"Government should instead, first, make civil annulments accessible, efficient and affordable, and second, recognize the civil effects of church annulments."
"Government should instead, first, make civil annulments accessible, efficient and affordable, and second, recognize the civil effects of church annulments."It is a well-known fact that the Philippines is the only country in the world (actually one of two states) where there is no divorce. This strongly affirms that the Philippine is one country where family ties remain the strongest. But a number of members of Congress are attempting to change this. Just last week, the House Committee on Population and Family Relations approved in principle the Marriage Dissolution Bill, a measure equivalent to divorce in other countries.
The Constitution recognize the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation (Sec 1, Art XV), it also affirms that marriage is an “inviolable social institution’ being ‘the foundation of the family” (cf. Sec 2 Act XV). Being so, the existence, conditions, development and preservation of marriage is of particular importance to the general welfare of our nation. The importance of Filipino family provides, not only as a source of emotional support and the context for the development of profound personal relations, but also for many other aspects of social life, from financial support to finding a job. There is no doubt that this high regard for marriage among Filipinos is deeply rooted in the strong Catholic faith, to which an overwhelming 83 percent of Filipinos adhere.
But my personal opposition to the introduction of divorce is not simply a matter of faith to me. My own position against divorce is founded on a strong legal, cultural and sociological basis.
From the very beginning of history, men and women have lived in families and despite shifting cultural and societal realities, the family remains one of the oldest and most important social institutions on earth. In fact, the Family Code of the Philippines refers to it as “the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution.”
The same Family Code defines marriage as “a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.” This means that, even from a legal point of view, the permanence of the marital bond is essential to the nature of marriage. However, as the title of the bill itself suggests, divorce provides the means to terminate or dissolve a valid marriage. Therefore, if divorce is introduced as an opt-out from the bonds of marriage, then therefore, marriage would no longer be as we know it.
Therefore, this is why every well-meaning Filipino, especially Catholics, must firmly object to the introduction of divorce in the country.
Proponents of the divorce bill argue that divorce should be made available for those who would want to have recourse to it, as a “matter of justice” and to “liberate” them, especially women from unhappy marriages. But this argument misses the point that laws are by nature normative and never neutral. By preferring one mode of thinking or acting over another, it inevitably chooses a side, a choice that will affect all Filipinos. Therefore, if divorce is introduced in the guise of guaranteeing couples their “individual freedom”—such will affect every Filipino, whether or not they are for divorce or not.
A divorce law will consequently re-define marriage, divesting it of the stability that stems from its intrinsic permanent nature, and effectively overturning centuries of established institution of marriage in the Philippines. It will result in an increase of divorce cases, which with taxpayers’ money, the government will need to enforce, monitor and regulate for years (even decades)—the costs to be charged not to the divorced couple but through taxes paid by the greater majority of married Filipinos.
I am not, however, oblivious to the fact that some marriages are entered into without the necessary maturity or full knowledge and ability to keep such a permanent commitment, or without full free will because of external pressures. This is a sad reality for many families who live in the face of social, cultural, moral and even economic difficulties, brought about by the complexities, demands and challenges of modern life.
It is imperative that accessible and affordable recourse is given to married couples to examine if a marriage if it was less than what the law and our faith views as a valid marriage—a freely chosen commitment between two mature, knowledgeable and capable adults to enter a covenant of love, for life, with priority to spouse and children.
Instead of a Trojan horse that is about to wreak havoc on marriage and the family, the government should instead, first, make civil annulments accessible, efficient and affordable, and second, recognize the civil effects of church annulments.
Unlike divorce, annulments does not harm the institution of marriage. Instead, it strengthens it, by removing the burdens of the marital obligations on couples who for one reason or another (legally referred to as impediments) lack the necessary prerequisites for such relationship to be considered as an valid marriage. Unlike divorce, annulments do not deny nor violate the permanence of marriage as lifelong covenant.
Contrary to what many people think, annulment does not deny that a relationship existed. It simply affirms that the relationship, which until then was thought to be a marriage, was missing something that the law requires for a valid marriage.
A briefer civil annulment process must instead be introduced, with due consideration for what the law insists about the indissolubility of marriage, including a possible purely administrative process where are obvious grounds for the invalidity of a particular marriage. It must also be made affordable, or possible free of charge or subsidized for those who cannot afford it.
Another important step is to recognize the civil effects of church annulments. Rep. Yedda Marie Romualdez of Tingog Party-List has actually filed House Bill 1157, which proposes the recognition of the civil effects of Church annulments. Recognizing the civil effects of church annulments provides a procedural alternative to those who are living in less than ideal marital situations, in a manner that conforms to the religious faith of the majority of the Filipino people.
Once this bill becomes a law, a declaration of nullity decreed by the Church will hold as much weight and have the same effect as a civil annulment. This removes the burden of undergoing the civil annulment process. As a result, Catholics who have sought annulment in the Church should not anymore be “long oppressed by darkness of doubt” over whether their marriages already declared null and void should also be recognized as such by the State.
Annulments, however, are not to be taken lightly, and we must continue to affirm that marriage and the family have both an important role in building up our society. Conjugal life is a common good, that entails both private and public rights and responsibility.
The cohesion, the strength and the efficiency of the family, as a unit of society, constitute the key to and the measure of the greatness of a nation. The good of our children and the good of society hang in the balance with every decision to declare a marriage null and void. In this context, streamlining the annulment process will address the need to ensure that those who find themselves in such a difficult marital situation will have the benefit of a more efficient and affordable procedure that can help ease their conscience and may permit them to “move on” in freedom from a truly irreparable relationship.
Considering the fact that divorce is legal in almost all countries in the world, proponents of divorce insist that this near universal consensus means that divorce will be a good thing for the Philippines. But a seemingly unanimous agreement can never make an error right. Lest, we forget, until five centuries ago, almost everyone thought the world was flat.
No to divorce.