In a survey conducted by The Nerve, Filipinos weigh in on the legalization of divorce

Published 5:12 PM, July 17, 2018

MANILA, Philippines – Like many Filipinos nowadays, Edmond met his wife through an online dating site.
They got into a relationship and moved in together not long after. Two years later they decided to tie
the knot. Now, they have been married for five years. Edmond says that he’s happy in his current
relationship. He is also pro-divorce.
“I am pro-divorce because I believe that couples should be given a second chance at life. I am saddened
that some people, especially women, cannot get out of their abusive relationships because there is no
divorce legislation,” said Edmond.

Edmond is one of the 42% of respondents who say they are pro-divorce in a survey conducted by The
Nerve, a data insights company, last May.

He also belongs to the 91% of those who say they are pro-divorce and are also happy about their current
relationship status.

According to Andrea Martinez, a professor of psychology at the University of the Philippines, Manila, this
isn’t surprising.
“I suppose those who are happy in their current relationships are open to divorce primarily because they
still maintain that sense of empowered decision, which in some cases are lost among those who are
unhappy,” said Professor Martinez.

For them, the option to get a divorce gives people a glimmer of hope because it can solve serious marital
problems and provide separated people a chance to find love again.

But it doesn’t necessarily mean that pro-divorce couples are considering getting divorced themselves.
In fact, 74% of the respondents haven’t even thought of it.

“Unhappiness or dissatisfaction in marriage is not a strong predictor of marital separation or divorce. In

fact, overall marital satisfaction declines in the course of heterosexual marriage, especially for the wife,”
said Dr. Ronald del Castillo, associate professor of clinical psychology and behavioral sciences at the
University of the Philippines Manila. “If the link is direct, then marriages should be ending left and right.”
But they aren’t.
A total of 46% of the respondents admit that they stay married because they love their spouses, while
27%, who may or may not be still in love with their spouses, say they value the sanctity of marriage.

This just shows that though many Filipinos are open to a non-traditional concept like divorce, they are
still influenced by the Philippines’ traditional culture that strongly values religion and family.
“This perhaps suggests that Filipinos are, for a lack of a better term, progressive or liberal in their
thinking than the otherwise religious conservatism we tend to ascribe to our culture,” said Dr. del
Castillo. “It is true that the majority of Filipinos identify as Roman Catholic. However, the results of your
survey suggest that Filipinos have the wherewithal to be in favor of an issue that appear antithetical to
their faith.”

And even if the number of marriages in the Philippines has decreased by 14.4 percent in the last 10
years, the respondents still believe that if two people are in love, we should hear wedding bells ringing.
The polarizing opinions not just of the public but also of the lawmakers deciding on its legalization
contribute to why, apart from the Vatican, we’re the only country in the world without divorce.

The House of Representatives, where it is backed by Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, has already approved
the bill on 3rd reading. However, it still has to go through the Senate led by Senate President Vicente
Sotto III, who already said that the chances are "slim." He said they would rather push for the expansion
of annulment. Sotto is also opposed to liberal policies such as the Reproductive Health Law.

But for Dr. del Castillo, divorce shouldn’t be looked at beyond what it is – a legal mechanism for couples.

“Divorce is a legal mechanism for ending marital relationships. That is it. It is not the ‘breakdown’ of
families. It is not the ‘decline’ of morals. It is not the ‘end’ of religious faith. It is not the end of the
world. It is this kind of all-or-nothing thinking that is problematic, not divorce itself.”

“It should be noted that divorce can have a positive impact on happiness. It is true that divorce can
make you less happy but this is temporary,” added Dr. del Castillo. “This short-term unhappiness makes
sense because, as in any loss or separation in our lives, this can be difficult and highly stressful. However,
research shows that in the long term you become happier and overall psychologically healthier after the
divorce. This is true for the separated couple as well as their children.”

And for those who are afraid that divorce might ruin relationships and families, Dr. del Castillo thinks
otherwise.

“I suspect that for many Filipinos, especially empowered young women, ‘so you can have children and
raise a family’ is not a sufficient reason to get married. If religious and political institutions are truly
interested in maintaining their relevance in Filipino culture, they should make it more attractive to get
married, not make it harder to get out of it.” – Rappler.com

Note about our surveys:

This survey was conducted by The Nerve, a data insights company, in partnership with Rappler. In our
surveys, mathematically, we aim for at least a 95% confidence level with a 5% margin of error,
representative of the population the survey can reach. Even then, there are limits to the veracity of the
surveys we conduct and write stories about. These surveys are not incentivized and are given only to
readers who visit the site when the survey is being served.
https://www.rappler.com/brandrap/data-stories/205437-relationship-status-filipinos-may-2018-survey-
results

MANILA, Philippines — March 19 marked a monumental day for advocates of divorce.

In a vote of 134-57, the lower house of Congress approved on third and final reading House Bill 7303 or
"An Act Instituting Absolute Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage in the Philippines."

Seen as a "pro-women legislation," the bill aims to legalize divorce in the Philippines—the only other
country aside from the Vatican City where it is illegal to do so.

The proposed measure pushed by progressive party-lists in Congress also saw support from two unlikely
allies: opposition lawmaker Rep. Edcel Lagman (Albay), the main sponsor of the bill, and House Speaker
Pantaleon Alvarez, one of its co-authors.

Here's what you need to know about moves to legalize divorce in the Philippines.
1. What options are available for Filipinos who want to get out of marriage?
Currently, the only legal recourse available to Filipinos who want to exit a failed union is through an
annulment or a petition for legal separation. These two options have different grounds and end results.

Under the Family Code of the Philippines, a marriage may be annulled if any of the following grounds
exist: lack of parental consent, psychological incapacity, fraud, marriage by force or intimidation,
inability to consummate the marriage and if one party has contracted a sexually-transmissible disease.
The 1987 Family Code was introduced under the presidency of Corazon Aquino.

Those seeking annulment must undergo a mental exam, testify in court and sometimes even claim they
or their spouse entered the union while afflicted by a psychological disorder. The process can cost at
least P250,000 and take anywhere from one to 10 years given the congestion in Philippine court
dockets.

Meanwhile, a petition for legal separation requires any of the following grounds: repeated physical
abuse from partner, coercion to change religious or political affiliation, attempt of respondent to corrupt
petitioner or their child to engage in prostitution, respondent meted with imprisonment of more than 6
years, drug addiction of spouse, lesbianism or homosexuality, bigamous marriage, sexual infidelity or
perversion, attempt against the life of spouse and abandonment without justifiable cause for more than
a year.

If the petition is granted, the couple may live separately from each other. The conjugal partnership is
also dissolved, but the marriage bonds are still in effect.

Annulment also allows remarriage but legal separation does not.

2. Why is there no divorce law in the Philippines?
Across the globe, the Philippines and the Vatican are the only states without divorce but allow the
annulment of marriages. The Vatican is an independent state headed by the pope, who also heads the
Catholic Church. The Philippines, meanwhile, is a predominantly Catholic country. Majority of couples
also opt to marry in church.

A week before the Divorce Bill got the approval of the lower house, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of
the Philippines issued a statement calling for "more reasoned debates on the issue."

The CBCP warned that lawmakers packaged divorce as an "easy option," which may result in marriages
and families breaking up more easily.

"We merely ask that they consider the possibility that divorce, while it may indeed provide quick legal
remedies for some seemingly 'failed marriages,' might end up destroying even those marriages that
could have been saved by dialogues or the intervention of family, friends, pastors and counselors,"
Archbishop Romulo Valles, president of the CBCP, said.

The CBCP, however, cannot participate in the bill's interpellations. Some also raised the separation of
the Church and State as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

Gabriela Women's Party Rep. Emmi de Jesus in a statement after the bill hurdled the lower house
reiterated calls for its legalization.

"Ang pagpasok sa kontrata ng kasal, na kinikilala ng estado ay isang karapatan. Karapatang may
karampatang obligasyong kailangan tuparin ng dalawang panig. Dapat naroroon ang pagmamahalan,
paggalang, suporta at iba pang factors na magbibigay ng kaligayahan at kalusugan sa kanilang relasyon,"
she said.

(Entering the contract of marriage, that is recognized by the state, is a right. A right that has
corresponding obligations which must be met by both sides. There should be love, respect, support and
other factors that ensure a happy and healthy relationship.)

"Kapag may paglabag sa mga obligasyong ito, na kung minsang umaabot pa sa puntong nakataya na ang
buhay at katinuan sa pagitan ng mag-asawa, marapat lamang na kilalanin din ng estado ang karapatan
na wakasan ang kontrata at karapatang umalis sa relasyon."

(If there are violations of these obligations, that sometimes even endangers the life and sanity of the
couple, it is just for the state to also recognize their right to end the contract and exit the failed
relationship.)

Gabriela Women's Party has been pushing for the legalization of divorce since the 13th Congress when it
first secured seats in the lower chamber.

Muslims in the Philippines, however, are not covered by the ban on divorce. Presidential Decree No.
1083, signed by the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos Sr., provides that a couple married under the
Muslim laws "have the right to divorce."
3. How did the divorce bill fare in past administrations?
This was the first time that a proposal to institute divorce in Philippine laws reached the plenary of the
lower house.

Rep. Edcel Lagman (Albay) is the main sponsor of the bill. It was approved on March 19.
The divorce bill was first introduced during the 13th Congress in 2005. Bills pushing for divorce was also
filed by lawmakers for the 14th, 15th and 16th Congress.

For the 15th Congress, then-Rep. Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro) and Rep. Marlyn Primicias-Agabas
(Pangasinan) sponsored House Bill 4368 that seeks to "harmonize" the Family Code "with recent rulings
of the SC on divorce obtained by the alien spouse in another country." The House plenary approved the
said bill on Sept. 26, 2012, and was received by the Senate on the same day.

Then Gabriela Women's Party Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan also filed a bill to amend the Family Code and
introduce divorce. The bill was referred to the Committee on Revision of Laws on Jan. 26, 2011.

Five similar bills on divorce were also filed during the 16th Congress. The Ilagan-sponsored bill has been
pending with the Committee on Population and Family Relations since May 20, 2014.
4. What are the pertinent details of HB 7303?
House Bill 7303 aims to make divorce more accessible to a wider range of couples seeking liberty from
irreparable marriage.

It provides that the "State shall assure that the court proceedings for the grant of absolute divorce shall
be affordable and inexpensive, particularly for court assisted litigants and petitioners."

The proposed measure also pushes for a pro-women legislation as the bill notes that in most cases of
irreparable marriages it is the wife who is entitled to liberation from an abusive relationship.

The status of the children of divorced couples also takes precedence. A joint petition for divorce should
include a plan for parenthood that details support, parental authority, custody and living arrangements
of the common children.

For the legitimate and adopted children of divorced spouses, they will retain their legal status after the
petition for divorce is granted. A child born or conceived within 300 days after filing for divorce is also
considered a legitimate child, except when the basis for divorce is marital infidelity of the wife.

The bill also proposes that divorced spouses shall have the right to remarry.

It also prioritizes filing of Filipinos working abroad.

One of the grounds under the proposed bill is when "one of the spouses undergoes a gender
reassignment surgery."
Other grounds include:
reasons stated under legal separation and annulment under the Family Code
separation of spouses for at least five years
legal separation by judicial decree for at least two years
psychological incapacity
irreconcilable marital differences
The bill also seeks to penalize a spouse found guilty of coercing his or her partner into marriage. The
respondent will face imprisonment of five years and a fine of P200,000.
5. So what's next for the divorce bill?
The Senate is due to receive the bill approved by the lower house. But it is expected to face a tougher
passage there with several senators publicly stating their opposition.

Senate President Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III, a party-mate of President Rodrigo Duterte, had earlier
said that he is more inclined to add more grounds for annulment than push for divorce.

Should the two chambers of Congress approve the same version of the bill, it would be elevated to
Malacañang for the signature of the president. Duterte, however, might veto a Congress-approved
divorce bill as he has been vocal of his disapproval of it. During the March 2016 presidential debates,
Duterte has thumbed down divorce.

Hours before the voting at the lower house, presidential spokesperson Harry Roque reiterated Duterte's
stance against it.

The 72-year-old Philippine leader has separated from his estranged wife through annulment long before
he was elected president. — with a report from AFP
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/03/20/1798661/legalizing-divorce-philippines-what-you-
need-know

People who say that divorce is not advisable for the Philippines forget or ignore our history. The ethno-
linguistic communities of the Philippine archipelago before the Spanish conquest practiced divorce. We
had a divorce law from 1917 until August 30, 1950, when the Civil Code of 1950 took effect. The latter
law prohibited divorce for Filipinos, and the prohibition continues under the present Family Code. But
Muslim Filipinos have always practiced divorce, which Philippine law allowed. Today, divorce continues
to be available to Muslim Filipinos under the Code of Muslim Personal Law of the Philippines
(Presidential Decree No. 1083), promulgated in 1977.
So to say that divorce does not exist in present Philippine law is not accurate. The prohibition against
divorce under Philippine law applies only to Filipinos whose marriages are not governed by the Muslim
Code. Since Philippine law on marriage applies to all Filipino citizens even though they are residing in a
foreign country, the prohibition against divorce for non-Muslim Filipinos is also a concern of Filipino
expatriates.

We are the only country in the world that has no divorce law for all its citizens regardless of religious
belief or affiliation.

Some think that we do not need a divorce law because the Family Code, which applies to non-Muslim
Filipinos, already provides for the termination of marriages through “annulment.” This argument
misleads. Annulment is a legal term that has a specific meaning. The remedy of annulment is based on
specified grounds that occurred at the time of the celebration of the marriage, such as lack of parental
consent and vitiated consent (as when a person married another at gunpoint). The remedy of
annulment expires, and the defect may actually be cured by ratification through free and voluntary
cohabitation.

Misconceptions About Annulment

When lay people speak of “annulment” as a means of terminating a marriage, they actually refer to the
remedy under Article 36 of the Family Code. Article 36 declares that a marriage is void from the
beginning when one or both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations. Under Article 36, a court does not terminate a marriage but only declares it void. One must
prove psychological incapacity by presenting evidence on three essential elements of the condition: that
it already existed before the marriage; that it is grave or serious; and that it is incurable. To do this, one
usually needs the help of a psychiatrist or psychologist to testify as an expert witness.

But what if the marriage worked in the first ten years, but later the parties drifted apart for some reason
or another? What if the other spouse was violent, unfaithful, indolent, or an alcoholic or a drug addict?
What if one spouse abandoned the family? These may not be used for “annulment,” or for a marriage
to be declared void under Article 36, unless it can be proved that these are manifestations of
psychological incapacity that predated the marriage.

A divorce law will provide a remedy that Article 36 does not. Divorce does not concern itself with validity
or invalidity of a marriage. It terminates a marriage based on a ground that occurred during the
marriage, which makes the marital relationship no longer tenable, regardless of the spouse’s
psychological constitution. A divorce law will provide a straightforward remedy to a marital failure. It will
benefit Filipinos wherever they are.

“The law should only give people a choice, to be exercised according to their own personal beliefs.”
Pending Bill
A divorce bill has been pending in the House of Representatives for the last six years, sponsored by the
representatives of the Gabriela Women’s Party. The bill lists five grounds for divorce, among them:
when the spouses have been separated in fact for at least five years or have been legally separated for
at least two years, and their reconciliation is highly improbable; when any of the grounds recognized by
law for legal separation has caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage. The bill has not
progressed beyond the Committee level because the energies of many were focused on the
reproductive health bill that was recently passed into law.

There is no more time to pass a divorce law in the current Congress since elections are scheduled in
May. But the bill will be filed again in the next Congress. Can it pass? Yes, definitely, eventually, with the
support of enlightened Filipinos. The lesson we have learned from past initiatives is that a relevant and
much-needed measure that has strong popular support will pass. Just as sustained citizen support
carried the day for the reproductive health bill, so too will strong popular support make possible the
enactment of a divorce law. People have to make their voices heard in support of the divorce bill.

It is time to give the remedy of divorce to those who need it, even as we respect the decision of those
who want to stay married despite their miserable marital life. To be sure, the Catholic Church will be the
staunchest opponent of the divorce bill. It will once again argue against the bill on moral grounds. It will
invoke the constitutional provision directing the State to protect marriage and the family, and another
that refers to the sanctity of family life. But these constitutional provisions were never intended to
prohibit Congress from legalizing divorce.

Church Need Not Worry

The Catholic Church need not worry. The institutions of marriage and the family have survived to this
day, as they will survive a Philippine divorce law. We are a secular state, where no religious group has
the right to define law or policy for the entire population. There is not one but a plurality of beliefs in
Philippine society. The law should only give people a choice, to be exercised according to their own
personal beliefs.
Every day, Filipinos get married, bear children, separate and get into other relationships, regardless of
what the law says. The lack of a divorce law for non-Muslim Filipinos complicates further the marital and
family problems of many Filipinos. Our government has clearly failed to respond to their needs. If the
country wants to move forward, it has to confront the realities of marital and family life of Filipinos in
the Philippines and abroad. It has to pass a divorce law now.

Author Evalyn Ursua

Evalyn G. Ursua is a litigator, human rights lawyer, researcher and academic in the Philippines. She
taught family law at the University of the Philippines College of Law in Quezon City.
http://www.positivelyfilipino.com/magazine/2013/2/why-the-philippines-needs-a-divorce-law

Position Paper Against the Divorce Bill

Every time a survey comes out claiming that the majority of Filipinos favor divorce (or any anti-life issues
for that matter), you can expect a bunch of lawmakers throwing their support behind the survey, as if
life issues like divorce, euthanasia, abortion, reproductive health, and same-sex marriage are just a
matter of popular opinion and public perception. A maleficent/malevolent lady senator recently
expressed her support behind the divorce bill, saying that the absence of such law in this country is not
something we should be proud of. Well I guess the feeling is mutual. I certainly am not proud of you and
the likes of you who introduce immoral laws in this country like the RH law. Shame on you.

Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone
to devour. (I Peter 5:8)

Divorce

One senator of the Republic was recently quoted as saying that the fact that the Philippines is the only
country without a divorce law is not something we should necessarily be proud of. To that, I hasten to
add: Neither is it something for which we should be apologetic!

That all countries of the world save ours have it is no compelling reason to have it. Ours is the only
Constitution in the world that includes the non-juridical word “love”. That is no reason to expunge it
from our fundamental law!

The reasons thus far advanced for a divorce law fail to convince! Divorce, its advocates argue, is a
solution to failed, if not oppressive and dehumanizing unions. The terms are powerful, but they invite
visceral, rather than rational reactions.

A failed marriage is not an argument for divorce. It is rather proof of the necessity that only mature
people enter into it. It proves the wisdom of the judiciousness of the Church in its conduct of pre-Cana
and canonical inquiries. It proves the woeful inadequacy of the present system under Philippine law that
makes the issuance by the civil registrar of a marriage license and attendance at a government-delivered
seminar on family planning the sufficient conditions for marriage!

If indeed a spouse proves not only to be overbearing but oppressive and cruel, there are sufficient
provisions in the Family Code, specifically those that provide for the legal separation of the spouses,
and, in some cases, even annulment of voidable marriages. There are furthermore the salutary
provisions of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children act for the
protection of women and their children.

If, on the other hand, one spouse finds the other – or himself or herself – psychologically incapable of
fulfilling the obligations of marriage, the much-abused Art. 36 of the Family Code on psychological
incapacity, ironically patterned after a similar canonical provision, is available.

In other words, the supposed suffering that a spouse must bear owing to a failed marriage is more
imagined than real, and comes only upon one who does not make use of the remedies already available
under existing law.

So, why then would one want divorce if legal separation, annulment and declarations of nullity are
juridical options already available? The answer is simple: Divorce allows an already married person to
have another go at it, despite failing at the first.

While one can reasonably test-drive a car and replace it with a better one should the test-drive prove
unsatisfactory, it is plainly dehumanizing to both spouses to allow for a test-run, through a first
marriage, and then grant the possibility of a replacement of spouses should the test fail. It is ironic that
those most vocal in their support for divorce also hold themselves out as champions of human rights –
and there can be no violation of human rights more egregious than to treat human persons the same
way that you treat vehicles and appliances!

Divorce is a deterrent to working on differences. Marriage is and ought to be a work in progress. There is
no such thing except in the limp imagination of mediocre, starry-eyed writers of romance novels as “a
couple meant for each other” or a man and a woman who are a “perfect match”. Matches are worked
out on earth, not pre-fabricated in heaven! When the expedient of divorce is readily available, a couple
will be less likely to work on differences, dialogue and reasonably work out solutions because there is a
quick fix to “incompatibilities”. While the blending of different tempers, attitudes and perspective
should be enriching, although a challenge of harmonize, a token effort at ‘making the marriage work’ is
all that can be expected when the possibility of ending the union by divorce is offered by the State!

Logically, divorce puts its advocates in the dilemma of choosing between making of marriage a mockery
and being arbitrary. A divorce law will either grant divorce on any ground – in which case marriage
becomes a mockery – or on some grounds. But if it is granted on some grounds, irreconcilable
differences, for example, who is to say that a person is more greatly challenged by irreconcilable
differences than by the snoring of a spouse at night? Setting forth grounds for divorce is always tricky
business, if not downright whimsical, because it assumes that one is in a position to grade degrees of
misery or difficulty, and to say of some that they are worthy of the ‘relief’ of divorce while others are
not. But how does one construct a hierarchy of miseries?

Divorce victimizes children. The separation of parents is already traumatic on the children who must
choose between mother and father when custodial rights are judicially resolved. Visitation rights are a
poor substitute for living with one’s parents. Divorce however compounds the trauma by allowing a
total stranger to the children to enter into their lives – the new spouse.

Society should be able to count on some promises as irrevocable. The promise of a physician to serve
life and not to destroy it, the promise of a public official to serve and defend the Constitution, the
promise of spouses to be faithful to each other, the promise of a priest to mirror to the world the care of
the Good Shepherd – all these are promises that society has a right to rely on and that those who so
promise have no right to renege on. If you cannot keep the promise, do not make it all. Do not claim its
privileges while refusing to own up to its demands!

http://couragephilippines.blogspot.com/2015/03/position-paper-against-divorce-bill.html?m=

The fight to make divorce legal in the Philippines

By Sunshine Lichauco de Leon, for CNN
Apart from the Vatican, the Philippines is the only country without divorce laws
A new bill before Congress is intended to allow for legal divorce
It faces stiff opposition from the Catholic Church and politicians
Backers of the bill say only wealthy Filipinos can currently afford marriage annulments
When Rowena Festin leaves her job as a congressional aide in Quezon City, Metro Manila each day, she
returns home to three children and a husband. But her marriage, like many others in the Philippines,
exists in name only.
"My husband wants another person," she says. "We are living in the same house but both decided to
live our own life."
Although both have long wanted to legally end their marriage, the government will not allow them to do
so. The Philippines is the only country in the world, aside from Vatican City, which lacks divorce laws.
But a bill recently filed in Congress provides hope for thousands of couples trapped in failed and often
abusive marriages, by legalizing divorce. It comes at a time when Catholic Church leaders from across
the world are holding an "Extraordinary Synod" in Rome at the request of Pope Francis to explore the
Church's position on issues such as family, marriage and divorce.
Catholic legacy
Divorce is not a new concept in the Philippines. It was legal during the American colonial period and
Japanese occupation in the first half of the 20th century, but became prohibited with the enactment of
the 1949 Civil Code.
Solita Monsod, professor emerita at University of the Philippines School of Economics, says religion was
behind the move.
"It is because of a very powerful and conservative church hierarchy, and the dominance of very
conservative segments of the catholic laity."
The lack of divorce laws in the Philippines means Rowena Festin is trapped in her marriage.
The lack of divorce laws in the Philippines means Rowena Festin is trapped in her marriage.
Although current laws do allow for legal separation, declaration of a nullity of marriage and annulment,
none of these options address the needs of the majority of couples who are searching for freedom from
each other.
Legal separation allows the couple to live apart and separate their assets, but they are not free to marry
again. In fact, they face being charged with adultery or concubinage if caught with another partner.
A declaration of nullity is as if the marriage never took place, because it was bigamous, incestuous or
polygamous. The court may also find other grounds to nullify the marriage's existence, such as lack of a
valid marriage license or marrying below the age of 18.
For annulment, specific conditions must be met within a certain time period, and the marriage is
considered valid until the time it is set aside by the courts. It may also require a detailed investigation
where a psychiatrist must declare one partner psychologically incapacitated.
Costly process
With Roman Catholics accounting for 83% of the population, religion also plays a big role in the battle
over the right to divorce.
The majority of catholic Filipinos prefer to marry in the church, which requires them to apply for a civil
marriage license first. In order to leave that marriage legally and be able to marry in the church again, a
person would have to get both a church and civil annulment.
These options not only take years to process, but are very costly. In a country where two-fifths of the
population lives off less than $2 a day, it is impossible for most Filipinos to even conceive of paying the
minimum of $4,000 currently required to end their marriage legally.
Teresa, who asked not to be identified by her full name, is one of the lucky ones, since she was able to
afford both a church and civil annulment. She says that the current system is biased towards the rich.
"It took four years but I wanted to cut clean. But sadly, you need money to do this."
'Divorce Philippine-style
Congresswoman Luzviminda Ilagan, representative of Gabriella Women's Party, is a co-author of the
new divorce bill.
"We see many famous or wealthy people getting annulments while those in lower income brackets are
not able," she says.
"It's the hypocrisy -- they say we must respect the sanctity of marriage yet they grant annulments to
select individuals."
Her proposed divorce bill is nicknamed "Divorce Philippine-style" because it will still have strict
conditions and eligibility requirements.
Married couples must have been living separately for a minimum of five years with no hope of
reconciliation to be eligible, or legally separated for at least two years.
"It's not like in Las Vegas or ... countries where there is no fault divorce," says Ilagan.
But the bill does promise to make the whole process quicker and cheaper -- up to 30-40% less costly
than legal separation or annulment. It would also provide procedures for settling concerns, such as over
property or financial support for the former spouse and children.
The effect of the bill, says Monsod, "would be the empowerment of women, particularly the poor.
"The grounds for annulment are very restrictive -- they do not include infidelity or spousal abuse -- and
the costs are prohibitive for them."
According to the Philippines' Solicitor General's office, 9,117 petitions for annulment of marriage were
filed in court in 2010, and only 133 cases filed for legal separation -- 61% of these cases were filed by
women.
Monsod says the bill would also remove "the discrimination that now exists in the country on the
grounds of religion: A Filipino who is Muslim is allowed to divorce; a Filipino who is christian is not."
Although the controversial bill has support in Congress, many politicians are hesitant to endorse it
openly. Congressman Joey Zubiri, representative of Bukidnon, is one of the few outspoken supporters so
far.
"I believe that it is the right of people who are trapped in a formal relationship to be able to get out of
them," he tells CNN. "The 21st century Philippines should be a secular, liberal, democratic state where
no one particular faith is supposed to dominate affairs of state."
By not allowing divorce, he says, the Philippines was allowing a religious group to impose its values on
everyone.
Fierce opposition
But the bill faces tough opposition. Lawmakers such as Congressman Elpidio Barzaga Jr., representing
the 2nd district of Cavite, believe that allowing divorce will weaken the backbone of society.
"To have a strong nation we must have a strong society, which depends on a strong family. We can have
this only if there are laws that solidify and strengthen it," he says.
"Marriage is not merely a personal contract between husband and wife, it is a social institution which
public policy cherishes and protects."
The Catholic Church has come out forcefully against the bill.
"We are opposed to legislation which would enable the state to break the marriage bond so that the
couple can each remarry," explains Bishop Teodoro C. Bacani Jr.
As for cases where there is spousal abuse, Bacani argues that if divorce is allowed, "then that man is free
to marry another woman and continue the abuse... Instead, she can just legally separate."
He said the church fears allowing divorce will make marriage a more "fragile institution" and encourage
people to divorce unnecessarily.
"There is also damage to the children -- studies have shown in general that they fare worst in life, in
their studies and relationships."
Overseas workers impacted
There are signs however that the prohibition of divorce is leaving its own mark on the country's social
fabric.
Maria Linda Balthazar is one of the millions of Filipinos who work abroad.
Two weeks after her wedding, her husband was hired for contract work in Saudi Arabia, and she has not
heard from him since. Years later, she was sent to work in Canada, but is unable to move on with her life
because she is still legally married to her husband.
Henriqueta Baquiran, a Filipina who also works abroad in Hong Kong, says marriages break apart anyway
when relationships fail, despite the lack of legal divorce.
"So many friends just resort to other means," she says. "They leave their spouses, move in with another
partner, and have children out of wedlock -- because they have no other choice."
'Moral hypocrisy'
Congressman Zubiri describes the situation as the height of moral hypocrisy, and believes the law gives
people the opportunity to make a better choice after having made a bad one.
"It will show people that there is a second chance," he says. "Many married women in particular are
trapped where they are abused, their children neglected, or husbands openly philandering and
essentially saying to them, 'What are you going to do about it, as there is no divorce?'"
He says the option of divorce would "make people more careful on both sides, because now there is a
very distinct possibility that (the marriage) could end."
Although the constitution mandates a separation of church and state, many lawmakers and citizens
believe the political pressure being exerted by the Catholic Church reduces the chance of the bill passing
anytime soon.
"Politicians are practical," Barzaga says. "As much as possible they don't want to antagonize a major
portion of society, which happens to be Roman Catholic."
Filipinas like Teresa feel that the Philippines' status as one of only two countries without divorce is
emblematic of a far greater issue.
"It is a clear manifestation that there is no separation of church and state in this country." But, she
continues, "the fact that the bill is being filed and certain congressmen are willing to sponsor it is a
positive first step."
For women like Rowena, that can only be a welcome development.
"If the divorce bill becomes a law, I believe that more Filipina women will be empowered to fight for
their rights and for what is right," she says.