Ominous signs

Even before it is signed into law, one of the damaging consequences of the RH bill or PNoy’s “Responsible Parenthood” bill is already sprouting. Talks are again going on inside the chambers of the Lower House to legalize divorce in this country like what has been done in western countries, especially in the USA as a result of its rampant practice of contraception and compulsory sex education likewise provided in this bill.  This move confirms without doubt that the bill will eventually bring into this country, in a domino effect, all the social evils now being experienced by the American people.

As we know, divorce is the usual remedy of legally married couples who want to get out of the marital relationship for one reason or another. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines it as “the dissolution or partial suspension, by law, of the marriage relation.” The dissolution is termed divorce from the bond of matrimony or divorce a vinculo matrimonii while the suspension is termed divorce from bed and board or divorce a mensa et thoro”. The latter kind of divorce is also known as legal separation.

Since our country already recognizes divorce a mensa et thoro or legal separation (Articles 55-67 Family Code), the kind of divorce that some of our Congressmen/women are trying to legalize, obviously refer to the more correct and modern signification of divorce — the dissolution of a valid marriage; the dissolution of the marital bond created by a perfectly valid and existing marriage. The question therefore is: can this kind of divorce be legalized here?

In any country, marriage is more than a mere contract. It is a status or a relation. In our country, it is “the relation of one man and woman legally united for life, with rights and obligations which are governed by law and not subject to private stipulation. In this aspect, marriage is an inviolable social institution in the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and society without which there could be neither civilization nor progress” (Ramirez vs. Gmur 42, Phil. 855).

Based on this SC ruling, our Constitution now provides that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State” (Section 2, Article XV), because the State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development” (Section 1).

It seems clear enough that our jurisprudence and fundamental law consider and look at marriage as an “inviolable social institution”. In its most common and ordinary connotation, “inviolable” means “unalterable” “untouchable,” “not to be profaned,” “to be kept unbroken as a promise.” And the same fundamental law mandates the State to protect such inviolable social institution. Following these clear pronouncements and mandate, it would seem that legalizing the dissolution of a perfectly valid and existing marital bond which is the very essence of divorce, runs counter to our law and jurisprudence.

In fact because our Constitution considers marriage as the foundation of the family, and the family in turn as the foundation of the nation, “every intendment of the law should lean towards the validity of marriage and the indissolubility of the marriage bonds, among others (Article 220 Civil Code). If divorce is legalized here as some of our lawmakers are contemplating, the spirit and intent of all these laws will be completely disregarded.

Of course some legal experts claim that the Constitution, especially Section 2, Article XV, does not explicitly prohibit Congress from enacting a divorce law. This is the “legal opinion,” some of our lawmakers are using to advance their proposal to legalize divorce. Like the RH bill, they are once more ignoring here the many wrongs about legalizing divorce.

First of all as a God-fearing and God-loving country, we will be violating His will when He said that “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Secondly, if divorce is legalized here, a man and a woman get married and enter into marital relationship knowing full well that there is a way out when they realize it is a mistake or when “love is gone” or because of irreconcilable differences and serious incompatibilities. If we have divorce, the commitment to the marriage vows will be so fragile because the parties consider marriage no longer as something more sacred than an ordinary contract. It countenances “love at first sight” where a person may marry the woman or man he/she meets first, takes fancy on and falls in love with, believing that anyway, he/she may get out of it anytime that feeling or emotion dies down. In a country recognizing divorce, love is not a decision but a mere feeling or emotion.  

If divorce is legalized here we will be doing a greater favor to the guilty spouse than to the innocent spouse, specially the philandering and violent husband. Divorce enables him to get out of the marital relationship by battering his wife and/or committing acts that constitute grounds for divorce and then remarry again and still continue to commit those acts every time he wants to get out of the marital relationship he has repeatedly entered into. In fact, it works both ways, it can also be the wife who is the guilty spouse committing infidelities and similar acts constituting grounds for divorce and rewarded with freedom to remarry again and again.

Indeed, we don’t need a law allowing absolute divorce. We have enough laws to protect the innocent spouse and redress the wrongs done to him/her.  In fact in cases of unbearable situations like psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligation, Art. 36 of the Family Code provides for declaration of nullity of marriage. Hence there is no marriage to speak of from the very beginning, so the issue of inviolability of marriage does not even arise.

It looks like the administration is bent on bringing us into moral ruin.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]