FILIPINOS continue to be divided over proposals to legalize divorce, but support for the measure is strongest in cases where violence is involved, survey data shows.
When Social Weather Stations first asked respondents in May 2005 whether “married couples who have already separated and cannot reconcile anymore should be allowed to divorce so they can get legally married again,” 45 percent disagreed and 43 percent agreed.
In March 2024, public opinion shifted as 50 percent agreed with the measure while 32 percent disagreed.
Support for the measure was lower than in March 2023, when a record 65 percent of Filipinos backed the legalization of absolute divorce.
In the March 2024 survey, net agreement among Catholics, other Christians, and Muslims was “moderately positive.” The only religious group that objected to the measure was the Iglesia ni Cristo.
Another poll, conducted in June by the nascent Oculum Research and Analytics, suggested that 49 percent of Filipinos were “very unsupportive or unsupportive” of divorce, compared with 30 percent who expressed support.
The Oculum survey found that 51 percent of 1,200 respondents backed the measure in cases of abuse.
Comeback
The House of Representatives on May 22 narrowly approved on third and final reading House Bill 9349 or the Absolute Divorce Act, providing a pathway for spouses to be liberated from “toxic, abusive and long-dead marriages,” said Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay, the lead proponent of the measure.
A comeback for absolute divorce – outlawed in 1950 with the passage of the Civil Code except for Moro populations – will offer a faster and cheaper method to sever marital ties, according to lawyers interviewed by the Varsitarian.
“Absolute divorce will make family law more accessible to common Filipinos and more responsive to the challenges Filipino marriages face,” Renson Alvior of the Respicio and Co. law firm, said.
The Family Code of the Philippines, enacted in 1987, offers four remedies: declaration of nullity, which renders the marriage void from the beginning due to reasons like bigamy and incest; annulment, which acknowledges the existence of the marriage but declares it null and void; legal separation, an option in which the parties cannot remarry; and foreign divorce, wherein the court recognizes a divorce between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner obtained abroad.
Annulment is the most common route to terminate a marriage, but it drags on for years and comes with an expensive price tag.
Acclaimed actress Jodi Sta. Maria, for instance, waited 13 years before the Supreme Court (SC) dissolved her marriage with Pampi Lacson, the son of former senator Panfilo Lacson. “It was indeed a test of faith and trust,” she said in an Instagram post in June.
Claudine Barretto, also an actress, said in August 2023 that her annulment petition against her estranged husband, actor Raymart Santiago, was still “going on for years and years and years,” a decade after they separated in rowdy fashion. Barretto said the process was beset by “pain and betrayal.”
Respicio and Co. estimated that the annulment process can cost anywhere between P150,000 and P500,000, depending on the stature of the lawyer, the length of the trial and the involvement of other professionals, such as a psychologist.
Emmanuel Mari Uy, an associate at the law firm, believes that the Absolute Divorce Act will “streamline the process” of dissolving marital ties.
“Procedurally, the House bill envisions an expeditious manner of resolving petitions for divorce without regard to the technical rules,” he said.
If signed into law, the divorce process is expected to last more or less one year.
Changes
The Absolute Divorce Act potentially provides a cost-saving route for low-income couples because legal representation is optional.
The process becomes faster if the petition is filed jointly, Uy explained, because both parties can agree on the issues and facts, allowing the judge to focus on whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the grounds for divorce.
The grounds for declaration of nullity, legal separation, and annulment are all accepted as grounds for absolute divorce, the bill provides. These include domestic abuse, infidelity, homosexuality, drug addiction and psychological incapacity, among others.
Petitioners filing on the ground of psychological incapacity will further benefit from the SC’s unanimous decision in 2021 declaring it “not a medical, but a legal concept,” which means psychologists or mental health experts are no longer mandated to appear in court to prove its existence.
Before proceeding to a trial, which should take only one year, the court will set a 60-day mandatory cooling-off period for concerned spouses to reconcile, the bill stated (lawyers or outside parties may try to intervene). If both parties decide to mend relations, the divorce petition will be junked.
Uy expects that the judiciary will face an avalanche of petitions if the absolute divorce bill becomes law.
“The grant of divorce, if it becomes a law, will flood the courts most certainly as the first and only sign of how eager the country is for this long-awaited legal remedy,” the lawyer stressed. “There are indeed numerous opinions but I think it is high time that we adopt this age-old concept because, as we develop, we have all been allowed to understand that there are marriages that are not as successful as others.”
‘Inviolable’
No one expects the passage of a bill allowing absolute divorce to be a walk in the park.
For starters, legal luminaries are at odds whether this remedy violates the Constitution or not. Former chief justice Hilario Davide Jr. stressed in a forum at the University of the Philippines on July 10 that absolute divorce “weakens, demeans, degrades, debases or even demonizes marriage as a sacred and inviolable social institution.”
Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution states, “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.”
Former Ombudsman chief Conchita Carpio-Morales rebutted that prohibiting divorce “defies the basic constitutional provision mandating […] the promotion of general welfare that all Filipinos must enjoy.”
Economist Bernardo Villegas, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, argued that recognizing marriage as an “inviolable institution” precludes any possibility of reviving absolute divorce.
“Those who believe in the so-called ‘originalist’ interpretation of a constitution can readily verify from the minutes of the meetings of the Committee on the Family that it was in the minds of the drafters that a legitimate marriage bond should be indissoluble,” he wrote in a column for the Manila Bulletin on June 10.
Alliance for the Family Foundation, a multisectoral group, said that by “harmonizing the Constitution, statutes enacted by Congress, pronouncements by the Supreme Court, it can be said that in the Philippines, the right to life, marriage, and the family are characterized as having sanctity, inviolability, permanence and stability.”
Permanence, it said in a February 2023 position paper, is “further reflected by the legislature in the Family Code of the Philippines which recognized 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.”
Alvior believes that legislators should not be “hamstrung” by conflicting constitutional arguments because there will come a time when the SC will resolve the question.
“While the constitutionality and legality of a bill should be at the back of the minds of our legislators, I believe that to give that aspect much attention would result in our legislators being hamstrung in coming up with an effective piece of legislation,” the lawyer said.
“The legal and constitutional challenge of a law has a proper place and time before our courts. Let us deal with that once we get there. What is vital now is just to present to the public a piece of legislation that genuinely aims to resolve pressing societal issues.”
Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada said in May that seven senators would likely vote to legalize absolute divorce while four were expected to oppose it.
More than half of the chamber remain mum on the issue but, judging from their previous statements, seven more have no appetite to back the bill.
Church softens stance
Divorce supporters have one other institution to confront: the Catholic Church. But while the influential Filipino bishops remain opposed to divorce, clerics are aware that they could not dictate the outcome of congressional deliberations.
In May, Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas said the “existence of a divorce law will not render divorce a moral option for Catholics for whom it will always remain contrary to the Gospel and to the constant teaching of the Church.”
“While we may not have the power to thwart the passage of a law that would legalize divorce by legislators minded to pass it, it nonetheless remains the duty of every Catholic to catechize and instruct fellow-Catholics and brothers and sisters in other faith-communities the reasons why we cannot support a bill that makes legal what to us is a transgression of Christ’s sovereign will,” he said in a pastoral letter.
The rejection of religious leaders to divorce parallels their ferocious opposition to the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, which former president Benigno Aquino III signed into law in 2012.
The RH bill, which aims to provide access to contraceptives to low-income individuals, languished in Congress for over a decade. Aquino certified the measure as urgent, expediting its passage in Congress.
The Church mobilized its followers to reject the measure. The late CBCP president Bishop Nereo Odchimar raised the specter of excommunication if the president approved the bill.
The Diocese of Bacolod displayed giant “Team Buhay, Team Patay” banners at the façade of its parishes to inform the faithful how senatorial candidates at the time voted for the measure.
For prominent Jesuit theologian Fr. Eric Genilo, the Church’s RH bill opposition prompted some Filipinos to abandon their general deference toward religious leaders.
“The debate on the RH Bill provided an opportunity for Filipinos to disagree with and openly criticize the hierarchy not only about its position on the RH Bill but also on a variety of issues such as the Church’s treatment of women, the sex abuse scandal, and clergy involvement in partisan politics,” he wrote in a 2014 journal article titled “The Catholic Church and the Reproductive Health Bill Debate: The Philippine Experience.”
The experience of 2012 has likely influenced the Church hierarchy’s approach to dealing with absolute divorce. In a pastoral statement signed by CBCP President Pablo Virgilio David, the bishops’ conference said that while its opposition remains adamant, it cannot dictate policies to lawmakers.
“We know that our stubborn assertion that a genuine marriage cannot be dissolved is not necessarily shared by all religions, and we respect that,” the July 11 statement read.
“As spiritual and moral leaders of the Church, we can only propose but never impose.”
Villegas reminded Filipinos in May that marriage should be entered into with seriousness of purpose, and urged those preparing for the sacrament to seek advice from family and life apostolates in all dioceses all over the country.
“The Church urges that those intending to contract marriage discern with maturity their preparedness for the duties marriage imposes on them – and not treat it as some provisional arrangement that can be conveniently set aside when it so suits them,” he said. E.G. Fajermo Jr.
