By Mark Joseph M. Sanchez

THE Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday considered competing legal arguments on whether Philippine courts may recognize a foreign divorce obtained by a natural-born Filipino who later became a United States citizen and eventually reacquired Philippine citizenship, as oral arguments continued on a petition involving the Family Code.

Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao focused much of the questioning on whether the court could adopt a broader interpretation of the law to address situations not expressly covered by its text, underscoring the tension between the text of Article 26(2) and the practical problem of a person being treated as divorced in one jurisdiction but still married under Philippine law.

The case involves a plaintiff who obtained a divorce in the United States in 2010 while still a Philippine citizen, later became an American citizen, and then reacquired Philippine citizenship under the Dual Citizenship law.

Melvin D.C. Mane, counsel for the petitioner, argued that refusing to recognize the foreign divorce would create the very situation the law sought to avoid: a person regarded as divorced abroad but still married under Philippine law.

He said the petitioner’s later acquisition of American citizenship meant US law became applicable to him, giving him a legal basis to seek recognition of the divorce even if it had been obtained while he was still a Filipino citizen.

Mr. Mane urged the court to consider the petitioner’s citizenship at the time recognition of the divorce is sought, rather than his citizenship at the time the divorce was granted.

Mr. Dimaampao asked whether citizenship at the time a foreign divorce is presented before Philippine courts could instead determine the applicability of Article 26(2) of the Family Code, which provides an exception to the general rule that divorce is not recognized for marriages between Filipino citizens.

He also asked whether a dual citizen who has reacquired Philippine citizenship could be treated as a foreign spouse for purposes of applying the provision.

The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, saying Article 26 was intended as a limited exception to the general rule that Philippine family laws govern Filipino citizens.

Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe said the law’s wording and legislative history do not support extending its coverage to cases such as the petitioner’s.

“Article 26 for us just provides a very narrow exception,” she told the tribunal.

She argued that adopting the petitioner’s interpretation would effectively rewrite the law.

“It will amount to judicial legislation,” Ms. Berberabe said, adding that any expansion of the provision should come from Congress rather than the Judiciary.

Mr. Dimaampao, however, pointed to the court’s earlier interpretations of Article 26 in decisions such as Republic vs. Orbecido III and Republic vs. Manalo, which allowed recognition of certain foreign divorces to prevent Filipino spouses from remaining legally married in the Philippines after their foreign spouses had already obtained valid divorces abroad.

Appearing as a friend of the court, University of the Philippines College of Law professor Elizabeth A. Pangalangan proposed a different legal framework.

Rather than viewing the petition as one seeking the grant of a divorce, she said it should be treated as an action for the recognition of a foreign judgment.

“This is merely a recognition of a foreign divorce, a recognition of a divorce already valid in another jurisdiction,” she said.

Ms. Pangalangan also urged the court to consider applying the law of the jurisdiction with the closest connection to the dispute, noting that the petitioner had long lived in the US and had remarried there.

She said those circumstances supported the application of US law in determining the legal effect of the foreign divorce.

The hearing ended without a ruling, leaving the justices to continue weighing whether Article 26(2) may be read to fit the petitioner’s circumstances or whether any broader rule should be left to Congress.