THE Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday explored whether a broader constitutional interpretation could support the recognition of foreign divorces involving Filipinos, with Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen questioning whether existing laws should be read in light of human rights, individual autonomy, family and social justice.
During the continuation of the SC en banc oral arguments on a petition seeking recognition in the Philippines of a divorce obtained in the United States, Mr. Leonen told petitioner’s counsel, Melvin D.C. Mane, that the case could be resolved either on a narrow issue involving the petitioner’s citizenship or on the broader question of whether divorce should still be considered contrary to Philippine public policy.
Mr. Leonen said the case could be settled on a “very narrow doctrine” based on the petitioner’s citizenship when recognition of the foreign divorce is sought. The petitioner obtained the divorce in 2010 and acquired US citizenship in 2019 while retaining Filipino citizenship.
He noted that the petitioner would have no remedy in the United States if Philippine courts refused to recognize the divorce because US courts had already granted it.
Mr. Leonen then raised a “deeper aspect” of the case — whether divorce is contrary to public policy, good customs and morals.
He questioned whether a person who separated from a former spouse and “loved again” should be considered immoral, and whether a nontraditional family formed after a foreign divorce would undermine public policy.
He also pointed to the country’s history of recognizing different forms of marriage dissolution, including indigenous practices and divorce laws during the Spanish, American and Japanese periods, as well as legal mechanisms such as legal separation, presumptive death and declaration of nullity based on psychological incapacity.
“It is entirely possible, therefore, that we grant the relief you are praying for, not only on the basis of that narrow instance, just to overturn one case… but also to say that, as a matter of fact, we do not already have that policy that divorce is contrary to public policy,” Mr. Leonen said, citing Republic v. Orbecido III, which recognized an exception allowing recognition of a foreign divorce obtained by the foreign spouse that capacitated the Filipino spouse to remarry.
He then interpellated Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe on whether the Constitution should take precedence in interpreting Civil Code provisions governing the status and legal capacity of Filipinos abroad.
Mr. Leonen said the Court should not interpret a statutory provision in a manner that produces an unconstitutional result, citing constitutional guarantees on equal protection, human rights and the family.
He also questioned whether the constitutional protection of marriage as an “inviolable social institution” means the state can compel couples to remain together when their relationship no longer works.
“Any interpretation that we give that is still consistent with the Constitution that augurs more for human rights and social justice and a solid family should be what we should follow, according to the Constitution,” he said.
Mr. Leonen further argued that the constitutional protection of life and liberty encompasses an individual’s autonomous choice of an intimate partner and relationship, and that the state’s duty to respect human rights extends to the judiciary when interpreting laws governing marriage and family.
“The Court must take into consideration the fact that we are not only technicians that look at the law and look at the logic of interpreting it from a linguistic perspective,” Mr. Leonen said.
He also questioned whether SC precedents should be treated as immutable, saying doctrines may change when the Court finds a constitutional interpretation that better accords with justice and social justice.
“Precedents of this Court are not sacrosanct,” Mr. Leonen said, noting that while precedents are final, they are not necessarily infallible.
The oral arguments concluded at 11:58 a.m., with Mr. Leonen as the only Justice to interpellate, Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo said. This marked the fourth and final oral argument on the petition since August 2025.
The parties and amici curiae were asked to submit their respective memoranda within 20 days, Mr. Gesmundo added.
The case centers on a plaintiff who obtained a divorce in the US in 2010 while still a Philippine citizen, subsequently became an American citizen, and later reacquired Philippine citizenship under the Dual Citizenship law. — Mark Joseph M. Sanchez