Albay 1st district Rep. Edcel Lagman (Facebook)

Albay 1st district Rep. Edcel Lagman has described as "sore losers" the individuals who continue to question the passage on third and final reading of House Bill (HB) No.9349 or the Absolute Divorce Bill. 

"After having been given more than adequate and extended time to interpellate and expound on their opposition to the absolute divorce bill, the more vociferous detractors are sore losers as they continue to trample on the clear and well-accepted rule on the reckoning of the winning votes," he said in a statement Saturday, May 25. 

Lagman was the principal author of the controversial measure. Needless to say, HB No.9349's final passage last May 22, by virtue of a nominal vote result of 126-109-20 (yes-no-abstain), was a true shining moment for him and pro-divorce advocates. 

Then the assertion that the bill "failed" to pass third reading was floated, since 126 supposedly didn't represent the majority at the time of the vote. 

"An ordinary bill like reinstituting divorce needs the approval on third reading of only at least a majority of one more affirmative (yes) vote over the negative (no) votes when there is a quorum, while the abstentions are not considered in the counting as they are neither 'yes' nor 'no' votes," Lagman said. 

He argued that the majority of the entire membership of the House or the majority of the quorum was not required for the approval on third reading of a simple divorce bill. 

He said Section 117 of Rule XVII of the Rules of the House provides: “An abstention shall not be counted as a vote. Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by these rules, a majority of those voting, there being a quorum, shall decide the issue”. 

On May 23, a day after HB No.9349's third reading-passage, the House Secretary General's office announced that the affirmative votes was actually 131 and not 126. 

"Whether the winning margin is 126 to 109 as initially reported or 131 to 109 as later corrected by the Office of the Secretary General does not affect the ultimate legality of the final approval of the divorce bill," Lagman said. 

"Perforce, the engrossed copy of the divorce bill must be transmitted without further delay to the Senate. This is the mandate by the House on the Secretary General. Whatever inconsequential correction can be reported to and acted upon by the plenary when the Congress opens session on July 22, 2024," he explained. 

READ THIS: 

https://mb.com.ph/2024/5/24/paano-nangyari-yun-gomez-has-many-questions-on-absolute-divorce-bill-vote-change


Congress adjourned the second regular session sine die after the May 22 plenary proceedings. 

Lagman further contended that "It is completely baseless to assert that a 'sacramental marriage' or  church wedding will not be covered by a future divorce law." 

"A church marriage is recognized as a civilly valid marriage under the Family Code and is regulated like civil marriages by the secular laws on marriage," said the Bicolano. 

"It is hypocritical for the church to seek recognition of canonical dissolution of marriage, which is akin to civil divorce, and yet reject the coverage of a divorce law on church marriages which are recognized civilly," he said.