The Netizens' Reactions to Divorce Bill - Part 1

The comment sections of FB posts on specific issues are minefields for understanding the prevailing paradigms with which people think.

I am not a lawyer, so there are finer points about the “Absolute Divorce Bill” that I may not sufficiently cover.

The analysis I made here is based on the arguments I found in the comment section of FB.

In short, this article is an attempt to synthesize the thoughts of people as they understood the issue, not the finer details of the law.

I have summarized below some of these thoughts regarding the “Absolute Divorce Bill” approved by the House Committee on Population and Family Relations.

1. Divorce would free abused women from toxic, dangerous, and “loveless” relationships.

“Abuse against women” is the favorite reason for having a divorce law in the country.

It is as if divorce would solve or eliminate violence against women.

Does it mean that there is no violence committed against women in other countries because of divorce laws worldwide?

Violence against women is a different issue, although it might happen within marital relationships.

There are existing laws that deal with the abuses against women.

This excuse of protecting abused women is only a smokescreen for the real reason that the Divorce Bill aims to dissolve the bonds of marriage, not to solve abuses.

So, what are the options for abused wives?

The answer is obvious, if the relationship is beyond repair, leave the abusive spouse. No one is telling anyone that they should suffer physical, psychological, and emotional abuse.

Apply for annulment of marriage if it is deemed necessary.

What is preserved here is that we are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not all marriages exist within an abusive relationship.

Solve the abuse problem, but do not make divorce the normative rule or as if it is going to solve abuses against women.

Click the link below to watch video about the "Absolute Divorce Bill"

2. Annulment is a long and expensive process.

Annulment is a long and expensive process is another contentious point.

If this is the reason for passing a Divorce law in the Philippines, are we sure that the divorce process will be fast and inexpensive?

I doubt it.

But granting without conceding that it is so, then, why not make the annulment process fast and inexpensive rather than passing a divorce law?

For me, this is a red-tape or bureaucratic problem of the judicial system, not a reason for passing a divorce law in the country.

If civil annulments are lengthy and expensive, it would also be the same for divorce.

If you claim that divorce will not be long and expensive, why not fix the annulment process first by making it fast and inexpensive?

On the contrary, divorce advocates would claim that it is because of the high bar set by the current Family Code for annulment, while divorce law will set it lower, making it easier to have.

I think lawmakers should revisit the Family Code and maybe expand the provisions on annulments.

Pope Francis, on his part, has made the Church annulment process fast and inexpensive. He has even expanded the possible causes for the annulment. For Catholics, there is no reason for aggrieved spouses not to have recourse to Church annulment, if needed.

I am agreeable to the idea that the State should give Church annulments civil effects, sparing those annulled in the Church from re-filing a case in the civil courts.

For the rest, who are not Catholics, there is no need for them in the first place to have their marriages annulled in Church tribunals, so the civil court’s decision would suffice.

3. What are objectionable provisions in the proposed “Absolute Divorce Bill?”

What follows is a direct quote from the Philippine News Agency.

“The bill states that the other grounds for divorce include: separation in fact for at least five years at the time the petition for absolute divorce is filed; when one of the spouses undergoes a gender reassignment surgery or transitions from one sex to another; irreconcilable marital differences as defined in the bill; other forms of domestic or marital abuse which are also defined in the bill; valid foreign divorce secured by either the alien or Filipino spouse; and a marriage nullified by a recognized religious tribunal.”

Without going into details, it is evident that marriage is reduced to mere convenience.

I will discuss this point in the next part of this series.

4. Separation of Church and State

Whenever the Church or religious leaders expressed opinions regarding moral issues, the default rebuttal of those against it is to cite the separation of Church and State.

It has been carved into the minds of many Filipinos that the Church, with its unity with the State, has been instrumental to the sufferings of so many Filipinos during the Spanish Era.

This point has been the “easy go-to excuse” and rebuttal against any “intervention” of religion in the affairs of the State.

In reality, those claiming that the Church, or religion in general, should not intervene in issues like divorce want their agenda or ideologies to prevail.

For these advocates, the Church or religion is seen as a competition that must be silenced, if not eliminated from the public discourse.

However, in a civilized society, institutions have their roles to play. More so in a democratic society.

Look at Russia and China; Christian religion exists there.

The Orthodox Church in Russia and the Patriotic Church in China.

While there is a semblance of autonomy in those churches, it cannot be said that these church leaders can freely criticize their respective governments.

An institution like the Church criticizing the government and its leaders is a sign of a robust democracy.

There is indeed a struggle for power between these two institutions. Based on history, if given a chance, one institution would control the other institution.

The separation of Church and State brings these two institutions on equal footing. It is to make sure that a State that has all the powers will not impede the rights of the Church, which does not have an army or police.

The separation of Church and State was not meant to silence the Church.

The opposite is true.

The legal doctrine of the separation of Church and State makes sure that the Church can exercise its function without fear.

(To be continued)