8/3/2019 On HB 1799

1/4

8/3/2019 On HB 1799

2/4

(1) THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN SEPARATED DE FACTO FROM HIS OR HER SPOUSE FOR ATLEAST FIVE YEARS AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND RECONCILIATION ISHIGHLY IMPROBABLE;

(2) THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN LEGALLY SEPARATED FROM HIS OR HER SPOUSE FOR AT

LEAST TWO YEARS AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND RECONCILIATION ISHIGHLY IMPROBABLE;

(3) WHEN ANY OF THE GROUNDS FOR LEGAL SEPARATION UNDER PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS

ARTICLE HAS CAUSED THE IRREPARABLE BREAKDOWN OF THE MARRIAGE;

(4) WHEN ONE OR BOTH SPOUSES ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED TO COMPLYWITH THE ESSENTIAL MARITAL OBLIGATIONS;

(5) WHEN THE SPOUSES SUFFER FROM IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES THAT HAVE CAUSEDTHE IRREPARABLE BREAKDOWN OF THE MARRIAGE."

Note that paragraph B of the aforementioned provision is a totally new provision and is the additionalprovision setting the grounds for Divorce. What can be gleaned from this provision is thatirreconcilable differences and irreparable breakdown of marriages are the overriding factors for

allowing Divorce, severing the marriage ties, and allowing the spouses to remarry again. But the Billitself fails to to tell is why or how divorce can be the remedy for failed marriages . What it does is onlyprovide additional murky grounds for severing marriage ties (irreconcilable differences, irreparablebreakdown of marriages), with the ultimate goal of restoring the spouses to their single status. It doessay, in its Explanatory Note, that the present laws on Legal Separation and Nullity of Marriages areinadequate, and provides for the distinction between Nullity and Divorce, but still fails to enlighten usas to why they are inadequate, or that Divorce is the solution that shall fill the void created by ourpresent laws.

In an effort to strengthen its argument, the Explanatory Note further cites that separation "is usuallythe last resort of many Filipino couples whose marriage has failed. Cases of battered women alsosupport this. Battered women invariably seek separation only after many years of trying to make themarriage work; separation only becomes imperative for them when they realize that it is necessary fortheir and their children's survival. Divorce could actually provide protection to battered women andtheir children from further violence and abuse." This argument actually opens several pertinent issues

that the Divorce Bill still cannot address. For one, if separation has been considered as merely a lastresort after many years of trying to make the marriage work, what makes the proponents of this Billso certain that Divorce will also not be considered as a last resort after many years of trying to makethe marriage work? As we usually quote here in Legazpi, "it's the same banana-batag." It's the samething (at least for this issue.) It doesn't actually provide a new remedy (for the remedy is alreadyprovided by law). It only allows couples to remarry again. Of course, proponents of this Bill are

arguing that "divorce as a remedy need not be for the purpose of re-marriage; it may be resorted toby individuals to achieve peace of mind and facilitate their pursuit of full human development." Butagain, Divorce fails to tell us how this can help individuals achieve peace of mind and facilitate theirpursuit of full human development, or that the present laws on Separation and Nullity of Marriagesfalls short of allowing individuals to achieve peace of mind.

Another, separation as a last resort actually, in a way, adheres to our constitutional principle thatmarriage is a solemn covenant between spouses> It does not mean that one has to endure to thepoint where one's human dignity has been so degraded and one's opportunity and right to full human

8/3/2019 On HB 1799

3/4

development has been so stunted before one can finally resort to this. It only tells us that, havingentered into this solemn vow, we have to do the best that we can to make this marriage work.Proponents of the Divorce Bill, by arguing that separation has only been considered by many as a lastresort after many years of trying to make the marriage work are subtly telling us that makingmarriage work is actually a useless burden. Why go through all that trouble and burden of trying tomake this marriage work when we can quit while we are ahead? I don't know about you, but to me itsounds like this: "to hell with the sanctity of marriage!" What happened now to this Bills underpinning

that it is committed to the policy of the State to protect and strengthen marriage?

But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that Divorce will not be a last resort. It actually becomesan easier resort, not to give spouses peace of mind and the chance for full human development, butmerely to be declared single again and re-marry. This is not to say that they will not have peace ofmind and the opportunity for full human growth if they get divorced. This is just to say that peace ofmind and full human development are not effects of divorce, nor of legal separation, nor of nullity ofmarriage. These things are actually achieved based on one's human values, principles and dispositionin life. The way I see it, the only difference between legal separation and divorce, on the one hand isthat in the former, you cannot marry while in the latter you can; and nullity of marriage and divorce,on the other hand is that with the former, the grounds for nullity are stricter, while with divorce, thegrounds are more lenient and easier by including "irreconcilable difference, irreparable breakdown ofthe marriage, and the grounds for legal separation under Art. 55 of the Family Code" as further

grounds for divorce.

The bottom line is, the only thing divorce has to offer is the chance for the spouses to re-marry again.But this time, the grounds are easier for divorce. Proponents would argue that the process of getting adivorce would still be arduous (perhaps in a last ditch effort to justify its claim that divorce will notdestroy marriage). And yet, the supposed remedy it offers is already in place through our laws. If themarriage has broken down to a point of irreconcilability, we have legal separation. If the marriage has

not worked basically because of the failure of one or both spouses to comply with his/her basic maritalobligations, we have psychological incapacity as a ground under Art. 36 of the Family Code. We alsohave Article 45 of the Family Code for other grounds for the Nullity of Marriage.

If Proponents argue that the reality of marriage in our Filipino setting is that there have been batteredwives, abused and hurt, we also have recourse in law for these things. We have the VAWC in order tocurtail and protect abuses done to women (and spouses). We also have the Revised Penal Code toaddress these abuses and violence. We have so many laws that actually already address the verythings the Divorce Bill wants to address. It is futile to argue that divorce would give a new remedy.The remedies are in place. What the proponents of this bill do not realize is that they are just openinga can of worms, a pandora's Box, if you wish.

One last thing, if spouses are allowed to re-marry again under this Bill, this Bill actually does notresolve the very problems of marriage that pervade our culture. Although I have tried not to argue byexample as this would only be met by "counter-examples" that would negate my examples, allow meto cite situations that would show us that the Divorce Bill would actually just perpetuate abuses andadd to the number of failed marriages and irreconcilable differences. Say, for example, that a womansought divorce because, for years, she has been a battered wife, abused physically,emotionally, psychologically, sexually by her husband. Or, say, for example, that the husband hasbeen always involved in sexual infidelity or perversion. She now seeks for divorce and it issubsequently granted. Both spouses are declared single. The legal effect? They can re-marry again.What happens now to the subsequent marriage entered into by the former abuser-husband? Would itnot be that he would, again commit the very same things he did during his first marriage? The cyclewill not stop, essentially because divorce fails miserably to address this issue. If the abuser-spousecan re-marry again, we are actually just allocating the previous marital problems to another avenue -the new marriage. And if this happens, it will be a slippery slope from there. Failed marriages afterfailed marriages shall snowball. The abuse will not stop. The irreconcilable differences and irreparable

8/3/2019 On HB 1799

4/4

damages to the marriage will not go away. They will still be there, albeit in another new marriage.

Proponents of this Bill argue that "(t)he bill seeks to introduce divorce in Philippine law with a strongsense of confidence that it will be used responsibly by Filipino couples. It fails to recognize the factthat the marriage would not have reached a point of "irreparability" if, in the first place, one or both

spouses have been responsible.

What happens now to the sanctity of marriage? What happens now to the "peace of mind andopportunity for human development" the proponents so conveniently assert but miserably fail toestablish? What happens now to this Bill's declaration that its underpinning is committed to the State'spolicy to protect and strengthen the marriage and the family as basic social institutions, to value thedignity of every human person, to guarantee full respect for human rights, and to ensure thefundamental equality before the law of women and men? If you would ask me, they only becomepunch lines rather than principles. Under this Bill, they don't become backbones of generations spent

protecting the very sanctity of marriage. In the end, the Divorce Bill will fail on its purpose. In theend, the Divorce Bill will fail us all.