Death Penalty

The history of the death penalty was extensively discussed by the

Supreme Court in People vs. Echegaray. As early 1886, capital
punishment had entered the Philippine legal system through the old
Penal Code, which was a modified version of the Spanish Penal Code of
1870. The Revised Penal Code, which was enforced on 1 January
1932, provided for the death penalty in specified crimes under specific
circumstances. Under the Revised Penal Code, death is the penalty for the
crimes of treason, correspondence with the enemy during times of war,
qualified piracy, parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping, rape with
homicide or with the use of deadly weapon or by two or more persons
resulting in insanity, robbery with homicide, and arson resulting in
death. The list of capital offenses lengthened as the legislature
responded to the emergencies of the times. (By: Santos, Lamban,
2011)
To strengthen his administrations campaign to eradicate drugs
and criminality, President Rodrigo Duterte made a renewed pitch to
bring back the death penalty. I have to agree that the Philippines
should revive the death penalty if we really want to stop the
disturbingly increasing crime rate in recent years.

We need to be

afraid of the law and not that of the criminals who are freely roaming
around the streets.
Criminals in the past that are proven guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of heinous crimes were sentenced to death by electric chair. I
feel that this will bring terror back to those criminals who are engaged
in heinous crimes if it will be implemented in our judicial system.
Criminals are not afraid anymore because they feel that they can
always find a way to escape the weak penalty in our present judicial
system. That is the reason why the crime rate in our country increased
significantly after death penalty was abolished. In order to make real
change is to bring back the much harder punishment and that is the
death penalty.

It may not completely eradicate crime. Im pragmatic enough to

recognize that, but weve been hungry for some real change when it
comes to dealing out justice and perhaps this could be a good first
step. Unfortunately I know that committing to capital punishment also
means committing to being able to dispense justice fairly and truly.
After all, when a human is asked to pay the ultimate price for his crime,
we have to be sure that they are guilty 100 percent beyond reasonable
doubt.
In our country we have to face the fact that money talks and
sometimes even if a criminal is caught red-handed, they manage to
buy their way out. If capital punishment is once again implemented, we
have to be sure that this can no longer happen. When it comes to this
kind of justice, it should be applicable to everyone or no one. That is
the only way it will truly work. After all, look at the case of Mary Jane
Veloso? After all the protesting we did to save her life, we have to be
just as flexible when evidence proves that someone may not be truly
guilty.
Perhaps this way senseless violence can be avoided. I read an
editorial recently that spoke about the many acts of violence people
face on the road and I cant help but feel that these cases are a
ridiculous waste. Many of them have even ended in someone losing
their lives. Whats astounding is that a lot of the perpetrators have the
gall to disobey road rules and then violently lash out when caught in
the act. What gives these terrible road rage perpetrators the
confidence to act so badly? Its the fact that so many of them get away
with it with only a slap on the wrist.
I think that if we adjust the justice system to enforce capital
punishment than enforcing punishment for all crimes should level up. I
guess in general, I feel that we need to enforce punishment better
across all crimes and that if this happens than I hope we would see a
decrease in violence and crime in the country.
Honestly, it astounds me how brazen criminals can be with little
to no regard for human life or safety. Be it cases of riding in tandem,

road rage gone bad, ATM skimming crimes, or even just snatch and
pull right on the street in plain site the incidences of crime are rising at
an alarming rate and its become scary to even drive on Edsa in broad
daylight. We see more and more videos being posted on social media
sites warning us about new ways criminals are committing crimes and
its become ridiculous already. What do we need to do to make our
society safe?
Again, I dont think that re-implementing the death penalty is
going to fix it all, but I cant help but feel its a good first step because
it will not only give criminals something to fear, but it will force us to
take a good long and hard look at our justice system as well and fix
what needs to be fixed. After all, these steps will go hand in hand if
capital punishment is back in the mix. Its going to be a very long
process, but I think its time to bring back the Old Testament message
of An eye for an eye. Its high time criminals have something to fear
again. (http://www.philstar.com)

Bangsamoro Basic Law

Article 15, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that: There

shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the
Cordilleras

consisting

of

provinces,

cities,

municipalities,

and

geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and

cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant
characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the
national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of
the Philippines.
Malacanang has endorsed the draft Bangsamoro Basic Law,
commonly referred to as BBL, for the consideration of the House of
Representatives. The BBL is the product of the peace talks between the
government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front or MILF. The
deliberations on the proposed law, docketed as House Bill No. 499.
In March 2014, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Philippine
government signed a Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro
for the establishment of the new Bangsamoro political entity to replace
the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).
The draft BBL will provide the framework for the establishment of
the new Bangsamoro entity and contains provisions on its basic
structure of government, its head, rights of the people, justice system,
public order and safety, fiscal autonomy, economy and patrimony,
among others.
Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) will undergo a long process before it will
finally become a law. Challenges will be filed with the Supreme Court
as to its constitutionality and then the referendum follows. This law will

not be passed as it is, we have to wait for the final version of the
houses. If it will be rejected by the MILF, we will be facing another
problem.
I dont agree with BBL to be implemented here in Mindanao. I am
apprehensive that these people wont be able to manage the gigantic
responsibilities which would be entailed on the leaders shoulders
knowing that they havent proven anything since the time that they
were given responsibilities to lead their constituents in ARMM.
Furthermore, I am adamant whether they will agree to the proposal
that

their

army

will

not

be

independent

from

the

Philippine

government.
I live in North Cotabato since birth and I knew how these people
jeopardized the lives of their constituents and the lives of the
Christians as well. BBL means peace but their leaders are not yet
ready. They still need a transformation a paradigm shift for their
culture is different from ours, far different. Of course not all the leaders
have questionable integrity there are also leaders who are honest and
sincere. But, leaders really need transformation to be able to lead their
people.

Legalizing Medical Marijuana

Cannabis,

also

known

as

marijuana,

is

a preparation

of

the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and

as medicine. These are dried leaves and flowering tops of the pistil
hemp plant that yield THC and are smoked in cigarettes for their
intoxicating effect. Marijuana has been used for medical purposes
since 2700 BC, where ancient Greeks and Egyptians used the weed to
treat ailments. Itis also believed to be consumed because of its
physiological effects. Marijuana can be consumed in many different
ways, such as smoking, using a vaporizer, brewed as Cannabis tea, or
by adding it as an ingredient in food.
In the practice of medical cannabis, also known as medical
marijuana, doctors recommend that their patients ingest cannabis and
the cannabinoids which it contains, such as THC as a form of medicine
or herbal treatment. The cannabis plant has been employed in this
fashion for centuries, with evidence coming from as early as ancient
Egypt and ancient Greece, and in the 19th century, it was a very
common pain reliever. However, since marijuana has become illegal in
most parts of the world, many now dispute whether its potential
medical benefits outweigh its risks. It is currently used in treatment for
cancer and AIDS patients during end-of-life care as well as for people
with glaucoma; the drug also may be appropriate for persons with PMS,
insomnia, Tourette syndrome and fibromyalgia. Research is in progress
about how cannabis might benefit those who suffer from a number of
other diseases as well.

Legalizing medical marijuana is the only and the best comprehensive

approach to health. What we think in legalizing medical marijuana is
that we provide the optimal care. Providing a range of options that a
physician who is in the best position to make these decisions can do for
the patient.
Because we illegalized blanketly marijuana, research on these kinds of
things stopped, and it has become harder for us to discover even
better uses of marijuana. (http://www.rappler.com/nation/))
Some of the positive effects of legalizing the drug are listed below.
First, since marijuana is a highly addictive drug, the demand of
marijuana would drastically increase causing ordinary citizens to
supply or engage in a legal business involving marijuana in order to
cope up with the high demand of the drug. In return, this provides
more job opportunities for the Filipinos. Also, terrorists who are
potential drug dealers lose their business as well as their connection
with the citizens, and instead, the cash generated from the sale of
marijuana is now controlled by the law. Taxes arent imposed on
marijuana since it is illegal, so the Government cannot gain from it or
earn financial funding to support beneficial government programs and
projects.
The second point Id like to mention is that the governments
efforts of prohibiting the drug has failed to control the production and
use of the drug. Millions of Filipinos continue to use marijuana; hence
legalizing the drug would just make it easier for both the government
and the people.
Third, marijuana is a great help to students, workers and even
people with Alzheimers disease because it has been said to improve
memory. Marijuana has been said to prevent memory loss, and
regenerate dead brain cells and has also been proven to prevent brain
inflammation, which is the primary cause of Alzheimers disease. In
other words, legalizing the drug would be a great benefit to the society
and most especially to patients suffering from Alzheimers disease and
other illnesses and ailments.

In addition to that , 15 US states and DC have legalized the

MEDICAL

usage

of

Marijuana-

All

of

these

states

permit

you

to possessMarijuana for Medical purposes, for cancer patients or for

other people who use it as a painkiller, or as a natural alternative
to Vicodin or other drugs. In 12 out of the 15 states, proof of residency
in the state is required, and 13 out of the 15 states allows home
cultivation- eliminating the need to buy it off of a potentially dangerous
and impure black market. (Max Bernhardt, 2012)

Legalizing Euthanasia

Mercy killings is possibly be the first in the history of the

Congress of the Philippines, a voluntary euthanasia or mercy killing
and living will-related proposal known as Senate Bill No. 1887 or the
Natural Death Act was filed by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. The
bill seeks to recognize the fundamental right of adult persons to decide
their own health care, including the decision to have life-sustaining
treatment withheld or withdrawn in instances of a terminal condition or
permanent unconscious condition. (Ambassador Amado Tolentino)
If an individual has the right to live, does he also have the right to
die? If there is a right to privacy, does it include the right to die? Does
the right to decide ones health care include the right to decide to end
ones life? Is there a right to kill? Is there a point at which an incurable
illness becomes a living death? If so, is it permissible for someones life
to be deliberately cut off?
As a Christian I dont agree with mercy killing to be legalized in
the Philippines. Especially so that my three aunts died without
requesting for euthanasia. My first aunt died after staying one month in
the hospital agonizing the pains she felt which for her could not be
explained in words. Then my two aunts died in just a year with a gap of
only 4 months. They have different illness and different degree of

pains, sufferings and agonies before they died. Our relatives and their
family were never asked by them to end their lives through mercy
killing. They were brave enough to face death till the end and face the
Lord after death with their heads up high. There are lessons learned in
dying naturally. God knows what it is and he wants us to learn from it.
Only God knows the time of our death and only He can take our
life away. That is my strong stand as a born again Christian. I
vehemently oppose to euthanasia or mercy killing. For the Lord God is
not happy over our death. He preferred that sinners will repent and sin
no more so they may live with Him in His Kingdom that will be
established here on earth of which our savior died for it.
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights particularly Section 1 states that
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws. Each and every one of us have the right to live and fight for
our life no matter how hard it is to live already. We must respect the
person suffering from such illness and give him the chance to decide
for his own.

Exemption of Church Property from Taxation

According to the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the following are

exempted from taxes:
Charitable

institutions,

churches,

convents,

mosques,

non-profit

cemeteries, lands and buildings and improvements actually, directly,

and exclusively used for religious, charitable and educational purposes
(Article VI, Section 28).
Section 22 (3), Art. VI of the Constitution of the Philippines, exempts
from taxation cemeteries, churches and parsonages or convents,
appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used
exclusively for religious purposes. The exemption is only from the
payment of taxes assessed on such properties enumerated, as
property taxes, as contra distinguished from excise taxes. On gift tax,
the assessment was not on the properties themselves. It did not rest
upon general ownership; it was an excise upon the use made of the
properties, upon the exercise of the privilege of receiving the
properties .Manifestly, gift tax is not within the exempting provisions of
the section just mentioned. A gift tax is not a property tax, but an
excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by way of gift inter
vivos, the imposition of which on property used exclusively for religious
purposes, does not constitute an impairment of the Constitution. As

well observed by the learned respondent Court, the phrase exempt

from taxation, as employed in the Constitution should not be
interpreted to mean exemption from all kinds of taxes.
I am not in favor of taxing the church of its properties which are used
for religious and charitable purposes. Churches are answerable to God
if ever they dont use their income and properties accordingly. Excise
tax as stated is the liability of the donor or the giver. The donor knew
that by giving to religious congregations they will merit something in
return. The church did not buy it but, was only given as a gift to them.
If some churches are found not using their properties properly, it is now
the duty of its members to seek the help of their higher church
authorities to look into the mismanagement of their church leaders.
The members are the ones supporting the church be it a gift or a
donation. It is the joint obligations of the members and the Vatican to
check whether religious leaders performed very well.

Legalization of Abortion

Manilla (1999) -- Proposed legislation to legalize abortion in this largely

Catholic nation would have a rough sailing in Congress, Executive
Secretary Ronaldo Zamora said yesterday. "It's a long way before that
measure becomes a law," a Palace statement quoted him as saying.
"There are so many steps before we can come up with a system of
legalized abortion for any reason," he added, noting that under present
laws abortion is considered a criminal act.
The 2004 national survey on abortion showed that nearly 90% of those
who induce abortion are Catholic. Regardless of Church teachings,
Filipino women still resort to abortion with the poor, rural and young
women being the most vulnerable to self-induced unsafe abortion.
(Source: The Pro-Life Infonet, a daily compilation of pro-life news and
educational information.)

Although the Reproductive Health (RH) Law provides humane,

non-judgmental, compassionate post-abortion care and, a law known
as RA 8344 provides for stabilizing patients in serious cases such as
when a woman is bleeding due to complications from self-induced
unsafe abortion, making abortion safe and legal is the best means for
women who resort to abortion to be assured that their health and lives
are not at risk.
I support the legalization of abortion in the Philippines due to the
following health situations faced by many mothers. I know of a mother
who became pregnant after giving birth through a cesarean operation
and the wound is not yet fully healed. To save her life she immediately
decided to abort the fetus with the permission of her husband and
relatives. The woman survived and was able to give birth for her next
baby after she recovered fully from her cesarean operation.
Ectopic pregnancy is also a situation that only abortion could
resolve the risky health condition of the mother. This requires
immediate operation before everything will become late. In this case
abortion really plays is vital role to save the life of the mother.
Abortion should be legalized for the protection of womens health,
for the improvement of womens rights and for the development of our
countries economic status.
By legalizing abortion we could prevent the deaths of thousand
fellow women who do underground process of abortion. In our country,
we consider abortion as a murderous act but again abortion is matter
of choice. We shouldnt be too judgmental, I myself is a devoted
catholic. I wouldnt resort to abortion no matter what happens, but for
the good of many I vote for the legalization of Abortion.
There are still lots of reasons that abortion could not be avoided
to be resorted to especially if it is the only way that a mothers life will
be saved.

Adopting a Federal Form of Government

In 2008 then-Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Nene Pimentel Jr.

had proposed a resolution that sought to adopt a Federal Presidential
Bicameral form of government. Joint Resolution No. 10, which had the
support of 13 senators, would have created 11 autonomous regions
and 11 centres of finance and development in the Philippines. Under
the proposal, there would be 11 states plus one federal administrative
region Metro Manila as the seat of the federal government.
The other states would be Northern Luzon (with Tuguegarao as capital),
Central Luzon (Tarlac City), Southern Tagalog (Tagaytay), Mimaropa
(Mamburao), Bicol (Legazpi), Eastern Visayas (Catbalogan), Central
Visayas (Toledo), Western Visayas (Iloilo City), Northern Mindanao
(Cagayan de Oro), Southern Mindanao (Davao City), and Bangsamoro
(Marawi). (By: Jon Juaqin, December 16, 2014)
As a Filipino Citizen residing in Mindanao, I believe that Federal
Form of Government should be imposed. The Federalism Debate is
traced back from the dire need to bring peace in Mindanao. However, it
is not the only reason why I want a federal form of government. The
main reason why I want to have a Federal Form of government is
because according to former University of the Philippines President
Jose Abueva, it will empower our citizens by enabling them to raise

their standard of living and enhance their political awareness through

their participation and efficacy in elections and the making and
carrying out of government decisions at the regional and local levels.
Furthermore, Abueva stated that the Federal Government will improve
governance by challenging and energizing state and local leaders,
entrepreneurs, and citizens around the country to take hold of their
destiny. Federalism will release them from the costly, time-consuming,
stifling, and demoralizing effects of excessive central government
controls and regulation in our traditional unitary system.
A brief look at American history might shed some light on this
issue. The original United States was actually a confederation of 13
states. When the US Constitution was being drafted, a Federalist Party
was organized to support a stronger central government while
maintaining the 13 states. A group called the Anti-Federalists wanted a
weaker

central

government.

The

final

US

Constitution

invoked

federalism which was considered as being in the middle of the political

spectrum

between

confederacy

and

unitary

government.

(www.philstar.com, Elfren Cruz)

According to Mikki Eugenio(Juune 26, 2012), One advantage in a
federal government is that the government remains close to people.
Each province has political, social and economic problems peculiar to
the

region

itself.

Provincial

government

representatives

live

in

proximity to the people and are most of the time from the same
community, so they are in a better position to understand these
problems

and

offer

unique

solutions

for them.

This

expands

government on national, state, and local levels, giving people more

access

to

leaders

and

opportunities

to

get

involved

in

their

government.
Moreover,

he

stated

that

federal

government

encourages development of the nation in a decentralized and regional

manner and allows for unique and innovative methods for attacking
social, economic and political problems. It offers representation to
different populations. Citizens of various provinces may have different
aspirations,

ethnicity

and

follow

different

cultures.

The

central

government can sometimes overlook these differences and adopt

policies which cater to the majority. This is where the regional
government steps in

while formulating

policies, local needs, tastes and opinions are given due consideration
by the state governments. Rights of the minorities are also protected.
Section 9, Article II of the 1987 Constitution states that The
State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the
prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from
poverty through policies that provide adequate social services,
promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved
quality of life for all. If Federal Form of Government is the key to
resolve poverty and conflict that we are suffering right now, then the
1987 Constitution must be amended to replace our current form of
government.
Therefore, Federalism is what fits us best. The geographical
structure of our country calls for it. Diverse demands of the regions all
over the country simply cannot be handled properly by an overly
centralized government. We "in the provinces", which usually means
places outside the purview of Metro Manila a.k.a. the National Capital
Region, are constant witness as to how funding allocations depreciate
in proportion to how far the province is from this black hole of a place.
The farther the province is located from the national government, the
smaller the trickle of allocation.
The present setup of government encourages political dynasty.
Because of population size and distance from the seat of central
government, the voice of the vast majority of the population cannot
simply be heard. Only the usual names will ring a bell. A more
autonomous seat of government; a federal region, for instance will be
in a better position to listen to and act on the concerns of its
constituents. More voices can be heard. More names will have the
chance to attend to these concerns. And whoever will be chosen to
lead, he/she has a better chance to succeed being well connected to
these concerns under the glaring scrutiny of the people around he/she
is tasked to represent.

Legalization of Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is one of the most controversial issues in the

modern

society.

For

centuries

all

around

the

globe,

marriage

symbolizes the union between a man and a woman. Meanwhile

homosexuality was considered wrong, was often punished and samesex marriages were forbidden. Article 1 of the Family Code defines
marriage as:

Marriage is 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. It is the foundation of the
family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences,
and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation,
except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during
the marriage within the limits provided by this Code. The Family Code
itself states that marriage is only for man and a woman. In addition to
that, Article II of the Family Code provided the essential requisites of
marriage in which it should be contracted only between a man and a
woman; otherwise, it would be regarded as a void ab initio marriage.

The first and most widely used argument against same sex
marriage is that it violates natural law. Marriage is not only the union
between two people but it creates a stable and safe environment
suitable for procreation; however same-sex couples cannot produce
children together. According to an article from the Human Rights
Campaign, there is nothing wrong with allowing homosexuals to have
the same rights as those who are heterosexual. Every person should be
granted equal rights, regardless of sexuality. Gay marriage should be
legalized in all states and countries, it has been held off for too
long. However, there are several reasons why homosexuals feel
strongly about wanting to be legally married. One reason that is most
commonly heard is, they want to legally show their love for each other
by having a marriage license, another cause is that they are being
cheated of rights and so they can have a chance to be happy like any
other couple.
In addition to that, Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
provides that: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws. Non legalization of same sex marriage would
violate Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution. It is unfair to couples of
the same-sex to lose rights based on sexuality. They are denied rights
such as: hospital visitation, social security benefits, nursing homes,
health insurance and so on. If they are denied these rights due to the
fact they are not married, they can never get the chance to receive
these advantages since they cannot wed. No matter how this is looked
at, it is not right in any way at all. Especially if the two people in the
same-sex relationship have been together for a long time, they should
be able to receive these rights as well as heterosexual married
couples.
In relation to the case of Goodridge vs Department of Public
Health, the court ruled that the states arguments for denying marital
rights to same sex couples did not supply enough justification in terms
of the governmental interest sought in their procurement. The court
argued that modern day technology and fertilization techniques

nullified the procreation argument.

Same sex couples, through

adoption of other fertilization methods could procreate. Secondly, the

court found no productive argument favoring the notion that same sex
couples were inferior parents to children. Finally, the court believed
the state did not demonstrate adequate administrative difficulty to
fully deny a single class of citizens their basic marital rights. As such,
the state failed to supply their legitimate governmental interest
burden. (http://www.casebriefsummary.com/)
Lastly, another reason same-sex couples should be allowed the
right to marry is so they can have a chance to be happy like any other
couple. If an individual is unable to wed the person they want, then
they will not be satisfied. All people should be free to marry the
person they love and not have to change that. Homosexuals cannot
ever change their sexuality, it is not a choice they can make. People
think marriage can only consist of a man and a woman. If a person
changes their sexuality just to fit the idea of marriage they will not
be truly happy. So, why not allow them to marry a person they truly
care for and live out a successful life, which is the true significance of
marrying a person is.

Divorce in the Philippines

Marriage is meant to last forever and vows usually include the
phrase, til death do us part. These are the words that most of us
believed. Marriage is regarded as a sacred union between a man and a
woman, thus, it must be cherished and valued with love. But what if
the love that a couple once shared together fades away? What if the
love becomes weak and unstable as time passes by? What if
everything changes and a person started to live a life full of misery?
One of their options to solve these problems would be the divorce. It
should be implemented in the Philippines. Present situation demands
it. Reality tells us that there are many failed, unhappy marriages across
the nation. Marriage is never as blissful as people expect. Divorce is
never as devastating as people imagine.

According to the article from Positively Filipino Magazine entitled

Why the Philippines Needs a Divorce Law by Evalyn Ursua, the
Catholic Church will be the greatest opponent of the divorce bill. It was
once argue against the bill on moral grounds. But the Catholic Church
does not need to worry. The institutions of marriage and the family
have survived to this day, as they will survive a Philippine divorce law.
Unlike many western cultures, Philippines courts forbid divorce
according to their Family Code of laws. Annulment is the only recourse
a Filipino citizen has under normal circumstances. This is different than
a Decree of Nullity of Marriage. This states that the marriage was
invalid at its inception. It was not legal due to incorrect agreement or
performance by the clergy.
In the Philippines, a married couple cannot divorce by law.
Regardless of where they live, this law follows them throughout the
entire world. Article 15 of the New Civil Code states that: laws
pertaining to familial rights and responsibilities, or to the standing,
form and legal capability of persons, are compulsory upon inhabitants
of the Philippines even though residing overseas. Therefore, Filipinos
are still under the rule of their land even if they are in another location.
There are exceptions to every rule. In the Philippines, marrying
someone of another race or country may allow a divorce. Divorce can
take place if the spouse from another country seeks it in their own
home country. The foreigners country must accept the divorce for it to
be valid. In the Family Code of the Philippines, paragraph 2 of Article
26 explains that legal marriages between a Filipino national and a nonnative are genuinely recognized. A divorce must be accurately attained
overseas by the non-native spouse which is the only way to allow
remarriage. (https://www.hg.org)
I am in favor having Divorce in the Philippines simply because I
dont want women who are suffering from physical and emotional
abuse to stay in an abusive marriage. Women tend to stay in an
abusive relationship for the reason that they value the future and
status of their child more than anything else. Aside from that,
processing for an annulment case is not that easy because it will cost

them a huge amount of money for litigation. Moreover, divorce would

be a big help to those spouses suffering from: physical violence or
moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political
affiliation, Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a
common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or
connivance in such corruption or inducement, drug addiction or
habitual alcoholism of the respondent, contracting by the respondent
of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or
abroad, sexual infidelity or perversion, Attempt by the respondent
against life of the petitioner and Abandonment of petitioner by
respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year pursuant
to Article 55 of the Family Code.
We are a secular state, where no religious group has the right to
define law or policy for the entire population. The law should only give
people a choice, to be exercised according to their own personal
beliefs. In accordance with House Bill No. 1799 filed by the Gabriela
Womens Party last July 27, 2010, Italy had only 7% while Spain
registers 15% of divorce rate. In addition to that, over 90% of the poll
respondents are in favor of divorce. In an official poll that ran from
December 19 to January 3, 92.44 percent or 40,414 voted Yes to the
question, Are you in favor of divorce in the Philippines?
This shows that the public, regardless of their marital status, is
now more open to accept the possibility of divorce. Everyone should
have the right to escape from a bad marriage and be happy again.
Falling into wrong decision actually happens. If we legalize divorce in
our country, people with fail marriage will be given a chance and
freedom to choose the right one for them so they will not have to
suffer from a marriage that is not working anymore. Moreover, theres
no assurance that people who get divorced want to find a new spouse.

COR JESU COLLEGE, INC.

COLLEGE OF LAW
LEGAL RESEARCH
DIGOS CITY

In Fulfillment of the Legal Research Topics Assigned

_____________________________

Submitted By:
Christine Iyle Q. Balgos
LLB - 1

Date Submitted:
October 28, 2016