MANILA (UPDATE) - Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, author of the reproductive health bill that was passed into law, believes passing a divorce law will not be as contentious as the passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law.

Lagman, who filed House Bill (HB) No. 116 instituting absolute divorce in the Philippines, said the passage of the absolute divorce law "would be much easier than the travails we had suffered in the advocacy for the Reproductive Health for the following reasons."

"There would be no more acrimonious debates on the health hazards of contraception; the divisive debates on sexuality education will not be part of the agenda; even the Catholic Church has own version of divorce which is canonical divorce, which nullifies marriages because of absence of essential ingredients. This would mirror the biblical passages on divorce," he said.

READ: RH Law mover sets sights on divorce law

The Catholic Church has opposed the passage of both the RH and divorce bills. It took Congress more than a decade to finally pass a reproductive health law, which provides Filipinos universal access to reproductive health care services and information.

Lagman said irrespective of the position of the Catholic Church, a divorce bill is a "pro-women legislation."

"Because traditionally, in the relation between husband and wife, the husband is more assented... husband philanders and gets away with it. It is the wife who needs an absolute divorce," he said.

He also said that while President Rodrigo Duterte has thumbed down a divorce law in the past, he remains optimistic that his bill would have the support of a majority of his colleagues.

"I seem to recall having heard President Duterte saying divorce may adversely affect the children. But recent studies would show what affects children more would be clashes of marital conflict rather than eventuality of divorce which are well documented in studies in the US," he said.

Under HB 116, some of the grounds for divorce are a valid foreign divorce, canonical divorce, gender reassignment surgery and irreconcilable differences.

Lagman said his proposal will not lead to Las Vegas-style divorces in the Philippines. The Philippines is the only country without a divorce law after Malta passed one years ago.

"There are definite categorical specific grounds for divorce in order to prevent any abuse. There will be defined procedures... There is also a statement or state policy that the divorce proceedings should be inexpensive and affordable. A petitioner can apply with the court and the court can waive the payment of filing fees and cost of litigation. Currently, the process for legal separation and annulment is so cumbersome and exorbitant, poor women cannot afford the process," he said.

"Ballpark figures would reach about P200,000 per case for both legal separation and annulment. Sa filing fees pwede malibre cost of litigation. There would be other expenses like attorneys fees which could be subject to some sort of directive for lesser fees to be imposed on parties," he added.

Meanwhile, another member of the House of Representatives is set to file a similar divorce bill in the 17th Congress.

"Will file our own. Last 16th Congress, no movement at all," Gabriela Party-list Rep. Emmy de Jesus said in a text message to ABS-CBN News.

She added: "There are pro-divorce advocates that gave their commitment to do lobby work this coming Congress, so we hope that could be a good push. If not final passage, at least committee/s concerned can start debates."

The ABS-CBN Investigative and Research group found out that from 2001-2010, cases on the annulment of marriage filed grew by more than 40%.

From 4,520 cases filed in 2001, the number of annulment cases filed grew to 8,283 in 2010. In 2010, an average of 22 cases were filed daily.

A total of 10,528 annulment cases were filed with the OSG in 2012. In 2011, the figure was 9,133.

According to the 4th Quarter 2014 SWS Survey, public support for legalization of divorce for irreconcilably separated couples grew to a clear majority of 60% in December 2014, from a plurality of 50% in March 2011, and a split opinion of 43-44% in May 2005.