PROPOSITION:
Let it be resolved that divorce should be legalized in the Philippines.
First speaker of the affirmative side (Arguing the need to legalize divorce in
the country)
Status quo confronts the Philippines with many unhappy, troubled and
failed marriages. Couples in such marriages are imprisoned and deprived of
the quality of life they deserve due to lack of remedy in our present law.
Although we have legal separation, declaration of nullity of marriage and
annulment, these remedies do not directly answer the problem of a marriage
which was seemingly good at the start, but gone chaotic during the marriage.
The problems with the present laws are that legal separation only
perpetuates a dead marriage a marriage only on paper and that the
grounds for annulment and declaration of nullity require juridical
antecedence which is unlikely found. These problems will be answered by
the legalization of divorce.
This side of the house proposes the legalization of divorce based on the
following grounds: first, commission of grave violence against the spouse or
their children grave characterized by habituality and serious physical
violence and second, psychological incapacity without the need of proving
juridical antecedence as it may manifest only during the marriage, thus,
effectively repealing Article 36 of the Family Code.
The following shall be the safeguards of the law:
First, State intervention in the form of mandatory pre- and post-divorce
counseling for a period of one year before and after the case is filed, and
protection of battered spouse.
Second, legal support by working spouse to the other spouse during the
proceeding in case the other spouse has no job.
Third, divorce obtained by Filipinos abroad will be recognized if it conforms
with our law.
Judge: Can you discuss how the State intervenes the marriage?
Speaker: The State will intervene the said marriage in a way that the State will still
protect the said marriage by having the mandatory pre- and post-reconciliation in
order to protect the negative effects of the said divorce.
The following shall be the effects:
Status of children is legitimate.
Custody of the children belongs to the innocent spouse.
Parties can validly remarry.
Marriage deem existed but ceased to exist.
Settlement of property regime in accordance with law.
Judge: Do you limit the parameters of your proposition to three grounds (serious
physical violence, psychological incapacity, and the one under Article 26 of the
Family Code)?
Speaker: Yes.
Now going to my argument: Divorce is not anti-family nor unconstitutional,
unlike what opponents contend. The definition of a family should not be
strictly limited to that of a nuclear family. In our context, solo parents and
extended families are recognized. The word family should be based on the
real and actual relationship between the parties. And nullity of declaration of
marriage a child suddenly disowned by history and past relationships,
why? Because his parents are deemed not married. In our paradigm, we will
only sever the contractual relationship, and the biological and emotional ties,
which is what the Constitution protects. Also, divorce is necessary and real
in those abusive marital relationships. Yes, they file for legal separation, but
they desist because of fear of not being economically supported, or they
condone their husband because of the violence they undergo, and then the
baiting continues. With divorce, their necks are free from the hands of their
evil spouse, and then an empowered and independent individual emerges,
which can build a new and quality life with her children.
Interpellation from the negative side
Interpellator: Just a clarificatory question, are the grounds that you said your own,
or are these the grounds provided by the current pending bill about divorce.
Speaker: It is our own.
Interpellator: So are you aware of the current pending bill of divorce?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: So are you also aware that there are also added grounds there such as
irreconcilable differences wherein it can also be a ground for divorce?
Speaker: Its not our concern because we have limited the grounds in the said three.
Interpellator: So you portray divorce as a tool of the woman against the abusive
spouse But the woman is not the only party who can file for divorce, therefore, the
male spouse who is abusive can also use the same mechanism to forward the
patriarchal interests and to abuse the woman Is divorce primarily to protect the
womans right?
Speaker: The spouse, because it is not only the women who are abused.
Interpellator: Are you aware of the present mechanism such as the Anti-Violence
Against Women and their Childrens Act? Are you aware that under the same law,
it already provides for the remedies that you want in this debate?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: So you can see that the status quo is already providing mechanisms to
address these problems?
Speaker: It is insufficient.
Interpellator: Do you agree that the bond can be dissolved in annulment or via
annulment through psychological incapacity?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: So you are also admitting that there is really no uniqueness in the bill
that you are proposing because at the end of the day, the spouse can also resort to
what the present law provides?
Speaker: No.
First speaker from the negative side (Arguing that divorce should not be
legalized in the country)
The spirit of the law is that which gives life to the letters of the law. Tonight,
the negative side will defend the wisdom of marriage laws, and the
significance and benefits of sustaining the status quo.
We concede that there is no perfect system nor law, but the vinculum that
preserves marriage is very valuable to the State in protecting the family as an
inviolable social institution.
First argument: Divorce is not necessary because it threatens the preservation
of family. Why do we need divorce if at present, we already have more
comprehensive and better alternatives in solving conflict?
What are these laws to begin with?
For violence, we have the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children
Act, which provides penal sanctions to those who abuse his wife or children.
VAWC allows the woman to file for a temporary protection order where the
man can be ejected from the conjugal home even without the usual court
hearing. The goal of the affirmative side is women empowerment anchored
on divorce, but the VAWC already provides for that. What empowerment is
better than to consider even the kicking of the womans pet that constitutes
stress to the woman?
Criminal law as well penalizes any act of disloyalty, such as bigamy or
concubinage. We have even adopted Battered Woman Syndrome, a foreign
doctrine which justifies the woman from any criminal liability if she killed
her husband due to cycles of violence inflicted on her.
Judge: You enumerated so many laws wherein you said that it will prevent domestic
violence, among those laws, what is the best law that should be applied in the
Philippine setting?
Speaker: I think its the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act,
because most of the separation cases filed are anchored on the fact that the husband is
abusive of the wife, but this particular special penal law already addresses that
problem, and we say that this particular law is more comprehensive, and it addresses
the problem head-on.
The law is not blind and deaf to the cries for justice of these abused women.
The law has never turned its back, rather the Philippine jurisprudence is
evolving and adopting laws to solve current problems. We argue that these
laws are even more comprehensive to begin with. Marriage is a special
contract, second argument; divorce is not necessary because it gives
unbridled freedom on the spouses to assert and define the grounds to
dissolve marriage. In Maynard vs Hilth, every contract is founded on the
agreement of the parties, but marriages are not mere contracts. It may not be
modified, restricted, or enlarged entirely upon the consent of the parties.
Once the relation is formed, the law steps in, and holds the parties to various
obligations and liabilities. Evidence: in the US, the court only approves 22%
of the entire divorce cases filed. The couples whose cases were dismissed
ended separating anyway. Why? Because there is the filing of indiscriminate
cases that testifies that the remedies being abused couples flock to one easy
solution which allows them to terminate message.
Judge: As early as 1917, and even during the Japanese occupation, absolute divorce
has already allowed in the Philippines, is it your position and even under the family
code, it is allowed it is allowed under article 26 in the case of an alien spouse
obtaining a divorce allowing him to remarry? Is it your position that prevailing
Philippine culture or norm is not ready for that?
Speaker: Yes. It is also my contention and it will be further discussed by the
practicality speaker why it is not practical to adopt that. Thank you.
Interpellation from the affirmative side
Interpellator: Does annulment sever marital ties?
Speaker: Not necessarily.
Interpellator: Okay, but couples who are legally tied are no longer legally related,
right?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: So does that in effect violate constitutional provisions as well?
Speaker: No.
Interpellator: Then you are necessarily treating this as an exception.
Speaker: No.
Interpellator: Then if no, this principle is based on the failure to comply with marital
obligations, correct?
Speaker: Not only marital obligations.
Interpellator: In our policy, we refer to the failure to comply with marital
obligations, do we not?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: Hence, our policy is not unconstitutional as it is based on the same
ground. Is it not a fact that in courtship we put our best foot forward?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: Is it not a fact that there are unforeseeable problems that arise during
the marriage?
Speaker: Yes, but that does not justify divorce.
Interpellator: There are conflicts peculiar to marriage, are there not?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: Like costly financial matters, like domicile
Speaker: Yes, I agree with that.
Interpellator: That these are areas of potential conflict even under the law, is it not?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: And a spouse may react adversely to these conflicts?
Speaker: It seems that you are sticking to your super prepared speeches No.
Interpellator: Is it not a fact these reactions can be severe in their effects?
Speaker: Of course, they can be severe but it does not justify divorce.
Interpellator: Then domestic violence, lying, cheating, may result from conflict, is it
not?
Speaker: Yes, which is addressed by criminal law.
Interpellator: The reactions may have manifested were it not for the conflict?
Speaker: Yes?
Interpellator: Thus, domestic violence can only emerge during marriage. Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
Second speaker from the affirmative side
First two rebuttals, the opposition makes much ado about VAWC law
however this is ineffective. I ask you, what happens after the spouse is freed
from imprisonment? The abusive spouse returns to beat the victim spouse
once again. How is that sufficiency of the law? It is clearly inefficient. Second,
they make much ado about US divorce. However, what we have to analyze
that US states implement no fault divorce. No fault divorces meaning there is
no state intervention. Therefore, these applications are inapplicable to our
current setup because of state intervention.
Now moving to my speech, how thus our policy on divorce vary from theirs?
First, our policy on divorce differs because of the imposition of mandatory
pre imposed divorce counseling. Pre-imposed divorce counseling teaches
communication, legal education, conflict resolution, and cooperation skills
and includes reconciliation and counseling options. These necessarily
produce the following results. One, because of legal education, couples make
informed decisions and we avoid absurd situations where couples
unknowingly and unwittingly have made their children illegitimate, i.e.
annulment. Secondly, because of psychological counseling, the parents are
taught the proper coping mechanisms to deal with the procedures of divorce
and taught how to communicate with their children. Thus, we mitigate the
necessary negative effects of separation. Thirdly, counseling extends post-
divorce allowing couples to resume a degree of normalcy in their lives. This
is preferable than status quos. Because in status quo, we have actual areas of
operative separation, i.e. through legal separation, annulment, and
declaration of nullity. However, these legal measures have inadequate
safeguards.
Judge: Mr. Speaker, my question is, is divorce the final answer to domestic violence?
Especially that the Philippines is a Catholic country
Speaker: Your honor, at this point, we say that yes it is one of the best features that
we have because when couples legally separate we actually allow sever of all ties so
that the abusive spouse has no actual reason to go back to the victim spouse. And
this is something that is concretely lacking in VAWC and other existing laws that
we have now. This is clearly better than what we have in status quo. Now,
proceeding further your honors, by recognizing marriage, we recognize both the legal
and psychological benefits and effects or the backlash of separation and allows state
intervention to mitigate these consequences. And the declaration of nullity, the
parties are legally justified to pretend that no marriage ever existed to pretend that I
dont have to deal with the backlash of having my child to suffer from our separation.
This is what we avoid with post counseling. Because parties retain the bonds of
kinship by being civil because that is what counseling teaches to them, how to be
civil with each other and how to continue to communicate with their children. That
is what is lacking again in status quo. Secondly, divorce is proven beneficial to
gravely troubled marriages. Studies show that children whose parents divorced
perform better academically than children from similarly troubled marriages whose
parents went to.
Judge: Will the enactment of a divorce law affect a very strong marriage?
Speaker: No, because the foundation of a marriage presupposes that parties do not
beat each other up. However, so divorce will not affect happy and fulfilling
marriages. However, if we refer to marriages, which are already characterized by
grave violence, these marriages require the remedy of divorce. Therefore, divorce will
not affect happy marriages. Divorce caters solely to those aggravated marriages
which we are trying to address. Lastly, we say that marriage allows couples better
financial stability and actually allows them two parent family structure. Its better
to have two parents than one.
Interpellation from the negative side
Interpellator: Your proposal is rather exhaustive in so far as having of lot of options
to solve the marital problems, right?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: Why is it then still necessary if we can solve those problems through
the existing mechanisms that we have since they are not mutually exclusive in your
proposal. why cant we fully implement those mechanisms so that we cannot reach
that point wherein we have to sever the marriage?
Speaker: With all due respect, but I dont see counseling in any of the options in
status quo.
Interpellator: Does it not exist and provided for by a lot of mechanisms? Assuming
for example it is not provided, can the state have an incentive to break that part of
the solution in so far as solving these problems?
Speaker: You are conceding that there is a flaw in our current laws and that is what
we have to remedy.
Interpellator: Yes, we conceded that there is a problem and there is no perfect setup,
but cant there be any other alternative not to severe the marriage?
Speaker: There is none because in divorce we actually allow the families to continue
with the bonds of family and kinship.

Interpellator: If that particular marriage is severed, and you were not able to
rehabilitate the other spouse who is abusive and he reenters into another relationship,
will it not also become a cyclical you know scenario wherein that particular spouse
that also abused the other spouse?
Speaker: That is the problem in the constraint of the VAWC law. You allow the
spouse to be imprisoned, be freed and then go back to beat up the victim spouse.
Interpellator: If that is the problem, then you can rehabilitate the other person and
makes sure that he understands the danger and circumstances of his marital
obligations.
Speaker: That characterizes the cycle of violence. It is against the very nature of the
spouses. They cannot be rehabilitated because of the very idea of the cycle of violence.
Second speaker from the negative side
We concede that at some point, love can be sweeter the second time around.
But this doesnt mean that we can have the right or the privilege to simply
rennet on our promises specially when this promise is not only to another
spouse but also with respect to the state. That is why we concede your
honors that there is some value in dissolving certain marriages. But this
should only be the exception rather than the general rule. Because our
present system recognizes that when the situation is already of that extent
that you have to sever the marriage due to psychological incapacity then
sever the marriage ladies and gentlemen.
Ill discuss why divorce is not beneficial in better preserving and protecting
the interest of our major stakeholders. I will nuance this first on the level of
the state. Marriage is after all a special contract vested with public interest.
Second with respect to the couples and the family, the active players in the
marriage and the formation of a family, the institution to which a social
fabric is actually based upon. lets proceed to the first level. The state through
the government is a third party in every marriage.
Marriage as a contract is a matter of privilege rather than a right. Thus, the
requirements that are strict in its perfection once entered into forms part of a
social contract between the citizens and the state. You have the responsibility
towards the state that the by-product of the union which is the family is
supposed to be an incremental element in the formation of a strong citizenry
towards nation building. This particular wisdom is embedded in a lot of
jurisprudence.
For example, Manuel vs People, which it declared that marriage created the
most important relations in life as having to do with morals and civilization.
That is why all decisions currently, when you talk about failed attempts to
dissolve the marriage is ruled in favor of the union because our laws and our
society seeks a value in maintaining that particular union.
Judge: Mr. Speaker, how can you expound that marriage is not a mere agreement but
beyond that?
Speaker: Because it entails another party. It is not only the two p=spouses but also
the state. Because the state also regulates and limits the kind of exercise of privileges
that are contained in that particular marriage or contract, sir. Thank you.
Proceeding to now my argumentation, we believe that marriage is necessary for state
preservation. It is more beneficial for us to stand with the valid principle of making
the family as a social unit. In your particular model, when you allow divorce, you
devalue marriage because it becomes a cut off solution to the vaguely defined
problems that you already provided. It is not even comprehensive; it is only three. It
does not even include other grounds that can actually exist in an abusive marriage.
It is an easy way out when all fails. And we have to recognize that they are actually
capable of complying with their marital obligations. You dis-incentivize couples to
avail of the plethora options that we have in saving that particular marriage such as
VAWC such as even counseling.
Judge: Considering that divorce among Filipino Muslims is allowed, doesnt the
constitutional mandate of equal protection demand the same treatment?
Speaker: It should not sir because there is a difference with the marriage within the
Muslim clause. It is something integrated in their culture and within their person.
that is why equal protection applies to them if you are a Muslim because it applies to
all of them but not necessarily to a Catholic or other individuals.
Judge: are you saying that you think there is no discrimination when we allow
Muslims to have divorce and non-Muslims not to have divorce?
Speaker: There is no discrimination.
Interpellation from the affirmative
Interpellator: Id appreciate yes or no answers to these series of question, please. So
first question, negative effects arise from separation, do they not?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: Now, these negative effects extend to legal separation, annulment, and
declaration of nullity, do they not?
Speaker: Yes, it is not mutually exclusive.
Interpellator: Yes, these policies do not provide mandatory counseling, do they?
Speaker: No, as of the moment, but we can add.
Interpellator: They do not, okay. So counseling mitigates or eliminates negative
effects, does it not?
Speaker: It can, but it cannot eliminate state law.
Interpellator: However, it mitigates effects, does it not?
Speaker: We are not so sure where it can mitigate.
Interpellator: But thats s a yes or a no?
Speaker: Yes, it can.
Interpellator: Okay, thank you. But the effect of possible mitigation is non-existent
in status quo, correct?
Speaker: It can be present if you avail of that particular
Interpellator: Yes or no, please. Its not present, is it?
Speaker: It is present.
Interpellator: Is there post-divorce counseling in status quo?
Speaker: There can be counseling.
Interpellator: Yes or no?
Speaker: Yes, it does exist.
Interpellator: Is there post counseling in annulment?
Speaker: No.
Interpellator: Is there post-counseling in legal separation?
Speaker: No.
Interpellator: Is there post counseling in declaration of nullity?
Speaker: No, it doesnt provide.
Interpellator: Then it doesnt exist. Then those studies that you cited earlier are
based on separation, correct?
Speaker: No.
Interpellator: Isnt divorce a mode of separation?
Speaker: Yes, it is a mode of separation.
Interpellator: So those studies are based on the US?
Speaker: No.
Last speaker from the affirmative side
Why should we let couples stay together when each of them treats the other
not as their better half, but their bitter half, to the point that one is abused
and that human dignity is not respected?
The practicability of passing a divorce law in the Philippines is anchored on
the following principles:
First, it fosters expediency and convenience to the parties. Divorce law caters
to the myriad causes of marriage breakdown during the existence of
marriage, as such, the need to prove that the marriage is void or defective
from the very beginning or at the time of the celebration of the marriage is
not necessary, therefore, can be dispensed with.
But more importantly, divorce proves to be practical because it is a remedy
available to the existing marriages in the Philippines that have arrived at an
unfortunate end. This would favor those who are separated in fact by reason
of grave spousal abuse or domestic violence. This means to say that couples
are given the opportunity to sever an already broken marriage.
Judge: Is it your position that the regime of legal separation with the ten grounds
therefor is practically useless? Why or why not?
Speaker: No, but the remedy provided in legal separation is not sufficient because it
does not actually sever the marital bonds, so the danger that the spouse might again
condone the act of the husband or wife is still present in the status quo.
Practicability requires adherence to public policy. A feasible statutory law
upholds the core ideals of society. By passing a divorce law, deeper sense of
societal responsibilities is advocated, and these are the prevention of illegal
cohabitation and illegitimacy of children. Reality proves us that a person
who is separated in fact or legally separated, seeks another arms for love,
comfort and support. Of course, this is inevitable because of human tendency
to desire for love and to be loved. However, as we have said, the present
laws make it difficult for that to happen, because legal separation means only
a separation from bed and board, while annulment and declaration of nullity
of marriage rarely accommodates the causes of marriage breakdown during
the existence of the marriage.
Judge: Because you want a divorce here in the Philippines, could you give me at least
10 grounds in order that there will be a valid divorce?
Speaker: We can only give two: grave spousal abuse, and psychological incapacity,
which will effectively repeal Article 36 of the Family Code.
Needless to say, illegitimate children are less favored by law, i.e. their shares
of legitime, right of representation, stringent proof of acknowledgement.
These are the things that we want to avoid. With the passing of divorce, the
consequences will at least be minimized, if not totally prevented. As weve
said, the couples are given the opportunity to marry without legal
impediments that will affect the status of the relationship, and the status of
their innocent children. With that, the affirmative has proven the necessity
and the practicability of divorce law.
Interpellation from the negative side
Interpellator: It is your case that there is no mechanism for pre- or post-counseling
in existing laws, and because of this, it is necessary to have a divorce bill?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: So in essence, youre using the lack of a counseling mechanism to
hinge and forward the case of divorce?
Speaker: No, we have also eliminated the necessity of proving juridical antecedence.
Interpellator: If your problem is the lack of counseling, do you not think that it is
practical that we can simply amend annulment grounds to allow for this, instead of
a divorce bill?
Speaker: We wanted severance of marital bonds.
Interpellator: What s the value then of your external bill if we can address your
problem of no counseling and not buffering the effects to the spouses themselves?
Speaker: We have forwarded a lot of benefits and necessity of passing a divorce bill,
and were not only focusing on post-counseling.
Interpellator: Should the State stand by a workable marriage, in your opinion?
Speaker: Of course.
Interpellator: In a divorce, is it not true that a marriage is valid for all intents and
purposes until something goes wrong?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: So there is an interval in the marriage, where the marriage was
workable in the running to the breakup of this particular marriage?
Speaker: Yes, but we cannot foresee
Interpellator: Should the State find it more practical to prevent the breakdown of a
marriage before it even becomes that bad?
Last speaker from the negative side
This is what we have to say why divorce is flawed in principle. We say that
the model is inherently impractical on three main levels. It creates a
dangerously open-ended paradigm because it expands the idea of
psychological incapacity. More than that, its redundant, and more than that,
its hinging on the case that there is no pre-imposed marriage counseling,
which is rather non-sequitur to begin with. We say that its predicated on the
notion that existent legal remedies arent enough, so divorce, as an added
alternative is the silver bullet to any and all marital problems. We say thats a
problem-solution mismatch.
Such solution is unresponsive to the real problems and its redundant. The
irreparable breakdown of a marriage happens in a timeline. In a divorce,
nothing is previously wrong with marriage when it was celebrated it was
valid for all purposes until it breaks down. Does not happen overnight but it
happens because of events that arise during the pendency marriage. These
are problems that add up over time. This presupposes that there was an
interval of time prior to marital collapse where issues where not hopeless or
unworkable. The state could have stopped the marriage from breaking down
during this interval of time.
Judge: If you were a battered wife would you not file a divorce if we had divorce law
in the Philippines?
Speaker: No, I would look at the other remedies that we currently have already. This
is what the state should encourage me to do.
This is where we feel the state should step in. During the interval where the
marriage is not yet unworkable and where the marriage can be saved so we
dont have to get to the point where we need divorce. We should prevent the
conflict, encourage reconciliation, and save the marriage. This is the
difference between annulment and their set up of divorce. Annulment means
the marriage was never valid to begin with because there was an
impediment during the marriage is celebrated. In divorce, the time reckoning
is from the time the problem occurs till the marital collapse, which we say we
can do something about in the interim.
Judge: Do you agree that psychological incapacity is actually used as a divorce
provision?
Speaker: Yes. But you have there are safety measures such as proving gravity,
juridical antecedence and incurability. In divorce, they cut out all these restraints to
make the process quicker.
So we say it is not practical to incentivize the tragedy by simply waiting till
the problem becomes that bad when you could have prevented it in the first
place. Impractical to say a state could dissolve a marriage that it could have
saved in the first place. Its a misaligned thrust. If you want the new option
because you think you dont have counseling, then amend your laws. If you
think its hard to procure, give your OSG the sufficient machinery to resolve
cases quicker. We have around 800 of these cases per month. There is only a
delay because the OSG doesnt have the machinery to quickly investigate
collusion. If the problem is violence and battered women according the
statistics of house bill 1799, your penal laws are sufficient. You need only to
exhaust the remedies. If your problem is a lack of a clear idea of the
intricacies of marriage ten we say the answer to the problem is not divorce
but to educate your people. It is redundant on this level. 1 st, we think the
mechanism merely mirrors some already existing mechanisms. In fact, these
existing mechanisms are better. It is intrinsically disagreeable. We heard no
standards or assurances from them that this will mesh with the culture of the
Filipino people. This will go against the constitutional mandate to err in the
side of marriages validity because we can prevent it from breaking down in
the first place.
Interpellation from the affirmative side
Interpellator: They have already conceded the laws insufficiency. The insufficiency
of status quo. Marriage is founded on love, respect, happiness, mutual help and
support?
Speaker: Yes.
Interpellator: If a husband beats his wife? Is there respect?
Speaker: No but not answerable by divorce.
Interpellator: If a husband abuses his wife is there love?
Speaker: No, but not answerable by divorce.
Interpellator: If a child sees their parents constantly fight, is there happiness for the
family? Does divorce make them more agreeable families?
Speaker: No.
Interpellator: Without love, happiness and mutual respect, there is no marriage or
family for the state to protect.
Speaker: I dont agree.
Interpellator: Is that the kind of family that the state seeks to protect?
Speaker: The State seeks to protect all valid families. That answer isnt answerable
by yes or no.
Judges deliberations
Affirmative side: Had quality arguments. Wise to have circumscribed the
parameters of your proposition and you limited the grounds and you even
provided post-divorce decree remedy. You moved away from the concept
presented by the House Bill and that way you were able to mitigate the
impact of your opposition. More importantly you were able to minimize
exposure from various frauds from interpellation.
Negative side: I would like to commend the Bedans for presenting solid
arguments. You also gave out laws and jurisprudence. You were very good
in your interpellation.

Affirmative side wins.