RESPECTING WOMEN. Dr. Rosalinda P. Ofreneo, faculty member of the Department of Women and Development Studies, University of the Philippines, Diliman, said the "macho society" is still very much evident today.
"A macho society means that the man has the power over the woman... Society is generally patriarchal, meaning that men are on top, dominant in the fields of politics, culture, jobs, hierarchy in government, even in the family," Ofreneo told PEP in a personal interview last night.
But she said this situation does not mean Singson has the right to wield that power.
"Walang right, it's just a problem of tradition, and custom," she explained. "Society should intervene and rescue the women."
The only remedy for the situation, she said, is the clear legislation and implementation of laws for women's rights.
"That's what the law seeks to remedy. That will only work if there's consciousness-raising, especially among men, amending men against violence, e," she said.
Ofreneo asserted that the President should use the newly-passed Magna Carta of Women on Singson to reinforce her approval of it.
"Even the law cannot save Chavit. He has to be accountable for what he did!" Prof. Ofreneo asserted.
Since you are so concerned about the poor, I think we can both agree that the poor would be better served by using our resources to forego the creation of divorce laws in favor of legislation that directly impacts on their everyday lives.
Btw, di nadadaan sa pera ang annulment eg. Dolphy's Zsa2-Karylle's dad, Regine V's Ogie-Michelle.
Pt 4. Divorce as a Solution. I think you totally missed the point on this one. Many people want divorce because it allows for 'irreconcilable differences' as an excuse. It's not because it's affordable or it's faster to get. It just seems easier because mas maluwag ang excuse.
Pero kung iisipin mo, ano yon? Dahil di lang magkasundo sa anumang bagay, hiwalay na? Dapat di nagpadalos-dalos sa pagpapakasal.
And the point you missed out completely is the redundancy of divorce laws vis-a-vis existing laws. If you still can't get this because you refuse to read the family code, at least I've given it a try.
Ultimately, the reason I oppose your proposal for divorce is the opportunity cost of passing it into law is way too high for our taxpayers to bear. Not to mention that divorce cases will just clog up our judicial system, which is alread
Pt 1: Permanent Union. I did not say this. It is the family code that says so. But logic dictates that anyone wanting to get married should think of marriage as permanent. May magpapakasal bang nagplanong mahiwalay?
Pt 2: Expense of Annulment. Marriage is expensive. But couples are willing to pay the price. Getting out of a marriage should be just as expensive. People would think twice before getting into one.
Pt 3: Suffering in a Marriage. As I have said before, our family code provides for remedies to get out of a marriage. It's obvious that you haven't read it. I'm saddened by that kasi I figured that if I can just get women to read the code, they would be made aware of their rights. Para hindi na kailangan pang mag-suffer. Remember, the family code was passed under the Cory admin. Makatarungan sa mga babae ang mga batas natin.
mahal ang annulment, therefore only the rich can afford it. sila lang ang may second chance. unfair and unjust.
you said marriage is a permanent union. so... any miserable union should just endure ad infinitum? this makes no sense.
the answer is divorce, simple and affordable, that is accessible to all. i have said my piece, and have no intention of escalating anything. that is all for me, peace out.
Before our discussion escalates further, please try browsing the Family Code before passing judgement on its fairness. I think that would be the fair and right thing to do.
Have you read the family code? 'Yung sinasabi mong situation where there is physical abuse, no. 1 ground for legal separation; sexual infidelity is no. 8... why would I attack them when I think they are fair.
Please try reading Art. 45 and 55 of the Family Code. Ito yung grounds for annulment and legal separation respectively bago ka mag-comment. I happen to think they are reasonable provisions of the law.
Also, why should I chastise the catholic church again? Batas po ang naglalaman ng grounds for annulment. Suportado po ng simbahang katoliko ang Family Code natin dahil makatuwiran sya.
Also, I did not say that only the rich can have a 'new life'. We are all governed by the same laws. The legal remedies are available to everyone regardless of economic status.
Also, marriage is defined as a contract of permanent union by our family law. That's Art. 1.
I happen to think our laws are fair and right.
Have you read the family code? 'Yung sinasabi mong situation where there is physical abuse, no. 1 ground for legal separation; sexual infidelity is no. 8... why would I attack them when I think they are fair.
Please try reading Art. 45 and 55 of the Family Code. Ito yung grounds for annulment and legal separation respectively bago ka mag-comment. I happen to think they are reasonable provisions of the law.
Also, why should I chastise the catholic church again? Batas po ang naglalaman ng grounds for annulment. Suportado po ng simbahang katoliko ang Family Code natin dahil makatuwiran sya.
Also, I did not say that only the rich can have a 'new life'. We are all governed by the same laws. The legal remedies are available to everyone regardless of economic status.
Also, marriage is defined as a contract of permanent union by our family law. That's Art. 1.
I happen to think our laws are fair and right.
Hehe. You may very well be right. Just the same, I thought I'd give my two cents worth and try to straighten out their 'domestic problem' argument and the 'pro-women' image they seem to be projecting. Maybe somehow it will still add to her troubles. But just as you said, I also doubt that it will ever have any impact on them.
Sorry pala for the multiple redundant posts. Nagka-error lang kasi sa window ko. I thought previous messages weren't posted kaya submit pa rin ako ng submit. Di naman po ako ganon ka-kulit. Heheh. Peace!
you should be out there telling everyone trying to escape from an unhappy and miserable, possibly abusive marriage that---too bad, you're stuck, and stuck forever; you made a gargantuan mistake, so suffer until you die!
if you are fortunate enough to be blessed with a happy union, then by all means, have your own permanent union. but it is beyond the pale to say that unions should be permanent when so much could go wrong and so many are in pain.
you are probably untouched by a situation where divorce is a necessary solution. ako man, untouched. but i am passionate about everyone getting the same privileges.
it's only fair. and right.
Hehe. You may very well be right. Just the same, I thought I'd give my two cents worth and try to straighten out their 'domestic problem' argument and the 'pro-women' image they seem to be projecting. Maybe somehow it will still add to her troubles. But just as you said, I also doubt that it will ever have any impact on them.
Sorry pala for the multiple redundant posts. Nagka-error lang kasi sa window ko. I thought previous messages weren't posted kaya submit pa rin ako ng submit. Di naman po ako ganon ka-kulit. Heheh. Peace!
Actually, I believed that Che has a legal claim over Chavit's property, which includes his assets. The operative word here is 'believed'. However, since I am not sure about certain details of their case, I am not so sure if I should still believe this.
Please refer to my discussion with brad_peet under comments 174-175 for the details.
All that I'm saying is that our family laws already provide legal remedies equivalent to divorce. Why would we need to waste more resources to create another set of laws on divorce? It will just be redundant.
As for the issue that annulment is expensive, it may very well be the case. And I believe that it should be so. Why? To uphold the very definition of marriage, which is a special contract of PERMANENT union....
To be honest, I'm not as passionate about this issue as I am about wasteful government spending. Yung punto ko talaga was that there is no REAL NEED for the amendments of our family laws, or the creation of divorce laws. It will just be a waste of resources to do so.
I do not really care about the specifics of Chavit/Che's married life as this has no bearing in mine. I only wish to be enlighted on these laws. If my interpretation is still wrong, please correct me. Thanks.
Thanks for the correction.
Now that I have re-read the relevant articles, I understand why you would interpret it the way you do.
However, it is my understanding that you have missed out the last part of the condition for Art. 147, which states 'or under a void marriage'. Bigamy or polygamy falls under void marriages.
I am not not privy to the details of Chavits relations with Che and his other wife/wives. I commented under the assumption that Chavit and Che 'got married' in a civil ceremony and as such are in a void marriage. And following this assumption, having been in a void marriage, Che is still qualified for co-ownership of community property under Art. 147.
However, taking into account the possibility that no such ceremony took place, it may very well be a union of co-habitation and shall fall under Art. 148.
Please correct me again if my interpretation is wrong... I do not really care about the specifi