JJJ2022

I agree and I support you with it comes to Article 29. However, the ASG and judges kept spewing Article 3. Either they don't know the law or they're to outsmart normal people who doesn't understand the law. Here's the link start around 40:00 and you should open it before a moderator deletes the link lol since for some reason they dont allow fb links. They kept saying at the livestream. Which uhh that's article 3, but yeah... whatever. Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are: (1) Authority of the solemnizing officer; (2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and (3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.

DFA might have approved but PSA will definitely reject it at this point. If DFA ordered Embassy to pause accepting ROM for online marriage due to PSA then it is because PSA has the final say when it comes to this stuff and not DFA. They can transmit the data but it'll just be rejected for sure. If you watch the livestream from PSA themselves, the attorney general and the supreme court judges are NOT supporting this ROM through online marriage yet. Lawyers might be fighting it but it will take awhile since they explicitly said that according to the family code that it requires both parties WITH the officiant. I understand they should have planned this accordingly and grandfathered the existing ones, but who knows. We'll see.

Hello, (removed) Start at around 40:00 with the video. We have been lurking in this forum for a long time. With the recent twists of events from Philippines. We're not sure if we should continue pursuing online marriage. We are planning to get married both physically present in December through Utah. Based off the comments made from the ASG from the video, the virtual wedding bill states that "both physically be present at the same location". We're just not sure yet if PSA acknowledges that bill until the President signs the bill it's not a law. We are planning to get married in the Philippines together through Utah to bypass the long wait times for PSA certificate. However, with this recent turn of events, this is what we are planning to do instead: 1. Initiate the local wedding ceremony requirements in the Philippines and apply marriage license in Utah. 2. If we did not receive any official statements or guidance from PSA before December if they'll approve ROM from Utah then we'll proceed with local ceremony What I'm confused about is, does ROM only matter if spouse requires to change their last name or is ROM is also required in CFO? I don't want to risk the possibility of deadlocking the situation where CR1 gets approved up to USCIS. However, when NVC/CFO/Embassy Interview they require the PSA Marriage Certificate that we cannot show anything? Hence the person might not be able to leave Philippines because of ROM missing and not accepted by the Philippines. If ROM does not matter in immigration purposes, then we could continue with our plan of online marriage? I'm also getting a mixed conclusions regards from USCIS requiring the PSA Marriage Certificate, and some gets away with just the LCR marriage certificate, so I'll just assume PSA marriage certificate is required hence additional 3-6 months wait time before submitting initial CR1. Side comment: If only PSA/Philippines have this fast turn around with producing marriage certificate then there's no issue of doing the ceremony locally. Please advise on what should we do? Any guidance will highly be appreciated.