The last hold-out

The Philippines arguably has two claims to international fame: the successful People Power Revolution in 1986 which held the world spellbound as we conducted a bloodless revolution, facing military tanks and arms with flowers and rosaries; and, around about the same time (actually, in 1987), its reputation as a country where divorce is prohibited. If it finally does allow divorce, it will go down in history as the last country in the world to do so – but that might be a long while yet.

Why a long while yet? Well, because it is entirely possible that we will follow in the footsteps of Argentina, where it took 99 years to pass a divorce law, from the time the idea was first introduced (1888 to 1987). As the bill was being debated, prior to its passage in 1987, backers of the proposed legislation pointed to the Philippines as being one out of only seven countries in the world (including Argentina, of course) which prohibited divorce. The other five presumably were Ireland, Paraguay, Chile, Malta, and of course Vatican City (whose citizens, circa 2009, numbered 826, with the Pope rounding it off to 827 – probably all males –  which is why it can safely be removed from consideration as a country).

Since then, every divorce debate in the holdout countries also included the Philippines as a reference point – e.g., Ireland (1997), Chile (2005) and finally Malta (the last of the Mohicans, so to speak, other than us). The news reports in Malta covering the issue invariably point out that together with the Philippines and Vatican City, it is the only country left in the world without divorce – so the Philippines can be considered a household word in Malta, the way Malta is now widely known in the Philippines.

It has to be noteworthy that most if not all of the countries where divorce laws were fought tooth and nail are predominantly Catholic countries, with the Church hierarchy leading the opposition against passage of the law, and with the campaign arsenal invariably including threats of excommunication – of legislators and ordinary citizens who supported passage – pastoral letters, as well as the specter of torn families and the destruction of the foundations of society. (In Malta, a favorite anti-divorce campaign slogan was “Christ Yes, Divorce No.”)

Whether or not as a delayed reaction of defiance to such opposition, or to the difficult requirements imposed in the original divorce laws, or the slowness of the process and tremendous backlogs, countries like Brazil (74 percent Catholic) and Colombia (90 percent Catholic) have swung to the other end of the pendulum  and made divorce ridiculously easy. In the former, where a divorce law was passed in 1977 after a long and bitter struggle, Brazilian couples since January 2007 can just go to a notary’s office and request for a divorce so long as there is consensus and no underage children or children with special needs. All that is required are their IDs, their marriage certificate and the payment of a fee – and the divorce is granted within two to three weeks. In Colombia, the process is even easier: legislation passed in 2005, allows couples to divorce in 60 minutes and for roughly $15 (in 2005 prices) – truly a “quickie” divorce which makes the speed of Nevada divorce laws look turtle-paced. In these two countries, the worm has truly turned.

What the vote would be in Malta’s referendum last May 28 was expected to be too close to call, not only because of the fight put up by the Catholic Church (Malta is 98 percent Catholic), but also because the majority party in parliament was opposed to it. But as it turned out, 52.67 percent voted Yes.

The next step was taken three days ago by the Malta House of Representatives, which scheduled the divorce bill for debate. Parliamentary approval is widely expected: Malta’s Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who had openly opposed the reform, was quoted as saying on television, “Even though the result is not what I wished for, now it is our duty to see that the will of the majority is respected.”

Obviously, Malta and the Philippines are very similar (although they have 400,000 people, and we have more than 94 million): a very strong Catholic Church influence, legal separation (expensive), annulment (even more expensive), but no divorce (this is to change in Malta) allowed unless the marriage is with a foreigner, in which case divorce from that foreigner, obtained in a foreign country, is recognized.

Given these similarities, one wonders what were the arguments of the pro-divorce movement that convinced its members, or at least a majority of them, to vote for divorce. I found a piece published in the Times of Malta particularly telling:

“Malta has had divorce for the past 100 years or so. Divorce is when a couple present themselves in front of a judge who divide their assets between them; then their children, if any [probably giving custody to the wife/their mother] and then one goes north and the other goes south not married any more.

“We’ve had this for ages but in Catholic Malta we don’t call it divorce… With all this in mind, I cannot understand the argument being brought up that divorce ruins the family and consequently society.

“If it does, it has been doing this for a very long time and consequently I wonder what prompts the ‘against’ lobby to argue against it now. They should have been at it for decades.

“I think it is time we faced facts and realized that broken marriages are already there; and giving one or both partners the right to remarry will not turn Malta into another Gomorrah.”