(via PhilStar.com) In his first categorical statement regarding marital relationships, President Aquino – a 50-year-old bachelor – declared yesterday that he favors legal separation over divorce, which he said is a “no-no.”

“My own personal position at this point is that a study will have to be made. Divorce is a no-no, but in legal separation, that will be very, very stringent… the couple must pass through the eye of a needle,” he told Palace reporters in a chance interview.

Speaking to reporters at the sidelines of a motor show in Pasay City, P-Noy reiterated that the legal separation process should make sure that differences are indeed irreconcilable.

“We really have to ascertain that they really have irreconcilable differences,” he said.

“But at the end of the day, they are allowed to re-marry. We have legal separation today (but they) can’t marry. Kawawa naman yung mga nagkamali (Pity those who made a mistake),” he added.

“Definitely I cannot support something like what they are doing in Las Vegas, where you get married in the morning and you’ll get divorced in the afternoon,” he said.

“But I do recognize that there are unions that were wrong that no matter what interventions are done, no matter what counseling are done, they really cannot stay together,” Mr. Aquino said.

The President refused to make any comment, however, with regard to the nullity of marriage his youngest sister Kris Aquino filed against her husband James Yap, when asked whether the Office of the Solicitor General would oppose this.

It is the policy of the state to oppose the sanctity of marriage, and it is the OSG - which is under the executive department - that exercises jurisdiction in such petitions. Mr. Aquino has appointed Joel Cadiz, a supporter, as solicitor general.

“I appointed the OSG and if I make an opinion, the OSG might be guided by my opinion and that will be a disservice to the person,” he justified. “Sorry but I will look into that, because what I studied the other day was divorce.”

“And it falls to my sister. Again if I say any opinion it might influence the workings of the court, the fiscal etc. I am duty bound not to comment on this,” he said.

Women’s group Gabriela has refiled in the House of Representatives its controversial bill to legalize divorce in the country.

Representatives Luzviminda Ilagan and Emerenciana de Jesus stressed legalizing divorce would give “married couples in irreparable marriages another legal remedy that they can resort to in addition to the country’s existing laws on legal separation and annulment.”

They said a divorce law could help put an end to domestic violence that is still prevalent among married Filipino couples. The Philippines is one of only two countries in the world (excluding the Vatican) that has not legalized divorce.

“For women in abusive marital relationships, the need for a divorce law is real. It is high time that we give Filipino couples, especially the women, this option,” said Ilagan and De Jesus in the bill’s explanatory note.

The measure, now renamed House Bill 1799 (An Act Introducing Divorce in the Philippines), lists down five grounds for the filing of a petition for divorce:

1.  Petitioner has been separated de facto (in fact) from his or her spouse for at least five years at the time of the filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable;
2. Petitioner has been legally separated from his or her spouse for at least two years at the time of the filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable;
3. When the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage;
4. When one or both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations;
5. Any of the grounds for legal separation that caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage.

- - - - - - - - - -

related articles:

• Gabriela hits Aquino on divorce; it’s not Las Vegas-style (Inquirer.net)
• Gabriela: Abused wives need divorce law (ABS-CBNnews.com)

 
(photo courtesy of Oly Ruiz of Metro Photo)

Well, you’re not really invited, but you might as well feel like you were there merely by watching this onsite video.

Fact is, this is one of the few times an SDE (same-day edit) captured ample live audio snippets where viewers get a glimpse of the personality of the couple.  Their sense of humor shines through every clip in a familair Pinoy candor. To me, it felt like they were somebody I know personally.  The ceremony presided by a judge in Makati City Hall felt very relaxed, a refreshing departure from the ’sobfest’ we typically expect in a solemn church ceremony.

I know this is not a typical ‘get-it-over-and-done-with’ kinda civil wedding.  But who ever said that a civil ceremony should be plain non-event?

I’ve been told the couple wore a Randy Ortiz during the ceremony, after which, the bride slipped into a Paul Cabral creation in time for their Blue Leaf reception.  Add the fact that they got Jason Magbanua to do their video speaks that this is no ordinary civil ceremony.  Despite these, the video didn’t come off as trying to show off; on the contrary, it felt very spontaneous and unrestrained.  Unpretentious is the word.

Props to David & Jorene for proving that a simple civil wedding ceremony can be equally beautiful!

[This is a follow-up about the controversial women’s group party-list proposal which we posted over the weekend.]

- - - - - -

(via the Philippine News Agency) Several lawmakers on Tuesday expressed disapproval on a proposal that would mandate a 10-year limit on the validity of marriage contract.

Women’s party list group Isa-Ako Babaeng Astig Aasenso (1-ABAA), which is gunning for a seat in the May party-list elections in May, plans to put forth a measure requiring couples to renew marriage every 10 years so that it would not be voided.

Speaker Prospero Nograles said he was not in favor of the proposal as it was against his Catholic beliefs.

Nueva Ecija Rep. Eduardo Nonato Joson also junked the proposal, saying couples who want to get out of the marriage can resort to annulment.

“Okay na yung legal or de facto separation and civil annulment of marriages ngayon,” he said.

Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante, a pastor, said making marriage renewable reduces it to a “mere legal contract” instead of a relationship.

“What is happening to our values? That’s what happens when people don’t believe in absolutes anymore,” he said.

Muntinlupa Rep. Rufino Biazon said the proposed marriage contract expiration should be opposed “because it will endanger the integrity of the ties that bind Philippine Society.”

“The Filipino family is acknowledged as the basic unit of society and it cannot be denied that marriage is the foundation of most Filipino families. Marriage and families cannot be treated separately and impose policies on one and not consider the other,” he said.

Biazon said the Philippine Constitution guarantees the protection of the family’s integrity and states that marriage is an inviolable social institution.

“The non-expiring marriage contract is not a violation of any human right because entering into a marriage is an option where those engaging in it are well aware of the terms,” he said.

“To give marriage an expiration is also to give families an expiration. It will be dangerous to open Philippine Society to the mindset that marriages and families have a pre-determined end,” he said.

While proponents may argue that the contract is renewable, Biazon said, “the fact that when you enter into marriage you already know it will expire at a certain date, it already affects the way society will look at marital unions.”

“While I will fight for the rights of women, I put more premium in protecting the integrity of the Filipino Family. I will oppose marriage contract expiration,” he said.

On the other hand, Marikina Rep. Marcelino Teodoro said the sanctity of marriage “should not be treated as merely a contract that has an expiry date.”

“We should respect the vows that the couple have exchanged and not give a deadline to it. This proposal bastardizes not only the sanctity of marriage but as well as the Constitution which dictates that marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman. This only obscures the inviolability of the family system which is only built upon by marriage,” he said.  (by Lilibeth G. Ison / PNA)

- - - - - - - - - -

related news article:

• Solons say no to ‘renewable’ marriage

(PNA photo | Jess Escaros Jr.)

(excerpted from GMA News) The proposal of the women’s party list group 1-Ako Babaeng Astig Aasenso (1-ABAA) to place expiration dates on marriage contracts raised a ruckus. The controversial proposition was brought to light at the Daungan ng Balita news forum held at the Danarra Hotel in Quezon City last Thursday, January 7, 2009.

1-ABAA, which represents separated and abandoned women, proposed the enactment of a law that would mandate a 10-year limit on the validity of a marriage contract. Its purpose is “to spare incompatible couples the expense of lengthy legal proceedings before their marriages are annulled.”

After all, the marriage license, which the couple obtains before they can get married, has a “built-in” expiration date. Article 20 of the Family Code of the Philippines stipulates that a marriage license is only valid “for a period of one hundred twenty days from the date of issue” and is deemed automatically canceled if the contracting parties have not made use of it by the end of the mandated period.
As 1-ABAA president Margie Tajon put it, “[A marriage contract] should be just like a passport or driver’s license. If we are not interested to renew it, then it expires.” This, of course, seems like a pragmatic solution to toxic unions. These days, as Tajon pointed out, “Those who can’t afford an annulment just suffer forever.”

Bottom line: 1-ABAA wants to amend the Family Code so that marriage will no longer be treated as a special contract. To date, the marriage contract, is defined by the Family Code as “a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.”

When it comes to the legal definition of marriage in the Philippines, you have to pay attention to two crucial words: “special” and “permanent.” It is “special” because, unlike in other types of contracts, the parties involved cannot stipulate on whatever pleases them. The word, “permanent,” is self-explanatory. As such, a Pinoy marriage is pretty much built to last—at least in legal terms.

It goes without saying that the Catholic Church would be at the forefront of parties opposing the 1-ABAA proposal. “Bago naming napag-isipan yan, alam na naming na Church ang number one [na mag-po-protesta],” stated Tajon.

Though the Philippine Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State, the Church’s pronouncements still hold sway over many Filipinos. The 1-ABAA proposal, by the way, would not affect Muslim marriages, since they’re already allowed to divorce and governed by the stipulations of the Islamic religion. [READ MORE…]

- - - - - - - - - -
related articles:

• License to Love (The Marocharim Experiment | opinion)
• Women’s group wants expiry date on marriage (Phil. Star)
• Partylist 1-ABAA favors annulment of marriage over divorce system (Balita.ph)
  

(via Manila Times) Things do go wrong. People do make mistakes, despite vows made before God and man. To come to the realization that a marriage is a failure is bitter pill to swallow. But there are circumstances far worse than separation.

For decades, the unattainable myth of the ideal Filipino family—long kept artificially intact by Church, family and society through guilt and shame—led unhappy spouses to endure abuses, lies and loveless lives for the rest of their days. A marriage that is dead is still so regardless of whether society chooses to recognize the fact or not.

But even in the 21st century when truth is valued over appearances, the price of freedom is still steep. Nonetheless, annulment is a necessary process a couple needs to undergo, whether they like it or not, for them to be free.

Atty. Honorata Victoria defines annulment simply as “the process where the marriage tie of the couple will be severed, hence, capacitating the parties to contract another marriage.”

Citing the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order 209), Victoria also differentiates annulment (Articles 45 and 53) and declaration for absolute nullity of marriage (Articles 35, 36, 37 and 38). She explains that annulment only presupposes a marriage valid until annulled, whilst if a marriage is declared null, the marriage is void ab initio (void from the very start).

Civil and Church courts

Recourses for annulment vary, depending on whether a couple had a civil or a Catholic Church wedding.

Pointedly, the Church refuses to accept the word annulment. The Church only declares marriage nullity, concluding that there has been no true marriage from the very beginning.

Reverend Salvador Yun, the parish priest of the Archdiocesan Shrine of Santa Ana, reiterates the finality of marriage vows: “Till death do them part.” However, Rev. Yun concedes that human errors are made. That is why the Church made laws in order to correct something that should have never been done, he explains.

Grounds of annulment

Victoria notes that, for both Civil and Church courts, “The usual and most abused ground for the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage is article 36 of the family code—psychological incapacity.”

She also noted that long before the State accepted psychological incapacity as legitimate grounds for annulment, the Church’s Canon Law had already recognized it. The Church defines psychological incapacity as a ground in which there is a lack of understanding to the idea of marriage, its obligations and rights.

Other grounds that are both present in Civil and Church are lack of legal capacity on the part of the contracting parties (under-aged partners), marriages solemnized without license, mistaken identities, mistaken sexualities, multiple marriages, etc.

The process

For the those married in a civil wedding, the first thing to do is to visit a lawyer and check if certain grounds are present in order to file a petition.

For those married in Church, the first thing to do is to visit a canon lawyer. According to Rev. Yun, if a couple seeks their help, they first try to make the couple realize and accept their mistakes and then attempt to reconcile them.

For civil courts, the petitioner will file his case to the Regional Trial Court of his residence and accomplish a copy of the petition to the Office of the Solicitor General. If this takes place accordingly and all other requisites are completed, a series of trials will take place until the court reaches the judgment that the marriage be declared null and void ab initio.

Since there are limited Church Tribunals in the country, the domicile or residence of not only the petitioner but also the respondent are taken into consideration.

Writing up the whole process only needs some three paragraphs. Yet in reality, annulment takes from one to two years. “If there will be no fight on the property and custody of the minor children, at the average it would take 12 to 24 months from the time of filing,” says Atty. Victoria.

Bro. Jeoffrey Brian Catuiran, Notary to the Tribunal of First Instance in Pasig, emphasizes that a Church tribunal hearing usually take more time if there are few evidences and witnesses that are gathered in order to establish a strong ground on the nullity of marriage.

Applying to the Church courts for marriage nullity, one’s petition is by no means assured. Even celebrities and politicians have been denied a second chance at happiness. As for civil marriages, Atty. Victoria notes, “If there exists ground, the courts usually grant the petition.”

The cost of freedom

Though a civil annulment is faster, it is more expensive than a Church annulment. “[A civil annulment is] very costly. A professional lawyer would range form P50,000 to P100,000 and even more. Then, if the ground is psychological incapacity, the petitioner shall be paying the psychiatrist or psychologist P25,000. Then, the filing fee, it depends on the value of the absolute community of property or conjugal partnership of gains. At the average the petitioner needs at least P100,000,” says Atty. Victoria.

The average cost of a Church annulment is only P60,000. Nevertheless, living in truth and setting one another free is priceless. There is only the rest of one’s life left to live.