Marry go round

Something is wrong with our sense of values if we prefer imitations instead of the real thing. We will never have a strong sense of nationalism or love of country if we are fond of things imported than of things made here. Yet some members of our Congress particularly some leftist groups with alleged “nationalistic” agenda is introducing something imported, an imitation of a bill on divorce which is clearly contrary to our treasured customs and traditions and undermines a long established institution we hold sacred because it is the most basic foundation on which our nation is built.

They claim we should pass the divorce bill because we are the only country now without such kind of law. They are in effect telling us that we should be ashamed instead of being proud to be known and distinguished as the only country which continue to hold on to a legacy that preserves and strengthens family ties even when separated by force of circumstances like the need to work abroad; as the only country where family members continue to respect and take care of their elders especially the sick and the infirm than dump them in social welfare homes; as the only country where parents and siblings toil and sacrifice for the sake of other members of the family; as 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”.

Actually, it is not even correct to say that we have no divorce law. We already have a law recognizing divorce known as divorce a mensa et toro or relative divorce, technically called legal separation. There are ten grounds for relative divorce or legal separation enumerated in Article 55 of the Family Code (FC) which arise after the celebration of the marriage. Essentially, they consist of acts and conducts violating the rights and obligations of the husband and wife to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

In this kind of divorce, the marriage bond is not dissolved in keeping with the constitutional precept that “marriage as an inviolable social institution is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State” (Article XV Section 2). But the wrongs suffered by the aggrieved spouse are also adequately redressed as she/he is entitled to live separately and the absolute community of conjugal partnership is dissolved and liquidated with the guilty spouse denied any share in it. Custody of the minor children goes to the innocent spouse with guilty spouse being obliged to give support. The offending spouse is disqualified from inheriting by intestate succession from the innocent spouse, and provisions in the will of the latter in favor of the former are revoked by operation of law (Article 43, FC). The innocent spouse may also revoke donations he/she made in favor of the other, including designation as an insurance beneficiary when the decree of relative divorce or legal separation becomes final.

This is not the case with the proposed divorced bill however. It will dissolve marriages that are perfectly valid and have no vices or defects at the time of their celebration, for causes arising after their celebration. It legalizes absolute divorce that results in the dissolution of the marriage bond entitling both the guilty and the innocent spouses to marry again. Needless to say this bill contravenes the constitutional precept and the accepted public policy that marriage is an inviolable social institution. It also violates the FC that upholds the inviolability of marriage as a social institution whether solemnized in the Philippines or elsewhere although indirectly, the FC recognizes absolute divorce validly obtained abroad by an alien spouse married to a Filipino spouse by capacitating the latter to remarry under Philippine laws (Article 26, FC).

The proponents of the divorce bill erroneously believe that they are doing a great favor to the innocent spouse, particularly the battered wife, to get out of an unbearable marital relationship. They forget however that they are doing a greater favor to the guilty spouse particularly the philandering and violent husband because they are enabling him to remarry again and again by repeatedly committing acts constituting grounds for absolute divorce every time he gets bored or wants to get out of the marital relationships he entered into. Indeed it can also be the other way around where the wife is the guilty spouse who can also repeatedly remarry by committing similar acts making the marital relationship unbearable or incompatible.

If divorce is legalized here, a man and woman get married with a fragile commitment to the marriage vows. They enter into a marital relationship secure in the thought that they can easily get out of it when they realize their “mistake” or when they see that the “love” between them is “gone”. It countenances a situation where a person can marry the first woman or man he/she meets and takes fancy on, believing that anyway he/she can later on divorce his/her partner and jump into another marital relationship with the next woman or man he/she meets and falls in love with. The bill is actually abetting a “marry go round”.

The bill is supposed to help couples get out of broken marriages beyond repair, to assist couples with unsolvable marital problems. In this country however, these are only exceptional cases. A greater majority of married couples still have solid relationships and wholesome marriages. Enacting the divorce bill into law is practically making the exception the general rule. It will open the floodgates to other married couples trying their best to keep their relationship intact. Examples in countries where this concept of absolute divorce is imported undoubtedly show its many dire consequences specifically broken homes and disintegrating families, delinquent and drug addicted teenagers, a few of whom have been in school shooting rampages, and teenage pregnancies.

Indeed this divorce bill is in anticipation of the after effects of the RH bill — the contraceptive mentality that causes marital infidelities. Are these the bills that our lawmakers want for our country? –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)