00:07:38

Are you filing a pleading in relation to a case before the Supreme Court? The
ECORPH portal is your new digital gateway to the entire Philippine judiciary. With
ECORPH, lawyers can file all cases before the Supreme Court except administrative
and bar matters. Upload pleadings and track their progress all online anytime,
anywhere. In this video, we'll guide you through how to use the platform and get
your filings done quickly, securely, and in full compliance with the rules of court.
Let's get started.

00:08:12
[Music] Go to and access the Philippine Judiciary Platform through the website
portal.judiciary.gov.ph. Simply log in with your credentials. [Music] NonPJ365 users
should create an account and undergo the required verification process through the
platform. Once you have a verified account, you just need to sign in and select
ecortph. Please note that some PJ 365 users must complete the verification process
in the Philippine judiciary platform and wait for confirmation before you can access
ecort.

00:08:55
[Music] Start by clicking ECORPH. Welcome to your dashboard. Here you'll find the
menu bar, cases filed per jurisdiction, statistics panels, list of filed cases and drafts,
and your general profile information. These are everything you need at a glance.
Ready to file? Click the new filing button to begin. Next, select the Supreme Court as
the jurisdiction for your filing. Here you have the option whether you're filing a new
case or submitting a pleading in relation to an existing one. Part one, filing a new
case. Case

00:09:38
details. To start filing a new case, the first thing that you need to do is to fill in key
information about your case. Enter the case category, case type, and the number of
cases being elevated to the Supreme Court. When you're ready, click next to move
forward or hit back to dashboard if you want to return to the main page. Now, let's
indicate the court of origin. Choose whether this is an original filing to the Supreme
Court or an appeal from a lower court or quasi judicial agency. If it's an appeal, click
add details if

00:10:17
filing an appeal from lower court or quasi judicial agency and fill in the necessary
fields such as the name of the court or agency, case number in the court of origin
and other important information. You may add as many entries as necessary to
indicate the procedural history of the case leading to its elevation to the Supreme
Court. [Music] When you're all set, click next to continue. [Music] For the lawyer's
details, click the update details of your law firm or government agency or as a solo

00:10:59
practitioner. To add the names and details of the council handling the case, a pop-up
window will appear. If you are filing on behalf of a government entity or a law firm,
select the appropriate agency or firm from the drop- down list and provide the
required details. [Music] Once all information has been entered, click update lawyer
details to save. Otherwise, simply click cancel to close the pop-up window. If you
have co-consils, you may add them so they can view the files by clicking add details
of other lawyer handling the

00:11:44
case at the lower left portion of your screen. A pop-up window will appear where
you'll need to verify each lawyer's details by entering their role number, first name,
and last name. You may add more lawyers who are co-handling the case with you.
Once all details have been reviewed and confirmed, click next to proceed. In the
parties details section, you will be required to identify all petitioners and
respondents to the case. To begin, click add petitioner or add respondent. A pop-up
window will appear. Provide the

00:12:23
necessary information for each party, including their classification, mailing address,
and whether they are represented by an authorized representative. [Music] If a
party is represented by council, you may select the appropriate lawyer from the
drop- down list. This list is automatically populated based on the information you
previously entered under lawyers details. [Music] You may add multiple petitioners
or respondents as may be applicable to the case. [Music] Upon completing the
parties details

00:13:36
section, you may now proceed to upload the necessary documents in support of
your filing. Separate upload fields are provided for the initiatory pleading and the
list of other documents or annexes. Please ensure that each file does not exceed
100 megabytes in size. [Music] Please note that pursuant to the guidelines on the
transition to electronic filing in the Supreme Court approved last May 20, 2025,
initiatory petitions or pleadings and motions for extensions of time to file those
petitions or pleadings in the following

00:14:30
instances shall also be filed electronically with the Supreme Court through the
Philippine Judiciary. platform from July 1, 2025 until September 30, 2025. Please
note, however, that filing through the Philippine Judiciary Platform is only an
additional requirement until September 30, as the primary mode of filing remains as
provided under the rules of court. Beginning October 1, 2025, the electronic filing
and service through the Philippine Judiciary Platform shall be mandatory for filers.
Initiatory

00:15:00
petitions or pleadings shall be filed through the Philippine Judiciary Platform, but
their service shall be in accordance with the rules of court. Once the documents are
uploaded, you may now proceed to pay the relevant fees for filing. Here you may
update relevant information, including fee exemptions or your payment details.
[Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] After completing your payment, carefully review all
case information provided in the previous steps. Just a reminder, if you need more
time

00:16:06
at any point in the process, your work is automatically saved in the drafts located at
the bottom of your dashboard. You can return to it anytime when you're ready to
continue, just before you submit it. Once verified, you may proceed to file the case
by clicking the submit and file button. [Music] Upon successful submission, the case
will appear on your dashboard. You may continue to monitor its progress and view
case details by selecting it from the list. Part two, filing a pleading in relation

00:16:46
to an existing case. Now that we've walked through the process of filing a new case,
let's move on to how you can file in relation to an existing case before the Supreme
Court. This applies when the matter you're filing is connected to a previously filed
case. The steps are similar, but with a few key differences tailored to the context of
an existing case. On your dashboard, click new filing to initiate the process. Select
the appropriate jurisdiction and then choose related to existing case.

00:17:21
Enter the existing case number in the designated field and indicate your role in the
case. If this is your first time filing in the case, an entry of appearance will be
generated after the filing. Click enter appearance. You will then select the party you
are representing. In instances where a party does not have contact details recorded,
you may input a valid email address and phone number. Ensure that the correct
party is selected before clicking save to confirm your appearance and contact
information.

00:18:02
That wraps up our instructional guide on how to file cases using ecort PH. Whether
you're filing a new case or submitting pleadings for an existing one, right now this
system is available for filings before the Supreme Court, but its adoption across
other courts is expected to follow soon. With the Supreme Court pushing forward
with its modernization efforts, ECORPH is a big step toward making court processes
faster, more transparent, and easier for everyone to access. The Philippine Judiciary
Platform is the

00:18:42
digital gateway to the Philippine Judiciary. Here you can access the barista app for
applicants to the bar, the JBC oras for applicants to the judiciary and ecortph for
electronic filing to the Supreme Court. How to create an account through the
Philippine Judiciary platform. Click create an account. Choose whether or not you
are an employee of the Philippine Judiciary. You will be asked to tick whether or not
you are a member of the Philippine Bar. If you are a member of the bar, remember
to input your name as registered in the

00:19:19
Philippine bar membership. If you are a recently married female, you may still have
to use your maiden name if that is what is registered in your bar membership.
Upload your recent ID photos and government IDs. You should likewise be asked to
upload your company ID or an additional government ID. [Music] Wait for the
verification after clicking the request account before you may be able to create a
password and answer a security question. Go to your email and follow the
succeeding instructions.

00:19:56
Click verify my account request. Once verified, you will receive another email
welcoming you to the Philippine Judiciary Platform. Click get started. Follow the
instructions on how to activate your account by choosing a security question and
type in your answer. Next, nominate your password. This is the password you will
use whenever you are using the platform. If you are not a member of the Philippine
bar, uploading of IDs is not required. You may proceed to create your password and
security question.

00:20:38
[Music] Congratulations, you now have an account in the Philippine Judiciary
Platform. [Music] May clearance judge my cell phone or laptops. [Music] Click on
courtator branch region or city [Music] drive. You have reached your destination.
Accessible. [Music] [Music] The Philippine Reports is an authorized publication of
Supreme Court decisions published in book form. It now spans hundreds of volumes.
It is an essential resource for lawyers, judges, legal researchers, law schools, and
students. However, accessing the
00:22:53
Philippine reports can be challenging because of its cost and inaccessibility to those
who are in remote areas. Thus, the Supreme Court saw the need for the Philippine
reports to be more accessible to the legal community and the general public.
Introducing Philippine Reports ebooks. Copies can now be accessed by anyone,
anytime, anywhere, for free. Philippine Reports at your fingertips. The reports can
now be accessed in formats that are useful in various applications. The PDF format
can be read from any

00:23:32
device. The EPUB can be read in any ebook reader. Finally, the flip book allows users
to read the entire volume like an actual book. It also allows the user to easily search
keywords within the entire text. In line with the target outcomes of the strategic
plan for judicial innovations of efficiency, innovation, and access, the new Philippine
Reports ebooks will give the legal community much needed tools to help the public
to an accessible, innovative, and efficient judiciary. Presenting [Music]

00:24:23
the Supreme Court Style Book, a groundbreaking resource designed to elevate the
standard of judicial writing. [Music] Decision writing is a critical stage in the
administration of justice. The style book sets the tone for what is expected of court
decisions. Graceful, powerful, yet accessible. It guides us toward clarity,
consistency, and uniformity, enabling the public to clearly understand court
decisions. Lawyers and other stakeholders are called upon to dive into the style
book to study, learn, and adhere to its

00:25:16
instructions. A compilation of wisdom from the best authorities and references in
the field. The Supreme Court style book, where elephants meets justice. Embrace
the future of judicial writing. The Supreme Court podcast is now available on Spotify.
Listen to discussions and summaries of significant Supreme Court decisions and
other issuances as well as latest Supreme Court projects. Have you ever had
relatives asking you what's the quickest way to secure an Is a company policy
setting a lower
00:25:59
retirement age for women discriminatory? In fact, be found negligent for allowing
unauthorized. You go to jail for marital infidelity. Very honored to have with us court
administrator Rahul B. Villaina. Every year our case load inventory is decreasing.
Catch the latest episodes on the Supreme Court website and its official accounts on
YouTube, Facebook, X, Instagram, and now also on Spotify. New episodes out each
week. [Music] [Music] Hey, [Music] hey, [Music] hey. [Music] from the Supreme
Court of the

00:27:09
Philippines. Here's the latest decisions that matter. The Supreme Court has another
decision. The SE has acquitted two individuals. Events that shape the law. The SE
welcome the signing into the ceremony sealed the partnership. The Supreme Court
Public Information Office brings you the week's key updates. Catch SCP updates
every Friday on the court's official social media channels. [Music] On June 28, 2022,
the Supreme Court on Bank led by Chief Justice Alexander Gigismundo approved the
strategic plan

00:27:47
for judicial innovations 2022 to 2027 or the SPJI. The SPJI aims to achieve three
major outcomes: efficiency, innovation, and access. Under efficiency, the court will
undertake to streamline court systems and processes. Some of the proposed
activities to achieve efficiency are the judiciary-wide organizational review and
restructuring, a systemwide process mapping, a public service continuity plan, the
use of an experience-based and datadriven performance metrics and evaluation
system, a campaign for

00:28:25
ethical responsibility, the organizational review and process mapping of the judicial
integrity board, the establishment of mental health units, the institutionalization of
a socialized health insurance plan. Free or subsidize mandatory physical and mental
health examinations for court employees. Under innovation, the judiciary will
modernize court processes and operations through technology adaptive
management. Some of the proposed activities to achieve innovation are capitalizing
on artificial intelligence for legal

00:29:01
research and other court operations. Developing and deploying the upgraded ecort
system. Formulating the judiciary enterprise ICT governance framework. Developing
a 5-year ICT strategic plan in a judiciary MIS operations manual. Developing the
network infrastructure for the judiciary. the establishment of a Philippine judiciary
online learning platform which will be administered by the Philippine Judicial
Academy. The revision of the rules of court under access. The SPJI aims to enhance
public access to information and legal

00:29:38
services. Some of the proposed activities to achieve access are the development of
intelligent platforms for self-help legal services, the continued institutionalization of
the clinical legal education program in law school, the strengthening of the IBP legal
aid program, the conduct of gender sensitivity and inclusivity reorientation and
application workshops considering new laws and issuances like the court's own
recent issuance, the guidelines for the use of gender fair language in the judiciary
and gender

00:30:11
fair courtroom etiquette. The issuance of guidelines for victims sensitive courts. An
institutional review and assessment of the Sharia justice system. A review of the
Sharia rules of court. While the road ahead may be filled with challenges, we have
faith that with all of us working together, the justices, judges, court officials, and
employees, law practitioners, court users, the academ, the media, and the general
public, we can truly achieve this goal of timely justice for all efficiency, innovation,
access. Three targeted

00:30:49
outcomes towards the ultimate goal of the timely delivery of justice. [Music] Are you
filing a pleading in relation to a case before the Supreme Court? The ECOP PH portal
is your new digital gateway to the entire Philippine judiciary. With ECORPH, lawyers
can file all cases before the Supreme Court except administrative and bar matters.
Upload pleadings and track their progress all online anytime, anywhere. In this
video, we'll guide you through how to use the platform and get your filings done
quickly, securely, and in

00:31:26
full compliance with the rules of court. Let's get started. [Music] Go to and access
the Philippine Judiciary Platform through the website portal.judiciary.gov.ph. Simply
log in with your credentials. [Music] NonPJ365 users should create an account and
undergo the required verification process through the platform. Once you have a
verified account, you just need to sign in and select ecortph. Please note that some
PJ365 users must complete the verification process in the Philippine Judiciary
Platform and wait

00:32:12
for confirmation before you can access ECORPH. [Music] Start by clicking
ecortphash. Here you'll find the menu bar, cases filed per jurisdiction, statistics
panels, list of filed cases and drafts, and your general profile information. These are
everything you need at a glance. Ready to file? Click the new filing button to begin.
Next, select the Supreme Court as the jurisdiction for your filing. Here you have the
option whether you're filing a new case or submitting a pleading in relation to an
existing one.

00:32:56
Part one, filing a new case. Case details. To start filing a new case, the first thing
that you need to do is to fill in key information about your case. Enter the case
category, case type, and the number of cases being elevated to the Supreme Court.
When you're ready, click next to move forward or hit back to dashboard if you want
to return to the main page. Now, let's indicate the court of origin. Choose whether
this is an original filing to the Supreme Court or an appeal from a lower court or
quasi judicial

00:33:33
agency. If it's an appeal, click add details if filing an appeal from lower court or quasi
judicial agency and fill in the necessary fields such as the name of the court or
agency, case number in the court of origin and other important information. You
may add as many entries as necessary to indicate the procedural history of the case
leading to its elevation to the Supreme Court. [Music] When you're all set, click next
to continue. [Music] For the lawyer's details, click the update details of your law firm
or

00:34:18
government agency or as a solo practitioner. To add the names and details of the
council handling the case, a pop-up window will appear. If you are filing on behalf of
a government entity or a law firm, select the appropriate agency or firm from the
drop- down list and provide the required details. [Music] Once all information has
been entered, click update lawyer details to save. Otherwise, simply click cancel to
close the pop-up window. If you have co-consils, you may add them so they can
view the files by clicking

00:35:02
add details of other lawyer handling the case at the lower left portion of your
screen. A pop-up window will appear where you'll need to verify each lawyer's
details by entering their role number, first name, and last name. You may add more
lawyers who are co-handling the case with you. Once all details have been reviewed
and confirmed, click next to proceed. [Music] In the parties details section, you will
be required to identify all petitioners and respondents to the case. To begin, click
add petitioner or add respondent.

00:35:41
A pop-up window will appear. Provide the necessary information for each party,
including their classification, mailing address, and whether they are represented by
an authorized representative. [Music] If a party is represented by council, you may
select the appropriate lawyer from the drop-own list. This list is automatically
populated based on the information you previously entered under lawyers details.
[Music] You may add multiple petitioners or respondents as may be applicable to
the case.
00:36:26
[Music] Upon completing the parties details section, you may now proceed to
upload the necessary documents in support of your filing. [Music] Separate upload
fields are provided for the initiatory pleading and the list of other documents or
annexes. Please ensure that each file does not exceed 100 megabytes in size.
[Music] Please note that pursuant to the guidelines on the transition to electronic
filing in the Supreme Court approved last May 20, 2025, initiatory petitions or
pleadings and motions for

00:37:47
extensions of time to file those petitions or pleadings in the following instances shall
also be filed electronically with the Supreme Court through the Philippine Judiciary
Plan. platform from July 1, 2025 until September 30, 2025. Please note, however,
that filing through the Philippine Judiciary Platform is only an additional requirement
until September 30 as the primary mode of filing remains as provided under the
rules of court beginning October 1, 2025. The electronic filing and service through

00:38:16
the Philippine Judiciary Platform shall be mandatory for filers. Initiatory petitions or
pleadings shall be filed through the Philippine Judiciary Platform, but their service
shall be in accordance with the rules of court. Once the documents are uploaded,
you may now proceed to pay the relevant fees for filing. Here you may update
relevant information, including fee exemptions or your payment details. [Music]
Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music] After completing your payment, carefully review all
case information provided in

00:39:20
the previous steps. Just a reminder, if you need more time at any point in the
process, your work is automatically saved in the drafts located at the bottom of your
dashboard. You can return to it any time when you're ready to continue, just before
you submit it. Once verified, you may proceed to file the case by clicking the submit
and file button. [Music] Upon successful submission, the case will appear on your
dashboard. You may continue to monitor its progress and view case details by
selecting it from
00:39:58
the list. Part two, filing a pleading in relation to an existing case. Now that we've
walked through the process of filing a new case, let's move on to how you can file in
relation to an existing case before the Supreme Court. This applies when the matter
you're filing is connected to a previously filed case. The steps are similar, but with a
few key differences tailored to the context of an existing case. On your dashboard,
click new filing to initiate the process. Select the appropriate jurisdiction and

00:40:37
then choose related to existing case. Enter the existing case number in the
designated field and indicate your role in the case. If this is your first time filing in
the case, an entry of appearance will be generated after the filing. Click enter
appearance. You will then select the party you are representing. In instances where
a party does not have contact details recorded, you may input a valid email address
and phone number. Ensure that the correct party is selected before clicking save to
confirm your

00:41:12
appearance and contact information. That wraps up our instructional guide on how
to file cases using ecort PH. Whether you're filing a new case or submitting
pleadings for an existing one, right now this system is available for filings before the
Supreme Court, but its adoption across other courts is expected to follow soon. With
the Supreme Court pushing forward with its modernization efforts, ECORPH is a big
step toward making court processes faster, more transparent, and easier for
everyone to access.

00:42:00
The Philippine Judiciary Platform is the digital gateway to the Philippine Judiciary.
Here you can access the barista app for applicants to the bar, the JBC or for
applicants to the judiciary and ecortph for electronic filing to the Supreme Court.
How to create an account through the Philippine Judiciary platform. Click create an
account. Choose whether or not you are an employee of the Philippine Judiciary. You
will be asked to tick whether or not you are a member of the Philippine Bar. If you
are a member of the bar, remember

00:42:37
to input your name as registered in the Philippine bar membership. If you are a
recently married female, you may still have to use your maiden name if that is what
is registered in your bar membership. Upload your recent ID photos and government
IDs. You should likewise be asked to upload your company ID or an additional
government ID. [Music] Wait for the verification after clicking the request account
before you may be able to create a password and answer a security question. Go to
your email and

00:43:14
follow the succeeding instructions. Click verify my account request. Once verified,
you will receive another email welcoming you to the Philippine Judiciary Platform.
Click get started. Follow the instructions on how to activate your account by
choosing a security question and typing your answer. Next, nominate your
password. This is the password you will use whenever you are using the platform. If
you are not a member of the Philippine bar, uploading of IDs is not required. You
may proceed to create your password

00:43:52
and security question. [Music] Congratulations, you now have an account in the
Philippine Judiciary Platform. [Music] All please rise. The honorable the Chief Justice
of the Republic of the Philippines, the Senior Associate Justice, and the Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Hear ye. Hear ye, hear ye. All
persons having business before the honorable Supreme Court of the Philippines
shall give their attention for the court is now in session. Please be seated. Madame
Clerk of Court, please call the

00:55:40
case before us. Good afternoon, your honors. Scheduled for this afternoon's oral
arguments is GR number 257575. Melvin A. Baluyot, petitioner versus Maria Fes
Antonio Baluyot and Republic of the Philippines. respondents. Thank you, your
honor. Okay, councils, please enter your appearances, please. Starting with the
petitioners, then the respondent. Uh, good afternoon, uh, your honor. I'm attorney
Melvin Dcastro Man, appearing as council for the petitioner, your honor. Good
afternoon, your honors. The office

00:56:36
of the solicitor general respectfully enters its appearance for respondent Republic of
the Philippines. I'm Solicitor General Darlene Marie Burber. With me this afternoon,
your honors are Assistant Solicitor General Marissa B. de la Cruz Galandinz assistant
solicitor general Mirna N. Agno Canuto assist and state solicitor Joseph Roman D de
Laquesta other lawyers of the OSG are in the gallery to provide assistance
whenever necessary. Thank you for the amicure. Justice Adulpo Asuna retired.
Respectfully appearing as Amikos Kuri,

00:57:29
your honor adula. Thank you. Attorney Elizabeth Agiling Pangalan. Oh, sorry. Um,
good afternoon your honors. Respectfully appearing as Amikus cure, Professor
Elizabeth Agiling Pangalang, your honors. Thank you. Thank you. Attorney Melenos
Hessant Tamaria Jr. Good afternoon, your honors. I'm attorney Meleno Santa Maria
respectfully appearing as one of the Amiti Kur. Thank you. Attorney Maria Lisa Lopez
Rosari. Good afternoon your honors. Attorney Marilis Lopez Rosario amus. Thank
you. Attorney Maria Carina Tigarda.

00:58:39
Good afternoon, your honors. Attorney Learda for Asamikos Cure. Thank you.
Attorney Ambatali. Good afternoon, your honors. I'm attorney Elizer Pariso Ambatali
representing Dr. Clar Dennis Esapa under secretary of the Philippine Statistics
Authority Asam. Thank you. Is petitioner Melvin Baloy around Mr. Council? No your
honor. He was not able to make it. He's still in United States as of now. Your honor,
what about the respondent? Are you aware [Music] Antonio? uh for the record your
honor uh

00:59:30
respondent or private respondent actually does not make didn't make uh is her
appearance in actually even the uh trial court. Thank you for the information. Okay.
As discussed during the preliminary conference held on July 1, 2021, council for the
petitioner and council for the respondents shall each be allotted 15 minutes to
deliver respective opening statements for each amicuse spray shall be given 10
minutes to present their submissions before the court. The council for the petitioner
approach the podium for your

01:00:06
presentation. Thank you your honor. May it please the honorable court. Good
afternoon everyone. I'm attorney Melvin Diccastro Man respectfully acting as
councelor for the petitioner. I rise before this honorable court to preserve the
petitioner's argument in this petition for review file persu 45 of the ro court. The
core issue in this petition is whether a petitioner who was a Filipino citizen at the
time who obtained a divorce from his Filipino spouse in the United States
subsequently

01:00:39
acquired American citizenship and later reacquired Philippine citizenship before
filing a petition for recognition may validly invoke the second paragraph of article
26 of the family code to seek judicial recognition of foreign divorce degree. The
petitioner is a naturalb born Filipino citizen enter a marriage in the Philippines and
during the subsistence of this marriage he obtained a divorce decree in the United
States. A critical as a or crucial aspect of this case is that at the precise moment of
this

01:01:14
foreign divorce was obtained the petitioner remain a Philippine national. After the
finalization of the divorce the petitioner acquired American citizenship through
naturalization. Later the petitioner reacquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to
Republic Act number 9225. Now the petitioner seeks recognition of this foreign
divorce before our local court aiming to clarify his marital status under the
Philippine law. It is undeniable that this case present a matter of first impression. It
does not fall squarely within the factual
01:01:54
matrix of fri rulings rendered by honorable court in Oracido. The divorce was
secured by the foreign spouse. In Manalo, the divorce was obtained by a former
Filipino who already acquired foreign citizenship at the time of the dissolution. By
contrast, this case uh in petitioner obtained a divorce while still a Filipino citizen,
acquired American citizenship thereafter and eventually return to the fault of the
Philippine nationality. This sequence of event introduces a nuance and more
complex scenario that

01:02:28
requires a thoughtful and purpose application of the law. The second paragraph of
article 21 26 paragraph 2 of the family code was intended to protect a foreign a
Filipino spouse left bound by Philippine law after a divorce initiated by a foreign
divorce in a mixed marriage. Some argue that it does not apply when the marriage
between or began between two Filipinos or when the Filipino spouse obtained the
divorce. However, recent juristprudence has moved toward a broader, more
equitable interpretation that better

01:03:00
reflects the evolving realities of crossborder marriages. While article 26 paragraph 2
of the family code may not strictly apply in this case due to the nationality principle
under article 15 of the civil code, the ruling in republic in Manalo which emphasized
the need for foreign citizenship at the time of divorce and the restorative restorative
effect of RA number 225. The petitioner respectlessly submit that recognition of
foreign divorce remains legally viable for the following circumstances or reasons
though court

01:03:37
may opt again to adopt a liberal and proposive interpretation of article 26
paragraph 2 of the family code. Article 26, paragraph 2 of the family code was
enacted to address the inequities paid by Filipinos living abroad who upon returning
to the Philippines are still considered married under Philippine law despite having
obtained a violent divorce under foreign law. A liberal and proposed up
interpretation of this law empowers the honorable court to extend recognition in the
present case considering that the

01:04:09
petitioner subsequently acquired American citizenship under which the divorce he
obtained while still a Filipino is deemed valid and effective in Manalo. The honorable
court allowed the recognition of foreign divorce obtained by a former Filipino who
subsequently re reacquired Filipino citizenship. The court emphasized the intent of
article 26 paragraph 2 which is to protect the Filipinos from being perfectly bound to
a marriage that has already been dissolved under foreign law. Applying the same
reasoning, the

01:04:43
court may similarly hold that if the petitioner was still a Filipino citizen at the time
the divorce was obtained but later become a foreign national and thereafter
reacquired Philippine citizenship, the deor the divorce rather may still be recognized
provided that it was valid under the petitioner personal law at the time the
recognition is sought. While citizenship at the time of divorce is a relevant factor in
cases involving a change in citizenship after divorce such in Manalo where the
petitioner

01:05:14
became a foreign citizen after divorce but before seeking recognition. It is not with
due respect not that controlling criterion proposes up for recognition of foreign
divorce in this case. With due respect, the proper criter criterion should be the legal
status of the party at the time recognition is sought. This is because recognition of
foreign divorce is prospective in nature and affects a personal civil status moving
forward. Accordingly, it is the petitioner status at the time the request for
recognition

01:05:48
is made that should burn and not the status at the time the divorce was obtained.
For it is the moment of recognition that Philippine courts determine whether the
foreign law should have effect within the country. For this reason, it is not logical to
make the petitioner legal status at the time of divorce determinative, especially so
when the individual was already a foreign national at that point when his personal
law has changed and the divorce he obtained may vi may be valid under that new
law. Consequently, although the

01:06:27
petitioner was still a Filipino citizen when he secured a foreign divorce, his
subsequent acquisition of foreign nationality altered his personal law. At that point,
the foreign divorce he had obtained as a Filipino began to operate in defining his
civil status under his new personal law. Conversely, if the recognition were to
defend solely on petitioner citizenship at the time the divorce was obtained, it would
lead to absurd inequitable result as the petitioner will be deemed bound by
marriage that was already been validly

01:07:03
dissolved under the foreign law notwithstanding his subsequent acquisition of
foreign nationality. In effect, it would disregard the legal significance of his
subsequent change in citizenship which shifted his personal law to that of foreign
jurisdiction where the divorce is recognized as valid and effective. As a result, a rigid
econological approach which is adopted in the case of Manalo and Abraido where it
uh uh where it undermine undermines the intent of article 26 product two of the
family

01:07:38
code should be avoided and legal interpretation must account for the realities of
transnational lives of Filipinos include those hold including those who hold dual
citizenship or merit to foreign nationals. Finally, to deny recognition on the sole
basis of petitioner citizenship at the time of divorce elevates form over substance
and undermines the principle of equal protections of laws and flexibility of legal
system that responds to contemporary global realities. Extending jurisdiction in this
case does

01:08:15
not with due respect violate the nationality principle under article 15 of the civil
code. On the contrary, extending jurisdiction in this case affirms the nationality
principle could due given that during the period in which the petitioner was a
foreign national, it was the law of his country of citizenship that governed his civil
status. to insist that the Philippine law continued to govern the fetisher during the
period reflects a mislication of article 15 and undermines the very nationality
principle it seeks to

01:08:52
uphold. In this case, divorce happened when petitioner was a Filipino said the
Philippine law applies and strictly speaking the divorce is boy. However, when the
petitioner later become a foreign national, his personal law changed to that of
foreign nationality and cease to be governed by the Philippine laws. This means that
divorce he obtained while still a Filipino became valid and effective under his new
personal law after his citizenship change concept. Hence, while petitioner may have
lacked the capacity to obtain a

01:09:28
valid divorce under the Philippine law at the time it was granted, his subsequent
change in citizenship and personal law provides him a legal basis upon which the
divorce obtained as a Filipino beam became valid and effective. Petitioner's dual
citizenship does not adversely affect his standing to file this petition. Would you
respect RA number 225 supports a recognition of foreign divorce in this case?
Reacquiring Philippine citizenship under RA9225 does not cancel or undo valid legal
acts

01:10:07
such as foreign divorce are they taking when the individual was a foreign national.
The law recognizes the continuity of rights and legal effects performed under
foreign law regime during the period of the foreign tensionship remain valid and
effective. RA number 225 was not enacted to erase legal events that occurred under
a different force in the law but rather to restore rights and reintegrate naturalb born
Filipino into full legal framework of Filipino citizenship and this include the
restoration of both the political
01:10:42
and civil rights without discrimination or diminish right furthermore there's nothing
in the text of the law or intent of the law that requires a reacquire ing citizenship to
repudiate valid acts such as foreign divorce entered un entered under the laws of
another country during the time they were born by a different personal law to
disregard such act both unfair and inconsistent with the remedial purpose of the
statute. Although RA number 9225 contains a provision stating that reacquiring
individuals are deemed not to have lost

01:11:20
their Philip citizenship. This provision with due respect must be interpreted as
respective in nature. It restores rights as the right to own land and the right to vote.
But it does not invalidate legal events that occurred under the foreign law or during
the intervening period when the individual was governed by the personal law of a
foreign sovereign. Under international law, a personal civil status is governed by
one's nationality. In the context of this case, although the foreign divorce

01:11:54
was obtained while the petition while petitioner was still a Filipino, it later become
valid under the law of his new nationality when he acquired where he acquired
foreign nationality. This legal change should be respected and not negated simply
because the petitioner subsequent subsequently reacquired politine citizenship RA
under RA9225. Hence the foreign divorce you obtain should remain valid and should
be recognized with due respect by the Philippine court. The full restoration of a
returning

01:12:31
Filipino civil and political rights necessary entails recognition of legal acts that were
valid at the time they were undertaken. The interpretation more accurately reflects
the legislative intent of RA number 9225 which is merely to restore citizenship in a
technical sense but to facilitate the meaning meaningful and equitable reintegration
of the individual into the Philippine legal order. To conrue RA number 225 in a
manner that disregards, invalidate the legal effects of a foreign divorce would
unjustly
01:13:07
penalize naturalborn citizens for exercising the right to require Philippine citizenship.
It would likewise eronia imply that the requisition nullifies not only their prior foreign
nationality but all the legal developments in changes and civil status lawfully
affected under a foreign legal regime. With you respect such approach would
undermine legal certainty for dual citizens and cast serious doubt on the validity of
the essential civil status events including marriages and divorces. thereby jifi
jeopardizing the

01:13:45
stability and coherence of their legal identity under the Philippine law. Another
ground upon which this petition is based is that to deny recognition may constitute
a violations of petitioners right of equal protections of law. The equal protection law
of law under art section 1 article 3 of 198787 constitution mandates that all person
simul situated are treated alike under the law while the state may create
classification that must satisfy the test of reasonableness. They may be based on
substantial

01:14:22
distinction germanine to the purpose of the law not confined to present conditions
and apply equally to all within the class. In the case of BA, there is no substantial
distinction between former Filipino citizen who obtained a foreign divorce before
acquiring foreign citizenship and those who did so after naturalization as foreign
national that would warrant different treatment under the Philippine law. Both
former Filipinos upon acquiring foreign nationality are deemed aliens for purposes of
article 26

01:14:56
paragraph 2 of the family code and were born by the respective foreign personal
laws pursuant again to article 15 of the civil code the act of naturalization sever the
individual's juridical tie to per Philippine personal law including those governing
marital relations Accordingly, to permit the recognition of foreign the divorce only
which is obtained after the change of citizenship while withholding such recognition
when the divorce was secured prior to prenaturalization creates a classification that
is not

01:15:36
based on real and substantial distinction. Such classification with due respect is
constitutionally infirm because it would violate the equal protection clause. It relies
on timing of citizenship acquisition which has no rational connection to the
legislative purpose of article 26 paraduct two of the family code. The honorable
court in Abraido did not make this rec make did not make recognition of foreign
divorce contingent on who initiated the divorce or the timing of change in
citizenship. It required only that one of the spouses

01:16:14
had acquired foreign nationality. Similarly, in Manalo, the court affirmed that even
divorce initiated by Filipino spouse may be recognized provided that the marriage is
no longer buried under the foreign spouse national law. Consequently, imposing
condition that not expertly found in the text of article 26, paragraph 2 of the family
code offends the equal protection clause of the constitution. The operative must be
the existence of a mixed marriage at the time the recognition is sought. For it it is
the moment that moment that the

01:16:50
court extended recognition that Philippine courts determine whether the fair uh
whether the foreign divorce shall have legal effect within the country. Another
grounds upon which this petition is that um based is anchored is the doctrine of a
clean hand. does not apply in this case. The doctrine of unclean hands is as we
know is an equitable principle requiring that he who comes in equity but comes with
clean hands. Applying this doctrine to this petition for recognition under article is
incorrect. Petition for recognition

01:17:28
article is not an equitable action but a special proceedings covered by private
international law and procedural due process. He seeks to recognize a valid judical
act for form abroad and does not unbold discretionary relief as held in Manalo. The
only relevant question or whether the foreign divorce decree is authentic, final and
obtained in accordance with applicable poring law, moral force or the petitioner
conduct is irrelevant. Article 26 paragraph 2 does not distinguish between innocent
at

01:18:03
fault and at fault spouses and it settled that the law must not read into the law
distinction that legislature did not make. The recognition of foreign divorce is a
question of legal validity and not of moral culpability. Next is uh whether the court
should inform the Congress of the present controversy. The involvement Jewish
students in the recognition of foreign divorce in the Philippines particularly through
Obraido and Manalo has significantly expanded the scope of article 26 paragraph 2.
However, repeated adjudication has

01:18:41
already revealed a certatoric graph that result in adequate prediction, procedural
burdens and conceptual ambiguity. In this context, a vital question arises. Should
this honorable court formally call the attention of Congress to this deficiency and
recommend legislative form reform? Although the honorable court has liberally and
purposely construed article 26 paragraph 2, it remains bound by the statute textual
limitation. The law does not excessly covers divorces initiated by Filipino spouses,
nor does it address

01:19:17
dual citizenship. This omission with respect may lead to interpretive uncertaintities
particularly in relation to RA number 9225. As a result, the burden of achieving just
outcomes that fallen into judicial interpretation interpretation rather than the
judicisive clarity. It is establishing jurist prudence. Sorry. Okay. Sorry. That would be
your honor. Thank you. May we request the Sister General to proceed with their
presentation. Thank you, your honor. Paragraph two of article 26 of the family code
has sparked much legal

01:20:09
discussion since the code came into effect in 1988. This second paragraph has been
the subject of many cases and as a result our jury's prudence has developed to
clarify its application. Today we find ourselves once again facing questions about
how this law should be understood and applied. At the heart at the heart of this
case lies a tension between on one hand our longstanding state policy disallowing
absolute divorce between Filipino citizens and our consistent adherence to the
nationality principle and on the

01:20:47
other an unjustified invocation of dual nationality to render inapplicable the state
policy. Your honors, concededly, article 26 recognizes certain types of foreign
divorce, but only as an exception. And the exception is very clear. It applies only
when the marriage is between a Filipino and a foreigner. The issue before the court
today is whether this narrow exception applies to the petitioner's case. We
respectfully submit that it does not. We begin with two facts that are not in dispute.

01:21:27
First, when the petitioner divorced his wife in the United States on 18th October
2010, both he and his wife were still Filipino citizens. Second, although he acquired
American citizenship on 20 February 2019, 8 years after obtaining divorce, and
while he reacquired Filipino citizenship a little over a year after that on 3 July 2020,
he and his wife were nevertheless still Filipinos at the time when the divorce was
granted. on that basis alone your honors the petition should be denied. Our
constitution states that marriage is the

01:22:12
foundation of the family and mandates the state to protect and strengthen this
institution. The family code echoes this, declaring marriage a special contract of
permanent union, one whose consequences and effects can never be subject to any
personal preferences or private agreements. And this honorable court has
consistently ruled that Philippine law does not allow absolute divorce between
Filipino citizens. This has been settled law since 1965 when in Ten Chavez versus
Escano, this honorable court emphasized that
01:22:53
recognizing a foreign divorce between two Filipino citizens would be a clear violation
of Philippine public policy. Why is this so? Because of the nationality principle
enshrined in article 15 of the civil code. The principle subjects all Filipino citizens to
Philippine laws on among others personal and family relations even when they are
living or married abroad and that includes the policy that this allows absolute
divorce. True. Paragraph 2 of article 26 creates a narrow exception to this policy. It
allows a

01:23:34
Filipino spouse to remarry if their foreign spouse validly obtained a divorce abroad
and that divorce allows the foreign spouse to remarry. And while this court has
further clarified its interpretation of this provision by later holding irrelevant who
between the foreign or Filipino spouse initiated the divorce, it has nonetheless
preserved one key condition for the application of this narrow exception that the
marriage must be mixed, meaning one party is a Filipino and the other a foreigner
at the time of

01:24:14
divorce. This exception is rooted in the rule of reason and the legislative intent to
avoid the absurd situation where a Filipino will remain legally bound to a foreign
spouse who under foreign law has already been released from their matrimonial
bond. As the code commission records show, the framers of this law following the
court's reasoning in Van Dornne initially justified the inclusion of this exception to
prevent such anomalies. The records likewise show that they later wavered in their
initial

01:24:52
decision, preferring instead to await legislative action on the most complex issue of
divorce. Article 26, paragraph 2 exists today because then President Corazon Aino
approved its inclusion in our family code with one critical caveat that it should not
apply to Filipino couples who simply obtain a foreign divorce abroad. To hold
otherwise is to unduly discriminate between Filipinos who can afford to fly to distant
shores to sever their marital bonds and the vast majority of our brethren without
01:25:32
resources to do so. Your honors, in Republic versus Orbesido, this honorable court
said that what matters is the citizenship of the parties at the time of the divorce, not
when they got married. In that case, the wife had become a naturalized American
citizen before she she obtained the divorce. That made the marriage a mixed one at
the time of divorce and so the Filipino husband could seek recognition of that
divorce. Here in Orbecido, the court fixed the date of divorce as the point when the
existence of mixed marriages

01:26:14
should be reconed, expressly affirming its previous rulings, which subsequently
found expression in paragraph 2 of article 26. In Republic versus Manalo, the Filipino
wife obtained a divorce from her Japanese husband. The court allowed her to seek
recognition of that divorce in the Philippines, not because she was Filipino, but
because the divorce was valid under the law of her foreign spouse. In both cases,
the foreign element was present at the time of divorce. In contrast, here both
petitioner and respondent were Filipino

01:26:52
citizens when the divorce was obtained. that makes this a purely Filipino marriage
and under our laws, a foreign divorce between two Filipinos is simply not
recognized. Petitioner argues that his later naturalization as an American citizen
somehow cures the defect in the divorce thereby making possible its enforcement in
this jurisdiction. We respectfully disagree. The critical moment is when the divorce
was obtained and at that time petitioner was still bound by Philippine law. Changing
citizenship after the divorce does not

01:27:31
alter the legal consequences of what was already done. It cannot validate a decree
that was clearly void at the time of its issuance. Furthermore, petitioner's current
dual citizenship reinforces our position even as we admit that dual citizens have
certain rights and privileges not otherwise enjoyed by those like us who hold only
Philippine citizenship. That privilege should not extend to the enjoyment of rights
that contravene our most fundamental societal values. Our law on dual citizenship
is also clear on

01:28:09
this point. Those who reacquire Filipino citizenship shall be subject to all attendant
liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines. That includes
being subject to our laws on family and marriage. Dual citizenship does not give
someone the power to pick and choose which laws to follow depending on
convenience. This honorable court should therefore be wary of opening a back door
to absolute divorce between Filipino citizens. If we allow foreign divorce to be
recognized

01:28:47
just because a party later change citizenship, we are undermining both the
nationality principle and our state policy disallowing divorce. We also risk
encouraging a trend where Filipino citizens go abroad, obtain a divorce, then switch
citizenship to have that divorce recognized at home. That is not what the law
provides, and it is not what the framers intended. This case does not have the
anomaly in Orbecido or Manalo where the Filipino spouse would remain married to a
foreign spouse whose national law permits him or her to

01:29:29
remarry by virtue of a validly obtained divorce decree. In this case, there is no
foreign spouse. There is no valid divorce decree to enforce. There is no injustice to
cure. Both parties remain subject to Philippine laws and remain married under our
laws. The legal and moral consequences of their marriage remain in force. We
respectfully submit that there is no basis legal or equitable for extending the
exception in article 26 to this case. To do so would be to go beyond interpretation
and into legislation.

01:30:13
Your honors, marriage and its dissolution are undoubtedly issues of grave
importance. But these questions are also the most contested issues which force us
to dig deeper into our passionately held beliefs and our societal values. It is the
understanding of this complexity that convinced the members of the civil code and
family code commissions almost four decades ago to leave such important
questions for the legislature to resolve. For it is there where an open and
unrestrained debate could be held and where all sides

01:30:53
from the widest representation of opposing persuasions could be heard. Many
continue to wait for a divorce law to pass. However, the question of enacting one is
evidently political, reserved for both houses of Congress to address. For now,
Congress has seen fit to retain the narrow exception to our policy against divorce as
expressed in paragraph 2 of article 26 of the family code and as found in the code
of Muslim personal laws of the Philippines. We therefore ask this honorable court to
uphold the clear intent and letter of

01:31:35
paragraph 2 article 26 of the family code to affirm the continuing force of our policy
on marriage and to deny the petition. Thank you your honors. Thank you very much
Mr. General. May we call on Justice Pascuna retired for his presentation. Thank you,
your honors. Good afternoon. I respectfully submit, your honors, that the solution to
this case lies in the answer to three questions. The first question is when did the
Philippines become the Philippines? The second question is what does the
constitution say

01:32:39
about the foundation of the nation? And the third question is why is it that up to
now the Philippines is the only member of the United Nations that does not have a
law of absolute divorce available to all its citizens. The first question or honors was
posed to me at a state dinner in Japan by a lady member of the Supreme Court of
Japan by the name of Ryuko Sakurai. Madame Justice Sakurai was seated beside me
in a dinner for the crown prince in the University of Kyushu and she asked me,
"Justice Askuna,

01:33:36
would you ask would you answer a question?" "Yes, madam." And she posted,
"When did the Philippines become the Philippines?" I had to pause for a few
seconds. Then I remembered Dr. Jose Pisal was the first Filipino. I remembered the
definition of a nation by Benedict Anderson that a nation is an imagined community.
And it was Dr. Jose P. Risal whose writings sparked the imagination of our people
into a nation. And so my answer was in the early morning at 6 in the morning of
December 30,

01:34:29
1896. Madame, because that was when they shot our national hero at the Lonetta,
giving birth to the Filipino nation. the writings of our national hero, which by the
way, according to Father De La Costa, the Philippines probably is the only nation
that has for its national hero a scholar. Dr. Risal as a scholar wrote the first historical
treatise that considered the Philippines apart from Spain. That was his annotations
to the successors deas Islas Filipinas of Antonio Morga that was in 1889.
Subsequently

01:35:20
in his writings including his two transformative novels Noli and Philly he introduced
the idea of the spectre of comparison. When Christoma Ibara was walking among
the gardens of the Philippines, he remembered the gardens of Europe and he
compared the Philippines under colonial rule with a free Europe and that was the
birth again of our consciousness, our imagination as a nation. So that's the answer
to the first question. The second question is we go to the constitution. What does
the constitution say is the

01:36:10
foundation of the nation? The honorable surrogate generals told us that the
constitution says that marriage is the foundation of the family. In fact, the
constitution says that marriage as an inviable social institution is the foundation of
the family. But that is not my point. My point is the previous section, section one of
article 15 which says that the foundation of the nation is the Filipino family. The
Filipino family is the foundation of the nation and marriage as an inviable social
institution is the foundation of the
01:37:01
family. Therefore, marriage as an invaluable inviolable social institution is the
foundation of the nation. And so therefore when we erode the nationality principle
that is embodied and enshrined in the constitution we erode the very foundation of
the nation. Finally, why is it that until now the Philippines remains aside from the
Vatican as the only nation that does not have uh civil divorce legislation apart from
the exception given to our Muslim brothers under uh executive order of President
Marcos.

01:37:51
The reason your honors is because of our strong public policy that marriage as an
inddol inviolable social institution is the foundation of the family and the Filipino
family. Not just family, the Filipino family is the foundation of the nation. I asked one
of the young solicitors earlier while we were waiting, what is what does the
constitution say is the foundation of the nation? And if she had answered, she she
did answer it. She she was uh brilliant. She didn't say but if she had answered and if
I asked this in

01:38:42
the bar exams and the answer is the family wrong. Constitution does not simply say
that the foundation of the nation is the family. It says the Filipino family. It
introduces nationality to the foundation. So our nation is founded on the nationality
principle. That is why article 15 of the civil code anchors the conflict's rule on
Filipinos even living abroad as being governed by our national law. I had the
occasion, your honors, to play a role in the crafting of the exception to the
nationality principle that is

01:39:31
found in article 26, paragraph 2 of the family code. I was then the presidential legal
council of President Corason Aino and former justice Florida Ruth Romero was also a
special assistant to the president. President Aino tked her to craft a family code
because at that time there was a strong pressure from social groups to update our
rules on marriage. So, a commission was formed in order to craft the family code,
but that commission did not recommend an exception to the general rule that
there's no divorce among Filipinos. But

01:40:19
President Aino instructed Justice Romero to look for a possible exception in order to
solve the dilemma in the Van Dorn case. Recall your honors the van dorn decision
which was spent by the late justice Amorina Velenio Era where she said that a
husband without a wife or a wife without a husband is an anomalous situation
unknown to law. And that is a situation that happens when a foreigner and a Filipino
marry and later the foreigner obtains a divorce, a valid divorce, allowing the
foreigner to remarry but leaving the Filipino unable

01:41:10
to remarry, a husband without a wife or a wife without a husband. President Aino
wanted Justice Ferida Ruth Romero to solve that dilemma by crafting a provision
that will address it. And we discuss it, your honors, I told Flurry because I was
teaching conflicts of law at that time, there are two possibilities, the Austrian model
and the Brazilian model. Under the Austrian model, if there is a mixed marriage of
an Austrian and a foreigner and the foreigner obtains a valid divorce, the Austrian
rule is they will not allow the

01:41:56
Austrian to remarry. On the other hand, the Brazilian rule is if a Brazilian marries a
foreigner and subsequently the foreigner obtains a valid divorce allowing the
foreigner to remarry. Brazil allows the Brazilian citizen to remarry. That was the
model that Ferida Romero, Justice Romero followed and recommended to President
Aino. And that is what is found in article 26 paragraph 2. The essential requisite is
mixed marriage. It has to be between a Filipino and a foreigner because if because
it's an

01:42:43
exception to the rule. The rule is two Filipinos works. But if one is Filipino, another is
a foreigner, there is a poss possibility of recognizing the effect of the divorce by
allowing the Filipino to liar. That is article 26 paragraph 2. That article your honors
has undergone several transformations. The first is the Orbeezo case where two
Filipinos married but later on one of them became a foreigner and they obtained a
divorce valid divorce. It was ruled that the exception applies even if the premise

01:43:44
did not obtain. There's no marriage between foreigner and Filipino. They were both
Filipinos when they got married. But in Orbido, they said as long as they were
foreigner and Filipino at the time of the divorce, the exception applies. The second
transformation was Manalo case. The article requires that it is the foreigner who
obtains the rewards, not the Filipino. El Manalo said because of the equality among
sexes even if the Filipina obtains the divorce it's still applicable but the cardinal rule
must always be

01:44:27
that the divorce is between mixed spouses one Filipino one foreigner why because if
they're both Filipinos the rule will apply article 15 not article 26 six paragraph 2. So
if we allow two Filipinos to obtain the divorce while they are Filipinos and recognize
it regardless of what happens afterwards, we will be applying the rule, changing the
rule, not merely expanding the exception, but changing the rule and we will be
undermining the foundation of the nation. Thank you, your honor. Thank you, Justice
Kuna. May we call

01:45:15
attorney Elizabeth Agilin Pangalan. Good afternoon, your honors. The case before
the court is a conflict of laws case because it contains a foreign element. And in
discussing and analyzing conflict of laws cases, there are two possible approaches,
your honors, and these are the traditional approach and the second is the modern
approach. Council humbly presents before the honorable court these doctrinal
options that the court may wish to take in its decision. I first discuss the traditional
approach. Under the

01:46:01
traditional approach, courts characterize a case under a specific substantive area of
law and applies the law um to this event or transaction. The applicable law
consistently governs these substantive issues wherever the case is brought.
Therefore, the traditional approach aims to achieve simplicity, convenience, and
predictability of result. The traditional approach to choice of law involves the
application of lex nationality for issues relating to family rights and duties, status,
conditions, and legal capacity as found

01:46:40
in article 15. And this applies to Filipino citizens including those living abroad.
Philippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce and this is considered contrary to
our concept of public policy as explained in the Ten Chavis case and the Van Dornne
versus Romeilia case. However, article 26 paragraph 2 of the family code serves as
an exception to the nationality principle provided in article 15 of the civil code. As
originally intended, article 26, paragraph 2 was narrowly applied to a mixed
marriage where at the

01:47:18
time of the celebration of the marriage, there was a foreigner and a Filipino.
However, the Supreme Court in Republic versus Orberido expanded the applicability
of article 26 and I quote, taking into consideration the legislative intent and
applying the rule of reason to include cases involving parties who at the time of the
celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on one of them becomes
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce abroad. In Republic versus
Manalo, the court

01:47:56
further broadened the application of article 26 paragraph 2 to cover mixed
marriages where a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the Filipino spouse
capacitating the alien spouse to remarry. Following therefore the traditional
approach to choice of law, the family code and the civil code of the Philippines will
be applied. The divorce obtained abroad by the petitioner prior to his obtaining an
American citizenship is not a valid divorce and hence will not be recognized in the
Philippines. Allow me, however, your honor to spend
01:48:35
some time discussing the other approach to choice of law. The court may use a
modern approach to choice of law when the case raises a question as to whether
the governing law is forum the forum court's own law or the appropriate alternative
usually foreign law that should apply and this one such modern approach for honors
is the most significant relationship test where the facts establish that the most
significant connection is with with another state. The honorable court has decided in
Hiawa versus Kitamura

01:49:14
that under the state of the most significant relationship rule to ascertain which state
law to apply to a dispute, the court should determine which state has the most
substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties. End of quote. The
Supreme Court has also held in several cases that the law to be applied varies
depending on the circumstances and that those circumstances will serve as the
connecting factor in determining the applicable law. applied to this present test.
Your honor, the court may

01:49:52
find the relevant connecting factors to include interalia the party's nationalities, the
doicile of the petitioner, doicile of the respondent, the marital abode at the time of
the divorce, and the place of employment. Under the modern approach, the rights
and obligations of the parties are determined by the law of the state which has the
most significant relationship to the occurrence or event and the parties. Although
petitioner Baluyot is both a Filipino and an American, he has other substantial
contacts with the US, namely

01:50:32
his doicile that has the closest personal connection in matters of domestic life as
well as his place of employment. Furthermore, Baluyot lives in the US whose courts
grant and recognize divorce. So although he may wish to comply with the
requirements of article 26 paragraph 2 now that he is an American citizen that
petition for divorce that he may file as an American will simply be thrown out. The
superior court or yes of California already issued a divorce judgment in 2010 and it
will be absurd for another court to

01:51:17
dissolve an already dissolved marriage. Moreover, your honors, even if the
California divorce decree is not recognized in the Philippines, Valuyot will return to
the US as in fact he is still there right now. live his life there where as a divorced
American citizen he will be able to remarry. This situation will thwart the very
purpose of article 26 paragraph 2 which is to avoid the ridiculous absurd curious
situation of a foreigner no longer married to the Filipino but the Filipino still married
to the foreigner.

01:52:01
It is worth noting your honors that article 26 paragraph 2 does not contemplate a
scenario where one or both of the parties are dual citizens. It just refers to an alien
and a Filipino. But it does not um it does not contemplate a situation where one of
the parties is both an alien and a Filipino. It did not anticipate that more than a
decade later, about 15 years, the dual citizenship law will be passed. Article 9 of the
civil code of the Philippines provides that no judge shall decline to render judgment
by reason of

01:52:42
silence or insufficiency of law where there is no existing law in the forum. Therefore,
the court can apply the modern approach. And although ideally all choice of law
theories should advance both justice and predictability, they do not always do so.
Given these, the court may consider informing Congress of the present lacuna in the
law. The current state of Philippine law callously disregards the plight of migrant
Filipinos who in 2022 numbered 1.2 2 million and who struggle to create better lives
for themselves outside of

01:53:22
their country and yet who remain connected to the lives of their families and
countrymen in our homeland. As it is, the failure of our legislature to address this
lacuna unfairly shifts the burden to our courts and especially our Supreme Court
justices to constantly have to adapt and readdapt the legal straight jacket to enable
Filipinos who have been living and working abroad to exercise the rights and enjoy
the benefits available in their adopted countries that are ironically denied them by
unre unrealistic laws. of their

01:54:00
country of birth. As of the last point, your honor, the recognition of foreign divorce
decree in the present case is not necessarily contrary to Philippine public policy. I
hereby submit that the standard of public policy must be higher as we see in the H
conventions which require manifest incompatibility or that the fundamental
principles of the requested state relating to the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms. Thank you very much your honor. I see that my time is up.
Thank you attorney Palan.

01:54:38
May we call attorney Millesia Santa Maria. Good afternoon, your honors. Is it time to
abandon the rule that a foreign divorce obtained by two Filipinos abroad is against
public policy and morals and therefore void and not recognizable. Your honors, it is
time to abandon that outdated precedent. The freedom to choose one's status is a
privilege inhering in a person as an intangible and inalienable right. Allow me to
state the following points. First, there is no need for any legisl legislation amending
our present laws in

01:55:29
identally conforming to a foreign law. in this case the California Family Act of 1969
as a unique special and extraordinary judicial remedy. It is the petition for
recognition of foreign judgments basic premise that foreign laws judicial decisions
and their effects not having any Philippine counterpart can be enforced locally if the
effects are not violative of any Philippine prohibitory or mandatory law or any
overriding Philippine public policy and morals. The remedies availment is a
fundamental

01:56:10
constitutional right of every Filipino to correct his or her status. It is a part of
customary international law. Second, the availability of three local Philippine
remedies for marriage dissolution. ality analment termination of a termination by
affidavit or reappearance proves that Philippine public policy has always been open
to the severance of marital ties between Filipinos. Article 26 of the family code and
the Sharia law in addition demonstrate that absolute divorce per se is not offensive

01:56:53
to our culture, tradition and morals. Antonio versus Reyes promulgated 19 years
ago and initiated and I quote, "There is a corresponding interest of the state to
defend against marriages illequipped to promote family life unquote." Third, there is
no prohibitory law and no mandatory law expressly disallowing absolute divorce
between two Filipinos here or abroad. Neither is there an overriding public policy
against it. Both our constitution and family code, the public policy statement on the

01:57:33
protection of marriage does not expressly refer to a prohibition against any kind of
divorce or any danger thereof in particular, but to the institution of marriage in
general. Marriage is an inviable social institution. Our constitution is a magnificent
document. It provides aspirations, commands and principles. There are two sections
in our constitution which says inviable. The church and state the separation
separation shall be inviable. That's a command. Marriage is a so is a is a inviable
social institution.

01:58:18
That is an aspiration because our constitution cannot remedy all problem. And so
that therefore the next sentence and the state shall protect it and so that therefore
we have the family code to protect it. Third uh fourth Philippine laws omission or
silence of a domestic or foreign divorce remedy between Filipinos does not signify
an overriding public policy prohibiting the same. to be so there must be a clear and
positive statement of public policy against it. As Justice Marshall Harland said, and I
quote,

01:59:02
"Legislative silence is a poor beacon to follow in discerning the proper statutory
route." unquote. Justice Justice Felix Frankfurter in a case rejecting the creation of a
principle by virtue of congressional silence warned various consideration of
parliamentary tactics and strategy might be suggested as reason for inaction of
Congress. But they would only be sufficient to indicate that we walk on quick sand
when we try to find in the absence of corrective legislation a controlling legal
principle.

01:59:46
To say that congressional silence creates a public policy is unsound. As Justice
William Douglas said, and I quote, "It is as best treacherous to find in congressional
silence alone the adoption of a controlling rule of law. The silence of Congress and
its inactions are as consistent with a desire to leave the problem fluid as they are
with an adoption by silence of the rule of those cases." unquote. And any any legal
principle resulting from an omission will only create a clearly fictional presumption

02:00:30
in the light of the realities of the times. In that regard, it has been surveyed that
today 50% of Filipinos regard divorce as an issue of irreconcilability and not of
morality and public policy. Fifth, in this regard, the case of Gabrielle versus Monte de
Piadad will teach us. It says, and I quote, "In the absence of express legislation or
constitutional prohibition in order to declare a contract violence against public
policy, must find that the contract as to the consideration or things to be done, has
a tendency to

02:01:14
injure the public, is against the public good, or contravene some established
interests of society, or is inconsistent with sound public policy. in good morals or
tends to undermine the security of individual rights whether of personal liability or
private property. This guide can also be used for the determination or not of
whether or not the effects of a foreign absolute divorce decision granted to two
Filipinos is against public policy. Relevantly, Republic versus Quuevas Nang ruled
that a foreign divorce by agreement
02:01:53
undeniably omitted or not provided in Philippine law can be judicially recognized. It
is as the Supreme Court, this Supreme Court said not offensive to public policy. To
be against public policy, the effects must be so predicious, detestable,
fundamentally unjust, sufficiently outrageous, patently in violation of our core
principles, or be so grave that recognition would be intolerable to our legal order. It
must violate a deep rooted tradition of the common will. The two Filipino party
element in a foreign

02:02:40
divorce will not lead to those situations. Senator Salonga in his private international
law treaties said, and I quote, "Repeed use of public policy may be no more than an
intolerable affectation of superior value." unquote. And he continued, "The
statement that foreign law will not be applied when a strong or important public
policy of the state will be infringed thereby does not of course furnish a precise
solution. For as had been appreated, public policy is relative. It varies

02:03:22
with changing legal ideas relatively rational temporist. What might be against public
policy yesterday may no longer be so now and vice versa. A fixation on this
outboded public policy and moral arguments may preclude this court or any court to
exercise is it its distinct power to re-examine the fairness of this concept in the light
of prevailing circumstances. from the substantial similarity test referred to by
American legal literature which I call identity test recognition of foreign judgment
has changed to the

02:04:21
effects test to determine its consistency with Philippine public policy in the 1939
secret versus cons it's a Very early in our history, a foreign divorce was ruled as
against public policy simply because the ground of desertion has no equivalent
ground for marriage termination in Philippine policy. Solonga continue say said that
there is a con and I quote there is a constant temptation on the part of Philippine
courts to apply the domestic local law to all conflict rules. One of the reason
02:05:03
was and I quote he's saying this just a simple case of bias in favor of Philippine law.
Such approach exhibits a selfish provincial outlook, a case of judicial paroalism
overemphasizing local fancies. It is an easy way out approach used by the courts or
some courts not this court to shift responsibility to the legislature. In in repetition for
recognition of divorce, Takahashi and Marona, the Supreme Court said it should not
turn a blind eye to the realities of the present time. It is hypocritical to

02:05:46
safeguard the quantity of existing marriage and at the same time brush aside the
truth that some of them are of rotten quality. In the United States, the the identity
test or substantial similarity test is now defunct. Fortunately, in subsequent cases,
the Philippine Supreme Court likewise examined not the law or decision per se, but
its effects in the Philippines. In Suzuki versus OSG, the Supreme Court ruled that in
the recognition of foreign judgment, Philippine laws in Iiko should not be pitted
against the recognition of a

02:06:25
foreign decree. Instead, the better course of action is to reconcile them and their
effect in their respect in their and give effect to their respective purposes." Seventh,
in Mr. Baluyo's case the effects of the foreign judicial decree based on foreign law
stated in the decision are this marital dissolution court custody support visitorial
rights of children termination of spousal support separation of conjugal properties
all are consistent if not I exactly identical with Philippine law.

02:07:11
Indeed, what fundamental gain is it for the Philippines to refuse recognition and in
so doing deprive the serving Filipinos of such effects not obnoxious or repugnant to
Philippine law. Eight, the constitution equal protection clause is violated by giving
the chance of a favorable recognition between a Filipino and a foreigner on the one
hand, but on the other hand by assuring automatic rejection between a Filipino and
a Filipino. The invocation of public policy will deny a remedy to Filipinos for what
may
02:08:06
be an injustice and an immunation in a relationship detrimental to their mental and
physical health and well-being. The danger the danger to our institution is to
enhance or to carry on an obsent argument on public policy and morals. We have to
look around. This is the distinctive power of the court in a petition for recognition of
foreign judgment to determine what is the public policy today by looking at the
facts looking around us and then decide and I submit your honor that it is time to
abandon this outdated public policy and

02:09:01
moral doctrine. Thank you. Thank you, Attorney Santa Maria. May we call attorney
Maria Lisel Lopez Rosario. Good afternoon, your honors. There are three laws that
appear to be applicable in the present case. One is article 26 paragraph 2 of the
family code. The second is article 15 of the 1950 civil code. And the last one is the
dual citizenship act. Now even in law school we always tell our students let's look at
the legislative intent. So allow me to look at the legislative intent behind article 26
paragraph 2 of

02:09:58
the family code. As a matter of fact, if we will take a look at the time when the
former president Corason signed it into a law, July 6, 1987, the second paragraph of
article 26 does not appear. But then July 16 of 1987, the members of the family
code committee convened when the under secretary Romero informed them that
the president already agreed or consented to the inclusion of this provision and
what is the rationale behind that? to give a Filipino national married to a foreign
spouse the opportunity to marry if under the

02:10:49
national law of the foreign spouse, divorce is accepted. And as mentioned by justice
akuna earlier and by our madame solicitor general, article 26 paragraph 2 for it to
be applicable should refer to mixed marriages meaning to say a foreigner and a
Filipino spouse. But in addition to that as pointed out by Dean Karal during that
meeting the provision rather it was in Kal who also pointed it out the provision is
limited to a Filipino who is married to an alien. Professor Bautista said, "It is the
02:11:34
foreigner, the foreigner, not the Filipino spouse, who will seek for divorce." And the
underlying reason behind that, as mentioned by Judge D at that time, is the legal
absurdity for one to stay married without a spouse. Now, the case of Baluyot
involves two Filipino nationals. So obviously paragraph 2 of article 26 does not
apply. However, what makes the case of Baluyot complicated is that after getting a
decree of divorce, Belaluyot became a naturalized American citizen. And therefore
at this point I think we

02:12:25
can use by analogy the ruling of the honorable court in the case of republic versus
orbido because similar to the case of baluyot wherein the husband and the wife
were both Filipino national at the time that they contracted marriage. In the case of
Orbecido both of them were also Filipino national. It just so happened that the wife
became a naturalized American citizen prior to getting a decree of divorce. Now, at
this point, what law should we apply? Is it the second paragraph of article 26? In my
humble opinion, I think it's the

02:13:12
application of article 15 of the civil code. And what does article 15 of the civil code
says? When it comes to family rights, family duties, status, condition, legal capacity,
you have to apply the national law of the person. So at that point when the wife of
Orbeezido obtained the decree of divorce, it's not anymore the Philippine law that
should apply to her, but it is her national law. So if Baluyot did not reacquire Filipino
nationality, Baluyot could not have any problem. Applying by analogy the ruling in

02:13:58
Orbecido, that would suffice. For as long as Baluyot could prove to this honorable
court that when he become a American national, his American nationality
recognized the decree of divorce that he obtained even before he became an
American national. Now petitioner cited several cases and if I may be allowed to
mention them the cases of Fujiki, Tanaka, Nan, Manalo and Galapon. But I beg to
disagree that they are applicable in this case. Why? Because all of these cases
involve mixed marriages. A Filipino married to a
02:14:48
Japanese, a Filipino married to a Korean national. It just so happened in the case of
Manalo, it's not the Philip, it's not the Japanese national who obtained the decree of
divorce, but it was the Filipino spouse. So in a way there is a change in the
legislative intent and that's the reason why I advise the honorable court if it's
possible to call the attention of Congress and Senate to make the necessary
amendment so that the decision of Manalo can coincide with that of what appears in
the family code because we're

02:15:28
talking here of a 1987 code. Now later on and this gave Manalo or Baluyot the
problem. He reacquired Filipino nationality. The problem with our dual citizenship act
with due respect to the proponent of the bill, I think everybody knows in this room
that it is only when it comes to the reacquisition of political right and even in its
implementing rules that the law is very clear that a Filipino, a former Filipino
national who reacquired or retained his Filipino nationality. In the event that he
wants to run for public office, he

02:16:23
has to renounce the other nationality. But I think the legislators overlook the fact
that there are countries wherein the civil rights in the Philippines are different from
the civil rights in another country. I can see that we have students here in civil law
and they are aware of the case of Asdnar versus Christensen wherein in that case
the right of an illegitimate child in the Philippines is different from the right of an
illegitimate child in the United States. And as a reason why the illegitimate child is
claiming it has to

02:17:04
be the Philippine law that should apply. Although in in the case of Christensen, he's
an American national, but the national law of America reverted the issue to
Philippine law and that's where we were introduced the Renva doctrine. That's why I
also recommend that I think it's proper that legislator should also take a look a
second look of this dual citizenship act because they might be abused by some
Filipinos. I rest my case. Thank you very much. Attorney Rosario. May we call
attorney Maria Calvina

02:17:50
Tigard. Good afternoon, your honors. Your honors, a divorced person is legally
single. And this was stated in the case of Athetherton cited in Van Dornne and
somewhat recognized by Justice Puno during the deliberations on March 2, 1985
when Justice Ed Kagiwa proposed to add the phrase in case the party is an alien
after the parenthesized single widowerower or widowerower divorced. And justice
puno opined that divorced may be deleted since one is legally single if he or she is
divorced. When Mr. Baluyot obtained the divorce

02:18:48
decree, his so-called adopted country dissolved his marriage and his marital status
reverted to single. When he retained or reacquired his his Philippine citizenship, his
marital status continued to be single. The reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship
does not invalidate, revoke, or eliminate the divorce decree obtained in the United
States. nor does reacquisition of Philippine citizenship confer renewed marital status
upon him. It is absurd respectfully that by virtue of reacquisition or

02:19:34
retention of Philippine citizenship, Mr. Beluyote suddenly reverted to the marital
status of married. As pointed out by my colleague in the UP, Professor Pangalangan,
he can no longer obtain another divorce decree in the United States of America
because he is divorced. My next proposition, the same question asked. Is divorce
really against public policy? I know that many decisions of the honorable court say
so. But as observed by Justice Luciano during the deliberations on the family code
and that was in 19 in the 1980s,

02:20:23
present laws have become irrelevant to today's changing morals. and that the
church itself has amended canon law to broaden the base of declarations of nality of
marriage. As further observed by Justice During the same deliberations before 1950,
she observed the court was using the Spanish civil code and the influence of the
church was very strong because there was then a union of church and state. And
contrary to the fears of JBL Reyes during the same deliberations, the rich and the
wealthy have not sought

02:21:09
divorce abroad. Those who who are obtaining divorce decrees are the Filipinos who
work abroad, the OFWs, and we prejudice them by not allowing this particular
divorce to be recognized. Today, your honors has ruled in Republic versus Manalo
there is no general prohibition on divorce because commissioner Gascon in
response to a question by Father Bernas during the deliberations of the 1986
constitutional commission was categorical about this point and more importantly
none of our law should be based on any

02:21:55
religious law, doctrine or teaching. Otherwise, the separation of church and state
will be val violated. Is it so against public policy that the court will not provide relief
to a Filipino citizen who obtained a foreign divorce decree, became an American,
and then reacquired Philippine citizenship. Marriage has civil and legal
consequences which are governed by the family code. It is in this aspect bereft of
any ecclesiastical overtone that the state has a legitimate right and interest to
oversee.

02:22:43
When an issue involving a marriage comes before this court, the issue refers only to
a civil marriage, not the sacrament of marriage. To state the obvious, when a man
and a woman marry in Catholic rights, two separate events occur. Should all
essential and formal requisites under the family code be present, the marriage is
valid under Philippine law, civil law. And under Catholic doctrine, a matrimonial
covenant is established under the code of canon law 1055. I'm not an expert on
canon law. I bow to

02:23:24
the expertise of Dean Lopez Rosario on that. However, I understand from a
document entitled Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage that the
International Theological Commission of the Holy Sea in 1977 propounded, and I
quote, "In a pluralistic society, the public authority of the state can impose on the
engaged a public ceremony through which they publicly profess their status as
spouses. The state can furthermore make laws that regulate in a precise and correct
manner the civil effects deriving from marriage

02:24:07
as well as rights and duties regarding the family and that is the role of the family
court. Then the commission in toned, and I quote, "The Catholic faithful ought to be
adequately instructed that these official formalities, commonly called civil marriage,
do not constitute real matrimony for them. The matrimonial covenant or sacrament
of marriage may only be dissolved by nullity under the code of canon law 1095.
Catholic doctrine treats a sacramental marriage as indissoluble and the
indissolubility of marriage

02:24:51
emanates from its nature as a sacrament. The honorable court may even take
judicial notice of the fact that even when a Catholic marriage has been nullified
under the family code, the couple unless they seek redress from the national app
matrimonial tribunal of the Catholic Church are still bound to their sacrament of
marriage. Civil marriages do not have such sacramental meaning. A civil marriage
may be dissolved either through nullity, announcement or a decree of divorce. It
would be egregious error to treat the

02:25:33
standard of indis indissolubility under Catholic dogma as applicable to civil
marriages. Marriage as recognized in the constitution and defined in the family code
is civil in character because it is established by the state independent of its religious
aspect and the court if I may must endeavor to preserve such distinction in its
analysis and in adjudication. In Republic versus Molina, the court recognized the
separation of church and state and merely declared that findings of the National
Appallet Matrimonial
02:26:19
Tribunal must be given respect as these findings relate to civil marriages, but they
have never been followed in any decision of this court. The Catholic Church aside,
our country has historically authorized divorce. In 1917, the divorce law on two
grounds during the Japanese occupation when Senator Toentino obtained his divorce
and again when the Commonwealth government was revived by proclamation of
General Douglas MacArthur on October 23, 1944. The divorce law of 1917 was also
revived. The existence itself of the second

02:27:04
paragraph of article 26 demonstrates that divorce can be recognized and given
effect in the country. The code of Muslim personal laws continues to recognize the
divorce of Muslims and its continued existence in our statute books manifests that
the blanket argument that Philippine law has a public policy against divorce is
untenable. The court must reject respectfully any previous or current attempts at
repeating the mistaken notion that there exists under Philippine law public policy
against divorce because there is

02:27:47
none. And finally, lest the bell rings, Van Dornne is still good law today. Van Dornne
preceded the family code and the 1987 constitution. In Van Dorne, the divorce
decree was recognized even though it was obtained by the Filipino spouse. There
was no need for article 26, which as applied today has resulted in discrimination
against former Filipinos and dual citizens. And maybe it is time for the court to
consider article 26 paragraph 2 as unconstitutional for being violative of the equal
protection clause.

02:28:36
I do know that the conservatives in the committee wished to exclude paragraph 2
because Justice JBL Reyes stated that the second paragraph discriminates against
Filipinos who are married to Filipinos because the provisions governs governs only
Filipinos married to foreigners. Article 26 was inserted by an executive order prior to
the signing of the family code by flarida Ruth Pomero who was my professor in
persons in UP. And therefore you will notice that the family code makes no
statement as to the consequence of that

02:29:22
divorce as to children as to marriage as to property regimes nothing. Unfortunately,
in 2005 came the case of EOY where the court passed over the fact of a divorce
stating that divorce obtained by Mrs. Eoy cannot be considered as she was still a
Filipino when she obtained it. The social impact of Eoy it would be interesting to
study. Crassos Eoy is still married to Feli. They both remain compulsory heirs to each
other. They are obliged to follow marital obligations like support and living together
and it

02:30:03
is absurd. Mrs. Eoy is abroad. Can Mr. Baluyot therefore a former Filipino obtain a
divorce while still a Filipino? Why not? He is now a naturalized citizen of a foreign
country. that he retained or reacquired Filipino citizenship has no impact on the fact
that he is now single. That is fair and equitable to all concerned. His children, if any,
with his former spouse remain legitimate. Subsequent marriages will be valid. The
children, if any, of subsequent val marriages will be legitimate. Neither

02:30:45
spouse will be an heir of the other. Neither spouse will be required to continue their
marital obligations and neither spouse will be permitted to share in any profits from
their businesses or in properties acquired. As the court has said, a balance between
the word and the will that justice may be done even as the law is obeyed may be
used today. It is respectfully prayed therefore that the court recognize this
particularly this particular divorce and especially it rule it cannot it rule on a prohak

02:31:30
viche basis in favor of the recognition of the divorce obtained by Mr. Baluyot not for
his sake but for the sake of his former wife Maria Fe Antonio Baluyot who who is
stated or described in the petition as married but not to Mr. Baluyot. Her silence
should not be taken against her when it is not altogether outside the realm of
possibility that she relied in good faith on the asurances of Mr. Beluote that he had
already obtained a divorce decree abroad severing their marital ties. Thank you.
Your honors respectfully submitted.

02:32:15
Thank you, Attorney Karolina. May we call attorney Elasir Ambatali. S. Good
afternoon, your honors. On behalf of Under Secretary Claire Dennis as Mapa, the
national statistician and civil register general, I respectfully submit our intervention
grounded in our engagement with civil registration systems, their legal frameworks
and their essential role in upholding the citizens identity, recognition of status and
protection and enjoyment of rights provided by law. I offer this perspective in this
hope of

02:33:02
aiding the court in its deliberation on how best to reconcile that provisions with
constitutional mandates and broader public interest. With the court's indulgence, let
me submit our four key consideration that may be pivotal in the resolution of this
case and its impact in civil registration systems. First, the central role of the civil
registration system and the need to preserve the reliability and legal integrity of
civil registry documents which serve as the foundation of civil status and or legal
capacity.

02:33:46
Second, the application of the nationality principle in the context of marriage license
or application of marriage license specifically where one or both parties are foreign
nationals and how this intersects with the state's regulatory interest in the marriage
solemnization. Third, the recognition of foreign decrees and judgments, particularly
in relation to personal status under the principle of lex nationality in harmony with
the provisions of Republic Act number 9225 on the retention and reacquisition of

02:34:23
Philippine citizenship. And finally, the steps being followed in the registration of
foreign divorce in the civil registry database in adherence to established procedures
for purposes of curving the occurrence of fraud. Each of these points bears the
statutory framework governing civil registration and personal status. Let me start by
saying that the civil registration system serves as the primary repository of persons
of a person's personal vital events under section 13 of act number 3753.

02:35:06
Civil registry documents such as certificates of live birth, marriage and death are
public documents and primaafachi evidence of truth of the facts they contain. These
are relied upon in both public and private transactions as sufficient proof of identity,
civil status and other personal data. Finally, once the vital event such as a
celebration of marriage is registered, it is clothed with regularity, meaning all
necessary due diligence was done and was processed within the prescribed
procedures as

02:35:48
provided under prevailing laws, rules and regulations. I would like to highlight the
difference in the requirements of availing a marriage license between Filipinos and
foreign nationals. For Filipinos, he must present proof of identity which comes from a
birth or a baptismal certificate. He must also prove that he is single by submitting a
PSA issued certificate of no marriage. If previously married, they must present a
death ci certificate or a judicial decree of enolment, nullity or divorce duty
recognized in the

02:36:32
Philippines. For applicants whose ages are from 18 to 25, he must secure parental
consent or advice, whichever is applicable, and attend marriage counseling
consistent with the family code. However, for foreigners, if he's going to present his
proof of identity, he must present his valid passport, proof of singleness, which
comes from his own government by presenting a certificate of legal capacity issued
by their embassy or consulate as required by article 21 of the family code. If
previously married, he must

02:37:11
also present documentary proof of the dissolution of his prior marriage. In essence,
the distinction between this um between the Filipino and foreign nationals is that
Filipinos have more documentary requirements as opposed to the of the foreigner.
Under the lex nationality or nationality principle, a person's family right, status and
legal capacity are governed by the loss of his or her nationality. This was also um
seen under article 15 of the new civil code which provides that laws relating to
family rights, duties or to

02:37:52
the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines even though living abroad. Accordingly, Philippine citizen even if residing
abroad is bound by Philippine laws on marriage, capacity and impediment as to a a
dual a person of a dual citizenship. He we think that he or she is considered a
national of both countries. The principle is that such an individual's personal status
and capacity are subject to the loss of each nationality. In the Philippine context,
Republic Act

02:38:33
9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act expressly recognizes that
naturalb born Filipinos who reacquire or return retain Philippine citizenship enjoy full
civil and political rights as Filipinos without prejudice to their obligations under the
laws of their other country of citizenship. If we put into diagram, the dual citizenship
is um situated in the middle of the requirements of um the Filipino and foreigner. We
are of the opinion that a dual citizen must comply with both the

02:39:19
requirements prescribed by the Philippine law in the US or the foreign um foreign
country where he is a citizen. The family code is clear. If the local civil register
knows of any impediment, it must be recorded. Yet, unless a court intervenes, the
license is still issued. This is where the systems of reliability hinges not just on
documents but on the truthfulness of the declarations of the individual applying and
probing and conduct of due diligence on the part of the local civil registar. We would
like to note however that in
02:40:05
terms of the submission of a certificate of legal capacity, the US embassy has
submitted or informed the Philippines that they are unable to produce a certificate
of legal capacity as provided under article 21 of the family code. The reason being is
that uh the US has no centralized registry of marriage and therefore the document
that they are presenting to our local civil registars is an affidavit in due of the legal
capacity. Lastly, as I've said, pursuant to article 18 of the family code, when there
are known impediments,

02:40:49
the marriage license will still be issued, but there are notes of the impediments. This
is applied for Filipinos, foreigners, and dual citizens. on the recognition of foreign
decree of divorce. The rules on marriage licenses apply differently when one of the
parties is a foreigner. Philippine nationals are bound by the policy against absolute
divorce. Divorce as the court ruled in Van Dorne, absolute divorce is considered
contrary to public policy and morality for Philippine Filipino citizens. However, the
law makes a

02:41:33
distinction in mixed marriages under article 26 paragraph 2 of the family code. If a
valid marriage exists between a Filipino and a foreigner and a divorce is thereafter
validly obtained by the alien spouse capacitating that spouse to remarry, then the
Filipino spouse is likewise allowed to remarry. In the case of Orbacido, the court
clarified that article 26 paragraph 2 of the family code covers cases where both
parties are Filipinos at the time of marriage, but later on becomes a foreign citizen
and secures a valid divorce

02:42:14
abroad. The critical factor is citizenship at the time the foreign divorce decree, not
at the time of marriage. Put simply, the effect of divorce depends on the nationality
at the time it is obtained. In Corpus versus Stomas, the court held that a that an
action under article 26 paragraph 2 of the family code goes beyond merely
recognizing the foreign divorce decree. If the decree validly capacitated the alien
spouse to remarry, the Philippine courts may declare that the Filipino spouse is
likewise
02:42:56
capacitated to enter into another marriage. However, the court was clear, our
jurisdiction does not extend to declaring aliens capacity. This is governed by his
national law. Philippine courts can only recognize its effect on the Philippine Filipino
spouse. Under Republic Act number 9225, naturalborn Filipinos who reacquire their
Philippine citizenship are deemed never to have lost it. And with it, they remain
bound by the Philippine laws even prior to the reacquisition of Filipino citizenship.

02:43:41
The Supreme Court in Van Dornne again has made it clear that Philippine nationals
are covered by policy against absolute divorce as it is contrary to public policy.
Therefore, if a dual citizen obtains a divorce abroad, such divorce may not be
recognized in the Philippines since his capa legal capacity continues to be bound by
the Philippine law. It is our view, your honors, that a dual citizen enjoys the rights of
both countries, but also bears the duty, the duty to follow both laws. He cannot

02:44:20
simply pick which law benefits him because that would give one supremacy over
the other. A foreign divorce decree cannot simply be registered in the Philippines. It
first needs judicial recognition by our courts. Without it, any registration is void and
produces no legal effect. That's why the PSA has issued memorandum circular
number 2025-06 which states that once a foreign divorce is recognized in the
Philippine court, the civil registar or the local civil registar has 10 days to register it
at

02:45:01
the local civil registry office. Then a certificate of registration and authentic
authenticity will be all also be issued and annotated on the original civil record and
forwarded to the civil register general. In conclusion, we say that at the time of
divorce was obtained both parties were still Filipinos. Under Orbacido, what matters
is their citizenship at the time of the foreign decree, not at the time of marriage.
Based on the facts of the case, the divorce was obtained by one of the spouses
even prior to his naturalization
02:45:39
as an American citizen. Assuming that he is already a US citizen when the divorce
was obtained, the same will still hold no water pursuant to RA 9225. The reason
being is that he still retained his Philippine citizenship. He is still bound by Philippine
law which does not recognize divorce between Filipinos. Thus, the foreign divorce
decree cannot be recognized here. However, we would like to state that this case
highlights a gap in our present legislation. While the Filipino co the family code

02:46:17
provides guidance, it does not fully resolve the situation of parties caught between
conflicting laws of different nationalities. In such situations, the court may take
prudent step of bringing this issue to the attention of the Congress for the
immediate enactment of laws that directly addresses this conundrum as the agency
mandated also with the technical supervision of civil registration. We are hoping
that this court provide clarity on this case particularly that this resolution that the
resolution of this cases have

02:46:59
an impact on how we craft issuances in the registration of vital events and its
implement implementation at the local level. Philippine law consistent with law
longstanding public policy prohibits absolute divorce between Filipino citizens
recognizing only analment and legal separation. This strict prohibition however is
not deeply rooted in our legal tradition under the Spanish regime. While absolute
divorce was not permitted legal separation was recognized. It was during the
American and Japanese occupations or

02:47:39
periods that absolute divorce was allowed under specific grounds. Given this
historical context, Congress may be well be advised to rethink its current position on
the dissolution of marriage. Thus, it may be time for Congress to reconsider this
policy and craft a more responsive legislative framework, one that respects the
sanctity of marriage while providing realistic remedies for marriage that have
irreparably failed. Thank you, your honors. Thank you, Attorney Batali. Uh,
considering the presentations made,

02:48:19
uh, Justice Samuel Garland will commence his interpretation. Thank you, Mr. Chief
Justice. An awesome afternoon to everybody. Now, may I uh call on attorney Melvin
Diccastro, the council for the petitioner to take the restroom and answer my
questions. Okay. Attorney Dcast Castro, is this your first time to to appear and argue
before this court? Yes, your honor. Actually, I even came from United Kingdom just
last night. Okay. So, this is the very first time your honor. So, congratulations. Thank
you very much. No.

02:49:10
Now you stated in your petition as to the status of the uh respondent the wife as
married. Are you saying that she has remarried? Uh no your honor. Um actually uh
no your honor. Um, as far as I know, she's still uh because because uh my
understanding is that until uh the until the case or the uh the divorce was
recognized, there was still the the status quo will remain the same. Then
technically, your honor, without the recognition, it still has no effect. And that is
purpose purposely I still have to describe respondent as

02:49:53
merit. your honor in the same uh in the same token that the petitioner as I
described is also married your honor. So despite the fact that uh a divorce decree
was already issued in the United States. Yes your honor and for the record your
honor although it's extraneous information uh the respondent is also married
already married to a Filipino American in the United States as well. Uh there
therefore there is no consistency in describing petitioner as married under in all my
pleadings. Your

02:50:26
honor. Okay. Is she also a naturalized uh American citizen? Yes, your honor. Uh the
wife of the of the petitioner is likewise a Filipino American. So she's also a Filipino
American honor. Which means she's also a dual citizen. I'm not so sure but no. Uh,
as far as I understand, she's a Filipino American, but she hasn't um obtained the
fual citizenship. When was she uh naturalized? Was it uh before the uh the decree of
uh divorce was uh issued or after? For clarification, are we referring to

02:51:08
respond uh the the respondent? Respondent. Respondent. Uh the respondent.
Actually, your honor, the respondent actually my client is the petitioner, your honor.
Yes. But uh because if uh she is in a a naturalized uh American citizen uh before the
uh the decree of divorce then it's it will already be a mixed uh I mean manalo will
now uh apply in that case uh uh no respondent the respondent is uh until a Filipino
your honor it's actually the petitioner who actually become the American citizen,

02:51:48
the petitioner. It was the petitioner who was naturalized. Yes, your honor. How about
the the uh the wife? No, as far as I know. No, your honor. She remains in the
Philippines. Maria Antonio? Yeah, she remains in the Philippines. She remains in the
Philippines. Yes, your honor. Okay. So, why is petitioner having his divorce
recognized here in the Philippines? what is his particular uh or ultimate purpose uh
to remarry or yes uh your honor uh technically my my my client who happens to be
petitioner

02:52:26
is already married in the United States under the and already married and the wife
um somehow also want to have their marriage another marriage in the Philippines
honor and very much are and they very much familiar and aware that they cannot
do that given the fact that uh the the pouring divorce obtained by the by by the
petitioner has not yet been recognized in the Philippines. Okay. Why did uh the
petitioner reacquire Philippine citizenship? Um if I'm not mistaken, sometime in
2010. Yes, that was less than a year after

02:53:04
becoming a naturalized American citizen. Yes, sure. Bear with my words. Uh I just
going to make Do you do you know of any reason why she uh reacquired Philippine
citizenship? uh to be honest I'm not aware of um uh because um uh my wife is also
open happens to be also uh uh foreign uh former Filipino but whether they going to
take it's going to be uh um they decide whether to take a dual citizenship it's more
personal or her and my contact is just limited only to the petitioner your honor

02:53:41
yeah if he did not reacquire Philippine citizenship or he did not become a Philippine
a dual citizen. Okay. Is there a need for him to file a uh a recognition of his uh
divorce decree of his divorce? Um my again I'm sorry uh I did not get it your honor.
What what I'm trying to say is that if he did not acquire uh reacquire Filipino
citizenship, so he is not a dual citizen but a an American citizen being the
naturalized American citizen. Mhm. Is there a need for him to uh file a uh a uh
petition for recognition of

02:54:30
his of a foreign uh judgment or the or the divorce decree? Uh strictly your honor. No,
there is no need considering the fact that he uh his capacity or the personal
capacity to remarry will be in accordance with the American law given the
subsequent acquisition of the American citizenship. Has petitioner renounced his uh
American citizenship if any? Um well uh I'm not familiar with American law but I I
think even uh if we can make it in the Philippines to renounce Philippine citizenship I
don't believe

02:55:06
that there's no reason for him not to renounce his American citizenship. Your honor
how would the petitioner's divorce be classified under American law? Was it
example no fault administrative or judicial? uh I'm not very particular your honor uh
with the with the manners be uh with the manners how the divorce was obtained in
the in the United States but I know for someone that it's more of ministerial your
honor wherein uh the petitioner would just have to get um a copy of application and
then they has to
02:55:40
fill it up and then they have to be served uh to the respondent or to the other
spouse and that's what my knowledge about divorce in America was the US well
according to your uh to your pleadings what uh was done is only two two signed or
uh about that uh there's a checklist yes your honor that's what I know that and my
my knowledge on that how they uh process divorce in the United States is quite
limited so you don't know if that is a judicial or administrative uh proceeding yes
your honor but the only thing is uh

02:56:16
there's no for as long uh well I'm more with your respect your honor I'm more
familiar with the United Kingdom uh because in United Kingdom is more of just like
uh administrative your honor but in the states uh I have no personal knowledge.
Why is no copy of the relevant California law attached to your petition below? uh to
be honest your honor the case was uh which is I'm uh because during the time if I'm
not mistaken jury time that the petition was filed the judicial affidavit law is that it's
very

02:56:45
strict your honor and and the uh the petition was dismissed right away even without
being given due course honor that's why the dismissal of the petition by the RTC um
hima is motoropio yes because you did not attach any authenticating documents
such as any certification of legal custody of the divorce decree records or any
substitute certification from the Philippine consulate in Los Angeles. Yes, your honor
because uh uh because it was already been authenticated if I'm not mistaken. It has
already been

02:57:21
authenticated by the Philippine embassy or the pen consulate in the cal in
California. Now why does petitioner's certificate of naturalization dated February 20,
2019, right? Mhm. Indicate his civil status as married when he already obtained
divorce decree in 2010. Uh this is because your honor is already married already
married to another Filipina American in the United States. So she remarried in in the
United States. Yes. is already the petitioner is already married in the United States.
02:57:59
Then she obtained again another uh divorce decree to that second marriage. Uh no
your honor uh because on uh actually his basis in getting married is the the divorce
he obtained earlier. Uh if I'm not mistaken he got married to this Filipino American
uh just less than six months after obtaining the following divorce. And they're still
uh and they're still together. Still together. Yeah. Sure. Actually uh the primary
reason why the petitioner is in uh file this particular case even if technically

02:58:35
there's no need given the fact that he and u his present spouse is already American
is purposely to to to have to have their marriage celebrated in the Philippines as
well. But she's but he is married right now to a American citizen, right? Yes, your
honor. Yes, your honor. But u as we know uh Filipino tradition, they still also want
have their marriage celebrated in the Philippines and they cannot do that because
given the fact that the poring divorce obtained by petitioner has not yet been rec uh

02:59:09
recognized in the Philippines. The second wife. Yes. Is she a uhipino American?
Filipino American natural citizen. Okay. Filipino American. Not a natural citizen. What
nationality did the petition declare in his immigration card upon arrival in the
Philippines? Uh or what is civil status he declared in official documents of late? uh
uh to be um I I'm not aware when when was the last time he he came to the Phil
came back to the Philippines for a holiday uh but uh uh to be honest I don't have

02:59:47
no knowledge on that or okay I cannot uh comment on that or lack of knowledge
honor okay now why is petitioner arguing on the basis of gender discrimination
when it is not his wife that initiated divorce proceedings and secured the divorce
decree that was stated in that was your argument in your in your petition. Um uh
again, I'm sorry, your honor. Um you you were arguing about uh uh the basis of
gender discrimination. Mhm. But it was not the wife that initiated the divorce
proceedings and secured the
03:00:25
divorce decree. um actually and uh well although uh pro I adopted uh one of the
argument of the uh I think it is in my memorandum your honor in the comment
wherein I adopted the arguments propounded by by attorney legard wherein by way
in form of prohakiz that if this particular uh if if the particular petition granted on the
basis of petitioner it should be given or uh the fact uh uh the position rather of the
respondent should also be considered. Okay. And and if that were the case if that
were the case that will be an absurdity

03:01:07
wherein that particular the respondent will be still married to the petitioner when
the petitioner is no longer married to the to her. Now you argued that uh republic
versus obesido does not distinguish whether the divorce was obtained before or
after the acquisition of foreign citizenship. How did you reach this conclusion? Yes,
your honor because uh in our brace the fact is um in our braided your honor um uh
actually it was based on on the perspective n wherein the Filipina or the former
Filipino which is now the

03:01:43
foreigner has already attained um uh become a foreign national and from the
perspective of the Filipino it doesn't matter when did that particular uh his for
former wife actually acquired the Philippine citiz American citizenship because that
issue uh that Arbacido was decided on the basis that it incapacitate him to remarry
or regain his capacity to marry. Now you also argued earlier about uh you
mentioned about the uh the uh application of uh the case of Manalo and you stated
that this is similar to this

03:02:23
case. Are you sure of your facts that the Filipina Filipino in Manalo acquired foreign
citizenship after uh securing a divorce? Because uh earlier the uh the uh solicitor
general explained in her uh recitation the facts in Manalo the case seems to be not
applicable. That was a mixed marriage in Manalo. Actually start. Yes, your honor. My
point is uh I understand that there's no identical the there's no the um the facts of
Manalo in this particular case but what I intended to argue is your honor is the fact
that

03:03:07
that uh in Manalo actually Filipino can already initiated the divorce and that is the
point here your honor after he reacquired his Filipino citizenship by virtue of
Republic Act 9225. So the the case here the facts here is different from the facts of
Manalo. Yes. As I've said your honor, this a case of a pers a case of person freshman
when there is no similar cases decided by the Supreme Court. Uh that's why you
have to to adopt uh some arguments from the previous cases uh which is in the

03:03:41
case of Abraido and then the case of Manalo. Okay. Have you come across the case
of Tan versus Chrysolo? Um um about the react reactivity? Uh yes your honor uh a
retroactive application of 9225 your honor. Yes. Yes. What is your position on that
matter? Uh I'm not uh very fully aware of the facts of that particular case but the
acting the issue there was about residency honor. uh even if um correct me if I'm
wrong, my understanding is that um the retroactive application of 9225 does not
include residency because

03:04:26
the issue is that uh in that particular case, correct me if I'm wrong, is uh whether
the residency period which is actually required for her to run as uh congressman or
member of the house representative um is uh the one that put out an highlight on
that particular case. Okay. Thank you uh council. This uh you have uh passed
through my uh questions but uh this is will not be the last. My other my colleagues
will still ask you some questions but at least you have composed yourself. May I now
Thank you.

03:05:07
Thank you. May I now call the call on the uh solicitor uh general Okay. Awesome.
Afternoon, uh, solicitor general. What is the official I'm I'm I'm saying awesome
because that is my uh hashtag for the uh bar next year. Awesome. Awesome bar 26
26. An awesome afternoon. Awesome. Awesome. M church. Osam Osam what is the
official position of the government regarding divorce in general as applicable to all
Filipinos considering that divorce in only available to Filipinos adhering to Islamic
faith.

03:05:59
The official position of the Republic of the Philippines on divorce is what is provided
in the law also to be interpreted against the framework of the constitution. So the
state recognizes relative divorce not absolute divorce. the law, our law provides um
analment, declaration of nullity and as we have seen in the uh testimonies of the
Amichi a while ago as regards the legislative intent that there was there is really a
deliberate intent not to include a provision on absolute divorce. Now juxtapose this
to the

03:06:54
constitutional provisions on the inviolability of marriage and it isn't just I would I
believe that it isn't just an aspiration but the constitution says that the state shall
protect it referring to the inviability of marriage. By the way, madame solicitor
general, is this your first time also to appear and argue argue before this court?
Most certainly, your honor. This is my first time. Okay. Congratulations also. Thank
you. Now, constitutionally, are dual citizens a distinct class and valid

03:07:35
classification when it comes to marriage or emmerit requirements in the
Philippines? We believe that uh it is not because it they are to be deemed as Filipino
citizens as well as they should be bound also by their other nationality. Is it not
constitutionally problematic for only one sect or religious group to have a statutoric
enactment relative to divorce? Uh yes it is uh it is wrong for just a particular sect to
have um you you mean the the Sharia? Yes. Because as uh you stated as we have
stated earlier divorce is only divorce

03:08:26
is only allowed for the Muslim uh faith or the Islamic adhering to the Islam Filipinos
adhering to the Islamic faith. The Sharia law was passed based on the respect to the
customs and the practices of uh the Muslims. And I think that or I hope also that our
Congress would be on the way to pass a legislation on divorce. As we have heard a
while ago, it is only the Vatican and our country which do not have divorce. And if
we follow legal realism as a philosophy, we should be acknowledging that the times
have changed and perhaps

03:09:14
the time is now opportune to revisit the premises of the family code and the intent
that is expressed by the committee on civil code and the family code. However, it is
our position that it is the responsibility of Congress. So, are you saying that uh
because uh you you you are you are not adhering to the Islamic faith. Let us say
because you are a Christian then uh you cannot uh avail of those uh uh uh benefits.
If we if will uh say that that is available to the Islamic faith. Yes, that will be the
effect. Uh your

03:10:03
honor, how about those who does not have any uh uh religious uh preference? Let's
say if I am an atheist or I don't uh I don't uh I don't adhere to any uh religion for that
matter. So why will that apply to me? Uh I believe your honor that what will apply is
the law and the constitution uh which is actually not based on uh religion. The
description of marriage is I think couched in secular language and not uh based on
religion. So what is the reason uh uh behind the uh the prohibition for a an absolute

03:10:54
divorce in here in our country? Um well, I believe that the legislature or um the
committee that drafted the family code and the civil code and President Aino were
of the view that relative divorce may be more acceptable than absolute divorce.
And my distinction between the two is that for analment and declaration of nullity
the cause is existent at the time of marriage while for divorce the reason or the
ground is after the moment of marriage. So perhaps that is the uh rational or uh the
reason
03:11:54
behind the preference against absolute divorce. So it is because of public policy. Yes,
your honor. Okay. Is Philippine public policy still harmed when, for example, joint
divorce decrees or agreements secured abroad with either the initiation or
participation of both Philippine spouse are presented here for recognition? Your
honor, I respectfully believe that the question on whether there is harm is not the
only consideration when we consider something as public policy. Something could
also be public policy if

03:12:42
it defines the collective values or beliefs or customs of a society. And that means
that if for example we allow the petitioner or we grant the petition of the petitioner,
the fact that it could also offend the policy, the public policy as adopted by the by
our laws and constitution is also an effect or is also defining what public policy is. So
it is just not a question on whether does it harm because I think the question um will
really not matter when we say or when we refer to the nationality law

03:13:38
because there is a there could be a question why in fact the Philippines adopts a
nationality principle why don't we adopt the principle the the doicile principle which
is being observed by the US and the UK or the common law countries which we
might view as the more practical one, the more flexible one. But I believe your
honor that many laws have or or they produce inconvenience, they produce
impracticability. For example, when a couple wants to separate, why can't it be that
it's just an

03:14:22
agreement? That could be more practical, could be easier. So my point uh your
honor is just that maybe aside from the asking if it is harming the society I think
also the concept of public policy which is shared by the society by the community is
also a very important consideration. Thank you. Is there any exp explicit statutory
prohision provision stating that divorce is enimical to Philippine public policy or
public morals? Or is there a basis for saying that our public uh morality at present
abhorse
03:15:12
divorce? I agree. In fact, when Dean Mel uh stated his position in his brief, we
researched on whether there is prohibitory law and indeed so there is no prohibitory
law. The Supreme Court pronouncements are consistent in avowing that absolute
divorce is against public policy. the constitution if we look at it and I was trying to
also find if there are other constitutions which express the invaliability of marriage
and it is not many. So my my point being that it must have been very important to
the framers of our

03:16:09
constitution to put the invaliability of marriage in the constitution and to fill up
similar provisions in the family code. And may I uh also uh cite your honor a
provision in the new civil code article 220 which provides that in case of doubt all
presumptions favor the solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of law or
fact leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds.
So there is no explicit uh statutory provision is just a public policy. Is that what you
mean?

03:16:59
Yes, your honor. no express uh statutory prohibition but that the laws do not provide
a mechanism to avail of absolute divorce but policies can be changed with the uh
changing of times certainly your honor and um it is also as I mentioned on the legal
realism because if society society evolves yes uh there are so Many there have
been so many changes in the last decade and the laws should also evolve and that
is why we believe that it is high time for the Congress to really open the debate and
the discourse

03:17:50
on this topic in order to to adapt or to adopt laws that will reflect the changes. It is
the Congress not by the court. Yes, that is my humble submission your honor. Is dual
citizenship for purposes of securing divorce abroad inherently enimical to the
national interests? It will be enimical to the public policy as avowed by the
constitution and as consistently pronounced by the court. Thank you uh solicitor
general. Thank you your honor. Thank you. You passed the test. Now can I just ask
one question to the

03:18:42
am okay to proceed. Okay. Thank you, Chief. Okay. Now, it's so nice uh to hear
different views coming from our distinguished and learned uh Amitichi uh cur. Okay.
Uh may I just say that you are invited here as friends of the court. Hence you may
disagree with each other or we might disagree with each other. Let us remain as
friends. Now you you any of the uh amuscure may uh answer the questions and if
any one of you has a contrary opinion you may uh express the same. Okay. I will just
ask one question then the

03:19:38
then we uh so because I'm we are only allowed up to 5:00 so we have uh I will ask
the other uh follow-up questions on the next uh session. Is there anything uh again
uh an awesome afternoon to the uh unsecured? Is there anything uh delitterious to
Philippine public policy or public morals when it comes to Filipino citizens securing
divorce decrees in foreign jurisdiction and having the same recognized here? Uh
attorney uh Legarda, you were uh nugging your head. Can you uh answer the
question please?

03:20:26
Respectfully honor an awesome afternoon to you and to your honor. Barcelus. So as
a civil law person who reviews anyway your honor to answer your question. None
your honor. In fact, I know for a fact that um when I travel around this area and I
have gone to Guam with some friends and in fact with Justice Elo Santiago. I went to
Guam with her a long time ago. We discovered your honor that Guam has a 7-day
resident residence requirement only and you can file a divorce. seven days. So
many Filipinos who are our OFWs were

03:21:17
there doing that, your honor. And uh they come back to this country having
obtained the divorce in the in Guam. And the only requirement there is that the
Filipino spouse here has to sign an agreement that they are not objecting to the um
to the separation of property and the custody and support of the children. So they
signed this agreement because the Filipino spouse here wants the same thing. And
it's and it's it's uh that the divorce is issued by the court I think within two months.

03:21:58
So there are many OFWs who are doing this but of course they're not telling the
courts this but it's a reality your honor. So if it is delletterious, it is because there is
no divorce law. And I think perhaps it is time for the court to interpret article 26
paragraph 2 as including a mechanism in which to protect the Filipino here and
abroad. Your honor, thank you. Any contrary view? Yes, Attorney Panda. Not a
contrary view your honor but I would like to say your honor that in private
international law or conflict of

03:22:40
laws this is what we call a limping marriage limping a limping marriage where the
marriage is considered to have been dissolved under the laws of one state in this
case uh the US but still valid according to Philippine law. So I would say that what
that what is more dangerous and deliterious is having a limping marriage because
we are uncertain unsure about the rights of the parties about the rights of the
children. Um in the Philippines under Philippine laws the children will um of the
second marriage

03:23:16
if there is a remarage and children by that second marriage they will be considered
illegitimate children and until now there is stigma um on illegitimate children
although again the preferred term now and I think more um open-minded term is for
non-marital children as justice Leonen um uh wrote penned in Akino via Aino where
I was also a an amicus if I may add um so I would say that what's more dangerous is
to have this uh kind of situation that that we have children who are considered
illegitimate with fewer rights again

03:23:57
successional rights are only one half and the the fact that they are limping marriage
would subject both families the first and second I think into some legal confusion
Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh yes, Dean Santa Maria. There is none, your
honor. There there is no express provision saying that it is against public policy and
there is also no express pro. It's not against moral as you have decided in lu where a
unmarried woman uh living in with another person having sexual intercourse

03:24:34
is not disgraceful. In the same breath, your honor, a person trying to have a second
chance in life getting a divorce abroad must be given an opportunity. Your honor,
the very fact that we have a petition for recognition of foreign judgment. The very
fact that we have that in our rules of court and as stated in Miharez has become
part of customary international law. We acknowledge the fact that we will allow
Filipinos if there are remedies abroad in a particular state. We will allow them gate
lang to your petition for

03:25:11
recognition of foreign judgment. We will see if it's against public policy. And second,
your honor, public policy, as we have discussed is evolving. This Supreme Court has
decided a shift in certain public policy situations in in other cases like for example in
the flag ceremony case from from Herona to uh to uh it was a shift complete shift. It
was the Supreme Court who said that. And in in in agrarian reform, your honor, in
association of small land owners and in the Philippines versus secretary of agrarian
reform from

03:25:56
from a just compensation in cash. The Supreme Court changed the paradigm and
said no because the contextual millu is so massive. So massive on land reform s
Filipinas no and then so that's what I'm saying your honor we need not have a law
to define public policy it is the distinct power of this court on the basis of that
petition for recognition of foreign judgment to define that public policy as it is
existing now because your honor as I've said a while ago the the the the danger the

03:26:36
destruction of an institution will depend on how we see or we apply a stagnant
obsolescent public policy since 1939 and the world have turned around so many
times already your honor and there and since 1987 since that since that exchange
between father Bernas and and uh commissioner uh Gascon saying that no it's not
we do not even discourage it and then you have all this jud as a matter of fact it is
this Supreme Court which is trailblazing the advancement of that modern modern
attitude toward

03:27:19
marriage uh unlike the sup unlike the legislature that's all around thank you thank
you Santa Maria thank you chief thank you justice Sam for the record this afternoon
petitioner respondent presented their respective presentations. Thereafter, the ami
amichur were heard also. Justice Gerland, you have completed your interpolation. I
will continue my interpolation. For lack of material time, Justice Samuel Gerland will
continue his interpolation on October 21 at 2:30 p.m. Justice Kag would like to raise
a few

03:28:00
points before we adjourn. Um, can I ask council for petitioner? How do I pronounce
your name? Manet. Man, your honor. Okay. Um, council, I'm bothered by what you
were saying earlier that you didn't know some of the facts that Justice Sam was
asking. Um, and I noticed that your petition is very scarse in a lot of facts. Mhm. So,
let me ask point blank. Mhm. Your client is based abroad? Yes, your honor. And
you're based abroad as well? No, your honor. I'm based in the Philippines, but I have
uh a bit of

03:28:45
practice abroad in the United Kingdom. Are you a dual citizen? No. No, your honor.
You're a Filipino? I'm a Filipino. I opted to remain that I would not sacrifice my legal
profession. And your communication with with your client is how? By telephone. Uh
by telephone, but we able to meet once uh for a brief in the Philippines if I'm not
mistaken. I just can't remember your honor because this case was filed sometime
2022 2023. Your honor, exactly. No, no, my concern is we don't
03:29:17
want to be spending a lot of time and we're here addressing a theoretical question.
Yes, sure. That's why I go back to the question of justice. just a recognition honor.
Uh because he wants what? Because he's married already to the to his girlfriend
abroad, right? Yes. So therefore, what does he really want? Because uh the wife
demands or the Phil the second wife demands uh bear with my words demands that
they also be married in the Philippines. And the wife is also a Filipino. Filipino
American.

03:29:49
When you say Filipino American, what do you mean? Uh Filipino American, she's
American citizen. I'm not aware if he already a citizen. You don't seem to be aware
of some of the facts. That's my concern. Mhm. So, um with the indulgence of the
rest, maybe um we can issue a resolution asking you to put down on paper under
oath by your client answers to some of the questions that we will propound because
these are a lot a lot of these factual issues might have a bearing on this like when
did he apply

03:30:26
for citizenship? Why did he put the word married in his application for you know
what I'm saying? Yeah, sure. So, can we require the petitioner to be present? Well,
does he want to come here to be present so he can answer all our questions or he's
afraid of being sued for bigamy? I I cannot I cannot commit if he can uh uh if I can
comes in the Philippines, your honor, because uh he's tied with his professional
responsibility in the states. Can he participate online? I'm not so sure, your honor.
Uh but I'll

03:31:03
try your honor. I will inform your honorable. Is this guy a real guy? No, seriously. Yes,
your honor. Uh uh I will be very candid in the honorable court. I was able to uh it's
most likely uh it's the wife who actually pushes more for that they got married they
got married in the Philippines. Uh and to be honest uh it seems that I feel that the
for for the petitioner you're referring to the second wife. The second wife your honor
for the second wife because uh uh the the the new wife in the states
03:31:40
the new wife is the second wife. Yes. The new wife. Okay, the new spouse actually
wants to have the also mar get married in the Philippines and without recognition
the petitioner would run the uh the risk of uh being sued for bigamy considering
that he also got married in the Philippines but he's al so so okay so she's naturalized
also the second wife okay so one of maybe a number of the questions will be
addressed in finding out the personal circumstances of the second wife. Yes. When
did they get married? When did she

03:32:19
get naturalized? How exactly? Yes. I will I will undertake to for uh for No, I want it
under oath by them, not by you. Yes, your honor. I'll try. Is that you'll try? Yes, I will
talk to them. Your honor, you have to excuse me. You have to make an undertaking
before the court that you will do it. Sure. There are so you know the court is not a
factual finding court. This is not a trialer of facts. So we we we expect that we have
complete facts on record. But the facts are so amorphous amorphous

03:33:03
and you know it's just so easy for you to say now I don't know the facts because I
haven't talked to my client about this but we are interested in the facts more than
the law because we know the law but we want to know the facts as well first and
foremost we want to know the facts. Yes. Thank you. Go ahead. Uh just to clarify um
that the uh wife now uh and uh your petitioner your client wants to get married in
this country. Mhm. In front of their relatives is a very legitimate objective

03:33:48
and whether or not it will cost them or not cost them, whether or not it will affect uh
their family life etc. the mere symbolism of it. Given our customs, given our
traditions, given the concept of family, whether it is a second family, a third family,
a traditional, non-traditional family, in my view, is a legitimate matter because I saw
that it was being laughed at by our gallery and some other lawyers. I think it's a
very legitimate concern and I I I give a lot of respect for your petitioner despite
03:34:26
all the difficulties to go all the way up to the Supreme Court in order to be able to do
that. That's the importance of a family. Never mind if it's a second family. That's the
concept of family in our constitution. It is not only a first family. So I just want to I I
just want to emphasize that. But I join my other colleagues and ask you a bit more
diligence in terms of gathering the information that you will think that each of us
will ask of you. You've just gone through the first of the justices. You will go

03:35:05
through 15 of the justices. Even Justice Monet has sent in her questions and it is as I
see uh with the chief justice is it is five pages single spaced. So if I were you I would
listen to what justice Ben Kagwa has said and the uh uh the the uh statement of
justice Ami Javier that you should communicate with your client. I am sorry that you
are called out in open court in open uh hearings of the Supreme Court of this
country but this is how important we see this case. I mean you should appreciate
that we

03:35:49
called for oral arguments because this court thinks that these issues should now be
discussed publicly. So I hope that you also uh do your part. Yes, honor. Yeah, just to
reiterate why we need facts. Before we came out for oral argument, we read
everything. We were preparing and there's a statement in your petition that
respondent is married. So we were asking ourselves married with whom? Married to
the repetition? Oh, that's not clear in your petition. So we were thinking that she the
respondent already married to another

03:36:24
person. So the are the things that we want to be specific reactions. Yes sir. Okay.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay, there that attorney Maripe I
have dictated my order. We will resume October 21 at 2:30 p.m. Are there any other
matters that we have to consider? There are no other matters here. Okay, there
being no other matters, this session is adjourned. Thank you very much. See you on
October 21. Please remain standing by the chief justice, the senior associate justice
and associate justices.