The Last Country in the World Where

Divorce Is Illegal
Welcome to the Philippines, home to philandering politicians, millions of illegitimate children, and
marital laws that make Italy look liberal.

BY TOM HUNDLEY , ANA P. SANTOS

NILA, Philippines On the occasion of his 84th birthday

in 2011, friends of former Filipino Senator Ramon Revilla, a darkly
handsome film star turned politician, unveiled an imposing 10-meterhigh bronze statue in his honor.

Revillas films are mostly forgettable and his accomplishments as a

lawmaker were marginal, but he will be long remembered in the Philippines
for having sired at least 72 children by 16 different women, only one of

whom was his wife. Thirty-eight of the children bear his surname.

Its unclear what the statue is supposed to honor, but it is a fitting

monument to something that is sorely lacking in the Philippines: a divorce
law.

The Philippines is now the only country in the world that denies divorce to
the majority of its citizens; it is the last holdout among a group of staunchly
Catholic countries where the church has fought hard to enforce its views on
the sanctity of marriage. Pope Francis, who visited the Philippines last week,
has urged his bishops to take a more forgiving stance toward divorced
Catholics, but this is a moot point in the Philippines: There is no such thing
as a divorced Catholic.

A bill that would legalize divorce in the Philippines is now before the
legislature, but it has little chance of becoming law without the support of
President Benigno Aquino III, who is on record saying divorce is a no-no
for this archipelago nation. Aquino, a bachelor and a practicing Catholic,
said he does not want the Philippines to become like Las Vegas, where you
get married in the morning [and] you get divorced in the afternoon.
Aquino ignored the bishops and their threats of excommunication three
years ago when he signed a reproductive health law that provides
subsidized contraceptives to poor women, but most analysts here believe
that he has no appetite for another politically bruising battle with the

Catholic hierarchy on another of its hot-button issues.

For its part, the global church has been steadily losing ground in the fight
against divorce. The first big blow came in 1970 when Italy legalized
divorce, despite the ferocious opposition of the Vatican. An attempt to
repeal the Italian divorce law was soundly rejected in a 1974 referendum.
Next came Brazil, which legalized divorce in 1977, followed by Spain
(1981), Argentina (1987), Ireland (1997), and Chile (2004).

That left only the Philippines and the tiny Mediterranean island nation of
Malta (and, of course, the independent but mostly celibate Vatican citystate). In 2011, Malta held a referendum on divorce. The church pulled out
all stops in a particularly nasty campaign against legalization, but came up
short. Soon after the referendum, the archbishop of Malta issued a rare
apology for the churchs harsh attacks on pro-divorce activists.
Here in the Philippines, the Catholic hierarchy takes particular pride in the
countrys status as the last holdout. One archbishop emeritus called it an
honor that every Filipino should be proud of. Another said Filipinos should
not follow the example of de-Christianized countries.
It wasnt always thus. Before explorer Ferdinand Magellan claimed the
Philippines for the Spanish crown and began converting the natives to
Catholicism in 1521, divorce was commonly practiced by the archipelagos
traditional tribes, according to anthropologists. But four centuries of

Spanish rule, carried out for the most part by Catholic religious orders,
effectively stamped out the custom.

Things eased up a bit when the Americans became the new colonial
masters after the 1898 Spanish-American War. A 1917 law allowed divorce,
but only for adultery if committed by the wife or for concubinage on the
part of the husband. The Japanese, during their otherwise horrific World War
II occupation of the Philippines, introduced modern divorce laws, but those
were canceled and the old 1917 law restored when, in 1944, U.S. Gen.
Douglas MacArthur famously returned. Six years later, after the Philippines
had been granted independence and the church had reasserted its
authority, the 1917 law was revoked and divorce was banned outright.
Separation, but equal
Philippine law does allow divorce for the countrys Muslim minority about
11 percent of the population but for now, the only legal option available
to non-Muslim couples who want out of a bad marriage is to seek either a
church annulment or a civil annulment. (The church accepts legal
separations, but separated persons are not allowed to remarry.)

Annulment is different from divorce in that the parties must establish that
the marriage was defective from the beginning: that one or both were too
young to get married (the minimum age in the Philippines is 18; for male
Muslims its 15, for girls puberty); that proper parental consent was not

obtained; that one of the parties was already married or had an incurable
sexually transmissible disease; or most commonly was
psychologically incapacitated at the time of the marriage. A church
tribunal or civil judge can then declare that the marriage never happened.

The usual problems that cause the breakdown of a marriage infidelity,

physical or mental abuse, or plain old irreconcilable differences dont
count in an annulment proceeding.

Sen. Pia Cayetano, who was the main sponsor of the controversial
reproductive health law and who is frequently mentioned as a potential
successor to Aquino, called the absence of a realistic and reasonable
divorce law in the Philippines a travesty.
It needs to change, definitely. Do I see it happening soon? No, it will take a
while for the Philippines to separate human rights and civil rights from
religious belief, she said.

Professional services
What is most troublesome about using the annulment process as a
substitute for divorce is that it forces two people who might otherwise have
a reasonably civil split into manufacturing or faking an adversarial
relationship with each other and with a state prosecutor or in the case of
church annulment, a defender of the bond whose role in the
proceeding is to defend the sanctity of the marriage by arguing that the

unhappy couple stay together.

Its inhumane and I speak from experience, said Cayetano, whose own
annulment was granted in 2013.

The process is not only slow and psychologically painful, but its also
expensive. It can take years to finalize a civil annulment unless you are
wealthy enough to pay the judge a substantial bribe to speed things long.

Michelle, a 40-year-old Manila physician from a well-to-do family, got her

civil annulment in a mere six months. All she had to do was hire the right
lawyer and pay 350,000 pesos (about $8,000), more than triple the per
capita GDP in the Philippines and thus well beyond the reach of most
Filipinos.

About a third of the money went to the judge as a professional service

fee. Michelle, who asked that we not publish her last name, said her lawyer
and the judge were pals from law school days, which helped smooth things
considerably. She only had to appear in court once, and she was asked only
one question: her name.

Michelle and her husband, also a physician, were both 30 when they
married. Michelle told us she felt pressured because she was pregnant at
the time. Although the marriage lasted seven years, she said that she

regretted her decision almost from the beginning and that an annulment,
despite the social stigma attached to it, somehow felt right.

Its like I am forgiven, she said. Its like going to confession. It erased
whatever sin I committed.

A lawyer or a hit man

Most people, however, find the process to be less than uplifting. Paolo Yap,
35, a graphic designer in Manila, separated from his then wife in 2004 and
stopped communicating with her entirely two years later. Four years ago,
when he and his new partner decided they wanted to marry, Paolo needed
an annulment.

He hired a lawyer for 300,000 pesos, but let her go when he realized it was
going to cost at least twice that. So he made a deal with a lawyer friend
who agreed to take the case in exchange for Yaps services as a designer.

A psychologist was hired to certify mental incapacity. Yap was found to be

depressive and anti-social; his former wife narcissistic and histrionic.

As the case was wending its way through the system, Yap made the
startling discovery that his former wife had already obtained an
annulment.Her lawyers strategy had been to file the case with a local court
in a remote corner of the Philippines that had a reputation as an annulment

mill. Yap was never notified, even though the court papers seemed to
suggest he was actually present, as the law requires. And even when the
former wife learned that Yap had started annulment proceedings, she didnt
tell him, allowing him to spend hundreds of thousands of pesos
unnecessarily.
You know, its only about 10 or 15 thousand pesos to hire a hit man to kill
your spouse, he noted sardonically. Much less than an annulment.

Philanderers and statesmen

In the fight to uphold the sanctity of marriage, the Catholic bishops of the
Philippines can bank on solid support from an unlikely quarter: the countrys
male politicians, for whom multiple mistresses and maintaining second
and even third households is a seemingly sacred privilege and a badge of
manly pride.

Former Senator Revilla, of course, is the gold standard in this department,

but Joseph Estrada, who served as president from 1998 until 2001 (and, like
Revilla, is a former film star), proudly sired three children by his wife and at
least nine additional offspring by six other women.
Longtime ruler Ferdinand Marcos also had numerous extramarital affairs,
while Fidel Ramos, Estradas predecessor in the Malacaang Palace,
acknowledged at least one well-publicized dalliance.
The lack of a divorce option provides a sense of comfort to male

philanderers, according to Evalyn Ursua, an attorney who specializes in

annulment cases and who has advocated for the legalization of divorce.
With a [law prohibiting divorce], they know they can continue this lifestyle
where they have their beautiful and loyal wife and also the comfort and
status of their mistress, she said. A divorce law would allow women to put
an end to it.

Despite a veneer of religious piety, philandering is deeply embedded in

Philippine society, from the privileged to the poorest. Its the machismo
thing and wives are expected not to make a fuss about having
mistresses, said Rep. Emerenciana De Jesus, who is co-sponsoring the
divorce bill. But while rich men often continue to support their wives and
children for appearances sake, poor women generally find themselves
abandoned and left to care for their children on their own. There are laws
that require gainfully employed fathers to support their biological children,
but they are so rarely enforced that most people dont know they exist.
A poverty of options for the poor
In a typical year, civil courts in the Philippines will grant about 10,000
annulments a very small number for a country with a population of more
than 100 million. This is not an indication of widespread marital
contentment in the Philippines, but rather that annulments are only
available to the well-off.

As a result, experts say, most Filipinos who find themselves in an unhappy

relationship simply move on to the next one. The women, of course, are
expected to deal with the children. For these women, the survival
mechanism is to find another guy to support her and her kids, said Mary
Racelis, a sociologist at the Ateneo de Manila University.

Among the very poor, there is a growing tendency toward what the
government calls unions without benefit of valid marriage, or what the
church calls living in sin. Precise statistics are not available, but Racelis
estimates that only 30 to 40 percent of the urban poor now bother to get
married in the first place.

Its too expensive, she said. Youre expected to have a big celebration,
and they simply cant afford it. That and the realization that once you
enter into a marriage theres no getting out.

The social cost is compounded by the Philippine economys heavy reliance

on its most important export: cheap labor. An estimated 10 million Filipinos
work abroad. Although men used to dominate the field, the majority are
now women. They work as nannies, nurses, caregivers, maids, and shop
clerks, sending home some $25 billion in 2013, according to the Philippines
central bank, to support families back home. Unsurprisingly, the long
separations are a strain on married life, and women who work overseas
frequently discover that the money they faithfully send home each month is

supporting hubby and his new girlfriend.

Far from turning the Philippines into another Las Vegas, as suggested by
President Aquino, the divorce bill that has been put forward by De Jesus and
the Gabriela Womens Party is very conservative and, according to its
authors, respectful of the cultural sensibilities in the Philippines. Grounds
for divorce in this bill include physical violence against a spouse or child,
imprisonment of a spouse for more than six years, abandonment for more
than a year, sexual infidelity or perversion, bigamy, homosexuality, or drug
addiction. Except in cases that involve violence against women or children,
the court would not be allowed to take any action for six months after the
initial filing a kind of cooling-off period. The bill also obliges the court to
take steps toward the reconciliation of the spouses before granting the
final decree.

Most importantly, the bill provides guidelines for the division of assets, child
support, and payment of damages to the innocent spouse.

De Jesus, the bills co-sponsor, says the Catholic Church remains the
loudest opponent of divorce because it is afraid of losing its cultural
dominance over the majority of the country. But she noted that under the
1987 constitution, the separation between church and state in the
Philippines is supposed to be inviolable.
The church and its faithful, De Jesus argues, are entitled to their beliefs on

the sanctity of marriage, but are not entitled to impose those beliefs on
others who may disagree. The state, she added, shouldnt view divorce as a
damnable sin, but rather as a civil right. The state should recognize that if
you have a right to enter into a contract, you have the right to get out of
it, said De Jesus.

The church begs to differ. [Proponents of divorce] see marriage as a

contract. For us, it is a sacrament, said the Rev. Edgardo Pangan, a canon
lawyer who specializes in annulments. We cannot compromise with the
laws of God.

Whos your daddy?

One result of the churchs opposition to divorce and its opposition to
virtually every form of contraceptive has been millions of illegitimate
children. No one knows the number, but one study suggests that about 30
percent of births in the Philippines go unregistered, often because of the
stigma of illegitimacy.

Former Senator Revilla, who has probably contributed more to this problem
than anyone, has at least acknowledged and tried to do something about it.
He is the father of the so-called Revilla Bill, which allows children born out
of wedlock to legally use their fathers surname so long as both biological
parents give their consent.

These children must be spared from the stigma attached to being

illegitimate, and their parents faults must not be passed on to them, he
said in 2004. It is the states responsibility to shield them from
unwarranted shame and discrimination.
Revilla, who is said to be a generous provider to all his children, has also
made provisions to leave behind samples of his DNA so that any claims of
paternity that arise after his death can be verified.