Only Atheists should hold Public Office?

There's a commentary in Yahoo that I found interesting, it was written by Andrew Riggio, a Yahoo contributor. Of course, it represents his own point of view, but I thought it was worth sharing after noting various religious interference on political issues that not only happen in the US, but also in the Philippines, and in the rest of the world. I should begin this article with a saying - Religion is politics!

Here's the link to the commentary:

Only Atheist should hold public office (Yahoo! Contributor)

I also would like to add on this one... most Christians are actually non-violent simply because they are not the type who strictly complies with the Bible standards particularly in the "Old Testament", noting that most of them, particularly among the bigger denominations, never cares to read the bible, while those who read adjusted themselves by ignoring some Bible standards in order to comply with "real existing laws".

A Personal Opinion

Riggio has a point on this one, religion serves as guide to religious people. However, religion-driven people think of it as more than just a belief system - which is subjective to a group. They thought of it as if it's God's command. And this kind of primitive mentality (brought about by an evolutionary process), is more likely to cause disaster. People has to adapt to an ever changing society and sometimes, dogmas prevent it from happening. But who goes to say that religion does not bring anything good (progress for that matter)? It does, it's just that it wouldn't be right if we let it control everything, I mean, who are the pastors, the clergy, or the Imams/Rabbis who decide for the group anyway? Aren't they men also? Surely they are not gods and they are also prone to errors, along with their scriptures, which was written by primitive men a long time ago.

Satisfaction for Corona drops to negative according to SWS

Renato Corona

Philippines - It seems it does not bode well for the judiciary branch of the government, having been double teamed by the Executive and the Legislative branches and now, they are losing the support of the people as well.

Public satisfaction for the impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona has dropped further and is now in the negative territory, a new Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey revealed on Friday.

The survey was conducted last December 3-7, 2011, and shows that net satisfaction for Corona has dipped from 0 in the past 2 quarterly surveys to -14 in the past month.

The latest net satisfaction for Corona is only 4 percentage points higher than his previous all-time low of -18 in the June 2010 survey of SWS.

Corona has received the lowest net satisfaction rating among chief justices since the SWS started doing surveys on government officials' ratings in October 1986. He has yet to receive positive net satisfaction ratings since being appointed the country's top magistrate in 2010.

Corona is facing possible ouster after being impeached by the House of Representatives. His impeachment trial before the Senate will start on January 16.

The SWS survey, meanwhile, showed a 7-percentage-point increase for Vice-President Jejomar Binay's net satisfaction rating, from +63 in September 2011 to +70 in December 2011.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile's net satisfaction rating rose slightly from +35 to +36 while Speaker Sonny Belmonte's rating dipped slightly from +9 to +8 during the period.

Meanwhile, public satisfaction for the country's top government institutions also suffered in the last quarter of 2011. Public satisfaction for the Senate dropped from +55 to +44, the House of Representatives' rating dropped from +31 to +27, while the Cabinet's rating dropped from +24 to +22.

Public satisfaction for the Supreme Court also dropped from +29 to +21.

With the current government tearing each other apart, we can expect a further drop in the government ratings, unless there are some changes to take place.

Michele Bachmann came in last

Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann, for those who don't know her, she's a Christian extremist! Perhaps you guys might have heard about Islamic extremists - the ones bombing buildings and carrying out jihad to terrorize their fellow mankind? Don't confuse them with Islam though, because some Imams actually preach about peace, but these extremists preach about war. The same can happen even to Christians. Because while Islamic extremists work out their plans through barbaric aggression, a Christian extremists work it out politically (well except for ancient Christians who burn people at the stake).

Yup, every religion has a bad apple, and every religion can go bad. Because once religion takes over one's mind and kick reason out of the shell, you can expect craziness to happen, and Michele Bachmann is no exception.

Michele Bachmann is a Christian extremist who spouts weird conspiracy theories, garbles history and foreign policy, and tells untruths with such conviction that she's less a liar than a denizen of an alternative reality writes Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast.

She burns through staffers and appears to have a megalomaniacal sense of her own destiny. By the way, to quote one of her weird story, she said she was destined by God to become America's president, and she actually made some people believe that they held some kind of a cult rally, mythmaking on her personality.

She built her career by demonizing gay people, and even as she touted her passion for liberty, she planned to use the presidency to intrude on the sex lives of American citizens.

None of this, though, can really explain her dismal showing in Iowa, a state she once seemed poised to win, nor the anti-climactic fizzling of her candidacy. After all, her faults are hardly unique in the Republican field.

Ron Paul shares her fears that the dollar will be forsaken in favor of some cursed one-world currency. Kind of like a new Doomsday story for America.

Bachmann may have wanted to close the nonexistent embassy in Iran, but unlike Herman Cain, she seemed to be aware of the broad outlines of Obama's Libya policy before she denounced it. Newt Gingrich had similar personality problems, and his grandiosity makes her look humble. Her gaffes, such as confusing John Wayne with John Wayne Gacy, hardly compare to Rick Perry's verbal flailing. And for homophobic prurience, she has nothing on Rick Santorum, Goldberg continues to write.

Meanwhile, she was consistently well spoken in the debates, even if the things she said did not correlate with empirical reality. She never deviated from the base's orthodoxy, and she matched Santorum in retail campaigning, visiting every one of Iowa's counties. And yet, she still came in last, unless one counts Jon Huntsman, who made no effort in Iowa at all.

Goldberg writes that it's tempting to think that part of what finally defeated Bachmann was sexism. There have been plenty of hints that some on the right were uncomfortable with the notion of a female president. "I've noticed that when her name is mentioned sometimes that there's a lot of men that wouldn't vote for a woman," one Iowa county GOP chair told the Associated Press on Monday. Patricia Murphy also quoted Iowans who liked Bachmann but wanted a male candidate. One woman told her she'd initially been for Bachmann, "But then I just started thinking about being presidential and I don't know that we're ready for a woman for president." It's not a stretch to imagine that the Christian right's patriarchs, many of whom explicitly preach female submission, felt the same way.

So it would seem that the Bible's teachings is finally getting its toll on Bachmann, who is a woman.

Thus even when she seemed to be surging, religious right leaders started casting around for an alternative. They thought they had one in Perry, who quickly stole Bachmann's momentum. But once his intellectual deficiencies became clear, Bachmann couldn't get a second look. Her close congressional ally Steve King declined to endorse her. Politico reported that Bob Vander Plaats, head of the Iowa Family Leader, asked her to drop out before endorsing Rick Santorum, who at the time was polling behind her. (Vander Plaats denied making such a request.) Ultimately, one of the few movement stalwarts to come out for Bachmann was Phyllis Schlafly, a crusading anti-feminist who nonetheless believes, given the example of her own life, that women can lead.

During the campaign, according to Goldberg, she asked a few influential Christian conservatives why Bachmann was never able to recapture her initial support. One cited Bachmann's claim about the HPV vaccine causing mental retardation as proof that she wasn't a serious candidate. Obviously, that is proof that she wasn't a serious candidate, though it's odd that he should have seen it that way, since the right has rarely been troubled by the spread of misinformation about reproductive health. One of Perry's claims to fame, after all, is a Texas law that requires doctors performing abortions to give their patients a booklet claiming, falsely, that abortion can increase the risk of breast cancer.

In the end, the reason Bachmann was a frightening candidate was because she's such a perfect product of the Christian right. As such, she believed in its doctrines about gender. She disavowed feminism, proclaimed the duty of wives to obey their husbands, and told Sean Hannity that her daughters aren't allowed to ask boys out on dates, saying, "They have to wait for the boys to call." Perhaps she thought that if she championed such structures passionately enough, they wouldn't apply to her.

Perhaps, another one that wasn't put on the list of her ironic deeds is that she also plans to introduce the teaching of Creationism into schools, which somehow aghast men of academe, professors, and scientists. Well, thank God she didn't make it, otherwise, it would have been a disaster, and Christianity would be partly to be blamed for it.

Philippine Chief Justice Renato Corona strikes back at Malacañang!

Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona

Today, Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona made a statement against the Malacañang, and accused Aquino of forcing his impeachment so that he can appoint his own chief magistrate and control the high court. He spole at the Supreme Court grounds in Padre Faura, Manila in front of supporters from various courts on Wednesday on what appears to be a protest against Corona's impeachment.

Here's the message he delivered this afternoon:

Tagalog version: (For English Version click here)

"Ako ang Unang Tagapagtanggol ng Hustisya!

Isang mainit at mapagpalayang hapon po sa ating lahat!

Tunay na hustisya, kadakilaan ng Kataas-taasang Hukuman, at kalayaan ng hudikatura, tatlo pong prinsipyo na nagbibigay sa akin - sa ating lahat - ng lakas at tapang na harapin ang hamon at pagsubok na bunga ng masamang pulitika.

HINDI PO TAYO PAPAYAG NA LAPASTANGANIN AT ALIPUSTAHIN ANG DEMOKRASYA, AT ANG KORTE SUPREMA!

Sa isang iglap, nasampahan po ako ng isang impeachment complaint ng mababang kapulungan na kontrolado ng Liberal Party ni Ginoong Aquino at ng kanyang mga kaalyado. Sa sobrang bilis, parang wala po yatang naka-intindi o nakabasa man lang ng halos animnapung pahinang reklamo o habla. Isang daan, walumpu't walong kinatawan ang basta na lamang lumagda rito para isulong ang aking impeachment. Kinikilala natin ang proseso ng Saligang Batas para sa mga reklamo laban sa mga miyembro ng Korte Suprema. Ngunit ang hindi natin kinikilala ay ang pag-abuso ng kapangyarihan at proseso para samantalahin ang lahat ng paraan, makapagtalaga lamang sila ng sarili nilang mga mahistrado sa Korte Suprema.

Itong impeachment ay dala ng kasakiman na magkaroon ng isang Korte Suprema na kayang diktahan, na nakukuha sa tingin, at magkakandarapang ipatupad ang kanilang bawat hiling.

Tila yata'y napipikon at hindi sila makapagtalaga ng kanilang punong mahistrado kung susundin ang ating umiiral na Saligang Batas. Kaya pati ang inyong lingkod, hadlang daw sa kaunlaran ng bayan at pagpapatupad ng mga ipinangako sa kampanya!

Pasadahan po natin ang mga walang katuturang paratang ng ating mga magigiting na mambabatas. Walo po ang hinain na paratang laban sa akin. Kaagad, makikitang dalawang uri ang bintang na nilalaman nito: sa isang banda, 'yung mga reklamong tumutukoy sa mga personal kong kilos, at sa kabilang banda naman, ang mga reklamo na tumutukoy sa mga opisyal na pagkilos o hatol ng Korte Suprema.

Mariin kong itinatanggi ang mga bintang na may katiwalian sa mga pansarili kong kilos. Hindi po totoo ang sinasabing ayaw ko raw ilabas ang aking Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. Ito'y isang dokumentong sinusumite ko taun-taon ng walang patid. Malaking kasinungalingan ang paratang na ito.

Ako raw po ay isang midnight appointee. Dapat raw po, hindi ko tinanggap ang paghirang sa akin. Bakit po ba, para si Ginoong Aquino ang makapagtalaga ng kaniyang sariling chief justice na hawak niya sa leeg?

Mapapa-iling ka talaga. Ang pagtatalaga sa inyong lingkod ay dumaan sa isang masusing proseso na ayon sa ating Saligang Batas. Kasama po dito ang proseso ng Judicial and Bar Council na noon ay pinangungunahan ng dating Punong Mahistrado Reynato Puno. Matagal na po itong pinagpasyahan ng Korte Suprema. Matagal nang tapos ito. Kung may reklamo man sila sa hatol ng Korte Suprema, sana ay noon pa, ipinaglaban na nila.

Binibuhay ito para painitin ang damdamin ng ating mga kababayan at mawalaan tayo ng tiwala sa Korte Suprema at hudikatura. Di po ba't may kasabihan na 'ang isang kasinungalingan, kapag inulit ng inulit, pagtagal, ay siyang tinatanggap bilang katotohanan?' Paano po naman maging kasalanan ang pagtanggap ng isang dakilang karangalan tulad nito? Ito ay isa lamang pong paninira ng aking katapatan sa katungkulan, kasama na po ang puri at dangal ng Kataas taasang Hukuman.

Ngunit ang kasukdulan ng pambabastos, sa aking pananaw, ay ang pagdawit ng aking may-bahay sa reklamong ito. Baka akala nila na sa ganitong paraan ako po'y madaling susuko. Mapalad po ako na mayroon akong isang mabait at matatag na kasama sa buhay, na siya ring pinagkukunan ko ng lakas at inspirasyon. Mahal na mahal kita, Tina.

Walang katotohan ang kanilang mga paratang - puro kasinungalingan. At patutunayan namin na ito ay isang pag-blackmail lamang. Lingid po yata sa kanilang kaalaman na si Ginang Corona ay una pang naitalaga bago ako naging mahistrado. Bakit, hindi po ba dito sa kasalukuyang administrasyon mayroong isang mag-asawa, kasama ang kanilang mga anak, na may matataas na puwesto?

Ang mga natitirang paratang ay ukol naman sa mga pasiya at iba pang matagal nang patakaran ng Korte Suprema. Alalahanin po natin na ayon sa ating Saligang Batas, ang Korte Suprema Ay binubuo ng isang punong mahistrado at labing-apat na katulong na mahistrado. Mayroon po lamang kaming tig-iisang boto, at ito po ay pantay-pantay. Ang aking boto ay kapareho lamang ng boto ng pinakahuling naitalagang mahistrado. Ang pwersa at bisa ng aking pananaw ay kapantay lamang ng pwersa at bisa ng pananaw ng kahit sino mang mahistrado. Pantay-pantay po kaming lahat dito.

At sa mga isyu na sinasabi nilang kaugnay sa dating pangulo, wala po kaming kinakatigan dito sa hukumang ito. Ang aming pasiya ay pasiya ng buong Korte Suprema at resulta ng mga indibidwal na opinyon. Ang opinyon ng isang mahistrado ay hindi desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Kahit sinumang abogado ay magsasabi sa inyo na hindi po pwedeng yapak-yapakan ang karapatan ng sinuman sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas, habang hindi mo pa napapatunayan na siya ay nagkasala. May mandato ang korte na ipagtanggol higit sa lahat ang karapatang pang-tao ng indibidwal kontra sa labis-labis na kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan, lalong-lao pa kung wala pang naisasampang kaso. Matagal na itong prinsipyo at hindi na kailangang idebate. Ito ang tinatawag na PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE and RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.

Isampa ang tamang kaso sa loob ng wastong oras, na may tamang ebidensya para walang magawa ang korte kung di hatulan at ipakulong ang nagkasala sa lipunan. Panagutin natin ang dapat managot, pero idaan natin sa wasto at tamang proseso sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas. Ano po ba ang napakahirap intindihin sa bagay na ito? Ibang-iba po ang palakad sa gabinete, sapagkat doon, lahat ng miyembro ay mga alalay, alagad at utusan ng pangulo. Sa loob ng gabinete, ang utos ng hari, hindi nababali. Dito po sa Korte Suprema, ang pananaw ng punong mahistrado ay isa lamang.. Gaya nga ng sinabi ko, kami ay patas at pare-pareho lamang na nagbibigay halaga at respeto sa opinyon ng bawat isa. Wala po kaming tungkulin at balak na maging sunod-sunuran sa isa't-isa.

Ngayon, ipagpalagay na natin na malimit kasama ko ang mayorya sa botohan, maari ba namang magmistulang pagkampi ito, samantalang nakararami kaming sumasang-ayon sa isang pananaw? Kasalanan po ba na ako'y kasapi ng mayorya ng Korte sa iilang mga kaso? Marami din naman pong kaso na nasa menorya ako sapagka't natalo sa botohan ang aming pananaw. Ito ang magpapatunay na walang nagdidikta ng boto dito sa Korte Suprema.

Kaya nga po dito natin makikita ang likas na talino at sadyang makatarungan na sistema ng hustisya sa ating Saligang-Batas: labing-lima po kami sa Korte Suprema, upang masiguro na mangibabaw ang pananaw ng mas nakakarami. Hindi maaring magtagumpay ang pananaw ng nag-iisang mahistrado.

Samakatuwid, itong mga paratang ng pagkiling laban sa akin ay bunga lamang ng malisya at kathang-isip. Malamang, umaasa ang mga kalaban ng Korte, na ako at ang ibang miyembro na di nila kayang diktahan, ay mag-bibitiw sa tungkulin.

At kung sakaling magtagumpay ang impeachment na ito laban sa akin, ano sa palagay ninyo ang mangyayari? Simple lang po mga mahal kong mga kababayan - kay Ginoong Aquino na ang gabinete, kontrolado na niya ang kongreso, at hawak na niya ang Korte Suprema. Paulit-ulit nalang nilang isinisigaw ang checks and balances ng three co-equal branches of government, ngunit ang kanilang mga pagkilos ay patungo sa pagsakop sa buong sistema at kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan. Itong mga itinatanim niyang gawain ay siguradong mamumunga lamang ng isang diktadura; isang diktadura na nagmula sa paglilinlang at paglalason sa pag-iisip ng ating mga kababayan.

At ngayon, sasabihin ko po sa kanilang lahat: ako'y tumututol sa walang-tigil na pang-aalipusta, pangduduro at pananakot. Ako'y tumututol sa dahan-dahang binubuong diktadura ni Pangulong Benigno Simeon Aquino III. Kahapon lamang, iginigiit ng palasyo na hindi raw ang Korte Suprema o hudikatura, at ako lang daw, ang tinitira dito sa impeachment. Ito po'y malaking kasinungalingan, dahil hindi ako naniniwala na si Renato Corona lang ang tumututol sa diktadura. Walang katotohanan na si Renato Corona lamang ang gusto nilang tanggalin sa Korte Suprema. Naniniwala po ako na tayong lahat ang kinakalaban, pati na ang mga walang-malay nilang tagahanga. Sapagkat ang tunay na layunin ay wasakin ang hudikatura, wasakin ang ating demokrasya, at pairalin ang utos ng mahal na hari. Ito ang patutunguhan ng baluktot na 'Daang Matuwid.'

Matagal na po akong nagtitimpi. Hindi ko po maintindihan kung bakit nanggigigil ng husto sa akin ang mahal nating pangulo, magmula pa po sa kanyang pagkaluklok sa pwesto.

Tuwing kami'y nagkikita, lubos kong pinararamdam na kami'y dapat mag-ugnayan, magsama at magtulungan para sa bayan. Marami po tayong problema. Nandiyan po ang mabagal na takbo ng ekonomiya, kawalan ng trabaho, kahirapan at kagutuman. Mukhang hindi po niya naintindihan.

Kumakailan lamang, tinuya na naman po tayo ng harap-harapan. Tulad ng tunay na Kristianong Batangueño, tayo po ay nagpigil, at ito po ay ating pinalampas.

Wala po akong kasalanan sa inyo, Ginoong Pangulo. Wala po akong kasalanan sa taong-bayan.

Sabi nila, sarili ko lang daw po ang nakataya dito. Ang pinaglalaban po natin dito ay ang kalayaan ng Korte Suprema, kalayaan ng hudikatura, at ang pagtanggol ng demokrasya sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas. Hindi po ako papayag na sumuko sa matinding pagtatangka na mapasailalim ng ibang sangay ng pamahalaan ang Korte Suprema. Una akong tututol. Una akong lalaban.

Ginoong Pangulo, ako po ang primus inter pares dito sa Korte Suprema. Ang ibig sabihin po nito, kung kailangan ipaglaban ang Korte Suprema, ako ang uuna.

Huwag na po nating isubo ang Korte Suprema sa ano pang pagsubok o batikos ng mga mapagsamantala. Yaman din lang na ang ipinaglalaban dito ay ang Korte Suprema at ang demokrasya, karangalan at katungkulan ko po na labanan itong impeachment para sa ating lahat. Haharapin ko nang buong tapang at talino ang mga walang basehang paratang na ito, punto por punto, sa Senado. Handang-handa akong humarap sa paglilitis.

Mga kasama, matapat kong sinasabi sa inyo, mahimbing ang tulog ko at tahimik ang aking konsyensya dahil sa pagpapatupad ng lahat ng aking mga tungkulin. Ako'y nanatiling matapat sa Panginoon, sa aking sarili, sa batas, at sa sinumang tao.

Para sa mga ngayon pa lang nakakarinig ng aking panawagan, inaanyayahan ko kayong makiisa sa amin. Ngayon pa lamang ay taos-puso na ang aking pasasalamat sa inyo sa inyong pagtaguyod, pakikiisa at pagpapalakas ng aming loob.

Mga minamahal kong kababayan, sa aking pagharap sa isang mapanganib na katunggali, ang aking tanging sandigan ay ang inyong pakiki-akibat, at ang paninindigan para sa Lumikha at sa ating bayan. Buong pagkukumbaba kong hinihiling ang inyong pang-unawa, subalit higit sa lahat, hinihiling kong samahan ninyo ako sa aking laban at misyon.

Muli, isang maganda at maalab na hapon po sa inyong lahat. Sana'y pagpalain po tayong lahat ng Maykapal."

For those who cannot understand Tagalog, here's the English Version.

"I am the first guardian of Justice!

A hot and liberating afternoon to all of us!

True Justice, greatness of the Supreme Court, and freedom of the judiciary, the three principles that gives me - and all of us - strength and courage to face the challenge and tests brought about by bad politics.

WE WILL NOT ALLOW DISRESPECT AND INSULT TOWARDS DEMOCRACY, AND THE SUPREME COURT!

In an instance, I was sued with an impeachment complaint by the lower assembly that's controlled by the Liberal Party of Mr. Aquino and his allies. At such excessive speeds, it's as if no one understood or even read the almost 60 pages of complaint or lawsuit. 180 representatives just signed this to advance my impeachment.

We recognize the constitutional process for complaints against members of the Supreme Court. But, we dot not recognize the abuse of power and the procedure to take advantage all the way, just so they could assign them their own justices to the Supreme Court.

This impeachment was brought by greed so to have a Supreme Court they can dictate, that can obtain with a mere look, and hastily implement their every request.

Apparently, they get mad for not being able to appoint their own chief justice if they follow our existing constitution. That's why they charge even your own servant, saying we are the barrier that prevents the progress of the nation, and the accomplishment of their promises in the campaign!

Let's go through the irrelevant allegations of our heroic legislators. They laid 8 allegations against me. Immediately, we can see two types of allegations contained herein: on one hand, those complaints that refer to my personal actions, and on the other hand, the complaint that refers to the official act or decision of the Supreme Court.

I calmly deny the allegations that there was corruption in my personal actions. It's not true that I don't want to release my Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. This is a document that I uninterruptedly submit annually. This accusation is a big lie.

They say, I am a midnight appointee. They say, I should not have accepted this position. Why not, so that Mr. Aquino could assign his own chief justice he could dominate?

It can really make you shook your head. The appointment of your servant undergo a rigorous process that is in accordance with our Constitution.

Along with this is the process of the Judicial and Bar Council that was once led by former Chief Justice Reynato Puno. It has long been decided by the Supreme Court. It was done a long time ago. If they have a complaint with the ruling of the Supreme Court, they should have fought for it before.

They are reviving this issue to insinuate hate among our countrymen and we are losing our trust on the Supreme Court and the Judiciary. Isn't it there is a saying that says 'a lie, if kept on repeated, later, it is the one eventually accepted as the truth?' How can accepting this great honor be a mistake? This is just a ploy to damage my credibility, including the pride and dignity of the most high Court.

But the peak of scurrility, in my view, is the inclusion of my house wife in the complaint. Maybe they thought this way they could easily make me surrender. I'm lucky to have a good and strong partner, who is also the source of my strength and inspiration. I love you very much, Tina.

There's no truth in their allegations - nothing but lies. And we're going to prove that this is nothing more than a blackmail. Unbeknownst to them, Mrs. Corona had been appointed even before I became a magistrate. Why, in this current administration there's a couple, with their children, with a high position?

The remaining allegations were about my decisions and some other long-standing policy of the Supreme Court. We must remember that according to our Constitution, the Supreme Court is composed of a chief magistrate and 14 assistant magistrates. We only have one vote each, and this is equal. My vote is the same as with the latest assigned magistrate. The power and the effect of my decision is just equal to the power and effectiveness of any magistrate. We are all even here.

And for the issues they say we're related to the former president, we are not siding on anyone here in this court. Our decision is the decision of the entire Supreme Court and the results of individual opinions. The opinion of a magistrate is the decision of the Supreme Court. Even any lawyer will tell you that you cannot step on anybody's rights under the Constitution, while not yet verified that he/she was guilty.

The court has a mandate to defend, most importantly, the human rights of individuals against excessive government power, especially if there was no filed case. It has long been the principle and does not need to be debated. This is called PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE and RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.

File the right case in an appropriate time, with conclusive evidence so the Supreme Court cannot do anything but to pass judgement and to jail those who wronged the society. We'll make those are accounted answer, but let's do this in the right process under the Constitution. What's so hard to understand in this matter? This is so different from running the cabinet, because there, all members are assistants, disciple and servants of the president. Inside the cabinet, the order of the king, can't be opposed. Here in the Supreme Court, the decision of the chief magistrate is one.. Like I said, we are all evenly giving value and respect on each other's opinion. We have no duty or intention to follow one another.

Now, supposing I often go with the majority in the voting, can this look like allegiance, when we mostly agree on one decision? Is it my fault that I belong to the majority of the Court in some cases?

There were also many cases where I was in the minority even my decision was lost in the voting. This is proof that no one is dictating on the votes here in the Supreme Court.

That is why here we can see the natural ingenuity and intended fair justice system in our Constitution: there are 15 of us in the Supreme Court, so to ensure that the decision of the majority stands out. It is not possible for the decision of one magistrate to succeed.

Therefore, these bias allegations against me is simply the result of malice and wishful thinking. Probably, the enemies of the Court are hoping, that I and the other members which they can not dictate, would let go of the office.

And if ever the impeachment would succeed against me, what do you think would happen? It's simple my beloved countrymen - Mr. Aquino will own the cabinet, he could control the congress, and he will hold the Supreme Court. They repeatedly shouted about checks and balances of the three co-equal branches of government, but their movement is towards conquest of the whole system and power of the government. These activities they sow are only sure to bring forth dictatorship; a dictatorship that came from deception and from poisoning the minds of our countrymen.

And now, I am going to tell them all: I am against the constant outrage, finger-pointing and threats. I am against to the slowly forming dictatorship of President Benigno Simeon Aquino III. Just yesterday, the Palace insists that they are not against the Supreme Court or the judiciary, and I alone is the target for impeachment. This is a big lie, because I don't believe that Renato Corona is the only one who is against the dictatorship. It's not true that Renato Corona is the only one they want to remove from the Supreme Court. I believe that we are all being opposed, including their innocent fans. Because their real goal is to destroy the judiciary, to destroy our democracy, and enforced the order of his majesty. This is the direction of the bending 'Straight Road'.

I was holding back for so long. I do not understand why our beloved president is mad at me, even since he was put in power.

Whenever we meet, I let him feel that we should interact, join and work together for the nation. We have so many problems. There's the slow growth of economy, unemployment, poverty and hunger. It seems he doesn't understand.

Just recently, he mocked us again in front of our faces. Like a true Batangueño Christian, we refrained, and we let go.

I have no fault in you, Mr. President. I have no fault towards the people.

They say, I'm the only one who's at stake here. What we are fighting here is the freedom of the Supreme Court, freedom of the judiciary, and the defense of democracy under the Constitution. I'm not willing to succumb to the extreme attempts of the other branches of government to bind the Supreme Court. I'll be the first to object. I'll be the first to fight.

Mr. President, I am the primus inter pares here in the Supreme Court. What I mean is, if it's necessary we should fight for the Supreme Court, I'll be the first.

We should not subject the Supreme Court to whatever challenges or criticisms of these opportunists. Inasmuch as fighting for the Supreme Court and Democracy, it is my honor and duty to fight this impeachment for the sake of us all. I will face this baseless accusations with all courage and talent, point per point, in the Senate. I am ready to face the trial.

My comrades, I tell you honestly, I can sleep well and my conscience is clear because I implemented all of my duties. I remained faithful to the Lord, myself, to the law, and to any person.

For now just hear my call, I invite you to join us. Right now, I offer my sincere gratitude to you in your promotions, companionship and for strengthening our will.

My dear countrymen, once I face my dangerous opponent, my only foundation is your struggles, affiliation, and stand for the Creator of our nation.

In full humility I request your understanding, but above all, I ask you all to accompany me in my fight and mission.

Once again, a beautiful and hot afternoon to all of you. May God bless us all."

Meanwhile...

The Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona's speedy impeachment gives a boost to justice in the country, according to an official of the Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines (AMRSP).

Sr. Mary John Mananzan, AMRSP co-chairperson, described the proceedings as a huge help to the Aquino administration's campaign against corruption.

"Yes I welcome it at magandang development ito [and this is a good development] although na surprise din ako sa ganun kabilis [I was surprise of its swiftness]," Mananzan told Manila archdiocese-run Radyo (Radio) Veritas.

"Mukhang bumibilis na ang justice natin ngayon. Hindi kasi tayo sanay sa mabilis kaya tayo nagugulantang. Dapat i-welcome natin ang mabilis [It appears that our justice is moving fast right now. We are not use to such swiftness that's why we are shocked. We should welcome swiftness]," she added.

The House of Representatives, meeting in plenary last Monday night, voted to impeach Corona, making him the first head of the SC to be impeached.

The impeachment case was then transmitted to the Senate on Tuesday, and the chamber immediately referred it to the committee on rules being headed by Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III.

Sotto said he would file a motion on Wednesday to constitute the Senate into an impeachment court to commence on January 16.

Senators opposing RH bill raised to 10

According to a recent Tribune news post, the ranks of the senators alleged to be now opposing the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) Bill had risen to 10, just two votes shy from defeating its enactment into law.

"From what I know of the bill, there are already 10 senators inclined to vote against it," Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III bared yesterday.

From the initial four members of the upper chamber, Sotto included, the numbers went up after holding the initial plenary debates.

Sotto, however, did not name the six other senators. It's publicly known that Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Senators Ralph Recto and Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III are against the appoval of the bill.

The majority leader said that further delay in the deliberations of the RH bill is inevitable, especially if the impeachment complaint is transmitted to the upper chamber.

Sotto, rules committee chairman, explained that the articles of impeachment will take precedence as the rules provide for them to act on it the moment it is brought before them for proper action. Over the weekend, Enrile made assurance on the continuing floor debates on the bill during the remaining plenary sessions but not to the extent of voting for its approval before they go on another recess since a number of senators still have questions on the proposed legislation.

Congress is due to go on Christmas break beginning Dec. 17 and will resume on Jan. 15, 2012.

If put into vote now, Enrile said the bill is unlikely to get its approval since there are at least 10 of them definitely against it while seven others remained undecided and only two who are openly in favor of it.

Enrile admitted it is difficult to say if the plenary debates on the bill would be finished before the year ends or even predict the final number of votes for or against it.

Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church, the church of the dominating religion on the country, never ceases to sermon the people; telling them to not support the bill, this is despite the growing population, which some politicians believe would become one of the future problems the country would be facing if not given a solution.

Additional Photos

Russia's Putin is under heavy pressure after mass protests

A woman carries a board displaying the portraits of Russia's
President Dmitry Medvedev (R) and Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin during a sanctioned rally on a bridge near Bolotnaya
square to protest against violations at the parliamentary
elections in Moscow. The board (Center, bottom) reads
"Where there is a sin, they laugh."

Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin faces a huge challenge to restore his dented authority after tens of thousands of people stepped up pressure on him across Russia by staging the largest opposition protests since he rose to power more than a decade ago.

Demonstrators took to the streets of dozens of cities across the vast country on Saturday in largely peaceful rallies which called for an end to his rule and a rerun of a parliamentary election which they say was rigged to favor his ruling party.

From the Pacific port of Vladivostok in the east to Kaliningrad in the west, nearly 7,400 km (4,600 miles) away, they shouted with slogans such as "Putin must go!" and "Swindlers and thieves - give us our elections back!"

In a sign of recognition that the people's mood has changed, the security forces hardly intervened and city authorities allowed the protests to go ahead. State television broadcast footage of a huge protest in Moscow, breaking a policy of showing almost no negative coverage of the authorities.

But a statement from Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, gave no hint that the prime minister was about to shift direction to answer the protesters' demands or bow to their calls to annul the December 4 election and allow it to be rerun. It also made no reference to the protesters' calls for Putin to go.

"We respect the point of view of the protester, we are hearing what is being said, and we will continue to listen to them," Peskov said in a statement released late on Saturday.

That is unlikely to appease protesters who issued a list of demands at the Moscow rally, which police said was attended by 25,000 people and the organizers said attracted up to 150,000.

The demands included a rerun of the election, sacking the election commission chief and freeing people the protesters define as political prisoners, and the organizers called for a new day of protests on December 24. "I am happy. December 10, 2011 will go down in history as the day the country's civic virtue and civil society was revived. After 10 years of hibernation, Moscow and all Russia woke up," Boris Nemtsov, an opposition leader, wrote in his blog.

"The main reason why it was such a big success is that a feeling of self-esteem has awakened in us and we have all got so fed up with Putin's and Medvedev's lies, theft and cynicism that we cannot tolerate it any longer... Together we will win!"

It may not be that simple. The opposition has long been divided, most mainstream parties have little or no role in the rallies and keeping them up across the world's largest country is hard at the best times, especially in winter.

Most Russian political experts say the former KGB spy who has dominated the world's largest energy producer for 12 years is in little immediate danger of being toppled, despite anger over widespread corruption and the gap between rich and poor.

But they say the 59-year-old leader's authority has been damaged and may gradually wane after he returns as president in an election next March which he is still expected to win.

Although opinion polls show he is Russia's most popular politician, the protests indicate how deep feelings are over the December 4 election, in which Putin's United Russia won a slim majority and the opposition says it would have fared much worse if voting had not been slanted in the ruling party's favor.

"Putin has a formidable task. He has lost Moscow and St. Petersburg, crucial cities where everything usually starts," said political analyst and author Liliya Shevtsova. "He looks out of touch."

Putin, as president for eight years until 2008 and as prime minister since then, built up a strongman image by restoring order after the chaos in the decade after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. But he no longer seems invincible.

He could release the state's purse strings to satisfy the financial demands of some critics but many of the protesters in Moscow are middle-class people demanding more fundamental changes, including relaxing the political system he controls.

Answering calls to protests on social media sites, about 10,000 people protested on Saturday in St. Petersburg, Russia's second largest city, the biggest show of dissent outside Moscow.

People of all ages gathered in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square, many carrying white carnations as the symbol of their protest and some waving pictures of Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev declaring: "Guys, it's time to go."

Felix, 68, a retired military officer who declined to give his surname, said in Moscow he wanted Putin out, but had no hope this could be accomplished through elections.

"There is no way to change those in power within the electoral system they have set up, so we need to use other methods," he said.

Pres. Benigno Aquino III's Speech on 1st National Criminal Justice Summit

President Benigno Aquino III's speech on 1st National Criminal Justice Summit.

For those looking on an English version of Aquino's speech and for those who wasn't able to hear what the Filipino president had spoken on 1st National Criminal Justice Summit, hear's the video and the translations.

In this video, Aquino criticized the court in front of Chief Justice Renato Corona and other justices and lawmakers during the first National Criminal Justice Summit. The Summit was hosted by the Department of Justice at the Manila Hotel on Monday.

Aquino lambasted Corona, an appointee of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for apparently losing his impartiality regarding several decisions he made, including those concerning Arroyo.

The President first questioned the High Court's move to junk the Truth Commission, which he created to investigate all the supposed anomalies during the Arroyo administration.

Aquino also slammed the SC (Supreme Court) for issuing a temporary restraining order on the DOJ (Department of Justice) watchlist order against Arroyo, allowing her to leave the country and seek medical treatment abroad.

He also criticized the SC for questioning the constitutionality of the joint DOJ-Commission on Elections panel, which found Arroyo liable for electoral sabotage in connection with the 2007 midterm elections.

To further give an idea, here is the English translation for our honorable president's speech:

Good morning. Let's all be seated.

Oh, it's me already. I hope I'm not late. [Laughter]

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile; Speaker Sonny Belmonte; honorable members of the House of Representatives present; Chief Justice Renato Corona and the honorable members of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Sandiganbayan; excellencies of the diplomatic corps; Secretary Leila de Lima; Secretary Jesse Robredo; Secretary Eduardo de Mesa; Secretary Cesar Garcia; Chairman Francis Tolentino; Presiding Justice Villaluz of the Sandiganbayan; men and women of the Philippine National Police, led by Director General Nicanor Bartolome; civil society; nongovernment organizations; fellow workers in government; honored guests; ladies and gentlemen:

Our gathering this morning is an opportunity to further assess the strengths and weaknesses of our current criminal justice system, and to gather new and modern justice initiatives. We can say this is up to date because of the daily headlines in newspapers and televisions, which not only us, but the whole country was also able to witness the complexity of the work of the clerk of court, lawyers, and judges. No doubt the value of your work: your decisions and measures have significant implications to our democracy. Because of this, it is important that we go back on what was stated in Article 2, Section 1 of our Constitution: the sovereignty is in the people, and all government authority emanates from them. I make sure you are reminded because for once in our history, it seems we have forgotten it.

During martial law, justice wasn't focus on the welfare of the entire people, but follows the wishes of one person, the former President Ferdinand Marcos. Even my own family was a victim: my father was court martialed, however, even before the trial was started, his fate had long been decided. In a court composed of magistrates, lawyers, prosecutors, and witnesses appointed by the plaintiff himself—Mr. Marcos—the dictatorship did all they can do to twist justice and remove all the rights of my father. Although he is not guilty, he was detained and made to suffer for seven years and seven months, while those who are in power feast on the funds of the nation. They have taken the blindfold of justice, and tip the scales of justice according to their preferences.

Now, as your president, I have a sworn duty: to protect and defend the constitution, to enforce its laws, to be fair to all, and to devote myself to the service of the Nation. And part of my mandate is to make sure that the darkness that took place during the Martial law will not happen again, and if ever someone do it again, to make sure they are accounted for their transgressions.

That's why, since the beginning, we laid out the steps in order to clarify the allegations of corruption in the previous administration: from the fertilizer scam, which fattens, not the crops, but the pockets of some officers; to the ZTE deal, which also led to the kidnapping of alleged witness Jun Lozada; from allegations of fraud in 2004 and 2007 elections, and other more anomalies we wanted to unravel.

We started this from forming the Truth Commission, which should delve into the alleged corruption that were widespread during the last administration, and to try those behind it. It has no other purpose but to correct the error as soon as possible. However, we know what happened: the court claimed it was unconstitutional. We were just about to begin our first step, they barricade it immediately.

It is COMELEC's duty to ensure a clean and verified result of the election. Thus, it is natural for them to seek help from the DOJ to investigate the allegations of fraud in 2007. It is typical to form such panels, but it is being questioned by the Supreme Court. They also question the legality of the warrant of arrest imposed by the Pasay Regional Trial Court on Mrs. Arroyo.

Take note: When the Supreme Court issued the TRO, it has underlying conditions. But soon, they themselves admitted we do not need to accomplish these guidelines. Well, you even bothered to put a policy, you don't even intend to keep them. We have already followed all the procedures, but despite this, they say we are the ones looking for a fight. Who are not to doubt their true intentions?

This is not the first time the Supreme Court made a decision that's difficult to understand. According to article 7, section 15 of the Constitution, "A President should not make appointments within two months before the next presidential election up until his/her term of office, except for temporary appointments to executive positions." But we know Mrs. Arroyo still forcefully appointed the Chief Justice. He was appointed not two months before the election, but a week after the election. Based on the law and their former decision, the Supreme Court even agrees that it's illegal to assign a post two mouths before the election, unless it is a temporary position in the executive. But they turned when Mrs. Arroyo appointed, our honorable, Chief Justice Renato Corona: a position which is not covered by the executive, but of the judiciary. The question now is: did the Supreme Court violated our understanding of the Constitution?

Another example of their decision that's hard to understand is about the making of districts in Congress: In Article 6, Section 5 of the Constitution, the population must be greater than two hundred and fifty thousand for every district. The problem: there are those that did not reach this number, such as the district of Camarines Sur with over one hundred seventy six thousand population. So when we were still in the Senate, as chairman of the Committee on Local Government, we questioned the formation of this district, however, it was only thrashed by the Supreme Court. Our question now is:  if the creation of a district does not depend on the population, what will be the basis of the legislators when there is a proposal of redistricting? Meaning, we have a basis when forming a city, but if it comes to provinces or districts, there is none?

My sympathies to the new Chairman of the Senate Committee on Local Government Senator Bongbong Marcos: Goodluck on resolving this problem, I tried to resolve this during my time.

We respect the equality in power of the judiciary and the executive branch of the government. We have no intention of stomping their rights, or smear the credibility of anyone. But we need to recall the basic principles of our democracy. We, who have sworn duty are indebted to only one: you, our Boss, the people of the Philippines. We are here to serve our country; and to serve with sincerity and enthusiasm all Filipinos. Now, if there is one public servant who seeks to return the favor, not for the people who are our source of power, but to a patron that forcefully fits him into position, can we count on him to understand the interest of the people?

I am not a graduate of law. Nevertheless, we grew up with a clear vision to which is right, and which is wrong; which is humanistic, and which ones are corrupt. I stand firmly (on the belief) that justice is not a steering wheel that could easily be turned by the magistrates to where they want it to sway. It is not a toy that lawyers and judges could turn and flip according to their wishes.

Let's go back to what I said before: the power of the Supreme Court, the President, and Congress came from their only one Boss: the people [applause]. Therefore, we should side and fight for the interest of the people. I swore to protect and defend the constitution, to enforce its laws, to be fair to each person, and devote myself to serve the country. I have no intention to violate my sworn duty. I have no wish to fail the people.

It is my obligation, and it is our obligation to stay and go to the same direction, united under one goal: to serve and protect the interests of the people. To all who joined us in the right track, believe: As long as we are right, there is no fight we are going to withdraw. As long as the people are behind us, we will succeed. Let us not fail them.

Good morning, and many thanks.

Post-Reactions

Corona, despite being embarrassed in front of the people present on the summit, maintained his professionalism and even shake hands with the president. When interviewed by the media, he says that Christmas is near, we should think of peace, let it go.

However, later, the SC's spokesperson, Marquez, said that Aquino's speech is disturbing. "We went there in good faith. We were expecting coordination, cooperation," he said.

Aquino also questioned Corona's appointment, which came during the ban against midnight appointments (two nights before election).

Marquez said, however, that Corona's appointment went through constitutional process, adding, "it's just unfortunate he was appointed by someone many do not like (referring to Arroyo)."

"Corona told me issuing a statement was not necessary," he said.

The spokesperson also earlier said: "Considerably unusual... for the Chief Executive to look down on members of the judiciary in public at a Justice Sector Coordinating Council session and to their faces, denounce the court's independent actions, as the Chief Justice sat speechless, motionless and expressionless because of the requirements of protocol."

Marquez added that while the court respects the system of checks and balances, its invocation should be made in the proper setting, circumstances, and decorum.

The senators, meanwhile, believe somebody has to step in to prevent a rift between the Palace and the SC from growing any wider, but are not quite clear on who should act as peacemaker.

Senators Panfilo Lacson and Gregorio Honasan II said Congress should step in after the President criticized the SC.

The legislators said both houses of Congress should help defuse tension between their two co-equal branches of government.

"It's not up to Congress, the Senate to get mixed up in this because that will just make things worse. Congress should (instead) act as an arbiter to bring the SC and Malacañang closer together," Lacson said.

He warned that the rift could lead to local government units also ignoring court orders, as the administration is said to have done when it kept Arroyo from leaving the country despite an SC order allowing it.

Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, meanwhile, said he would volunteer to act as mediator.

"If they want me to volunteer," he said.

He added, however, that any involvement by Congress would not be as an intrusion but only to facilitate a private dialogue between the Executive and the Judiciary.

"The rift between the Executive and the Judiciary has become too well publicized. It is not doing the country any good," he said.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said it would be better for the Church to step in instead.

Senator Franklin Drilon, an Aquino ally, said the SC should not be immune from criticism.

Should there be a Divorce Law in the Philippines?

Divorce or the dissolution of marriage is the final termination of a marital union, wherein the couple cancels their legal duties and responsibilities of marriage and dissolving the bonds of matrimony between the parties. It is different from annulment, which declares the marriage null and void.

Divorce laws vary considerably around the world but in most countries, it requires the sanction of a court or other authority in a legal process. The legal process for divorce may also involve issues of spousal support, child custody, child support, distribution of property, and division of debt. Divorce allows each former partner to marry another.

Nowadays, only the Philippines and the Vatican City do not have a civil procedure for divorce.

Divorce is a controversial topic. In 2005, party-list representative Liza Maza of Gabriela filed a divorce bill. In 2001, there have been similar bills that were filed in the Senate (Bill No. 782), which was introduced by Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon, and House of Representatives (Bill No. 878), which was introduced by Honorable Bellaflor J. Angara-Castillo. In 1999, Representative Manuel C. Ortega filed House Bill No. 6993, seeking for the legalization of divorce. In this current 14th Congress, Gabriela again filed a bill to introduce divorce in the Philippines.

The reasons underpinning this proposal is primarily the commitment to the policy of the State to protect and strengthen marriage and the family as basic social institutions, to value the dignity of every human person, to guarantee full respect for human rights, and to ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. The provisions of this bill, as what Gabriela claimed, are consistent with and in pursuit of those State policies.

In is also said that in the Filipino culture, marriage is regarded as a sacred union and the family founded on marriage is considered as a fount of love, protection, and care.

Philippine society generally frowns upon and discourages marital break-ups and so provides cultural and legal safeguards to preserve marital relations. Cultural prescriptions and religious norms keep many couples together despite the breakdown of the marriage. But the cultural prescriptions for women and men differ. Women are traditionally regarded as primarily responsible for making the marriage work and are expected to sacrifice everything to preserve the marriage and the solidarity of the family. While absolute fidelity is demanded of wives, men are granted sexual license to have affairs outside marriage. Yet when marriage fails, the woman is blamed for its failure.

Reality shows that there are many failed, unhappy marriages across all Filipino classes. Many couples especially from the marginalized sectors, who have no access to the courts, simply end up separating without the benefit of legal processes. The sheer number of petitions that have been filed since 1988 for the declaration of the nullity of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, which is commonly called as "annulment", shows that there are just too many couples who are desperate to get out of failed marriages.

Even when couples do start out well in their marriage, political, economic, and social realities take their toll on their relationship. Some are not prepared to handle the intricacies of married life. For a large number of women, the inequalities and violence in marriage negate its ideals as the embodiment of love, care, and safety and erode the bases upon which a marriage is founded. The marital relations facilitate the commission of violence and perpetuate their oppression. Official figures support this. The 2003 report of the Philippine National Police shows that wife battering accounted for 53.6 percent of the total 8,011 cases of violence against women. About three of ten perpetrators were husbands of the victims. Husbands accounted for 28 percent of the violence against women crimes. The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) reported that in 2003, of the 15,314 women in especially difficult circumstances that the agency serviced, 25.1 percent or 5,353 were cases of physical abuse, maltreatment and battering.

Given these realities, couples must have the option to avail of remedies that will pave the way for the attainment of their full development and self-fulfillment and the protection of their human rights. Existing laws are not enough to address this need.

According to the Women's Legal Bureau, Inc., a legal resource NGO for women:

"The present laws relating to separation of couples and termination of marriage are inadequate to respond to the myriad causes of failed marriages. Particularly, the remedies of declaration of nullity and annulment do not cover the problems that occur during the existence of marriage. Legal separation, on the other hand, while covering problems during marriage, does not put an end to marriage."

"Though both divorce and a declaration of nullity of a marriage allow the spouses to remarry, the two remedies differ in concept and basis. A declaration of nullity presupposes that the marriage is void from the beginning and the court declares its non-existence... Beyond the grounds specified in the law, declaration of nullity is not possible."

"In annulment, the marriage of the parties is declared defective from the beginning, albeit it is considered valid until annulled. The defect can be used to nullify the marriage within a specified period but the same may be ignored and the marriage becomes perfectly valid after the lapse of that period, or the defect may be cured through some act. The defect relates to the time of the celebration of the marriage and has nothing to do with circumstances occurring after the marriage is celebrated. In annulment, the marriage is legally cancelled, and the man and woman are restored to their single status."

"Since August 3, 1988, couples have been given a way out of failed marriages through Article 36 of the Family Code... The remedy provided under Article 36 is declaration of nullity of the marriage. The article voids a marriage where one party is 'psychologically incapacitated' to comply with the essence of marital obligations. Consistent with the concept of void marriages, where the remedy is declaration of nullity, the law requires that the incapacity must have existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage in practice, Article 36 has become a form of divorce, as valid marriages are declared void every day in the guise of 'psychological incapacity.' The innumerable Article 36 cases brought to trial courts is an indication of the elasticity of Article 36 to accommodate the needs of many couples desiring to terminate their marriages. It is proof that divorce is needed in the Philippines. Article 36 provides a remedy only for spouses who can prove 'psychological incapacity'. The concept certainly cannot accommodate all cases where divorce would have necessary. What we need is a divorce law that defines clearly and unequivocally the grounds and terms for terminating a marriage. That law will put an end to the creative efforts played daily in courtrooms across the country to accommodate a wide range of cases in order to prove 'psychological incapacity.'"

~Women's Legal Bureau, Inc., The Relevance of Divorce in the Philippines, 1998

And thus, this bill seeks to introduce divorce as another option for couples in failed and irreparable marriages.

This bill was crafted in consultation with women lawyers and inspired by the studies and inputs of various women's groups and the experiences of spouses gathered by GABRIELA from its various chapters.nationwide.

The bill seeks to introduce divorce in Philippine law with a strong sense of confidence that it will be used responsibly by Filipino couples. This confidence stems from the experiences of Filipino families that show that separation is usually the last resort of many Filipino couples whose marriages has failed. Cases of battered women also support this. Battered women invariably seek separation only after many years of trying to make the marriage work; separation only becomes imperative for them when they realize that it is necessary for their and their children's survival. Divorce could actually provide protection to battered women and their children from further violence and abuse. With the predominance of the Catholic faith in the Philippines, the fear that divorce will erode personal values on marriage appears unfounded. The experience of Italy, where the Vatican is located, and Spain, two predominantly Catholic countries which practice divorce, supports this. Those countries have a low rate of divorce. Italy registers a 7% rate while Spain registers 15%. The figures reflect the strong influence of religious beliefs and culture on individuals in deciding to terminate marital relations.

Historically, divorce had been part of our legal system. In the beginning of the 16th century, before the Spanish colonial rule, absolute divorce was widely practiced among ancestral tribes such as the Tagbanwas of Palawan, the Gadangs of Nueva Viscaya, the Sagadans and Igorots of the Cordilleras, and the Manobos, Bila-ans and Moslems of the Visayas and Mindanao islands. Divorce was also available during the American period, starting from 1917 (under Act No. 2710 enacted by the Philippine Legislature), and during the Japanese occupation (under Executive Order No. 141) and after, until 1950. It was only on August 30, 1950, when the New Civil Code took effect, that divorce was disallowed under Philippine law. Only legal separation was available. The same rule was adopted by the Family Code of 1988, which replaced the provisions of the New Civil Code on marriage and the family, although the Family Code introduced the concept of "psychological incapacity" as a basis for declaring the marriage void.

In recognition of the history of divorce in the Philippines, the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution left the wisdom of legalizing divorce to the Congress. Thus, the 1987 Constitution does not prohibit the legalization of divorce.

It is also noted that this bill is respectful of and sensitive to differing religious beliefs in the Philippines. It recognizes that the plurality of religious beliefs and cultural sensibilities in the Philippines demand that different remedies for failed marriages should be made available. For this reason, the bill retains the existing remedies of legal separation, declaration of nullity of the marriage and annulment and only adds divorce as one more remedy. Couples may choose from these remedies depending on their situation, religious beliefs, cultural sensibilities, needs and emotional state. While divorce under this proposed measure severs the bonds of marriage, divorce as a remedy need not be for the purpose of re-marriage; it may be resorted to by individuals to achieve peace of mind and facilitate their pursuit of full human development. This bill also seeks to make Philippine law consistent in the way it treats religious beliefs with respect to termination of marriage. Philippine law through the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1083 of 1977) allows divorce among Filipino Muslims, in deference to the Islamic faith which recognizes divorce. Non-Muslim Filipinos should have the same option under the Philippine law, in accordance with their religious beliefs.

The bill proposes five grounds for divorce. All the five grounds are premised on the irreparable breakdown of the marriage and the total non-performance of marital obligations. Thus, the bill provides that a petition for divorce may be filed when the petitioner has been separated de facto (in fact) from his or her spouse for at least five years at the time of the filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbably, or when the petitioner has been legally separated from his or her spouse for at least two years at the time of the filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable.

Not all circumstances and situations that cause the total breakdown of a marriage could be defined in this proposed measure. Thus, the bill also provides that divorce may be granted when the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage. Spouses living in a state of irreparable marital conflict or discord should be given the opportunity to present their marital contrarieties in court and have those differences adjudged as constituting a substantial ground to put an end to the marriage.

Another ground for divorce included in the bill is when one or both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. This provision will consequently repeal Article 36 of the Family Code. The bill seeks to include "psychological incapacity" in the grounds for divorce in the belief that the concept is consistent with the termination of marital ties rather than with a void marriage.

The bill seeks to eliminate "condonation of the act" and "consent to the act" as grounds for denying a petition for legal separation and, by extension, a petition for divorce. Many spouses especially women ignore the offense because of the social and economic conditions they are in. Many women in the marginalized sectors tend to condone the offense because they are economically dependent on their spouses or because of the stigma attached to failed marriages. Some women who are perceived to be condoning the acts of their husbands actually suffer from the cycle of spousal abuse such that they have become so disempowered to address their situation.

Under this proposed measure, a decree of divorce dissolves the absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains. The assets shall be equally divided between the spouses. However, this bill also proposes that in addition to his or her equal share in the assets, the spouse who is not gainfully employed shall be entitled to support until he or she finds adequate employment but the right shall only be effective for not more than one year. This provision is meant to address the economic deprivation or poverty that many women experience as a result of a marital break-up.

The bill also proposes that the custody of any minor child shall be decided by the court in accordance with the best interests of the child and their support provided in accordance with the Family Court provisions on support. Actual, moral and exemplary damages shall be awarded to the aggrieved spouse when proper in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code on damages. The proposed measure also provides that parties shall be disqualified from inheriting from each other by intestate succession. Moreover, provisions in favor of one spouse made in the will of the other spouse shall be revoked by operation of law.

The bill is being introduced based on indications that the Philippine society is ready for the legalization of divorce.

Finally, it has been added that the sanctity of marriage is not based on the number of marriages existing but on the quality of marital relationships. When a marriage is no longer viable, divorce should be an option.