Fresh fight for divorce
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman’s recently-filed divorce bill seeks “a merciful liberation of the hapless wife from a long-dead marriage”—a dramatic summation of the state of the union among many wedded couples in this very Catholic country.
Given the Catholic Church’s perpetual threat to defiant lawmakers of damnation at the polls, Lagman might appear to be tilting at windmills with his latest bill. But surely the man has proven his mettle when he steadfastly shepherded the controversial reproductive health bill into law despite conservative forces blocking its passage for 14 years.
His divorce bill appears headed for the same tortuous route, such measures having been repeatedly swatted down by policymakers cowed by religious interests. Today, the Philippines and Vatican City remain the world’s only holdouts against divorce as a legitimate recourse for troubled couples.
While idealized as a match made in heaven, marriage can also be a descent into hell, with women often suffering the brunt of abuse that a breakdown in the relationship brings, Lagman says.
True, the Family Code of the Philippines provides for legal separation, and the Church may declare a marriage null and void under certain circumstances. But both escape routes involve lawyers, costly and extended litigation, and the services and testimony of experts and witnesses, all of which are beyond the means of most poor women trapped in fractured marriages.
So while the rich can easily go abroad to file for divorce or go to court for relief, the poor languish in misery—a discriminatory state of affairs that, Lagman says, House Bill No. 116 seeks to remedy. Because aside from including grounds for legal separation and annulment already provided for in the Family Code and canon law, HB 116 provides additional grounds for absolute divorce, including gender reassignment surgery and irreconcilable conflicts between spouses despite repeated efforts at reconciliation.
Some quarters may view Lagman’s bill as another salvo against the sanctity of marriage, one that deserves condemnation and concerted efforts to shoot down. But timing is all—and already, there are indications that HB 116’s time has come.
Last year Pope Francis himself unveiled rules shortening the annulment process and making it more accessible to the poor. The Church, he said, should not make money out of annulling marriages; in fact, he added, annulments should be free of charge. The rules were drafted by a panel of Vatican-appointed canon lawyers who spent a year studying ways to simplify the annulment process and at the same time ensure that the Church maintains its position on marriage being a lifelong and sacred commitment.
Over at the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the state agency charged with upholding the sanctity of marriage, a senior lawyer said the Philippines has to be “realistic” and seriously consider divorce. “The Church says divorce disrespects the sanctity of marriage, but what about the spouses who do not show love, respect and fidelity to their spouses by their acts of marital infidelity, spousal and child abuse, or who continuously fail to comply with the marital obligations? Is that not a form of disrespect to marriage?”
Such thoughts might have been foremost in the mind of some 60 percent of respondents polled by the Social Weather Stations in the fourth quarter of 2014, who said they support the legalization of divorce. The same survey showed that 29 percent of respondents opposed divorce, while 11 percent were undecided. The SWS noted that support for divorce had been growing for the past several years.
Just as telling is the 2011 report by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ CBCPNews, which quoted the OSG as saying that the number of marriage annulment cases in the country had risen by 40 percent in the last decade, with at least 22 cases filed daily.
“Data from the [OSG] showed that 82 percent of those who filed these cases had children, and out of that number, 59 percent had at least one or two children, 22 percent had three to four children and 1 percent had five to six children,” the report said, as if to acknowledge that children—often cited as the glue that kept a couple together despite the cracks in the marriage—are no longer deterrents to the dissolution of a marital union.
The fight for divorce might be an old battle, but current realities and relentless efforts—such as Lagman’s—to break down antiwomen and antipoor systems might make for sharper, more effective weapons against an obstinate but aging foe.
