‘Don’t be a sore loser, accept divorce bill’

MANILA, Philippines — Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman yesterday described as “sore losers” those who continue to question the newly-approved House Bill (HB) 9349 or the Absolute Divorce Act.

Lagman said “more than adequate and extended time” was given to “interpellate and expound” on the detractors’ opposition to the divorce bill.

And yet, he noted the “more vociferous detractors are sore losers as they continue to trample on the clear and well-accepted rule on the reckoning of the winning votes.”
“An ordinary bill like reinstituting divorce needs the approval on third reading of only at least a majority of one more affirmative (yes) vote over the negative (no) votes when there is a quorum, while the abstentions are not considered in the counting as they are neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ votes,” Lagman added.
The lawmaker underscored that the majority of the entire membership of the House or the majority of the quorum is “Not required for the approval on third reading of a simple divorce bill.”
He cited Section 117 of Rule XVII, of the Rules of the House, provides “An abstention shall not be counted as a vote.” It stated that “Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by these rules, a majority of those voting, there being a quorum, shall decide the issue.”
“Whether the winning margin is 126 to 109 as initially reported or 131 to 109 as later corrected by the Office of the Secretary General does not affect the ultimate legality of the final approval of the divorce bill,” Lagman said.
He maintained that the “Engrossed copy of the divorce bill must be transmitted without further delay to the Senate.”
This, Lagman points out, is the mandate by the House on the Secretary General.
For him, whatever inconsequential correction can be reported to and acted upon by the Plenary when the Congress opens session on July 22.
“It is completely baseless to assert that a ‘sacramental marriage’ or church wedding will not be covered by a future divorce law. A church marriage is recognized as a civilly valid marriage under the Family Code and is regulated like civil marriages by the secular laws on marriage,” Lagman added He undescores that it is “Hypocritical for the church to seek