Stop the hypocrisy—pass the divorce bill

It’s the season of resurrecting a dead bill once again. This dubious phenomenon happens every three years when the two Houses of Congress get new sets of lawmakers. A proposed law that was stillborn in the past Congress gets revived with a new chance of becoming law within the duration of a fresh three years. This cycle of birth, death, and revival has been recurring for the past 20 years.

I’m talking about the divorce bill, the real aim of which is merely to confirm the death of a marriage. Contrary to the belief held by anti-divorce advocates, divorce does not end marriages. It merely confirms that a marriage is already dead. It aims to give the suffering spouses—who each wish the other were dead, in most cases—a new chance to infuse life into their lives.

When the new Congress opened last July 1, three congresspersons filed two proposed measures that aim to revive efforts to pass a divorce law in our country. They are Rep. Antonio Tinio and Rep. Renee Louise Co of the Alliance of Concerned Teachers and Kabataan party lists, who jointly filed one bill, and Rep. Jonathan Clement Abalos of the 4Ps party list, who filed another bill. The bills spell out grounds that would confirm that life has been snuffed out of a marriage by granting divorce on the grounds of drug addiction, physical violence, homosexuality, and other similar serious reasons. In the Upper House, Sen. Risa Hontiveros has also promised that she would refile the divorce bill that she had advocated for in the past Congress.

The lack of a divorce law in our country is anchored on the concept of the sanctity of marriage. It is justified by the philosophy that a marital bond is an inviolable social institution. The state policy on marriage is, for all intents and purposes, a full embrace of the religious concept of marriage held by Christian conservatives, particularly the Catholic Church.

A state policy must always be imbued with reason or logic, as the most basic premise for the policy to be legitimate. A state policy should be anchored on rationality; otherwise, it suffers from invalidity. It should also be infused with consistency—it must apply to everyone situated similarly, without favor or discrimination. If not, the state policy suffers from the fatal defect of being violative of the prohibition of unequal protection of the Constitution.

Judged by the above standards, our state policy on the sanctity or inviolability of marriage is full of loopholes and replete with contradictions. A few examples will expose the blatant irrationality and brazen discrimination.

Our Muslim brethren are entitled to obtain a divorce under our laws. So, our state policy basically provides that there’s sanctity of marriage if the spouses are Christian, but not when they are Muslim. Our state policy essentially provides that marriages are inviolable if the couple is Christian but become violable if they are Muslim. There is absolutely no rational difference between marriages of Muslims and unions involving Christians that would justify treating one differently from the other. Religion and customs are not rational distinctions that can serve as justifications.

If the spouses are both Filipino citizens, they are prohibited from obtaining a divorce if their marriage doesn’t work out. But if one is a foreign spouse, the couple can obtain a divorce in a foreign country that will be recognized as valid in the Philippines. So, our state policy qualifies that there is sanctity of marriage if both spouses are Filipinos, but not when one is a foreigner. A marriage is inviolable if both parties are Filipinos, but it becomes violable if one is a foreigner.

In reality, there’s a divorce law in our country, but we are so dead afraid of using the word “divorce.” We see the word “divorce” as a hideous monster or a frightful ghost, so we use a euphemism to make it acceptable instead—we call it “nullity of marriage.” This divorce, in essence, but not in name, is, however, only available to couples who have the money to “pay” its prohibitive costs. If one is poor, there’s absolutely no way one can obtain this privilege of divorce with a different name. The state policy is brazenly irrational and outrightly discriminatory against the poor.

Our country must stop its deceitful and insincere policies on marriage and divorce because they are producing the biggest number of criminals in our society—those who are forced to commit crimes of adultery, concubinage, and bigamy just because they don’t have the money to obtain a “nullity of marriage” court decree. These policies are also producing a second class of citizens with inferior rights and who live with a social stigma—illegitimate children.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not among the unfortunate ones trapped in a failed marriage. Marriage has been a most wonderful blessing for me. As a lawyer, however, I have encountered innumerable suffering people who had the misfortune of having chosen the wrong partners, and my heart bleeds for them. These wretched souls, their innocent children included, are forced to live hellish lives just so our country can maintain the dubious distinction of being the world’s biggest hypocrite on marriage.

—————-

Comments to fleamarketofideas@gmail.com