies and was part of our legal code until 1950.
[30:19] It is constitutionally sound, as the framers of our Constitution deliberately left this matter to Congress.
[30:26] Crucially, and more importantly, this is a women's rights bill.
[30:29] It addresses the entrenched inequality where women bear the blame for marital failure and are expected to sacrifice endlessly.
[30:38] It provides a clear escape for victims of violence and abuse.
[30:42] It includes provisions for economic support to mitigate the poverty that often follows marital breakdown for women and children.
[30:51] Colleagues, this is a proposal that is a product of decades of study, advocacy, and lived experience gathered by women's organizations like Gabriela and the Gabriela Women's Party.
[31:02] And of course, by youth organizations that also document the suffering felt by children, by the youth.
[31:10] It has been refined through numerous Congresses.
[31:12] Its passage is a step forward aligning our laws with the fundamental principles of human rights, equality, and the pursuit of happiness.
[31:20] Of course, all this will still be paired with and prioritized with the different economic solutions that address the root causes of white couples in the first place.
[31:32] Even though they had a relationship that was established at the start of marriage, begin to break down.
[31:39] But nonetheless, we have to face the reality that women, that there are still victims of abuse trapped in these marriages.
[31:46] And we have to provide them a legal solution.
[31:49] I urge my fellow legislators to look beyond what the stereotypes and what the narratives against this provide.
[31:59] But look instead at the data, the stories, and the silent desperation of our communities.
[32:05] Let us provide a humane and legal path to peace within our families.
[32:10] Let us pass this bill.
[32:12] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[32:15] Thank you very much, Princess Renee.
[32:21] We will now proceed with the acknowledgement of the presence and the manifestation of the Honorable Tony L. Tinio of Act Teachers Party List.
[32:45] Maraming salamat, Chair.
[32:48] Ito po ang aking sponsorship bilang author ng House Bill 210.
[32:55] Panahon na para kilalanin ang masakit na realidad ng mga bigong pagsasama sa ating lipunan.
[33:04] Isinusulong ng House Bill 210 ang Absolute Divorce Act bilang makatao at makatarungang solusyon para sa mga Pilipinong nakapiit sa mga bigong pagsasama.
[33:19] Itinuturing na pro-women ang panukalang ito dahil pinalalayan nito ang kapabaihan mula sa siklo ng karahasan, pangaabuso, at patriarkal na opresyon sa loob ng tahanan.
[33:35] Nakaugat ang maraming mga problema sa pamilya sa malupit na kalagayang sosyo-ekonomiko tulad ng sapilitang pangingibang bayan ng mga OFW at tumitinding kahirapan na sumisira sa ugnayan ng mag-asawa.
[33:55] Pinapaboran lamang ng kasalukuyang sistema ng annulment ang mayayaman at may kakayahang magbayad ng mahal na abugado habang nananatiling nakagapos ang masang maralita sa mga dysfunctional na pagsasama.
[34:14] Tinitiyak ng diborsyo ang pantay na karapatan sa harap ng batas at nagbibigay ng proteksyon sa mga anak mula sa psikologikal na trauma ng palagiang pag-aaway ng mga magulang.
[34:31] Hindi pagsira sa institusyon ng kasal ang layuni natin, kundi ang pagkilala sa dignidad ng bawat indibidwal na nagnanais ng bagong simula at tunay na kaligtasan.
[34:46] Marapat lamang naaprubahan ang batas na ito upang wakasan ang napakatagal ng pagdurusa ng libu-libong mga pamilyang Pilipino.
[34:59] Maraming salamat, Mr. Chair.
[35:00] Thank you very much, distinguished colleague, Honorable Antonio Tinho, back teachers for the well-expressed support of this bill.
[35:16] So, we'll now proceed with hearing on our resource speakers.
[35:30] I would like to hear the comment and manifestation of Attorney Maria Noche.
[35:41] Mayroon ba? Nandiyan ba si Attorney? Okay, ma'am.
[35:49] Good morning, Mr. Chair.
[35:50] I am here po in behalf of Attorney Maria Concepcion Noche and in behalf of the Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines.
[35:57] And we would like to say to the record our manifestation.
[36:02] To the Honorable Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, and guests, good morning.
[36:10] Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, or ALFI, does not nearly oppose divorce.
[36:16] ALFI recognizes the real suffering of spouses trapped in abusive, dysfunctional, or reparably broken marriages.
[36:27] ALFI supports strong state intervention to protect victims and children.
[36:33] However, ALFI maintains that absolute divorce is neither necessary nor constitutional,
[36:41] and that the Philippine can address marital breakdown without redefining marriage as dissoluble.
[36:46] The 1987 Constitution provides explicit guidance.
[36:52] Under Article 2, Section 12, the state recognizes the sanctity of family life.
[36:58] And Article 15, Section 2, marriage is an inviolable social institution.
[37:04] The framers' use of inviolable means never to be broken or dishonored.
[37:08] The Supreme Court consistently affirms this in numerous cases, declaring marriage legally inviolable and protected from dissolution at whim of the parties.
[37:20] The Family Code echoes this permanence, defining marriage as a special contract of permanent union.
[37:27] Any law introducing absolute divorce contradicts the constitution's mandate to protect the permanence and indissolubility of marriage.
[37:38] Social sciences evidence on harm of divorce.
[37:41] Decades of global research show that divorce harms children, weakens families, and does not improve adult well-being.
[37:49] Effects on children, only 17% maintain frequent contact with their fathers or mothers.
[37:56] Boys from divorced families show poorer educational outcomes and higher criminal involvement.
[38:04] Children of divorce are twice as likely to experience emotional or behavioral problems.
[38:09] 40% of young adults from divorced families require psychological help and higher risk of stroke, smoking, stress-related diseases.
[38:20] Girls face earlier sexual activity and higher risk of early pregnancy.
[38:25] Effects on future relationship.
[38:27] Adult children of divorce are 40% more likely to divorce if both spouses come from divorced families and the risk rises to up to 200%.
[38:38] 80% fear their own marriages will fail and 72% struggle to maintain close relationships.
[38:46] The landmark study, does divorce make people happy found?
[38:51] Divorce does not reduce depression or increase self-esteem.
[38:54] Two out of three unhappy marriages became happy within five years without divorce.
[38:59] If legalized, global patterns suggest 25% of Philippine marriages may end in divorce.
[39:07] Over 100,000 divorces annually with generational consequences.
[39:14] Alfie affirms, no one should remain in a dangerous or abusive situation.
[39:20] Victims must be protected swiftly and decisively.
[39:25] Children must be shielded from harm.
[39:28] But Alfie distinguishes between protecting individuals and redefining marriage as dissolvable.
[39:34] The first is a moral and constitutional duty, and the second is harmful and unconstitutional.
[39:42] Philippine law already provides legal separation, annulment, declaration of nullity, protection orders like the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act, criminal prosecution, custody, and support enforcement.
[39:57] The problem is not the absence of remedies, but costs, delay, inaccessibility, weak enforcement.
[40:08] Many marriages seeking divorce are actually void from the start.
[40:13] Many failed marriages stem from total lack of consent, making them void ab initio.
[40:19] These require expanded nullity grounds, not divorce.
[40:24] Legalizing divorce weakens commitment norms and destabilizes future generations.
[40:31] Alfie's policy alternatives, not divorce.
[40:35] Strengthen legal and protective mechanisms.
[40:38] Faster protection orders.
[40:40] Stronger voucher enforcement.
[40:43] Expanded shelter and legal aid.
[40:46] Reform annulment and nullity procedures.
[40:49] Broaden the grounds for nullity because many failed marriages stem from total lack of consent, not mere defective consent.
[40:58] Simplify and reduce costs.
[41:01] Strengthen family courts.
[41:03] Mandatory family intervention systems.
[41:06] Counseling, mediation, addiction recovery, behavioral therapy.
[41:12] National marriage and family formation programs.
[41:15] Primarital formation, marriage enrichment, parenting education.
[41:21] And lastly, community-based support structures.
[41:25] Barangay family centers, survivor support, and rehabilitation programs.
[41:31] Alfie's position is not rooted in opposition for its own sake.
[41:36] It is rooted in compassion, constitutionality, fidelity, and social science evidence.
[41:44] True compassion protects the vulnerable without normalizing the dissolution of families.
[41:51] Alfie stands ready to collaborate with policymakers in crafting reforms that protect victims,
[41:58] address marital breakdowns, strengthen families, and uphold marriage as a permanent, inviolable social institution.
[42:06] Thank you so much, and good morning, everyone.
[42:09] Thank you very much, ma'am.
[42:15] We would like to acknowledge the presence of the Honorable Representative Jonathan Keith T. Flores
[42:25] of the 2nd District of Bokidnon, author of House Bill No. 3693.
[42:35] Okay, so we will now proceed with the comment, manifestation of the Honorable Secretary Rex Gatsalyan
[42:49] of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
[43:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, other members of the committee,
[43:06] fellow public officials, and members of the private sectors.
[43:14] Magandang umaga po sa inyo lahat.
[43:16] Well, it's obvious that I am not Secretary Rex Gatsalyan.
[43:22] I am Assistant Secretary Sebedin Aziz, who will represent him.
[43:28] If you allow me, Mr. Chair, I will just read our position, for fair.
[43:33] Please proceed.
[43:39] The DEWD adheres to the state fallacy that recognizes the Philippine family as the nation's foundation.
[43:47] The state has the responsibility to strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.
[43:59] The family, being the foundation of the nation, is the basic social institution and public fallacies,
[44:08] jerseys, and protects.
[44:09] Further, we observe that marriage, as an inviolable society institution,
[44:17] it is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state.
[44:25] However, the DEWD, as the lead agency for social protection,
[44:33] shall not turn a blind eye when families no longer provide a loving and nurturing environment for its members,
[44:42] especially to the most vulnerable, such as women and children.
[44:49] Filled and toxic marriages, abusive relationships,
[44:55] and circumstances of physical, sexual, mental, and emotional violence,
[45:01] especially against women and children,
[45:04] are constant issues within family homes that we do not tolerate as a society.
[45:10] Does intervention be made to protect their best interests?
[45:17] Having read that, Mr. Chair, we have specific issues on the bill.
[45:21] If you would allow me.
[45:23] Yes, I will.
[45:24] In short, I will just scan it.
[45:27] One of the issues is on the measure that DOJ should be the leading agency instead of the DEWD.
[45:44] While the DEWD supports social welfare, counseling, psychosocial and family supports components of the proposed measures,
[45:57] the Department respectfully submits that the Department of Justice may be more appropriate
[46:04] as the lead implementing agency for the absolute divorce act because it involves dissolution of marital status,
[46:15] adjudication of legal rights and obligations, judicial proceedings, property relations, custody and orders,
[46:25] enforcement mechanism, and interpretation and implementation of substantive and procedural law.
[46:33] These functions are inherently legal and judicial in nature and therefore hold more directly within demanded technical expertise
[46:45] and institutional function of the Department of Justice.
[46:52] We also suggest, Mr. Chair, that the definition of best interests of the side as defined under implementing rules
[47:03] and regulation of RA 934 as amended in RA number 1630 should be included.
[47:12] Now, with respect to the cooling period of 60 days, we suggest that it should be 120 days to ensure that ample time is given
[47:30] for intervention to provide the spouses.
[47:36] The proposed extension of the mandatory cooling period from 60 days to 120 days,
[47:43] seeks to ensure the spouses are afforded adequate time to undergo meaningful psychosocial intervention,
[47:50] counseling, mediation, family support services that may help address conflict and facilitate information decision.
[47:58] Provided, however, that the cooling period shall not apply or may be weaved in cases involving domestic violence,
[48:06] abuse, abuse, coercion, or situation where continued contact between spouses may endanger the physical, psychological,
[48:17] or emotional well-being of either spouse or children.
[48:22] We have also, we also have other specific concerns, Mr. Chairman.
[48:39] We suggest that on the funding, Mr. Chairman, generally the proposed bill insertion of funding provision constitutes a critical element
[48:50] in ensuring the effective implementation of the envision programs.
[48:55] Under the proposed bill, the DSWD shall implement community-based prenuptial reconciliatory piece of calling-off counseling
[49:05] and post-matrimonial program and activities aim at strengthening the marital and family life Filipinas.
[49:13] Presently, the DSWD is tasked to provide technical assistance to local government units on marriage counseling
[49:22] training and accreditation of marriage counselor in collaboration with the national government agencies.
[49:28] While we support the implementation of the community-based programs is a significant challenge
[49:33] versus in the form of a shortage of permanent social workers qualified to train and assist in program implementation.
[49:42] Further, ensuring the competency of marriage counselors requires a comprehensive training program
[49:51] with additional funding, so we suggest that all agencies involved should be also contribute to the funding.
[50:05] There are still other messages here, but that's for the meantime, and we will just submit our position official official paper.
[50:13] Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
[50:15] Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary.
[50:19] We will now hear the comment and manifestation before we proceed.
[50:25] We'd like to acknowledge the arrival of our colleague, the Honorable Representative Bienvenido M. Abante, Jr.,
[50:36] of the 6th District, City of Manila.
[50:38] Yes, sir.
[50:39] Thank you.
[50:40] Okay.
[50:40] We'll now proceed with the Department of Justice.
[50:46] Okay, Department of Foreign Affairs.
[51:01] Your Honor, the Department of Foreign Affairs will submit to the Honorable Committee its position,
[51:16] but right now, I would like to share that the role of the Department of Foreign Affairs with regard to divorces,
[51:25] this foreign decree of divorce granted abroad, is to assist our kababayans in obtaining proof of authenticated divorce decrees.
[51:42] So, after mag-grant itong divorce decree,
[51:45] ang next step po diyan is judicial recognition of foreign decree of divorce.
[51:50] So, ang kailangan po nilang gawin is to get an attestation from the legal custodian of the copy of the law.
[52:09] So, pwede po yan sa publisher ng law dun sa abroad or legislative libraries.
[52:19] Yun pong duly authorized officer of that office would issue an attestation certificate.
[52:27] And this attestation certificate, para po dun sa mga countries na parties to the Apostle Convention,
[52:37] needs to be apostilled by that issuing government.
[52:44] Ano ba yung meaning ng apostil?
[52:47] Apostil po, dito po sa apostil, ang sinasabi po dito,
[52:50] na kinikilala ng gobyerno ng nag-issue ng dokumento na yung nakapirma sa attestation ay siyang may karapatang magpatunay na totoo yung copy.
[53:04] So, sinasabi lang po na itong nakapirma ay totoong ito ang kanyang posisyon at yung kanyang sinasabi dun sa kanyang pinarmahan ay nasa kanyang kapangyarihan na sabihin.
[53:14] So, for countries which are not parties to the Apostle Convention,
[53:20] the attested copy will have to be taken to the embassy or the consulate,
[53:25] where our consuls will issue a certification that will authenticate the signature of the officer who issued the attestation.
[53:34] And then this will be considered by the courts.
[53:36] Okay, marami salamat po, sir.
[53:37] Okay, let's proceed with the...
[53:48] Okay, merong kwan dito na the committee request that copies of your position papers for all of us,
[53:56] comments, be furnished to the committee secretariat for proper reference and inclusion
[54:03] in the crafting of the substitute bill.
[54:08] We will now proceed with the Department of Migrant Workers.
[54:23] Wala?
[54:25] Oh, sige.
[54:34] Okay.
[54:34] Okay, I will now proceed with si Mr. Salidaw.
[54:47] Please state your name and the organization you represent, sir.
[54:54] Yes, good morning to the honorable members of the committee,
[54:58] mga kapwa mga gagawa sa gobyerno,
[55:01] at yung mga kapatid na CSOs in a non-government organization.
[55:07] Sa Pilipinas po ay meron pong 222 ethno-linguistic group,
[55:17] na kung saan meron silang sarili-sarili mga customary law and practices.
[55:23] Base doon sa kwento ng mga matatanda,
[55:26] bago pa magkaroon ng isa,
[55:28] bago pa darating yung mga manarkaw sa ating bansa,
[55:32] ay meron ng mga kanilang mga kaugalian about doon sa legal separation and divorce.
[55:43] At sa ngayon, may mga kinakasal base sa customary laws.
[55:51] At meron din mga katutubo na kinakasal base doon sa Pamilukod natin at Sobler-Himnasium by D-Church.
[55:57] Yung mga kinakasal base sa customary law ay hindi na dumadaan sa legal proceeding.
[56:06] Pag-uusapan lang dyan yung mga matatanda at sila na ay malayang mag-asawa.
[56:12] Pero yung mga kinakasal base sa Pamilukod at Batas ay kailangan pang dumaan sa proseso
[56:21] para maanal yung kanilang kasal, magkaroon ng legal separation,
[56:27] at ngayon ay magkaroon ng divorce.
[56:29] So sa amin, sa National Commission on Indigenous Peoples,
[56:34] sa amin, we are aligned with the customary law and practices ng mga katutubo
[56:41] na sana pag maipasa man itong divorce na ito,
[56:45] law na ito ay marespeto sana yung mga kaugalian ng mga kapatid natin ng katutubo.
[56:52] The NCIP will submit its culture-sensitive comments and recommendations
[56:58] of this Honorable Committee, maybe on or before Friday.
[57:06] Maraming salamat po.
[57:07] Maraming salamat po, Mr. Salidaw,
[57:22] Salidaw of the Indigenous Peoples Organization.
[57:29] We'll now proceed with Professor Leo Batat
[57:34] of the UP Gender Law and Policy Program.
[57:38] Proceed, sir.
[57:40] Good morning, Chair Mercado and all the Honorable Representatives.
[57:46] The Gender Law and Policy Program of the UP Law Center
[57:52] strongly supports all the legislative initiatives for the passage of divorce law.
[57:59] That's six.
[58:00] To advance the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution
[58:05] and the principles and international human rights instruments
[58:09] of which the Philippines is a party.
[58:13] The legislation in divorce that is secular in purpose,
[58:18] that is, that it is non-discriminatory and therefore caters to all Filipinos,
[58:25] should be passed.
[58:27] It is long overdue.
[58:28] No less than the Supreme Court in Republic v. Manalo
[58:33] recognizes that the constitutionally entrenched state policy
[58:38] in favor of marriage as an inviolable social institution
[58:42] and the foundation of the family
[58:45] should not be read in total isolation from other constitutional provisions.
[58:52] It notes that apart from strengthening the solidarity of the Filipino family,
[58:57] the state is equally mandated to promote its total,
[59:01] total, may we underscore, total development.
[59:06] This mandate, this mandate includes, among others,
[59:10] the obligation to safeguard the inalienable rights of all members of the family,
[59:17] ensure the fundamental equality before the law of men and women,
[59:22] and defend the children from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation,
[59:28] and other conditions prejudicial to their development.
[59:33] The status of our current laws, disallowing divorce,
[59:38] is a viable option in broken and often abusive marriages,
[59:43] and therefore, the non-passage of this is in itself a dereliction of these obligations under the Constitution.
[59:54] More importantly, the absence of divorce law
[59:57] is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of international human rights law.
[1:00:03] As a state signatory of this international human rights treaty,
[1:00:08] such as SIDO, the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
[1:00:14] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
[1:00:17] the International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights,
[1:00:22] the Philippines is under legal obligation to provide the widest possible protection and assistance to families.
[1:00:30] Such obligation necessarily includes allowing married spouses trapped in irremediably broken marriages
[1:00:39] to break free and start anew.
[1:00:42] While our laws describe marriage as an inviolable social institution and a permanent union,
[1:00:50] the state, and I quote, the dissenting opinion of Senior Associate Justice Leonin
[1:00:58] in the case of Malilin v. Hamil Solamin,
[1:01:03] the state cannot insist on such permanence and inviolability per se
[1:01:08] under the pretense of its constitutional mandate to protect the existence of every marriage.
[1:01:16] Close quote.
[1:01:17] The Family Code provides that the purpose of entering into marriage
[1:01:21] is the establishment of conjugal and family life.
[1:01:25] Verily, and I quote,
[1:01:28] the state's interest in protecting the marriage must anchor on ensuring a sound conjugal union
[1:01:35] capable of maintaining a healthy environment for a family,
[1:01:39] resulting in a more permanent union.
[1:01:42] The state's interest cannot extend to forcing two individuals to stay within a destructive marriage.
[1:01:50] Close quote.
[1:01:51] Under the current state of affairs, however,
[1:01:54] the family life, self-growth, and overall well-being of married couples
[1:02:00] in irremediably broken marriages
[1:02:05] are severely deterred by being forced to stay in such unions,
[1:02:10] even to the detriment of the children.
[1:02:13] The obligation of the state to strengthen the solidarity of the family entails ending destructive and unfulfilling marital unions.
[1:02:24] It does not contemplate forcing irreparably broken family structures.
[1:02:30] Toward this end, the UP GLPP highlights the following concerns addressed by the bills
[1:02:40] and implores for their inclusion in the draft substitute bill.
[1:02:44] Number one, inclusion of international human rights principles in the declared policy,
[1:02:51] which has been identified in some of the bills, but not all of the bills.
[1:02:57] Number two, clarification that absolute divorce may only be judicially decreed
[1:03:03] based on grounds that existed after the celebration of a valid marriage,
[1:03:08] which was recognized in House Bill 6352.
[1:03:11] Number three, declaration that the Absolute Divorce Act shall not be construed as permitting any form of discrimination
[1:03:20] on the basis of age, racial, or ethnic origin, religious belief, and the like,
[1:03:27] which was recognized in House Bill 6352.
[1:03:32] Clarification that lesbianism and homosexuality is not a ground per se,
[1:03:37] which is also in House Bill 6352.
[1:03:40] And number five, recognition of the effect of marriages nullified or dissolved
[1:03:45] by the proper canonical tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church
[1:03:49] or any other recognized religious sect or denomination,
[1:03:54] particular those recognized under the indigenous cultural communities.
[1:04:01] And number six, availability of safeguards such as protection orders,
[1:04:07] even without a separate action under Republic Act 9262,
[1:04:11] which is recognized in House Bill 4995.
[1:04:16] And finally, the UP GLPP proposes the following concerns to be taken into consideration.
[1:04:22] Number one, the definition of the best interest of the child.
[1:04:27] Number two, provisions taking into account the indigenous cultural community
[1:04:32] or indigenous peoples in the Philippines.
[1:04:35] Number three, clarification of the factors of indigency
[1:04:40] that is not only limited to ownership of real property
[1:04:44] because we have a proposed amendment here.
[1:04:47] Number four, providing OFWs with the option to conduct hearing online.
[1:04:53] Because under the proposed bill, they only have the priority.
[1:04:56] And number five, and this is very important,
[1:04:59] expansion of community-based programs to include post-divorce
[1:05:04] so that the family will be able to adjust,
[1:05:08] particularly the children will be able to adjust accordingly.
[1:05:12] Hence, the UP GLPP, in partnership with the various policy experts,
[1:05:18] lawyers, women's advocates, stakeholders, and other organizations that we consulted,
[1:05:24] strongly urges the 20th Congress to immediately pass the divorce bill.
[1:05:29] We have attached the GLPP's proposed amendments.
[1:05:32] Some of them have already been incorporated in the existing substituted bill,
[1:05:38] if I'm not mistaken, so we respectfully submit our position paper
[1:05:42] together with our proposed formulated amendments.
[1:05:45] Thank you very much, Chair Mercado.
[1:05:58] Very much, Professor.
[1:06:00] We'll now hear the position of the Philippine Association of Civil Registrars.
[1:06:13] Honorable Chairman Mercado, honorable authors of the House bills, good morning.
[1:06:17] We, the local civil registrars throughout the Philippines, thank you.
[1:06:23] Thank the committee for having us today.
[1:06:27] As one of the implementing arm of the laws of this law went past,
[1:06:35] we give our commitment and our readiness,
[1:06:39] as in the implementation of annulment and legal separation decrees, as we do now.
[1:06:44] Rest assured that we will faithfully implement any and all decisions issued by regular courts,
[1:06:51] particularly the registration of the court decrees,
[1:06:55] the annotation of the marriage certificates affected thereby.
[1:07:00] Excuse me, ma'am, with due respect.
[1:07:04] The committee, on behalf of the committee,
[1:07:10] we would like to know kasi kayo yung nandun sa ground kung anong mga maritis tungkol sa divorce,
[1:07:21] kung anong feeling, what's the, what's the, what's on the ground?
[1:07:27] Please help us.
[1:07:28] As local civil registrars,
[1:07:31] we have to look into the registration of so many illegitimate children,
[1:07:35] now, whose parents are not married
[1:07:39] because they are either born from subsequent union without benefit of marriage
[1:07:45] because of, because the previous marriage was not dissolved
[1:07:49] due to tedious, expensive processes
[1:07:53] or that their parents continue to live together
[1:07:57] without being legit,
[1:07:59] the children are not being legitimated in accordance with law
[1:08:03] because of the existence of a legal impediment
[1:08:06] which is the non-dissolution of a previous marriage.
[1:08:11] So yun po, napakadami pong nare-reistrong mga illegitimate children
[1:08:15] because they could have been children born of a subsequent marriage
[1:08:21] that has, whose parents are, had a previous marriage that was never dissolved.
[1:08:28] So yun po yung nakikita po namin isang rason kung bakit
[1:08:33] because couples would just go ahead and live with another person
[1:08:39] without a benefit of marriage
[1:08:42] because they cannot contract the subsequent marriage
[1:08:44] because there is a legal impediment.
[1:08:47] Yun po yung aming,
[1:08:48] although we are, we would like to have some more observations.
[1:08:55] Observation and position paper to our committee secretary.
[1:09:00] Yes, Mr. Chair.
[1:09:01] Thank you very much.
[1:09:02] Thank you, ma'am.
[1:09:02] We'll now proceed with the National Council of Churches in the Philippines.
[1:09:20] Jesus is the Lord Church worldwide.
[1:09:27] Yes, ma'am.
[1:09:28] Attorney Paniera, please proceed.
[1:09:31] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:09:34] Good morning to everyone.
[1:09:36] Sanlang, ma'am.
[1:09:38] Paniera.
[1:09:38] Mr. Chair, as one of the lawyers of the Jesus is Lord Church worldwide,
[1:09:49] may we respectfully present our position,
[1:09:52] although we will also submit to the Honorable Committee
[1:09:54] a full-length position paper
[1:09:56] on the measures under consideration before the Honorable Committee.
[1:10:00] So let me now deliver the key points of our position paper.
[1:10:04] Mr. Chair, we firmly believe that any legislation
[1:10:07] which affects the institutions of marriage and family
[1:10:11] must be compliant with our constitution,
[1:10:15] the 1987 constitution.
[1:10:17] And we have Article 15, Section 1 of our constitution
[1:10:22] that says the state recognizes the Filipino family
[1:10:26] as the foundation of the nation.
[1:10:28] Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity
[1:10:30] and actively promote its total development.
[1:10:34] We would like also to include Article 15, Section 2,
[1:10:37] that says marriage as an inviolable social institution
[1:10:41] is the foundation of the family
[1:10:43] and shall be protected by the state.
[1:10:45] And thirdly, we would like also to include Article 2, Section 13,
[1:10:50] as basis, the state recognizes the vital role of the youth
[1:10:54] in nation-building and shall promote and protect
[1:10:57] their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being.
[1:11:01] With this, for the JL Church worldwide,
[1:11:06] Ang tanong po natin, matutupad po ba ang mga
[1:11:09] nasabi po natin na provisions ng ating panukalang batas
[1:11:13] sa mga, sa pamigitan po ng mga proposed absolute divorce act measures?
[1:11:21] Mr. Chair, sinuri po namin ang epekto ng paghihiwalay na mag-asawa
[1:11:25] na siyang magiging resulta ng panukalang absolute divorce
[1:11:28] sa tatlong aspeto.
[1:11:30] Una, ano po ang epekto sa mag-asawa, lalo na po sa babae?
[1:11:34] Ano po, pangalawa, ano po ang epekto sa mga anak?
[1:11:38] At of course, ano po ang epekto sa institution mismo ng marriage o kasal
[1:11:42] sa ating lipunan?
[1:11:44] At unahin ko po ang epekto sa paghihiwalay na isasawang babae?
[1:11:48] So, we have empirical evidence which we also cite in our position paper
[1:11:55] but with the constraint of time.
[1:11:57] I will just say that there are evidence to show that divorce
[1:12:02] generally impacts the women with significant financial hardship
[1:12:06] which include reduced household income coming from one spouse only
[1:12:13] and a higher risk of poverty alongside with intense emotional stress
[1:12:18] such as anxiety, depression, and social isolation.
[1:12:22] We based our stand on some key findings.
[1:12:28] Number one, in jurisdictions or in countries where divorce is allowed
[1:12:34] divorce results to reduced income for the woman and for the family.
[1:12:39] Women are strongly disadvantaged in terms of losses in household income
[1:12:44] and associated increases in the risk of poverty after divorce.
[1:12:49] Moreover, the disproportionate losses in women in terms of economic status
[1:12:54] are proved to be permanent.
[1:12:56] Taken together, the findings suggest that the disproportionate strain of divorce on men
[1:13:02] has proven transient whereas in women it is chronic.
[1:13:08] Also, divorced women and children experience more social isolation
[1:13:11] which makes them end up producing greater feelings of loneliness, unhappiness,
[1:13:16] and lower self-esteem.
[1:13:18] Also, divorced women are less physically safer than married women
[1:13:23] are more likely to be physically safer.
[1:13:25] We are basing our research on, of course, in jurisdictions where divorce is allowed.
[1:13:32] For us, under the present situation of our nation,
[1:13:37] we have laws and we also have available remedies for women and for spouses
[1:13:44] which are in troubled marriages, Mr. Chair.
[1:13:47] So, another one is that divorce puts women or the wives in a more disadvantageous position
[1:13:54] than their situation prior to the divorce.
[1:13:58] Secondly, the effect of the divorce on the children.
[1:14:03] Again, there are studies that compared children living in divorced single-parent families
[1:14:10] with children living in continuously intact families on measures of well-being.
[1:14:16] And this shows that children with divorced parents continue to score significantly
[1:14:21] and we would like to say or to use the word lower on measures of academic achievement,
[1:14:28] conduct, psychological adjustment, self-concept, and social relations.
[1:14:33] And according to these studies, it was found out, number one,
[1:14:38] that the child loses time with each parent.
[1:14:42] Parents may not have such time as much emotional strength and time to invest in parenting.
[1:14:47] Number two, this also affects the economic security of the children.
[1:14:52] Number three, that security also includes not only economic aspect but also emotional.
[1:14:58] Number four, the children have decreased social and psychological maturation
[1:15:05] because children of divorced parents have lower scores on self-concept
[1:15:09] or healthy self-concept and social relations.
[1:15:12] Number five, the children change their outlook on sexual behavior
[1:15:18] and this will contribute to increased approval of premarital sex cohabitation
[1:15:24] and likewise future divorce on their part.
[1:15:28] Number six, the child loses his or her religious faith and practice
[1:15:33] following the divorce of the parents.
[1:15:36] Number seven, children living with married parents are less likely to be abused or neglected
[1:15:41] as part of the study on the family structure and children's health in the United States.
[1:15:47] Mr. Chair, to sum up, we will show that empirical evidence strongly shows
[1:15:54] that divorce adversely impacts the well-being of children, not only the wife.
[1:15:57] And we believe that this measure will not only affect troubled marriages.
[1:16:05] The proposed divorce bills will also affect happy marriages.
[1:16:11] And also this proposed bill, if passed, will reduce the motivation for couples
[1:16:18] to resolve conflicts with all they can instead of encouraging each spouse
[1:16:28] to walk away from broken but flexible marriages or fixable marriages.
[1:16:34] That's weakening the solidarity of family as the basic units of our country.
[1:16:41] And we also would like to add that in case of divorced parents,
[1:16:51] there is a finding that their children will also succumb to divorce in their future relationships.
[1:17:00] In other words, divorce begets divorce.
[1:17:03] Children of divorced parents are in significant risk of having their own marriages end up in divorce.
[1:17:09] Simply put, parental divorce is one of the best documented risk factors
[1:17:13] for the future marriage dissolution of children.
[1:17:19] And there is a study on that.
[1:17:20] We will also present it in our paper.
[1:17:23] So to sum it up, Mr. Chair, divorce bills as sought today
[1:17:27] will adversely affect the welfare of women, children, and the institution of marriage itself.
[1:17:34] For us, it is not compliant with the constitutional mandates that we have mentioned.
[1:17:40] And on that note, an enabling law on divorce will be patently unconstitutional.
[1:17:45] To enact a divorce law will not promise troubled spouses with what they are longing for,
[1:17:53] happiness, quote-unquote, or liberation, quote-unquote,
[1:17:57] but it will definitely produce generation of broken children
[1:18:00] and as well as disadvantaged women.
[1:18:04] We should count and weigh the costs.
[1:18:06] We should ask, is it really worth it to enact a divorce law
[1:18:09] when there are already available remedies which need to be strengthened
[1:18:14] or which need to be revisited?
[1:18:18] We would like to quote the Bible in Malachi 2.16,
[1:18:23] wherein the Lord said,
[1:18:24] I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel,
[1:18:28] because the man who divorces his wife covers his garment with violence.
[1:18:32] We believe this is not just a moral imperative,
[1:18:35] but a divine revelation that must be a compass for policy direction,
[1:18:40] like improving the remedies which I've mentioned a while ago
[1:18:42] under the present system that we have.
[1:18:48] We must also be careful to emphasize that our current legal framework
[1:18:50] is not without remedy for impossible marriages.
[1:18:55] So we have Article 35, 36,
[1:19:00] and other provisions on the Declaration of Knowledge of Marriage.
[1:19:03] We also have the Annulment of Marriage under Article 45,
[1:19:06] and also the provisions on legal separation
[1:19:09] when the grounds will support.
[1:19:12] So these remedies are available to a spouse who is suffering
[1:19:18] from any one of those mentioned in the Proposed Divorce Act, Mr. Chair.
[1:19:26] With this, we thank you for hearing or listening to our papers,
[1:19:30] and God bless us all.
[1:19:33] Thank you very much, ma'am.
[1:19:35] We'll now proceed with Ms. Cecilia Carmine-Huico
[1:19:39] of the Divorce Philippines Now.
[1:19:44] Thank you very much, ma'am.
[1:20:32] The Divorce Law in the Philippines has faced a challenging path
[1:20:36] through the halls of Congress.
[1:20:38] Despite the persistent advocacy of our group,
[1:20:43] Divorce for the Philippines Now,
[1:20:45] international stakeholders for 12 years,
[1:20:48] yes, for 12 years,
[1:20:50] the legislative process has seen significant hurdles.
[1:20:55] Noong 17th Congress,
[1:20:57] the House representative took a historic step.
[1:21:01] It is a historical milestone by approving the divorce bill.
[1:21:06] However, the movement stalled as no corresponding Senate bill
[1:21:12] was filed to meet it.
[1:21:14] Noong 18th Congress, progress continued,
[1:21:17] but was ultimately hindered by the COVID-19 pandemic.
[1:21:23] The 19th Congress, most recently,
[1:21:28] while the bill achieved approval in the House,
[1:21:31] led by the late Congressman Edsel Lagman,
[1:21:36] it faced another standstill in the upper House
[1:21:39] as the Senate did not calendar
[1:21:42] the measure for plenary discussion.
[1:21:44] Bakit po, bakit po, bakit po hindi na naikalandar
[1:21:50] yung divorce bill natin na ipumasa dito sa House of Representatives
[1:21:55] at hindi na italakay sa Senate
[1:21:59] kasi po, pinag-aawayan nila yung word na
[1:22:03] divorce ba or dissolution ang gagamitin.
[1:22:07] So, ngayong 20th Congress,
[1:22:10] ito po yung aming unified call for justice
[1:22:13] in the 20th Congress.
[1:22:16] We, the undersigned advocates,
[1:22:18] lobbyists, and activists
[1:22:20] stand united in our call
[1:22:23] for the passage of a law
[1:22:24] that will finally recognize the right of Filipinos
[1:22:28] to exceed harmful, irreparable marriages
[1:22:33] with dignity, protection, and legal clarity.
[1:22:38] Whether the final language of the bill
[1:22:40] refers to dissolution of marriage
[1:22:42] or absolute divorce,
[1:22:46] we affirm the name is negotiable,
[1:22:49] the justice is not.
[1:22:51] What matters is that
[1:22:53] this 20th Congress delivers
[1:22:55] what decades of survivors
[1:22:58] women's rights advocates,
[1:23:00] including Dr. Florence Tadjar,
[1:23:04] who helped me draft
[1:23:06] this manifestation and position paper,
[1:23:09] and legal reformers have demanded
[1:23:12] a law that ends forced entrapment
[1:23:15] in abusive, loveless, or dead marriages.
[1:23:21] We support the passage of comprehensive,
[1:23:26] accessible, and rights-based divorce law
[1:23:29] in the 20th Congress.
[1:23:30] We are open to the use
[1:23:32] either the term
[1:23:35] dissolution of marriage or divorce.
[1:23:38] Kung dito sa House of Representatives,
[1:23:40] divorce law ang gusto nila,
[1:23:43] sa Senate, dissolution of marriage.
[1:23:46] As long as the law
[1:23:47] protects survivors of abuse and neglect,
[1:23:51] ensures due process and safeguards
[1:23:54] against misuse,
[1:23:55] affirms the right to rebuild life
[1:23:58] with dignity.
[1:23:59] This is not about destroying families.
[1:24:03] It is about freeing those
[1:24:05] already destroyed by violence,
[1:24:09] abandonment,
[1:24:10] and irreconcilable harm.
[1:24:12] So our call to all the legislators,
[1:24:15] we urge our lawmakers,
[1:24:18] do not let semantics stall justice.
[1:24:21] Do not let another Congress pass
[1:24:23] without delivering this long overdue reform.
[1:24:27] Pass the divorce law now.
[1:24:30] We do not care what you choose to call it,
[1:24:33] divorce or dissolution.
[1:24:35] For decades,
[1:24:36] the legislators have played with semantics,
[1:24:39] while survivors remain trapped.
[1:24:41] This is not a game.
[1:24:43] This is justice delayed.
[1:24:46] This is dignity denied.
[1:24:48] Stop debating the name.
[1:24:49] Stop delivering the law.
[1:24:52] Start delivering the law.
[1:24:54] We are done waiting.
[1:24:56] We are done watching families suffer
[1:24:59] while Congress stalls.
[1:25:01] Let it pass now.
[1:25:03] Whether you call it dissolution of marriage
[1:25:05] or absolute divorce,
[1:25:07] what matters is freedom,
[1:25:09] healing,
[1:25:10] and the right to rebuild.
[1:25:13] Annulment is not in the Bible.
[1:25:15] Take note.
[1:25:16] Hindi niyo po mababasa ang annulment na salita sa Biblia.
[1:25:22] Dissolution of marriage is not even in the Bible.
[1:25:26] But that's what some legislators prefer.
[1:25:31] Terms that sound sanitized.
[1:25:33] Point of order, Madam Chair.
[1:25:35] Yes, Mr. Chair.
[1:25:36] Point of order.
[1:25:37] Point of order.
[1:25:38] I do not want the source speaker
[1:25:41] to mention the Bible here.
[1:25:44] We talk about divorce.
[1:25:45] Talk about divorce.
[1:25:46] Don't mention the Bible.
[1:25:49] Okay.
[1:25:50] Noted.
[1:25:51] Fine.
[1:25:52] Let's use our words.
[1:25:54] Call it dissolution
[1:25:55] if it helps you sleep at night.
[1:25:58] But let it be clear.
[1:26:00] Divorce should be passed now.
[1:26:04] It was named.
[1:26:05] It was practiced.
[1:26:06] It was acknowledged
[1:26:07] during an immemorial time.
[1:26:11] So if you want to legislate
[1:26:13] with scripture in mind,
[1:26:17] then stop pretending divorce is unholy.
[1:26:20] What's unholy is trapping people
[1:26:22] in violence, betrayal,
[1:26:24] and abandonment.
[1:26:26] Pass the law.
[1:26:28] Call it what you want,
[1:26:30] but pass it.
[1:26:31] Because freedom is sacred
[1:26:32] and healing is holy.
[1:26:34] So to end our manifestation,
[1:26:44] some people treat divorce
[1:26:45] like the ultimate sin
[1:26:47] and abuse like an inconvenience
[1:26:49] to pray through.
[1:26:52] They warn about broken covenants
[1:26:54] while ignoring broken bones,
[1:26:57] broken minds,
[1:26:58] and broken spirits.
[1:26:59] They preach forgiveness
[1:27:01] to the victim
[1:27:02] and patience toward the abuser.
[1:27:04] as far too often
[1:27:06] they send people
[1:27:07] back into the fire,
[1:27:08] back into the homes
[1:27:09] where fear lives,
[1:27:12] back into marriages
[1:27:13] where control tightens.
[1:27:16] People die this way.
[1:27:18] Addressing our concerns
[1:27:22] in the Absolute Divorce Act,
[1:27:24] I rise today,
[1:27:26] not just as the founder
[1:27:27] of Divorce for the Philippines,
[1:27:29] but also a defender
[1:27:30] of human rights,
[1:27:32] especially of women
[1:27:33] who have long suffered
[1:27:34] in silence.
[1:27:35] As we deliberate
[1:27:36] on the Absolute Divorce Act,
[1:27:38] we inevitably encounter
[1:27:41] a sensitive issue,
[1:27:43] which is the religion.
[1:27:44] Let me be clear,
[1:27:45] the bill does not seek
[1:27:47] to undermine anyone's faith.
[1:27:49] What it upholds
[1:27:51] is a fundamental principle
[1:27:53] enshrined in our Constitution,
[1:27:56] the separation of church
[1:27:57] and state.
[1:27:58] This is not a religious bill.
[1:28:00] It is a social,
[1:28:01] familial,
[1:28:02] and human rights bill.
[1:28:04] This law is not mandatory.
[1:28:07] It does not force anyone
[1:28:08] to divorce,
[1:28:10] but for women and men
[1:28:12] who have been abandoned,
[1:28:14] abused,
[1:28:14] and silenced by the system,
[1:28:16] it offers a door to dignity,
[1:28:19] an option.
[1:28:21] Shouldn't we be given
[1:28:22] that choice?
[1:28:23] Isn't it our duty
[1:28:25] as human and civil rights defenders?
[1:28:28] To protect our rights,
[1:28:29] to live free from harm?
[1:28:32] Even Catholic majority countries
[1:28:34] like Italy, Spain,
[1:28:35] and Ireland
[1:28:36] have divorce laws.
[1:28:38] They preserve their faith,
[1:28:39] but they did not sacrifice
[1:28:41] the rights of their citizens.
[1:28:43] We can do the same.
[1:28:44] This is not fight against religion.
[1:28:46] It is a fight against silence,
[1:28:49] against suffering,
[1:28:50] against injustice.
[1:28:51] So in our interpellation,
[1:28:54] we urge our Christian brothers
[1:28:57] and sisters,
[1:28:59] let us center human
[1:29:00] and civil rights
[1:29:02] in this conversation.
[1:29:04] Let us respect faith,
[1:29:06] but let us not allow it
[1:29:08] to block a law
[1:29:09] that will save lives.
[1:29:10] Remember,
[1:29:11] our God is not just
[1:29:13] a Catholic God,
[1:29:14] but a God
[1:29:15] to all humankind.
[1:29:17] Thank you.
[1:29:19] Okay,
[1:29:20] thank you very much.
[1:29:22] With due respect
[1:29:25] to our invited guests
[1:29:28] and organizations
[1:29:33] due to lack of material time,
[1:29:42] we will proceed
[1:29:45] and hear three more,
[1:29:48] and then we will schedule
[1:29:52] another public hearing
[1:29:55] so that all our guests
[1:29:58] who took time
[1:30:00] and effort to come here
[1:30:02] should be afforded
[1:30:04] their time
[1:30:07] to be acknowledged
[1:30:10] and heard.
[1:30:12] So the chair would like
[1:30:14] to call on the Iglesia ni Cristo.
[1:30:23] I would like to request
[1:31:02] that I be given a chance
[1:31:04] to make a manifestation here
[1:31:06] because I still have
[1:31:07] a meeting to attend to,
[1:31:09] and I will be moving
[1:31:10] later on
[1:31:11] that we continue on
[1:31:12] this debate
[1:31:14] on the divorce bill.
[1:31:16] Okay,
[1:31:17] please proceed
[1:31:18] with your manifestation.
[1:31:21] Thank you,
[1:31:21] Mr. Chair.
[1:31:23] Maraming salamat po,
[1:31:24] at maraming salamat din naman
[1:31:25] sa ating mga
[1:31:26] resource speakers
[1:31:28] that came.
[1:31:29] Whether you,
[1:31:30] you know,
[1:31:31] you support
[1:31:33] the divorce bill
[1:31:34] or not,
[1:31:35] I'm so glad
[1:31:36] that you came
[1:31:36] and to be able
[1:31:37] to give your comment
[1:31:42] and your statement
[1:31:46] to the committee.
[1:31:48] I would like to request,
[1:31:49] Mr. Chair,
[1:31:51] that all of these comments
[1:31:52] and statements
[1:31:53] be given to the committee
[1:31:55] so that we could be able
[1:31:57] to understand more
[1:32:01] of what you're trying to say.
[1:32:03] But let me remind,
[1:32:05] let me remind you
[1:32:07] that even if the Bible
[1:32:11] does not speak of annulment,
[1:32:13] it speaks of divorce.
[1:32:15] There is divorce
[1:32:16] in the Bible.
[1:32:21] There is divorce
[1:32:22] in the Old Testament.
[1:32:24] The Lord Jesus Christ
[1:32:25] mentioned divorce
[1:32:26] in the New Testament.
[1:32:29] All right?
[1:32:30] And secondly,
[1:32:32] Mr. Chair,
[1:32:34] you do not blame
[1:32:35] the system
[1:32:36] as far as
[1:32:38] the abuses
[1:32:40] being done
[1:32:40] in marriage.
[1:32:42] Who do you blame?
[1:32:45] You blame the one
[1:32:45] that got married.
[1:32:48] This is attitude,
[1:32:51] Mr. Chair.
[1:32:52] This is not the system.
[1:32:54] It is not the government.
[1:32:57] It is not even Congress.
[1:32:59] It is the attitude
[1:33:01] of those that get married
[1:33:03] that we ought to blame.
[1:33:07] You do not blame us
[1:33:08] for this.
[1:33:09] You tell us of
[1:33:10] 12 years
[1:33:12] of not acting on this.
[1:33:14] Well,
[1:33:16] that is the machinery
[1:33:17] of what democracy is.
[1:33:21] But let me remind each one,
[1:33:23] I have been a bishop
[1:33:24] for 50 years.
[1:33:26] I know what is happening.
[1:33:27] I have been in Congress
[1:33:29] here for more than 15 years,
[1:33:32] just like my colleague here.
[1:33:36] You know,
[1:33:37] na alam natin
[1:33:39] ang attitude
[1:33:40] ng tao.
[1:33:42] Kinakailangan,
[1:33:43] kinanating maigi,
[1:33:46] attitude
[1:33:46] ang simula dito.
[1:33:48] I have been married
[1:33:49] for 48 years
[1:33:50] and no marriage
[1:33:53] is made in heaven.
[1:33:55] All marriages
[1:33:56] are made on earth.
[1:33:59] Love
[1:33:59] is not impulsive
[1:34:01] and love
[1:34:01] is not emotional.
[1:34:02] Love is a responsibility.
[1:34:04] it means that
[1:34:06] if you love a person,
[1:34:07] you are responsible
[1:34:08] enough to preserve marriage
[1:34:10] and to preserve that love.
[1:34:13] You see?
[1:34:14] No.
[1:34:15] I do not have any problem,
[1:34:17] Mr. Chair,
[1:34:18] with the divorce bill.
[1:34:20] Wala kong problema ron eh.
[1:34:22] Ang problema ko,
[1:34:24] we have more laws
[1:34:25] that destroy marriages
[1:34:27] than laws
[1:34:28] that protect them.
[1:34:30] For example,
[1:34:32] meron tayong
[1:34:32] annulment of marriage.
[1:34:34] Meron tayong
[1:34:35] narrative of marriage.
[1:34:37] Meron tayong
[1:34:37] legal separation.
[1:34:39] Ano ang batas
[1:34:40] na nagawa natin
[1:34:42] to protect marriages?
[1:34:45] You see?
[1:34:47] Now,
[1:34:47] wala kong problema
[1:34:49] sa divorce bill.
[1:34:50] Ito ang gawin natin.
[1:34:52] Tanggalin natin
[1:34:53] yung annulment,
[1:34:55] ipalit ang divorce.
[1:34:56] Pero kung hayaan natin
[1:34:58] madagdagan pa
[1:34:59] ng divorce bill,
[1:35:01] meron tayong annulment
[1:35:03] Aba,
[1:35:04] eh terrible,
[1:35:04] may ibagdebate ko dito.
[1:35:07] Why?
[1:35:08] Because the laws
[1:35:09] are made
[1:35:10] to protect people,
[1:35:14] not to destroy men
[1:35:15] and women.
[1:35:18] I just would like
[1:35:19] to remind each one here.
[1:35:21] Oo.
[1:35:21] And may nagsabi dito kanina
[1:35:24] that divorce is
[1:35:26] purely secular.
[1:35:30] We cannot separate.
[1:35:31] We cannot separate
[1:35:34] the religious conviction
[1:35:36] of people
[1:35:36] as far as marriage
[1:35:38] is concerned.
[1:35:39] You cannot separate that.
[1:35:42] Why?
[1:35:43] Sapagkat karamihan
[1:35:44] ng pag-aasawa
[1:35:45] ginagawa sa mga simbahan.
[1:35:50] Karamihan
[1:35:50] ng pag-aasawa
[1:35:52] ginagawa sa mga simbahan.
[1:35:55] Churches pa rin yan.
[1:35:57] Hindi yan
[1:35:58] courts.
[1:36:00] Hindi yan
[1:36:01] mayor's office.
[1:36:03] Hindi yan
[1:36:03] president's office.
[1:36:06] You see?
[1:36:07] Pinahintulot lang
[1:36:08] ng Diyos.
[1:36:09] Aniniwala kayong
[1:36:10] lahat sa Diyos,
[1:36:10] di ba?
[1:36:12] Oo.
[1:36:13] Pinahintulot ng Diyos.
[1:36:14] Inordinahan
[1:36:15] ng Diyos
[1:36:16] ang gobyerno
[1:36:17] para bigyan
[1:36:19] ng authority
[1:36:19] sa pag-aasawa.
[1:36:22] Kaya meron tayong
[1:36:23] civil
[1:36:24] marriages.
[1:36:27] You see?
[1:36:27] Meron tayong
[1:36:28] tinatawag na
[1:36:29] civil registry.
[1:36:31] Ano ba
[1:36:31] ang gawain
[1:36:32] ng civil registry?
[1:36:34] It is
[1:36:34] to register
[1:36:36] marriages
[1:36:37] so that
[1:36:38] so that
[1:36:39] kung meron
[1:36:40] mang
[1:36:41] nagkamali dyan
[1:36:42] at nagkasala
[1:36:43] sa batas,
[1:36:44] eh malalaman natin.
[1:36:45] Pero the
[1:36:47] civil registry
[1:36:47] office
[1:36:48] does not
[1:36:49] in any way
[1:36:50] try
[1:36:51] to give
[1:36:53] authority
[1:36:53] for any man
[1:36:54] to get married.
[1:36:56] Kaya binabanggit ko
[1:36:57] palagi ito
[1:36:58] attitude to, eh.
[1:37:00] So hindi nyo
[1:37:00] kinakailangan
[1:37:01] ng sabihin
[1:37:02] that this is
[1:37:03] even
[1:37:04] a violation
[1:37:06] of human rights.
[1:37:09] Mr. Chair,
[1:37:10] I am the chairman
[1:37:11] of the
[1:37:12] Committee of Human Rights.
[1:37:14] And I am against
[1:37:15] all forms
[1:37:16] of discrimination.
[1:37:18] Alam ko,
[1:37:19] Mr. Chair,
[1:37:20] na merong
[1:37:22] mga
[1:37:22] marriages
[1:37:24] na dapat
[1:37:25] talaga
[1:37:25] nating
[1:37:26] i-dissolve.
[1:37:28] Eka nga.
[1:37:29] Why?
[1:37:30] Because of
[1:37:31] some
[1:37:32] bad
[1:37:33] attitude
[1:37:33] of people.
[1:37:35] Pero kinakailangan
[1:37:36] malaman din
[1:37:36] ng bawat isa
[1:37:37] na nagsimula
[1:37:39] ito sa kasalanan.
[1:37:41] Kasalanan
[1:37:42] ng tao.
[1:37:43] Yan ang
[1:37:43] simula niyan.
[1:37:45] Huwag nating
[1:37:46] i-bblame
[1:37:46] ang gobyerno
[1:37:47] dito.
[1:37:49] Ang simula
[1:37:50] niyan,
[1:37:50] kasalanan.
[1:37:51] But the thing
[1:37:52] is this.
[1:37:54] The thing
[1:37:54] is this.
[1:37:55] I am more
[1:37:56] agreeable
[1:37:57] Mr. Chair
[1:37:58] that we
[1:38:00] counsel
[1:38:00] with
[1:38:01] marriages
[1:38:02] that seem
[1:38:04] to be
[1:38:05] broken
[1:38:05] than try
[1:38:06] to make
[1:38:07] laws
[1:38:07] to break
[1:38:08] marriages.
[1:38:10] As I've
[1:38:11] said,
[1:38:11] and I will
[1:38:12] say again,
[1:38:13] nakita ko
[1:38:14] po dito,
[1:38:15] mga kaibigan
[1:38:16] ko pa
[1:38:16] itong mga
[1:38:17] nag-file
[1:38:17] ng bill
[1:38:18] on divorce.
[1:38:19] Wala po
[1:38:20] akong
[1:38:20] problema
[1:38:20] dito.
[1:38:21] Ang
[1:38:22] problema
[1:38:22] ko,
[1:38:23] ito,
[1:38:24] tanggalin
[1:38:25] natin
[1:38:25] yung
[1:38:25] annulment.
[1:38:28] I-polit
[1:38:28] mo
[1:38:28] on
[1:38:29] divorce.
[1:38:30] Kung
[1:38:30] ayaw
[1:38:30] nyo,
[1:38:31] tanong
[1:38:31] ko,
[1:38:32] bakit
[1:38:32] ayaw
[1:38:32] nyo?
[1:38:33] Bakit
[1:38:34] gusto
[1:38:34] nyo
[1:38:35] annulment,
[1:38:36] pati
[1:38:36] divorce,
[1:38:36] gusto
[1:38:36] nyo?
[1:38:37] Pati
[1:38:38] legal
[1:38:38] separation,
[1:38:39] gusto
[1:38:39] nyo?
[1:38:41] Yun ang
[1:38:42] tanong
[1:38:42] ko,
[1:38:43] Mr.
[1:38:43] Chair.
[1:38:44] Hindi
[1:38:45] pwede
[1:38:45] na
[1:38:46] lalagay
[1:38:47] mo yung
[1:38:47] annulment
[1:38:48] dyan,
[1:38:49] annulment
[1:38:50] dyan,
[1:38:50] parang
[1:38:51] hindi
[1:38:51] nag-asawa
[1:38:51] yung
[1:38:52] tao,
[1:38:53] samantalang
[1:38:53] nag-asawa,
[1:38:54] maglalagay
[1:38:55] ka ng
[1:38:55] divorce,
[1:38:56] na kinikilala
[1:38:57] din,
[1:38:58] nag-asawa
[1:38:58] yung
[1:38:59] tao,
[1:38:59] kaya
[1:39:00] lang,
[1:39:00] you
[1:39:00] dissolve
[1:39:01] the
[1:39:01] marriage.
[1:39:02] You see,
[1:39:04] yun po
[1:39:04] ang nais
[1:39:05] kong sabihin
[1:39:06] dito
[1:39:06] ngayon,
[1:39:07] Mr.
[1:39:07] Chair.
[1:39:08] Once again,
[1:39:09] I want to
[1:39:10] say this,
[1:39:11] I cannot
[1:39:12] agree
[1:39:13] that there
[1:39:15] ought to
[1:39:15] be annulment
[1:39:16] and there
[1:39:17] ought to
[1:39:17] be divorce
[1:39:18] at the
[1:39:19] same time.
[1:39:20] Yung lang po,
[1:39:21] Mr. Chair,
[1:39:21] marami marami
[1:39:22] salamat.
[1:39:23] And I would
[1:39:24] like to make
[1:39:24] a motion
[1:39:25] that we
[1:39:26] again have
[1:39:27] a committee
[1:39:28] hearing on
[1:39:28] this,
[1:39:29] and I would
[1:39:30] like to
[1:39:30] join,
[1:39:32] I would
[1:39:32] like to
[1:39:33] join the
[1:39:33] arguments,
[1:39:35] I would
[1:39:35] like to
[1:39:35] join the
[1:39:36] debate,
[1:39:37] and Mr.
[1:39:38] Chair,
[1:39:39] I am not
[1:39:39] afraid to
[1:39:40] debate with
[1:39:40] any one of
[1:39:41] you when
[1:39:42] it comes
[1:39:43] to divorce.
[1:39:44] Kahit
[1:39:45] sa plenary,
[1:39:47] itidibati
[1:39:48] natin yan.
[1:39:50] Why?
[1:39:51] Because I
[1:39:52] really would
[1:39:52] like to
[1:39:53] preserve
[1:39:53] marriages
[1:39:54] more than
[1:39:55] breaking
[1:39:55] them.
[1:39:57] May mga
[1:39:57] pagkakataon
[1:39:58] talaga
[1:39:58] na dapat
[1:40:00] ng turuan.
[1:40:00] May mga
[1:40:01] batas tayo,
[1:40:01] Mr.
[1:40:02] Chair.
[1:40:03] May batas
[1:40:03] tayo
[1:40:04] doon sa
[1:40:05] tao
[1:40:05] na ginugulpi
[1:40:06] ang asawa.
[1:40:07] May batas
[1:40:08] tayo
[1:40:08] sa mga
[1:40:09] children.
[1:40:09] May batas
[1:40:10] tayo
[1:40:10] to
[1:40:10] preserve.
[1:40:12] May batas
[1:40:13] tayo
[1:40:14] to
[1:40:14] prevent
[1:40:15] any
[1:40:16] kind
[1:40:17] of
[1:40:17] violence
[1:40:18] in the
[1:40:19] home.
[1:40:20] May
[1:40:20] tayo
[1:40:21] mga
[1:40:21] batas.
[1:40:23] Yun lang
[1:40:23] ang gusto
[1:40:24] kong
[1:40:24] sabihin,
[1:40:24] Mr.
[1:40:25] Chair,
[1:40:25] sapagkat
[1:40:25] Luca,
[1:40:26] as I've
[1:40:27] said
[1:40:28] again,
[1:40:28] and I
[1:40:28] will
[1:40:29] say
[1:40:29] again,
[1:40:30] I
[1:40:30] am
[1:40:31] not
[1:40:31] against
[1:40:32] divorce.
[1:40:33] But
[1:40:35] let's
[1:40:36] talk
[1:40:36] about
[1:40:37] divorce.
[1:40:38] When
[1:40:38] the
[1:40:40] annulment
[1:40:40] of
[1:40:40] marriage,
[1:40:41] thank you.
[1:40:42] Thank you very much.
[1:40:44] Honorable
[1:40:44] Benito M.
[1:40:46] Abante Jr.
[1:40:48] We will
[1:40:49] adjourn.
[1:40:57] Mr.
[1:40:58] I want
[1:40:58] to find
[1:40:59] out
[1:40:59] about
[1:40:59] my
[1:40:59] motion
[1:41:00] if
[1:41:00] my
[1:41:01] colleagues
[1:41:02] agree
[1:41:02] with
[1:41:02] that.
[1:41:04] Mr.
[1:41:05] Chair,
[1:41:05] just an
[1:41:05] inquiry.
[1:41:07] How many
[1:41:08] more
[1:41:08] resource
[1:41:08] speakers
[1:41:09] have
[1:41:09] we
[1:41:09] invited
[1:41:10] who
[1:41:10] have
[1:41:11] not
[1:41:11] spoken
[1:41:11] today?
[1:41:12] More
[1:41:17] than
[1:41:18] 20?
[1:41:20] Yes,
[1:41:24] the
[1:41:25] Honorable
[1:41:25] Sarah
[1:41:25] has
[1:41:26] asked,
[1:41:26] sino
[1:41:26] pa
[1:41:27] ba
[1:41:27] ang
[1:41:27] hindi
[1:41:27] natatawag?
[1:41:28] Kasi
[1:41:29] ang
[1:41:29] sabi
[1:41:29] ni
[1:41:29] Chairman,
[1:41:31] dalawa
[1:41:31] na
[1:41:31] lang
[1:41:32] daw
[1:41:32] ang
[1:41:32] tatawagin.
[1:41:33] So
[1:41:33] kasi
[1:41:34] kanina
[1:41:34] may
[1:41:34] mga
[1:41:34] tinawag
[1:41:35] na
[1:41:35] wala
[1:41:35] naman
[1:41:36] dito.
[1:41:37] Okay?
[1:41:38] So
[1:41:38] ilan
[1:41:38] pa
[1:41:38] ba
[1:41:39] ang
[1:41:39] So
[1:41:41] we
[1:41:41] have
[1:41:42] PLCPD,
[1:41:44] we
[1:41:44] have
[1:41:45] the
[1:41:45] Philippine
[1:41:45] Social
[1:41:50] Conservatives,
[1:41:52] we
[1:41:52] have
[1:41:52] the
[1:41:53] divorce.
[1:41:55] Mama,
[1:41:56] Mama,
[1:41:57] Secretariat,
[1:41:58] kindly
[1:41:58] assist
[1:41:59] us
[1:41:59] para
[1:42:00] makita
[1:42:00] natin
[1:42:01] kung
[1:42:01] yeah.
[1:42:06] Ito
[1:42:06] pa,
[1:42:06] may
[1:42:06] 21 pa.
[1:42:07] Sarah,
[1:42:09] may
[1:42:09] 21 pa
[1:42:09] daw.
[1:42:14] Okay,
[1:42:14] the
[1:42:14] chair
[1:42:15] would
[1:42:15] like
[1:42:15] to
[1:42:16] manifest
[1:42:19] that
[1:42:20] due
[1:42:22] to
[1:42:22] a
[1:42:22] very
[1:42:22] important
[1:42:23] matter
[1:42:24] that
[1:42:25] we
[1:42:25] will
[1:42:25] be
[1:42:25] discussing
[1:42:26] today,
[1:42:27] the
[1:42:27] impeachment,
[1:42:30] much
[1:42:31] as
[1:42:31] we
[1:42:31] would
[1:42:31] like
[1:42:32] to
[1:42:32] hear
[1:42:32] all
[1:42:33] of
[1:42:33] you
[1:42:33] because
[1:42:33] you
[1:42:34] are
[1:42:34] very
[1:42:34] interested.
[1:42:37] You
[1:42:37] raise
[1:42:37] your
[1:42:37] hands.
[1:42:39] Dami pa
[1:42:40] talaga.
[1:42:41] So
[1:42:41] we
[1:42:41] will
[1:42:42] differ
[1:42:44] muna
[1:42:44] in the
[1:42:44] meantime
[1:42:45] and
[1:42:47] then
[1:42:47] send
[1:42:48] notification
[1:42:49] to
[1:42:50] all
[1:42:51] of
[1:42:51] you,
[1:42:52] especially
[1:42:52] those
[1:42:52] who
[1:42:53] have
[1:42:53] not
[1:42:53] made
[1:42:54] any
[1:42:55] manifestation
[1:42:55] and
[1:42:56] comment
[1:42:56] to
[1:42:57] these
[1:42:57] bills
[1:42:58] filed
[1:42:59] for
[1:43:00] the
[1:43:00] continuation
[1:43:01] of
[1:43:01] the
[1:43:02] deliberation
[1:43:02] of
[1:43:05] the
[1:43:05] Absolute
[1:43:06] Divorce
[1:43:07] Act.
[1:43:09] Okay?
[1:43:10] Okay
[1:43:10] ba
[1:43:10] sa inyo?
[1:43:12] Please,
[1:43:12] with
[1:43:14] your
[1:43:14] consideration
[1:43:16] and
[1:43:16] understanding,
[1:43:18] pwede
[1:43:18] ba pumunta
[1:43:19] kayo
[1:43:19] dito
[1:43:19] next
[1:43:20] time?
[1:43:22] Okay?
[1:43:24] Mr.
[1:43:24] Chairman,
[1:43:25] since our
[1:43:28] invited
[1:43:28] guests
[1:43:29] are all
[1:43:29] here,
[1:43:30] and I
[1:43:30] think
[1:43:30] they
[1:43:30] are
[1:43:30] prepared
[1:43:31] to
[1:43:31] submit
[1:43:32] their
[1:43:32] position
[1:43:32] papers,
[1:43:33] as one
[1:43:34] of
[1:43:34] the
[1:43:34] authors
[1:43:34] of
[1:43:35] the
[1:43:35] divorce
[1:43:35] bill,
[1:43:36] I'd
[1:43:36] like
[1:43:37] to
[1:43:37] find
[1:43:38] out
[1:43:38] what
[1:43:38] their
[1:43:40] stand
[1:43:40] is
[1:43:41] regarding
[1:43:42] this
[1:43:42] matter.
[1:43:43] If
[1:43:43] they
[1:43:43] are
[1:43:43] already
[1:43:44] ready
[1:43:44] to
[1:43:45] submit
[1:43:45] it
[1:43:45] to
[1:43:45] the
[1:43:46] committee,
[1:43:47] then
[1:43:47] I
[1:43:47] would
[1:43:47] appreciate
[1:43:48] so
[1:43:48] much
[1:43:49] a
[1:43:49] copy
[1:43:49] of
[1:43:50] their
[1:43:50] position
[1:43:51] papers,
[1:43:52] as
[1:43:52] well
[1:43:52] as
[1:43:52] those
[1:43:53] who
[1:43:53] were
[1:43:54] given
[1:43:54] a
[1:43:54] chance
[1:43:55] to
[1:43:55] speak
[1:43:56] earlier.
[1:44:02] One
[1:44:02] minute
[1:44:02] suspension.
[1:45:03] The
[1:45:03] hearing
[1:45:04] is
[1:45:05] resumed.
[1:45:07] Honorable
[1:45:09] Lagman
[1:45:11] is
[1:45:11] recognized.
[1:45:12] Thank
[1:45:12] you so
[1:45:13] much,
[1:45:13] Mr.
[1:45:13] Chairman.
[1:45:14] You
[1:45:15] are
[1:45:15] very
[1:45:15] wise
[1:45:16] to
[1:45:17] suspend
[1:45:17] it
[1:45:18] and
[1:45:18] then
[1:45:19] talk
[1:45:19] to
[1:45:19] the
[1:45:19] members
[1:45:19] who
[1:45:20] are
[1:45:20] present.
[1:45:21] And
[1:45:21] we
[1:45:21] are
[1:45:22] in
[1:45:22] agreement
[1:45:24] that
[1:45:25] at
[1:45:26] this
[1:45:26] point,
[1:45:27] since
[1:45:27] the
[1:45:27] measure
[1:45:28] has
[1:45:28] been
[1:45:28] thoroughly
[1:45:29] deliberated
[1:45:30] upon
[1:45:31] and
[1:45:31] the
[1:45:31] members
[1:45:32] here,
[1:45:33] our
[1:45:33] invited
[1:45:34] guests
[1:45:34] are
[1:45:35] ready
[1:45:35] to
[1:45:35] submit
[1:45:36] their
[1:45:36] proposals,
[1:45:38] then
[1:45:38] we
[1:45:38] can
[1:45:39] now
[1:45:41] conduct
[1:45:42] a
[1:45:43] technical
[1:45:43] working
[1:45:43] group
[1:45:44] to
[1:45:44] thresh
[1:45:45] out
[1:45:45] the
[1:45:45] differences
[1:45:46] between
[1:45:47] the
[1:45:47] proposed
[1:45:48] measures,
[1:45:49] have
[1:45:50] our
[1:45:50] resource
[1:45:51] persons
[1:45:51] submit
[1:45:52] their
[1:45:52] position
[1:45:53] papers,
[1:45:54] and
[1:45:54] use
[1:45:55] as a
[1:45:56] template
[1:45:56] or a
[1:45:56] working
[1:45:57] draft
[1:45:57] the
[1:45:58] 19th
[1:45:59] Congress
[1:46:00] version
[1:46:01] of the
[1:46:02] bill,
[1:46:03] which
[1:46:03] was
[1:46:03] approved
[1:46:04] in
[1:46:04] third
[1:46:04] and
[1:46:05] final
[1:46:05] reading.
[1:46:06] I
[1:46:06] so
[1:46:07] move
[1:46:07] that
[1:46:07] we
[1:46:08] convene
[1:46:09] a
[1:46:10] technical
[1:46:10] working
[1:46:11] group
[1:46:11] for
[1:46:11] this
[1:46:11] matter.
[1:46:12] Second
[1:46:12] the
[1:46:13] motion.
[1:46:14] Mr.
[1:46:14] Chair.
[1:46:15] Okay,
[1:46:15] it's been
[1:46:15] moved and
[1:46:16] seconded
[1:46:17] that
[1:46:18] our
[1:46:19] committee
[1:46:19] will
[1:46:20] form
[1:46:21] a
[1:46:21] technical
[1:46:22] working
[1:46:23] group
[1:46:23] for
[1:46:25] the
[1:46:25] absolute
[1:46:25] divorce
[1:46:26] bills
[1:46:27] filed.
[1:46:29] There
[1:46:29] any
[1:46:29] objection?
[1:46:31] There
[1:46:32] being
[1:46:32] none,
[1:46:33] the
[1:46:33] motion
[1:46:34] of the
[1:46:34] honorable
[1:46:35] Lagman
[1:46:36] is
[1:46:36] approved.
[1:46:39] So
[1:46:39] we
[1:46:40] will
[1:46:40] now
[1:46:41] with
[1:46:42] your
[1:46:43] understanding
[1:46:45] and
[1:46:46] consideration
[1:46:47] adjourn
[1:46:50] this
[1:46:51] public
[1:46:52] hearing.