What is the effect of divorce obtained abroad

by an alien spouse from his Filipino

spouse?

Under the Family Code, where a Filipino is

married to a foreigner who thereafter
obtained a valid divorce abroad capacitating
him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse
shall likewise have the capacity to remarry
under Philippine Laws.
 Question

Arnold, a Filipino and Britney, an American, both

residents of California, decided to get married in their
local parish. Two (2) years after their marriage,
Britney obtained a divorce in California. While in
Boracay, Arnold met Jenny, a Filipina, who was
vacationing there. Arnold fell in love with her. After a
brief courtship and complying with all the
requirements, they got married in Hongkong to avoid
publicity, it being Arnolds second marriage. Is his
marriage to Jenny valid? Explain.
 Answer

Yes. The marriage will not fall under Article 35 of

the Family Code on bigamous marriages, provided
that Britney obtained an absolute divorce,
capacitating her to remarry under her national law.
Consequently, the marriage between Arnold and
Jenny may be valid as long as it was solemnized
and valid in accordance with the laws of Hongkong.
 Question

Ponciano borrowed Rubens gun, saying that he

would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben also
resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told
Ponciano: O pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo
kaagad ha. Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but
used a knife because he did not want Freddies
neighbors to hear the gunshot. What if any is the
liability of Ruben? Explain (3%)
 Answer

Rubens liability is that of an accomplice only

because he merely cooperated in Poncianos
determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is not
indispensable to the killing, as in fact the killing was
carried out without the use of Rubens gun. Neither
way Ruben may be regarded as a co-conspirator
since he was not a participant in the decision-making
of Ponciano to kill Freddie; he merely cooperated in
carrying out the plan which was already in place.
 Alternative Answer

Ruben cannot be held liable as an accomplice in

the killing of Freddie because his act of lending his
gun to Ponciano did not have the relation between
the acts done by the latter to that attributed to
Ruben. Even if Ruben did not lend his gun,
Ponciano would have consummated the act of
killing Freddie. In other words, Rubens act in
lending his gun was not a necessary act to enable
Ponciano to consummate the crime.
 Question

The City Mayor issues an Executive Order declaring that the

city promotes responsible parenthood and upholds natural
family planning. He prohibits all hospitals operated by the city
from prescribing the use of artificial methods of contraception,
including condoms, pills, intrauterine devices and surgical
sterilization. As a result, poor women in his city lost their
access to affordable family planning programs. Private
clinics, however, continue to render family planning counsel
and devices to paying clients. Is the Executive Order in any
way constitutionally infirm? Explain.
 Answer

The Executive Order is constitutionally infirm. Under the 1987 Constitution, the State
shall defend the right of spouses to establish a family in accordance with their religious
convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood. By upholding natural family
planning and prohibiting city hospitals from prescribing artificial methods of
contraception, the Mayor is imposing his religious beliefs on spouses who rely on the
services of city hospitals. This clearly violates the Constitution.
Moreover, the 1987 Constitution states that no person shall be denied the equal
protection of laws. The Constitution also provides that the state shall promote a just
and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the
nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social
services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living and an improved quality
of life for all. The loss of access of poor city women to family planning programs is
discriminatory and creates suspect classification. It also goes against the demands of
social justice as enshrined in the Constitution.
 Alternative Answer

The Executive Order is constitutionally infirm. It constitutes

an invalid exercise of police power and violates substantive
due process by depriving people of the means to control their
reproductive processes. Moreover, since the national
government has not outlawed the use of artificial methods of
contraception, then it would be against national policies. In
addition, the Mayor cannot issue such Executive Order
without an underlying ordinance. Besides, the action of the
Mayor may be in violation of a persons right to privacy.