12/08/2026
The Oral Arguments in the present case of Baluyot vs. Baluyot (GR No. 257575) pending before the Supreme Court En Banc are over. The issue is whether or not it is time to abandon the rule that foreign divorce of two Filipinos abroad is not recognizable in the Philippines. I advocated for its abandonment.
As amicus curiae, I am satisfied with my arguments and, modesty aside, I believe that, after four hearings, I responded to the queries of the Justices appropriately.
The present "public policy" rule is this: Under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, only mixed-marriage ( Filipino and Foreigner) is entitled to obtain a foreign divorce filed by either the Filipino or the Foreigner. The divorce can be recognized in the Philippines via a petition fo recognition of foreign judgment. However, foreign divorce obtained where the parties are both Filipinos are not recognizable in the Philippines and any petition for recognition of foreign judgment filed in the Philippines will be automatically dismissed.
These are some of my strongest points which I articulated during the oral arguments:
FIRST. The Present "Public Policy" borders on racism against Filipinos. . It is racist because it makes our national identity a legal liability. It suggests that the law and public policy treat the foreigner as a superior race and the Filipino the inferior one BECAUSE our very law and public policy make the foreigner the bestower of rights of Filipinos. In Tagalog, I illustrated this to the SC by saying something like this , "kung banyaga ako at may ka-rival akong pilipinong nangliligaw sa Filipina, kaya kong sabihin sa Filipina: ako ang saguitn mo kasi binigyan ako ng kapangyarihan ng batas ng Pilipinas na bigyan ka ng karapatan divorce ako. Kung yung Pilipino ang sasagutin mo, walang ganyang karapatan ang mabibigay sa iyo."
SECOND. The law and present public policy are xenocentric because they give importance to the foreigner. Simply, to be given the right to file divorce, the key for the Filipino is to be married to a foreigner. Why is it that the magic formula to get a divorce in order to be liberated from an abusive spouse is to marry a foreigner?
THIRD. At the very least, present public policy mirrors a colonial-mentality because for a Filipino to be given greater rights, he/she must associate himself/herself with a foreigner just like during the time when we were colonized by Spain.
FOURTH. They are against the equal protection of the constitution.They effectively create a legal caste system. One set of Filipinos are benefited by the law and the other not so. One is permitted and one is barred. And the distinction simply depends on the nationality/race of who the Filipino married. When nationality creates a substantial distinction, that is undue discrimination.
FIFTH. To maintain the present so-called public policy suggests that , on this particular issue, marriage in the Philippines is not based on the sanctity of marriage but on race or nationality. If you are married to a foreigner and you get a divorce, it is moral. If you are a Filipino and you get a divorce from a Filipino spouse, it is immoral.
SIXTH. To maintain the present public policy is to say that , in the Philippines, marriage is the only institution that the law allows abuse and cruelty against another in the name of permanence.
SEVENTH. The outmoded public policy enunciated in 1939 and 1964 is anachronistic. I specifically stated in the arguments: "If public policy is to be frozen in its first articulation (1939 and 1964) and still applied in the 21st century, we will then be governed by norms of a society that no longer exist. Public policy is ratio temporis. It must also evolve."
There are other strong arguments ( such as misapplication of Article 15 of the Civil Code on the nationality rule) I made which I am very satisfied. I will talk about the others at some other time.
I hope the present Supreme Court will abandon the outmoded public policy presently being implemented lest ,by maintaing the rule, this particular Supreme Court might be perceptively known as a racist and xenocentric Supreme Court.
