Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
CEBU CITY
2ND SEMESTER A.Y 2017-2018
Submitted by:
Borrata, Felix Gian Nicer, Marianne Joy
Cabacang, Baby June Ricalde, Bryan Christian
Caballes, Danica Simon, Monisa Ruth
Diaz, Archeeno Sunico, Mary Therese Claire
Guanzon, Angeli Torrefiel, Patricia Erika
LLB 1 – EH 308
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
With this repeal, absolute divorce was removed from our laws.
The only available remedies in for defective marriages are the
declaration of nullity, annulment, psychological incapacity, and
legal separation.5 In the interest of the promotion of general welfare,
and for the interest of social justice, the Divorce Law was again
enacted. As stated, it created an uproar from the citizens. They
worry that divorce will destroy families. They contend that it will have
negative effects to the spouses and especially their children. They
also raise issues on morality, among others. This prompted the
petitioners to file this case questioning the constitutionality of the
divorce law. They pray that the Divorce Law be declared null and
void for being violating the highest law of the land, the Constitution.
The petitioners allege that the Divorce Law violates Article II
Section 12 and Article XV of the 1987 Constitution. They alleged that
the Divorce Law will destroy the sanctity of family life, rather than
saving it, and of marriage as an inviolable social institution. They also
argue that divorce would be prejudicial to the development of the
child, as it will affect their right to assistance and will produce other
negative effects to the children resulting from the separation of their
parents. With the imposition of divorce, they contend that it will
increase the number of broken families which will not be good for
the country since the family is the basic social institution.
The petitioners allege that the Divorce Law is in conflict with the
provision of the Family Code on marriage. Article 1 of the Family
Code of the Philippines states that, “Marriage is a special contract of
permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family
life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed
by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage
settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within
the limits provided by this Code.”6 Petitioners argue that since
marriage is a permanent union, no law, such as the divorce law, shall
be passed impairing such permanent union. Petitioners also raise
issues on morality, social justice, among others. They contended that
there are available remedies in the Family Code for defective
marriages. According to them, as to domestic violence, there are
available remedies to the woman and children such as the Violence
Purposes
someone to get out of a toxic relationship and avoid further abuses
does.
“Sec. 6. Effects of Absolute Divorce.- The following shall be
the legal effects of a decree granting absolute divorce
upon its finality:
a) The divorced spouses shall have the right to contract
marriage again.
b) The conjugal partnership of gains or the absolute
community shall be dissolved and liquidated with the
legitime of the children recognized and preserved
pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Family Code of
the Philippines.
c) The Proper court shall have the discretion to grant
alimony, child support and child custody pursuant to the
pertinent provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines
and award damages under the Civil Code of the
Philippines, and impose fines and contempt of court
against the defaulting parties.
d) The effects on the divorced spouses with respect to
intestate succession, testamentary dispositions, donations
and insurance provisions on beneficiaries in accordance
with the Family Code of the Philippines and jurisprudence
will be observed.
e) The legitimate and adopted children of the divorced
parents shall retain their legal status.”10
Before the enactment of the Absolute Divorce law, for
psychological incapacity to be a ground for annulment, it must be
established that such incapacity was already existing at the time of
the celebration of marriage. However, in the new law, it doesn’t
matter whether psychological incapacity, together with physical
incapacity, unsoundness of mind or sexually transmissible disease as
grounds, has already existed at the time of the celebration of
marriage or not. Additionally, the new law also provided that
canonical divorce, gender reassignment and irreconcilable marital
differences are also grounds for filing for Absolute Divorce.
“The following are the grounds for absolute divorce
a) The grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family
Code of the Philippines.
b) Grounds for annulment of marriage under Article 45 of
the Family Code of the Philippines.
c) Psychological incapacity of either spouse as provided for
in Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, whether
10House Bill No. 116, “An Act Instituting Absolute Divorce in the Philippines and for other
Purposes
the incapacity was present at the time of the celebration
of the marriage or later.
d) A divorce secured by one of the spouses in a foreign
country that it is established to be valid shall entitle the
other spouse to petition for absolute divorce as a
consequence of the said foreign divorce.
e) A canonical divorce or declaration of nullity of marriage
issued by an ecclesiastical tribunal of the Roman Catholic
Church, which was or is secured by one of the spouses,
shall entitle the other to petition for absolute divorce
based on the said canonical decree.
f) When one of the spouses undergoes a gender
reassignment surgery, the other spouse is entitled to
petition for absolute divorce with the transgender or
transsexual as respondent or vice versa.
g) Irreconcilable marital differences and conflicts which
have resulted in the breakdown of the marriage beyond
repair, despite earnest and repeated efforts at
reconciliation, shall entitle either spouse to petition for
absolute divorce.”11
The abovementioned umbrella structured grounds expand the
coverage of the bases on disintegrating marriages. It does not just
cover the grounds for legal separation and annulment, but it also
extended its breadth to newly accepted reasons like irreconcilable
marital differences. Indeed, marital differences and conflicts can be
solved. But when couples are unable to address this issue, the
conflict consumes their marriage up to the point that new problems
like serious abuses arise.
Interestingly, before the enactment of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, absolute divorce was permitted in the country. In the
history of Philippine laws, it was only on 1950, when the Civil Code of
the Philippines was enacted, when the laws on absolute divorce
were repealed.
But now, the current conditions of the society demand that the
suspension of the law on Absolute Divorce should cease. According
to statistics, cases on Republic Act No. 9262 reported to the Police
have been increasing significantly. From 2004 to 2013, continue to
increase from 218 in 2004 to 16,517 cases in 2013. (See Exhibit A)
The increasing number of RA 9262 cases filed is a manifestation
of the growing number of incidents of physical, emotional and
sexual violence in relationships. The currently growing number of
abuses existing in relationships is one of the problems which the
11House Bill No. 116, “An Act Instituting Absolute Divorce in the Philippines and for other
Purposes
newly enacted law tries to address. Indeed, it is undisputable that
Republic Act No. 9262 is a remedy to such abuses. But Absolute
Divorce allows the victim of an abusive relationship to completely
disintegrate with such destructive relationship and also allow the
victim to have the chance to find his true marital bliss.
According to a study of the Department of Justice of Canada,
marital conflict rather than divorce per se is the major determinant
of children’s adjustment. 12 This means that as the abuses continue to
exist in a failed marriage, its effects to the development of the child
are more damaging.
It is important to note that when married life becomes cruel, its
sanctity ceases to exist. Absolute Divorce offers liberation for victims
of failed and abusive relationships. It also safeguards the value of
marriage by not letting destructive ones to continue to exist as it may
be detrimental to the sanctity of the family and to the development
of the children.
ISSUE
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
DISCUSSIONS
I. The Divorce Law is legal and constitutional since the law does
not clearly and unequivocally violate any of the provisions of
the 1987 Constitution.
a. Presumption of Constitutionality
The police power is the power vested in the legislature by the
Constitution to make, ordain, establish all manner of wholesome and
reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the State and its
people.13 Vast as the power is, however, it must be exercised within
the limits set by the Constitution, which requires the concurrence of a
lawful subject and a lawful method. Thus, our courts have laid down
the test to determine the validity of a police measure as follows: (1)
the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, requires its exercise; and (2) the means employed
are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.14 As long as there is a
valid purpose and valid means, the legislature can validly enact laws
for the promotion of general welfare. This includes the power to
enact a divorce law here in the Philippines.
It is a well-settled doctrine that laws are presumed
constitutional. For courts to declare a law void and unconstitutional,
there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution.
The theory is that, as the joint act of the legislative and executive
authorities, a law is supposed to have been carefully studied and
determined to be constitutional before it was fully enacted.15
In Farias v. The Executive Secretary,16 the Court held that:
“Every statute is presumed valid. The presumption is that the
legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and just law and one
which operates no further than may be necessary to effectuate the
specific purpose of the law. Every presumption should be indulged in
favor of the constitutionality and the burden of proof is on the party
13 Ermita Malate Hotel v. City Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967.
14 National Development Company v. Philippine Veterans Bank, 192 SCRA 257 [1990].
15
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 29, 2001.
16 463 Phil. 179, 197 (2003).
alleging that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution.”
This is supported by the Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy. If
a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution, that law or
contract whether promulgated by the legislative, or by the
executive branch or entered into by private persons for private
purpose is null and void and without any force or effect.17
The petitioners allege that the Divorce Law is in conflict with the
provision of the Family Code on marriage. Article 1 of the Family
Code of the Philippines states that, “Marriage is a special contract of
permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family
life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed
by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage
settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within
the limits provided by this Code.” 18(emphasis supplied) Petitioners
argue that since marriage is a permanent union, no law, such as the
divorce law, shall be passed impairing such permanent union.
This argument must fail. According to Article XVIII Section 3 of
the Constitution: “All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,
proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances
not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until
amended, repealed or revoked.”19
So long as it is does not violate the provisions of the
Constitution, the law is to be considered valid and constitutional,
even supposing that it is inconsistent and in conflict with other
existing laws and jurisprudence. Applying this, the allegation that the
Divorce Law is in conflict with the provision of the Family Code on
marriage will not affect the constitutionality of the former.
With the foregoing, the petitioners have the burden of proof in
establishing that the Divorce Law is inconsistent and in conflict with
the provisions of the Philippine Constitution. Unless there is a clear
and unequivocal breach, the Divorce Law is presumed to be valid
and constitutional.
30
Basco v. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 91649, May 14, 1991.
31 Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRA 256.
32 Philippine Constitution, 1987, Art. 2 Sec 12.
encouragement of these basic traditions which we connect
with the term “marriage.”33
FR. BERNAS: Just one question, and I am not sure if it has been
categorically answered. I refer specifically to the proposal of
Commissioner Gascon. Is this to be understood as a prohibition
of a general law on divorce? His intention is to make this a
prohibition so that the legislature cannot pass a divorce law.
MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer, that was not primarily my
intention. My intention was primarily to encourage the social
institution of marriage, but not necessarily discourage divorce.
But now that he mentioned the issue of divorce, my personal
opinion is to discourage it, Mr. Presiding Officer.
FR. BERNAS: No. My question is more categorical. Does this
carry the meaning of prohibiting a divorce law?
MR. GASCON: No, Mr. Presiding Officer. 34
33
Records of the Constitutional Commission, 1986, Vol. 1.
34 Id.
35 Agpalo, R. E. (2009). Statutory Construction. Manila: Rex Book Store.
The 1987 Constitution devoted a separate Article on the Family
thereby acknowledging the fact that “the family is a basic
autonomous social institution and, therefore, the State shall uphold
the sanctity of family life, protect the stability of marriage and the
right to found a family in accordance with one's religious beliefs and
convictions, and responsible parenthood.”36 (emphasis supplied)
This recognition clearly emphasizes the State’s interest over the
solemnization of marriage. Then “in a real sense, there are three
parties to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving
State.”37 Despite this recognition, the Constitution did not provide the
parameters of State protection to the marriage and family.38
As such, the Family Code was enacted to ensure that the
sanctity of the family and the solemnity of marriage are further
protected. As provided for by Article 1 of the same Code:
Art. 1 – Marriage is a special contract of permanent union
between a man and a woman entered into in accordance
with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is
the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution
whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by
law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage
settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage
within the limits provided by this code. (emphasis supplied)
43Supra.
44MONTECLAR, ALEX., COMPENDIUM ON THE LAW ON PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS,
46 (2011). ; Article 1 of the Family Code Art. 1 – Marriage is a special contract of
permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law
for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an
inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by
law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the
property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this code. (emphasis
supplied)
(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under
Article 53.45
ARTICLE 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the
time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall
likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest
only after its solemnization.
The action for declaration of nullity of the marriage under this
Article shall prescribe in ten years after its celebration.46
ARTICLE 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous
and void from the beginning, whether the relationship
between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree;
and
(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half
blood.47
ARTICLE 38. The following marriages shall be void from the
beginning for reasons of public policy:
(1) Between collateral blood relatives, whether legitimate
or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent
and the adopted child;
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child
and the adopter;
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of
the adopter;
(8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry
the other, killed that other person's spouse or his or her
own spouse. 48
Similarly, the remedy for legal separation also known as
relative divorce, since it does not dissolve the marriage but
merely separates the spouses from one another,49 provides for
the following:
ARTICLE 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any
of the following grounds:
45 Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209 , July 6, 1987.
46 Idem.
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 Lapuz v. Eufemio, 43 SCRA 177 as cited in STA. MARIA, MELENCIO JR., PERSONS AND
FAMILY RELATIONS, PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LAW, 106 (6th ed., 2015).
(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive
conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child,
or a child of the petitioner;
(2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the
petitioner to change religious or political affiliation;
(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the
petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to
engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption
or inducement;
(4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to
imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned;
(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the
respondent;
(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
(7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent
bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad;
(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;
(9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the
petitioner; or
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without
justifiable cause for more than one year.
For purposes of this Article the term "child" shall include a child
by nature or by adoption.50
ARTICLE 56. The petition for legal separation shall be denied
on any of the following grounds:
(1) Where the aggrieved party has condoned the offense
or act complained of;
(2) Where the aggrieved party has consented to the
commission of the offense or act complained of;
(3) Where there is connivance between the parties in the
commission of the offense or act constituting the ground
for legal separation;
(4) Where both parties have given ground for legal
separation;
(5) Where there is collusion between the parties to obtain
the decree of legal separation; or
(6) Where the action is barred by prescription.51
The grounds ensure that the dissolution of marriage is well-
grounded and not just made about by “mere austerity of temper,
petulance of manners, rudeness of language, a want of civil
50 Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209 , July 6, 1987.
51 Ibid.
attention and accommodation, even occasional sallies of
passion.”52
As such, dissolution of marriages is under within the strict scrutiny
of the Courts. Accordingly, the Court promulgated the Rules on
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of
voidable marriages53 and Rules on Legal Separation54. Thus, only
after compliance to the rules and strict scrutiny of the Court can a
declaration of nullity, annulment, and legal separation be effected.
52 Lacson v. San Jose-Lacson, 24 SCRA 837 as seen in STA. MARIA, MELENCIO JR.,
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS, PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LAW, 370 (6 th ed.,
2015).
53 Supreme Court En Banc Resolution, A.M. 02-11-10-SC.
54 Supreme court En Banc Resolution A.M. 02-11-11-SC.
55 Santos, A. P. (2016, Aug 28). Filipinos fight for the right to depart wedlock: Activists exit
web's shadow to urge legal divorce. South Florida Sun - Sentinel Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1814435284?accountid=50192
56 Ibid.
2. Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner
to change religious or political affiliation;
3. Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a
common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in
prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;
4. Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment
of more than six years, even if pardoned;
5. Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;
6. Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
7. Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous
marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad;
8. Sexual infidelity or perversion;
9. Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner;
10. Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without
justifiable cause for more than one year.
b.) Grounds for annulment of marriage under Article 45 of the
Family Code of the Philippines, which are restated as follows:
1. That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the
marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but
below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without
the consent of the parents, guardian or person having
substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless
after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely
cohabited with other and both lived together as husband and
wife;
2. That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party
after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as
husband and wife;
3. That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud,
unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts
constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as
husband and wife;
4. That the consent of either party was obtained by force,
intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having
disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited
with the other as husband and wife;
5. That either party was physically incapable of consummating
the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues
and appears to be incurable; or
6. That either party was afflicted with sexually transmissible
disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable.
The grounds mentioned in numbers 2, 5, and 6 may either be
existing at the time of the marriage or supervening after the
marriage.
c.) Psychological incapacity of either spouse as provided for in
Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, whether or not
the incapacity was present at the time of the celebration of
the marriage or later.
d.) A divorce secured by one of the spouses in a foreign
country that is established to be valid shall entitle the other
spouse to petition for absolute divorce as a consequence of
the said foreign divorce.
e.) A canonical divorce or declaration of nullity of marriage
issued by an ecclesiastical tribunal of the Roman Catholic
Church, which was or is secured by one of the spouses, shall
entitle the other to petition for absolute divorce based on the
said canonical decree.
f.) When one of the spouses undergoes a gender reassignment
surgery, the other spouse is entitled to petition for absolute
divorce with the transgender of transsexual as respondent or
vice versa.
g.) Irreconcilable marital differences and conflicts which have
resulted in the breakdown of the marriage beyond repair,
despite earnest and repeated efforts at reconciliation, shall
entitle either spouse to petition for absolute divorce.
From the foregoing, the law clearly do not intend to repeal,
amend, nor suspend the availability of the other remedies, but
merely expands the coverage of the invocation for an action for
divorce.
Furthermore, it does not in any manner degrade the integrity of
marriage as it follows the same procedure as when one secures a
legal separation, annulment of marriage, or declaration of nullity as
instituted by the Court and the Family Code. It is also placed under
the strict scrutiny of the Court. Sec. 5 of H.B. 116 thus provides:
SEC. 5. Procedure for obtaining absolute divorce. – The
established and recognized procedures for securing legal
separation, annulment of marriage and voiding of a marriage
under the Family Code of the Philippines shall govern the
process of obtaining a judicial decree of absolute divorce from
the proper Family Court.
The factors and grounds which militate against the grant of
legal separation and the annulment and voiding of marriages
as provided for in the Family Code of the Philippines shall
likewise be assessed, upon competent and credible proof,
against the grant of absolute divorce. (emphasis supplied)
Wherefore, H.B. 116 or the “Act Instituting Divorce in the
Philippines and for Other Purposes” is not contrary to the established
principles of the Family Code, nor does it repeal, amend, or suspend,
any provisions thereof, but is a mere addition to the remedies
provided for by law to safeguard the integrity of marriage from ill-
unions.
https://arellanolaw.edu/alpr/v9n1c.pdf.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
acceptance of international law as part of the law of the land. 64 This
follows what is called the Doctrine of Incorporation.
As envisioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948
under Article 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person.”65 It is also inculcated in the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) manifested in Article 6 protecting the
right to life as well as Article 9 in the right to liberty and security.66 The
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) also addresses the right to equal protection and the right to
mental health commonly exhibited in cases of domestic violence.67
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women commonly known as CEDAW agrees as well in
condemning discrimination against women in all its forms,
interpreted as involving violence against women. All of these
catering to the protection, although not expressly indicated, against
domestic violence.
It is worth noting that the United Nations, to which the
Philippines is a member of, “promotes the duty of each and every
state to protect women against domestic and other forms of
violence” signed and recognized for the enactment and
enforcement of the signatory States back in 2002.68
A fundamental principle of human law, is the right to self-
determination. It is the individual and collective right to “freely
determine… political status and [to] freely pursue… economic, social
and cultural development.” The International Court of Justice, the
principal judicial organ of the United Nations referred to the right to
self-determination as a right held by the people rather than a right
held by governments alone. 69 This right is indubitably a norm of jus
cogens. The term jus cogens means the “compelling law”.70 It holds
the highest hierarchical position among all other customary norms
and principles and as a result they are deemed “peremptory and
http://www.stopvaw.org/UN_Treaties_and_Conventions.
66 Ibid.
67 The International Legal Framework.
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/svaw/domestic/laws/international.htm.
68 “I Dos and Don’t’s”: Re-Visiting the Proposal to Legalize Divorce in the Philippines.
https://arellanolaw.edu/alpr/v9n1c.pdf.
69Karen Parker, Understanding Self-determination: The Basics, August 2000
(http://130.94.183.89/parker/selfdet.html)
70 M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes, 59-
CONCLUSION
71 Carlee M. Hobbs, The Conflict Between the Alien Tort Statute Litigation and Foreign
Amnesty Laws, 43 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 505, 521 (2009-2010); citing Jeffrey L. Dunoff, et
al., International Law: Norms, Actors Process 58-59 (2d ed., 2006).
72 Zyberi, Gentian, Self-Determination Through the Lens of the International Court of
Justice (December 2009). Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 56, pp. 429-453,
2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1622793
73 Supra.
74 Mary Jude Cantorias, “I Dos and Don’t”; Re-visiting the Proposal to Legalize Divorce in
the Philippines (November 2008). Arellano Law and Policy Review Publications., Vol. 9,
pp. 85-88. Available at https://arellanolaw.edu/alpr/v9n1c.pdf
As such, it safeguards the integrity of marriage, as respected in
the Constitution, against ill-union. It serves as an additional remedy
that may be availed of by those who have less in the society.
RESPONDENT’S PRAYER
75
As seen in Del Rosario v. Delos Santos et al., G.R. No. L-20589-90, March 21, 1968.
Exhibit A
Rising Cases of R.A. 9262 otherwise known as Violence Against
Women and Children.