Did they or didn't they?
Did the Supreme Court relax the rules on the Philippines' erstwhile substitute for divorce, the annulment of marriages on the basis of "psychological incapacity"? Or was that an aberration, a one-off that will trigger another intellectual brawl among our legal luminaries?
That was the primordial question among excitable legal circles, especially after the initial buzz when the special division of the Supreme Court ruled in a just released resolution that moving forward, getting annulments shouldn't be such a darn hassle. In its own, sober language, the court, speaking through Justice Lucas Bersamin, ruled:
"The foregoing guidelines (for annulment) have turned out to be rigid, such that their application to every instance practically condemned the petitions for declaration of nullity to the fate of certain rejection". In valley-girl speak, it was like, so super duper strict, that the chances before of getting a successful annulment was zilch.
In that particular case where Bersamin was ruling on, the spouses had been living apart from each other for decades. However, since the husband still wanted his freedom from the shackles of being hitched to wifey, had accused the wife of having the wrong priorities. As in, beauty first before family.
Apparently, the missus preferred beauty salons over the nursery, and had a little bit of a gambling itch. And surprisingly, especially compared to previous cases where the courts have required more serious behavior bordering in criminal, this court granted the petition. Her narcissistic behavior, the high court ruled, was sufficient to demonstrate her inability to take on the very serious obligations of marriage. Worse, taking her children with her while playing mahjong was exposing the kids to a culture of gambling. Bad mama.
So there was joy and there was jubilation as soon as the resolution was released. Worried petitioners thought they had gotten a break. Certainly, lawyers who were familiar with the challenges of coaxing a petition through the iron jaws of the judicial system were relieved.
But a couple of days after the brouhaha, here comes the spokesman for the high court, Theodore Te, reeling back the majorettes and marching band, and trying to do a bit of expectation management. Te very carefully pointed out that in no way had the Special First Division ruled that all previous decisions of the court on this very subject were thenceforth abandoned. That meant, according to Te, that all of those rulings were still in full force.
And by the way, Te also reminded the less legally astute onlookers that this January resolution was only made by a division - and previous precedents can only be overturned by a Supreme Court ruling en banc. So this special division could not have discarded the strict rules for judging whether a marriage should be annulled (even though that's what the express language of Justice Bersamin seemed to have said).
So here's what I think is going to happen in the next couple of years. Many lawyers handling petitions for annulment will cite Justice Bersamin in the hopes of getting an easy victory. If their judge is of the liberal persuasion, then that judge would let himself be swayed even more easily. If however the judge veered towards either conservatism or Catholicism, then it would be pretty much the same banana: stricter scrutiny of facts, and a penchant for denial rather than approval.
Even when a liberal judge grants a petition, chances are that the Solicitor General, which has made it a state concern to oppose annulments all the way to the Supreme Court even though they have more pressing affairs (I hope) to attend to, will continue to devote taxpayers money to challenging these petitions.
Therefore, we can expect that one of these mule-headed challenges will land before the Supreme Court again, and the august body will come head to head with Justice Bersamin's very definitive position. Then, it will need to either toss Justice Bersamin's position in the bin or get on board with it. If the former, then following spokesman Te's analysis, that would mean an en banc court having to convene and casting a vote for this gentler, kinder interpretation of the law.
Meanwhile, perhaps it's too early for suffering spouses to bring out the balloons and party hats. This could be just a minor blip in the legal landscape. Best rule of thumb would be to continue bringing out the big guns, try to match the expected evidentiary burden, and satisfy the old standards.
Annulments still ain't no divorce.