Absolute divorce law allowed under Constitution, Lagman insists

Albay 1st district Rep. Edcel Lagman (Facebook)

Amid claims that the proposed absolute divorce bill violates the 1987 Constitution, Albay 1st district Rep. Edcel Lagman says there is no provision that prohibits Congress from pursuing such historic measure.

In a statement on Sunday, June 30, Lagman said that without any provision barring absolute divorce, the Constitution thereby recognized marriage as a social institution vulnerable to “human frailties”.

House Bill (HB) No. 9349, titled “An Act Reinstituting Absolute Divorce as an Alternative Mode for the Dissolution of Marriage” was approved by the House of Representatives last May 22 in a close vote.

Several lawmakers and legal luminaries have presented arguments that this measure is unconstitutional, with many citing Article 15, Section 2 of the existing charter.

This provision explicitly states that marriage is an inviolable social institution that is “the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State”.

However, Lagman argued that prohibiting absolute divorce is not the intention of this provision.

He cited the proceedings in the Constitutional Commission, where Father Joaquin Bernas SJ asked the provision’s proponent, lawyer Chito Gascon, if this would bar the establishment of divorce in the Philippines.

“Is this to be understood as a prohibition of a general law on divorce? His intention is to make this a prohibition so that the legislature cannot pass a divorce law?” asked Bernas.

In response, Gascon said, “Mr. Presiding Officer, that was not primarily my intention. My intention was primarily to encourage the social institution of marriage, but not necessarily discourage divorce. But now that he mentioned the issue of divorce, my personal opinion is to discourage it, Mr. Presiding Officer.”

“No. My question is more categorical. Does this carry the meaning of prohibiting a divorce law?” Bernas responded back.

“No, Mr. Presiding Officer,” answered Gascon.

Lagman underscored that no commissioner posited a dissenting view, which makes this the basis for the Constitution to allow Congress to enact a divorce law.

“The sanctity of marriage does not institute an iron-clad union which fetters, impairs and destroys,” he said.

The veteran lawmaker points out that divorce is not the monster that destroys marriage and families. 

He said the main culprits are marital abuse, infidelity, and abandonment, among other mortal causes.

“A divorce law is a more comprehensive, affordable and expeditious mode of giving opportunity to seriously aggrieved spouses, like a battered wife, to regain freedom, self-respect, agency and happiness,” he noted.

With the majority of Filipino couples having happy and enduring marriages, Lagman assumes that they would not need a divorce law.

However, for couples whose marriages have been irremediably destroyed—exposing their children to physical and psychological trauma—divorce becomes a new lifeline.

Once enacted, it would be an option in addition to dissolution of marriage, legal separation, and annulment of marriage under the Family Code.

“Divorce rescues unfortunate spouses and their suffering children from a house on fire by having their marriage dissolved under strict judicial scrutiny and awarding custody and support for their children’s benefit,” said Lagman.

As one of the authors of the Reproductive Health Law, the independent minority congressman recalled that critics of the then-controversial measure argued on its unconstitutionality as well. This argument was later debunked, with the Supreme Court upholding its constitutionality.