are leaving it to future legislation, they omit Article 126(2)] temporarily and take it up when they take up the matter of absolute divorce. Prof. Bautista remarked that it is a matter of equity, justice and fairness that Article [26(2)] should be retained. On the point raised by Justice Reyes, Prof. Bautista opined that there is no unfairness in the case of a Filipino, who is married to a Filipino, because in the case of a Filipino who is married to a foreigner, the foreigner is already free, and yet the Filipino is still married to nobody. [Dean Bartolome S. Carale (Dean Carale)] added that if two Filipinos are married anywhere, they are both covered by the Philippine prohibitory laws because they are nationals of the Philippines. Justice Caguioa, however, pointed out that, in effect, there is preferential treatment in the case of Filipinos married to foreigners, since if the foreigner gets a divorce, the Filipino spouse also automatically gets a divorce. Dean Carale remarked that Article [26(2)] will in effect encourage Filipinos to marry foreigners. Prof. Bautista disagreed since it is the foreigner and not the Filipino, who will seek divorce. xxxx Justice Reyes remarked that this article is an implicit recognition of foreign divorce, with which Justice Caguioa concurred. Prof. Bautista and [Professor Flerida Ruth P. Romero (Prof. Romero)] pointed out that the article will only cover exceptional cases and special situations and that there is a reasonable and substantial basis for making it an exception. After further discussion, Justice Puno rephrased Article [26(2)] in accordance with Dr. Cortes' suggestion as follows: Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated abroad and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad capacitating such foreigner to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. xxxx Having sufficiently discussed the matter, the Committee decided to put the issue to a vote. The members voted as follows: (1) Justice Puno, Justice Caguioa, Dr. Cortes, Dean Carale, Dean Gupit and Prof. Baviera were for the deletion of Article [26(2)]. (2) Justice Diy, Prof. Bautista, Prof. Romero and [Director Flora C. Eufemio] were for its retention. Hence, the Committee agreed that x x x Article [26(2)] shall be deleted x x x.[6] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Accordingly, Article 26(2) did not appear in the initial version of the Family Code under Executive Order (EO) 209 which was signed into law by then President Corazon Aquino on July 6, 1987. Days later, or on July 17, 1987, President Aquino issued EO 227 which incorporated, among others, Article 26(2). Thus, when the Family Code finally took effect on August 3, 1988, Article 26, in its entirety, read as follows: ART. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. While Article 26(2) was reinstated by executive fiat, it is nevertheless clear that the true spirit behind the provision remains explicit in the Committee deliberations — Article 26(2) had been crafted to serve as an exception to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, which states: ART. 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.