II Justice Caguioa provides the argument that interpreting Article 26 of the Family Code in the manner provided in the ponencia violates the nationality principle enshrined in Article 15 of the Civil Code. I disagree. Article 15 of the Civil Code provides: Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. Clearly, it is not only Article 26 of the Family Code or the Civil Code that applies. It should also include the Constitution, which is the bedrock of rights of any citizen. Thus, the State's obligation to "ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men"[4] applies with equal if not greater force. In my view, this is the full extent of the nationality principle. It is borne of rational interpretation, not judicial legislation. III Finally, my agreement with the ponencia is also impelled by my understanding that divorce is more consistent with the constitutionally entrenched fundamental freedoms inherent in individuals as human beings. It is also most consistent with the constitutional command for the State to ensure human dignity. The restrictive nature of our marriage laws tends to reify the concept of a family which is already far from the living realities of many couples and children. For instance, orthodox insistence on heteronormativity may not compare with the various types of care that various other "non-traditional" arrangements present in many loving households. The worst thing we do in a human relationship is to regard the commitment of the other formulaic. That is, that it is shaped alone by legal duty or what those who are dominant in government regard as romantic. In truth, each commitment is unique, borne of its own personal history, ennobled by the sacrifices it has gone through, and defined by the intimacy which only the autonomy of the parties creates. In other words, words that describe when we love or are loved will always be different for each couple. It is that which we should understand: intimacies that form the core of our beings should be as free as possible, bound not by social expectations but by the care and love each person can bring. Yet, the present form and the present interpretation we have on the law on marriage constrains. In love, there are no guarantees. In choosing our most intimate partners, we can commit mistakes. It is but part of being human. Our law cruelly defines the normal. The legal is coated in a false sense of morality poorly reasoned. It condemns those who have made bad choices into a living inferno. In my view, this case is a step forward in the right direction. IV As I stated in a dissent[5] I wrote in 2016, we had absolute divorce laws in the past. Act No. 2710, [6] enacted in 1917, allowed the filing of a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery on the part of the wife, or concubinage on the part of the husband.[7] Eleven grounds for divorce were provided in Executive Order No. 141,[8] effective during the Japanese occupation. These grounds included "intentional or unjustified desertion continuously for at least one year prior to the filing of a [petition] for divorce" and "slander by deed or gross insult by one spouse against the other to such an extent as to make further living impracticable."[9] After the Japanese left, the laws they enacted were declared void. [10] Act No. 2710 again took effect until the Civil Code's enactment in 1950. Since then, absolute divorce has been prohibited in our jurisdiction. A world whose borders are increasingly becoming permeable with the ease of travel as well as with the technological advances will definitely foster more inter-cultural relationships. These relationships can become more intimate. I am of the belief that the law never intended for the Filipino to be at a disadvantage. For so long as the Constitution itself guarantees fundamental equality, the absurd result from a literal and almost frigid and unfeeling interpretation of our laws should not hold. To say that one spouse may divorce and the other may not contributes to the patriarchy. It fosters an unequal relationship prone to abuse in such intimate relationships.