Eroding the nation’s foundation

For continuously failing to solve our country’s poverty problem, some members of Congress and the Executive seem to be bent on intruding into, instead of protecting the more personal aspects of the citizens’ life — marriage and family. Aside from the RH bill, they are now proposing a Divorce bill.

One of the main reasons advanced for passing the divorce bill is allegedly to give an aggrieved spouse a better alternative than annulment in getting out of an unbearable marriage relationship because under the existing set up, annulment is expensive and tedious. This is very misleading however because there is a great difference between annulment and divorce as would make divorce an alternative to annulment in getting out of a hopeless relationship.

Annulment is used here either as the declaration of nullity of marriage which refers to marriages that are by law considered to be non-existent from the beginning; or the invalidation of a marriage which have some defects at the time of celebration. In the first case no marriage took place at all. In the second case a marriage has taken place and already exists but is defective. In either case therefore the marriage bond can be dissolved without infringing the accepted public policy of inviolability of marriage.

Absolute divorce on the other hand concerns marriages which have no vice or defect at the time of celebration but are nevertheless dissolved for causes arising after their celebration. Here there is a perfectly valid marriage which the law already considers as an inviolable social institution. So when it is dissolved under the proposed divorce law, this accepted public policy enshrined in our constitution and family law will be infringed.

Please note that divorce referred to here is “absolute” as distinguished from another form of divorce called “relative” divorce also known as divorce a mensa et toro or separation of husband and wife from bed and board. Relative divorce is already recognized in this jurisdiction because the marriage bond remains intact except that the spouses are entitled to live separately and to divide their properties. Unlike absolute divorce where the spouses can remarry, relative divorce or legal separation does not allow the spouses to remarry. So the inviolability of marriage as an institution is upheld. This kind of divorce already affords the aggrieved spouse enough remedies to get out of an unbearable relationship.

Marriage as a social contract should be inviolable because of the universally accepted truisms that it is the foundation of the family just as the family is the foundation of the nation. To be sure, these truisms are already enshrined in our constitution itself which provides that “marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State” (Section 2. Article XV). On the other hand, the charter likewise declares that “the State recognizes the family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development” (Section 1, Article XV).

The framers saw it fit to enshrine these truisms in the charter itself because of the many dire consequences wrought by divorce as shown in countries where it has been legalized. They have seen that in those countries where marriage is not considered inviolable there are many broken homes and disintegrating families which result in the proliferation of juvenile delinquencies and drug addictions among teenagers some even ending up not only in vandalism but in school shooting rampages; the numerous incidents of premarital sex and teenage pregnancies that end up in abortions and many other events indicating a moral collapse of society like the destructive riots that recently happened in U.K.

Of course we are the only country now without any divorce law. But that is not something to be ashamed of. On the contrary it is something to be proud of. We should be proud to be known and distinguished as: the only country which continue to preserve and even strengthen marriage and family ties under any circumstances like being separated for sometime because of need to work abroad; the only country where family members continue to respect and take care of their elders especially the sick and the infirm, instead of dumping them in nursing homes or homes for the aged; the only country where parents and siblings toil and sacrifice for the sake of the other members of the family; the only country where the greater majority of husbands and wives continue to live together in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

Filipinos are known to be faithful and true to their commitments; more so with respect to their marriage vows. But if divorce is legalized here this admirable trait will be disregarded and the commitment to the marriage vows will be so fragile because the parties consider marriage no longer as something more sacred than an ordinary contract. It provides couples striving to make a go of their relationship with an easy way out thus opening the floodgates to more broken marriages. It countenances “love at first sight” where a person immediately marries the first woman or man he/she meets, takes fancy on and falls in love with, believing that anyway, he/she may get out of it anytime that feeling or emotion dies down. In a country recognizing divorce, love is not a decision but a mere feeling or emotion.

It is erroneous to contend that by recognizing divorce, we will be doing a great favor to the innocent spouse, especially the battered wife as it will enable her to get out of an unbearable marital relationship. On the contrary, it will be doing a greater favor to the guilty spouse particularly the philandering and violent husband because divorce enables him to get out of the marital relationship by battering his wife and/or committing acts that constitute grounds for divorce and then remarry again and still continue to commit those acts every time he wants to get out of the marital relationship he has repeatedly entered into. In fact, it works both ways, it can also be the wife who is the guilty spouse committing infidelities and similar acts constituting grounds for divorce and rewarded with freedom to remarry again and again.

Passing a law on absolute divorce therefore would only shake and erode marriage which is the very foundation of a solid and strong family which in turn is the foundation of the nation that the State is bound to protect, strengthen and develop. –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)