Lawmaker: Divorce bill contravenes Constitution
ALAPAN CITY, Oriental Mindoro — First District Rep. Arnan Panaligan said he voted against the Absolute Divorce Bill as it contravenes the Constitution’s declaration of marriage as an inviolable institution that the State shall protect.
“The key words are ‘inviolable’ and the mandatory ‘shall.’ The Divorce Bill tends to weaken this express and unequivocal constitutional command to the State to protect the sanctity of marriage,” said Panaligan in his social media page as he explained his reasons to vote against the Divorce Bill.
Panaligan stressed that the bill contravenes the expressed mandate of Article 15, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution that declares marriage as an inviolable institution.
The Mindoro lawmaker also cited legal reasons for opposing the bill, saying there is no need for absolute divorce because the existing law on annulment of marriage can provide the avenue for aggrieved partners to be freed from seriously problematic, flawed and defective marriages under Articles 45, 46 and 47 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
“The remedy is to improve and reform the present law on annulment and make the process simpler, faster and affordable,” Panaligan pointed out.
“Church annulment can be automatically recognized as grounds for civil annulment in summary proceedings. The public attorney’s office can be authorized to represent poor women (and men) who seek to have their marriage annulled,” added Panaligan.
Panaligan, a devout Catholic and has been a constant partner of the Catholic Church here on many of its religious activities, said that he adheres to the teachings of the Church, particularly with regard to this issue.
“Separation of Church and State does not mean separation of the
State from God. Politicians and government officials who profess the Christian faith must, in entering public and government service, strive to lead integrated Christian lives,” said Panaligan.
“To create a dichotomy between a politician’s religious beliefs and his stand on public issues involving moral choices would further contribute to the decadence of morality in the public sphere,” he averred.
Of the 260 members of the House of Representatives, 131 voted in favor of the bill, 109 voted against while 20 abstained.
In a message on Thursday, Panaligan said that he does not want to speculate on how the Senate would vote on the matter but hopes that the senators deliberate the bill with their conscience.