Scribbling on Divorce

                                          

Sometime during the Summer of 2005, the Divorce Bill was discussed by some newspaper columnists in the Philippine Star and Inquirer. I think this was the time when Rep. Liza Maza resurrected the issue on divorce and proposed a bill.

 

I wanted to put my reasoning and analytical skills to test. I thought it would be a good way to prepare myself for the school of law. So, I started scribbling and writing questions and answers as my intellectual exercise. One of the topics I chose was divorce.

 

Ms. Janette Toral, the founder of Digital Filipino of which I am a member, told me personally last week that she tagged me in digitalfilipino blogspot to write an entry on some interesting topics like divorce.

 

So I remembered the scribbling…

 

So Ma’am Janette, here goes…

 

How do you differentiate divorce from annulment?

 

 Divorce is defined as the termination of the marriage bond while annulment is making the marriage void from the very start. In both cases the spouses are free to marry again.

 

Are you in favor on the legalization of divorce?

Yes, I am in favor of the legalization of divorce.

 
I do not see any reason why we should be against it. I do not see any difference between our existing laws such as annulment and divorce when both are for the legalization on the invalidation of marriages and making the spouses free to marry again.

 

I also do not agree that divorce is violating the constitution in which it declares that “the state has the obligation to protect the family as an inviolable social institution,” while annulment is not.

 

I also find divorce to be more convenient for both spouses since it would be easier for the estranged couples to marry without carrying the brunt of being labeled psychologically incapacitated which is the usual case in annulment. The process for annulment and legal separation can be torturous and both time and money-consuming which seems to be available only to the moneyed class.

 

What are the grounds for divorce proposed by Rep. Liza Maza?

 

Divorce can be filed on the grounds that:

*separation of the couple for atleast 5 years upon the filing of petition and reconciliation is highly improbable

*the petitioner has been legally separated from his or her spouse for atleast 2 years at the time of the filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable

*when any of the grounds for legal separation has caused the irreparable breakdown of marriage

*one of both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations

 

The effects of divorce would be:

*marriage bonds are terminated

*the absolute conjugal property will be liquidated and assets are divided equally between spouses

*the spouse who is not gainfully employed shall be entitled of support from the other spouse

*the custody of any minor child shall be decided by the court

*children of both spouses shall be considered legitimate

 

What is your stand on the divorce bill?

 I do not have any problems with the divorce bill.

 

Isn’t this against your Catholic teaching?

 

 I find the Church inconsistent with what they teach with regard to providing remedies to failed marriages, which are legal separation and annulment.

 

Legal Separation is the separation from bed and board where spouses’ marriage are retained and not free to marry again while annulment is legally invalidating the marriage and allows the couples to marry again – which is the same as divorce. They only differentiate divorce as  the termination of the marriage bond from annulment as making the marriage void from the very start. I don’t find these definitions making much sense because whether divorce or annulment will take place it is common that prior to this there has been an actual experience of the marriage to begin with, they both share good and bad memories of that failed marriage and they both share children as a product of this marriage.

 

 I do not see the reason why the Church has to be against divorce when they also have a marriage tribunal that performs annulment (which legalizes the invalidation of the marriage and making them free to marry again – like divorce).

 

Doesn’t the divorce bill violate the constitution in which it declares that “the state has the obligation to protect the family as an inviolable social institution?”

 

 I don’t think the State violates this obligation because there are marriages which can no longer be healthy for both spouses, especially to the children emotionally. Situations such as physical and emotional abuse (no mutual respect), infidelity, painful quarrels that the children have to endure almost everyday and situations where either of the spouse is not performing his or her task to the family – as a homemaker or as a provider are in my opinion is a marriage that can no longer be considered as an “inviolable social institution.” Thus there is no point of preserving it.

If ratified, wouldn’t this be alarming that there might be a sudden mad rush to have courts to have marriages terminated and people will file for divorce in the simplest pretext (In US, i.e. snoring, not tightening the cap of the toothpaste, and a spouse spending hours on the telephone).

 

Though couples at times have shallow reasons why they want to have divorce, we also can not deny the fact that there are marriages that can no longer work no matter how hard the couples try.

 This is also the reason why there are certain grounds proposed by Rep. Maza before divorce can even be considered. These grounds suggest that divorce shouldn’t be taken lightly. 

 

Sources:

 

Philippine Daily Inquirer and Philippine Star – Summer of 2005

Editorial Section with columns on Divorce Bill

Comments

[Tin]

Sabi mo comment diba? *(^^,)* Well, I think it would be helpful if you also look into the grounds of annulment and legal separation. You see, there's a Canon Law which the Church people turn to as guide. Just to balance the arguments.

And also, I just want to say that hopefully in our lifetime someone would do a cohort on the effects of divorce. For me kasi it is pro-couple. Not pro-family. And family constitues the children which are the bearers of burden when

[Tin]

their parents gets divorced. Ang alam ko sa annulment hindi ka na pwede mag-asawa uli. Pero I'll ask my s.adviser on that just to be sure.

Bakit cohort? One divorce leads to another and another and another. What does that imply? What are its long term effects? Specially on children...the future parents? Is it healthy for our culture?

[Tin]

Marriages that "dont work" anymore can be handled by annulment (though I need to read more on that, I guess). Why allow a system that can work like a condom? Or is it because of the condom that divorce was created? *wink*wink* for ME, divorce is like rust...
*(^^,)*

[Naomi]

hi tin. thanks for commenting. i respect all opinions.

about annulment... you can remarry.

[Tin]

Hmm...siguro rin before deciding to adapt a new system such as divorce, we must study it well. Where did it come from? Who passed that bill? (integrity and purpose of the legislator) For what reason? What was the first case that warranted divorce? What good did it bring?

A little history would be helpful because I believe the agenda behind divorce, in its true nature is very important.

hehehe, mentally stimulating to ha. =P

[Tin]

ang alam ko hindi pwede, Naoms. check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage

Yung sinasabi ni Pope Benedict XVI, yung mga nagdivorce and remarried, how do they fare in the Church. Magkaiba talaga ang annulment and divorce.

Sorry, hehe, cant help but defend my stand. Sorry.

[Tin]

oo nga, pwede pero kung walang consummation. Pero kung meron...separation separation lang pwede hindi annulment.

[Naomi]

tin it is in our law that you can remarry in annulment. I checked the link you referred me to, it doesn't say.

anyway here is a link
http://www.filipinawives.com/Annulment.htm
where you can get a glimpse of the provisions on annulment.

annulment tin is making the marriage void from the very start, so as if you didn't marry or the marriage never existed. as a result, after annulment, couples are free to remarry.

sabi ko na nga ba iakw ang unang mag rereact. hehehehe.

[Jaz]

I thought this was a very interesting read though, my knowledge about law is very limited. I was just wondering if this bill has been passed by the Senate, or not?

Also, with regards to the question about the financial effects of annulment and legal seperation being different to that of divorce, isn't divorce as costly? I mean, here in the West, it's so expensive for couples to get a divorce and some ex-wives who are gold diggers make a livin out of it (i.e. Heather Mills, Paul McCartney's ex).

And if this is the case, it means that the bill will only be available to the upper-class couples in the Philippines, which is like 10 to 20% of the population? So is it really worth having at all? Doesn't it perpetuate further inequality? (Correct me if Im wrong pls)

Anywhoo, the topic of divorce in the Philippines can be a positive sign because it shows that the government and politics are "divorcing" because politics and religion don't mix, especially when your citizens don't all share the same religion.

[Jaz]

Sorry I meant to say, "the government and the Catholic Church are 'divorcing', not goverment and politics.

[Naomi]

hi jaz, thanks for dropping by.

it is not yet approved in congress but it is a proposed bill by Rep. Liza Maza.

yes divorce is costly in america i heard. however if you check the grounds for divorce proposed, by 2 years of legal separation, couples can be divorced right away. annulment takes a very long process, numerous court hearings, even kids are involved sometimes.

regarding the separation of properties/assets incase of divorce -- there is no final rules yet, the bill has to be approved and better yet, amended - incase changes are needed. however in annulment - spouses still have shared obligation to their children - especially financial support, and the judge also decides on that aspect.

[Naomi]

... about my digression to annulment... i meant this can be also applied in divorce incase the drafters of the law decide what to put there.

[Jaz]

testing...

[Jaz]

Im having a hard time posting my reply...but hopefully this get thru. So I see that the bill hasn't been ratified.

[Jaz]

It would be interesting to see the outcome of this bill.

[michelle]

I agree with the divorce. I'm happy with my marriage by the way, but I have friends who are tied with marriage that is already failing yet they don't want to seek annulment because it just seems unfair not to acknowledge a marriage that produces their wonderful children.