26 Mayo 2024, Linggo
Happy 48th Anniversary Mariveles Baptist Church, Mariveles, Bataan
Register now and vote in midterm polls
supports International Nurses’ Day
Aspirants file your certificate of candidacy on October 1-8,2024
Substitute candidates must be with same surname and political party
Partylist must file Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance
supports May, Cardiac Illness Prevention Month
No to Divorce!!!
Get well soon Nanay Angelita Santiago-Lopez
PM for any hospital discharge problem
‘Accept divorce bill or be sore loser,’
By Nidz Godino
“An ordinary bill like reinstituting divorce needs approval on third reading of only at least majority of one more affirmative yes vote over negative no votes when there is quorum, while abstentions are not considered in counting as they are neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ votes,” Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman described as “sore losers” those who continue to question newly-approved House Bill (HB) 9349 or Absolute Divorce Act.
Lagman said “more than adequate and extended time” was given to “interpellate and expound” on detractors’ opposition to divorce bill.
And yet, he noted “more vociferous detractors are sore losers as they continue to trample on clear and well-accepted rule on reckoning of winning votes.”
Lawmaker underscored majority of entire membership of House or majority of quorum is “not required for approval on third reading of simple divorce bill.”
He cited Section 117 of Rule XVII, of Rules of House, provides “ abstention shall not be counted as vote.” It stated that “unless otherwise provided by Constitution or by these rules, majority of those voting, there being quorum, shall decide issue.”
“Whether winning margin is 126 to 109 as initially reported or 131 to 109 as later corrected by Office of Secretary General does not affect ultimate legality of final approval of divorce bill,” Lagman said.
He maintained that “Engrossed copy of divorce bill must be transmitted without further delay to Senate.”
This, Lagman points out, is mandate by House on Secretary General.
For him, whatever inconsequential correction can be reported to and acted upon by Plenary when Congress opens session on July 22.
“It is completely baseless to assert ‘sacramental marriage’ or church wedding will not be covered by future divorce law. Church marriage is recognized as civilly valid marriage under Family Code and is regulated like civil marriages by secular laws on marriage,” Lagman undescores “hypocritical for church to seek recognition of canonical dissolution of marriage, akin to civil divorce, and yet reject coverage of divorce law on church marriages which are recognized civilly.”
Another congressman has been opposed HB 9349 has questioned increase in affirmative votes for controversial measure from 126 to 131 votes.
In statement, Leyte Rep. Richard Gomez said House secretariat had already “recorded and announced” during plenary on May 22 bill got 126 affirmative, 109 negative and 20 abstentions.
However, voting was changed to 131-109-20.
“I am puzzled about changes in number of lawmakers who voted ‘Yes’ to House Bill No. 9349… from 126 to 131, but now they are saying there was error in counting…how did that happen?” Gomez said.
He added there were not enough votes to implement divorce bill.
Lawmaker said, in his personal assessment, he believes approval of divorce bill was lost when it failed to get majority approval of lawmakers present when it was put to vote.
“For me, as we speak, HB 9349 has not been approved on third and final reading,” Gomez added.
This, as former deputy speaker and BUHAY Partylist representative Lito Atienza admonished Senate not to join “congressional bandwagon” and reject bill because it “will destroy Filipino family genuine strength of our nation… we have been through such political and economic trials and have always survived because of Filipino family… separation of some couples should not affect welfare of entire nation”
He urged lawmakers to study Constitution, claiming that this will be violated if bill is made into law.
Atienza underscored Constitution, under Article XV, Sections 1 and 2, recognizes Filipino family as foundation of the nation and that marriage, “as inviolable social institution, is foundation of family and shall be protected by the State.”
“Children should be protected from negative impact of having separated or divorced parents,” he added.
ISKUP! 