Whether or not I’m in favor for Divorce Bill.

It might sound simple, but it's not easy for a husband and wife to decide to end a marriage. Often
they spend a long time trying to solve problems before deciding to divorce. But sometimes they
just can't fix the problems and decide that a divorce is the best solution. Change is a natural part
of life, but when it happens to your family, it is sometimes really hard to deal with.
Sometimes both parents want to divorce, and sometimes one wants to and the other one doesn't.
Usually, both parents are disappointed that their marriage can't last, even if one wants a divorce
and to live apart more than the other.
Sometimes it hurts kids' feelings when one parent wants to leave the house where they live. It is
hard not to take it personally. It's important to remember that divorce happens between the
husband and wife, and even though it affects the whole family, it doesn't mean that a parent who
leaves the house doesn't care about the kids.
Many kids don't want their parents to divorce. Some kids have mixed feelings about it, especially
if they know their parents weren't happy together. Some kids may even feel relieved when
parents divorce, especially if there's been a lot of fighting between parents during the marriage.
It's important to remember that divorce doesn't change one important fact: A dad or mom who
lives somewhere else is still your dad or mom. That's forever. That will never change.
Philippines doesn't support Divorce because for our country, marriage exalted in the Constitution
as a social institution and undermines the Filipino family life as a basic autonomous social
institution, the foundation of the nation. And let's discuss the History of Divorce in our country.

Absolute divorce was prohibited under the Spanish Civil Code and only relative divorce or what
is similar in today’s Family Code as legal separation was allowed. This is divorce “a mensa et
thoro” or from bed and board. The marital tie itself was not voided but it allowed the couple
freedom from the obligation to live together, and more importantly, to manage their properties.
This went on for more than 300 years mired as it were in the theocracy that was Spain and the
Catholic church.
When the Philippines was ceded by Spain to the United States via the Treaty of Paris (1898), a
wave of cultural and religious pragmatism premised on the principles of Separation of Church
and State and religious freedom enveloped the islands. The matter of marriage was not to be
spared by these new Western philosophies from the new colonial rulers. The restrictive
intrusions of the Catholic church into marriage was seen as impermissible religious interference
in a very personal decision which only the State should be able to regulate. Act No. 2710 was
passed by the Philippine Legislature on March 11, 1917 which allowed for absolute divorce on
the ground of criminal conviction for adultery on the part of the wife or concubinage on the part
of the husband. Because of the limited grounds and the requirement of criminal conviction, the
difficulty of obtaining a divorce under the new law quickly became clear and several attempts

Prepared by: Kate Joan Ballon J.D. 1 Persons and Family Relations
were made to further liberalize the process of divorce in the Philippines. 300 years of colonial
Spain and the Roman Catholic church could not be undone that easily.
It took World War II and an Asian neighbor to finally allow for an honest to goodness divorce
law in the Philippines. The Chairman of the Philippine Executive Commission pursuant to the
authority granted by the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines,
issued Executive Order No. 141 on March 25, 1943 which expressly repealed Act No. 2710 and
allowed divorce under the following grounds:

1. Adultery on the part of the wife and concubinage on the part of the husband committed under
any of the forms described in the Revised Penal Code;

2. Attempt of one spouse against the life of the other;

3. A second or subsequent marriage contracted by either spouse before the former marriage has
been legally dis. solved;

4. Loathsome contagious diseases contracted either spouse;

5. Incurable insanity which has reached such a stage that the intellectual community between the
spouses has ceased;

6. Impotency on the part of either spouse;

7. Criminal conviction of either spouse of a crime in which the minimum penalty imposed is not
less than six (6) years imprisonment;

8. Repeated bodily violence by one against the other to such an extent that the spouses cannot
continue living together without endangering the lives of both or of either of them;

9. Intentional or unjustified desertion continuously for at least one year prior to the filing of the
action;

10. Unexplained absence from the last conjugal abode continuously for three consecutive years
prior to the filing of the action;

11. Slander by deed or gross insult by one spouse against the other to such an extent as to make
further living together impracticable.

Barely 3 years hence, with the end of World War II and the grant of Philippine independence by
the Americans who gladly turned over a war-ravaged colony back to its political class, the
Japanese version of divorce in the Philippines was abrogated. The legal environment prior to the

Prepared by: Kate Joan Ballon J.D. 1 Persons and Family Relations
Japanese occupation was revived and with it the restrictive divorce law under the Americans.
This prevailed until the advent of the Civil Code of the Philippines which was passed in 1950
which repealed any absolute divorce legislation in the Philippines and practically restored
Spanish colonial rules and Catholic mores in the realm of marriage and family. There is a
recognition , however, of the practice of divorce among the Muslim or the then Moro
populations of the Philippines.
Barely 15 years after the passage of the Civil Code of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos rose to
power, and declared martial law throughout the Philippines in 1972 auspiciously just before his
rule would have ended the following year. Eager to ingratiate himself to the Muslim population
of southern Philippines, the dictator issued Presidential Decree 1083, A DECREE TO ORDAIN
AND PROMULGATE A CODE RECOGNIZING THE SYSTEM OF FILIPINO MUSLIM
LAWS, CODIFYING MUSLIM PERSONAL LAWS, AND PROVIDING FOR ITS
ADMINISTRATION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. The law provided for the creation of
Shariah courts in the Philippines and allowed for divorce among Muslims , or when the husband
is Muslim, and the marriage was celebrated under Muslim rites. This law is the only effective
divorce law in the Philippines and remains in full force and effect.
Fourteen (14) years of martial law tested the political will of the Filipino people to its breaking
point culminating in the People Power Revolution of February 1986 led by Corazon Aquino who
set up a revolutionary government upon coming to power. Among the first revolutionary laws
passed under executive fiat was Executive Order No. 109, otherwise known as the Family Code
of the Philippines on July 6, 1987 and became effective on August 3, 1988. It allowed for the
filing of a petition for Declaration of Nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity, which
has been argued by some as a form of divorce since the ground must have existed upon the
celebration of the marriage although it may have manifested itself after the marriage. (Article 36,
Family Code of the Philippines). A declaration of nullity renders the marriage void ab initio or
from the very beginning, but produces legal effects as to status of children and treatment of
property of the spouses.1

With the history cited above, it explains that Philippines is not entertaining the idea of divorce to
be applied in our law. We're still in the concept that marriage must be protected as social
institution. But recently, Sen. Risa Hontiveros refilled a bill allowing for absolute divorce in the
Philippines, a measure that is expected to earn strong opposition from the Catholic Church. But
to some legislators, the Divorce Bill is like a red flag to a raging bull. Let's cite some opinions:

“Over my dead body.” Senator Joel Villanueva, son of born again Christian group
leader charged with misuse of P10M of Priority Development Authority Funds (PDAF).
Well, given how long annulment proceedings take, death can come faster.

Prepared by: Kate Joan Ballon J.D. 1 Persons and Family Relations
"Ok to divorce but not unli,” said noob Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa who is heading
the Senate panel probing the drug war that he led as former Philippine National Police (PNP)
chief.
But even unli-load lasts for only 3 days. Then you have to load up again.
“Ok to divorce, but you cannot remarry,” according to Senator Ping Lacson.
That option already exists. It’s called legal separation. Under legal separation, you can legally
separate everything – your bed, your finances--but you cannot marry again.
“It’s not the right time for us to have divorce. I think we will have a hard time because we are a
predominantly Catholic country,” said Senator Cynthia Villar, real estate magnate and author of
the recently passed Rice Tarification Law that has reportedly led to the influx of cheaper
imported rice and the closure of thousands of local rice mills who could not compete. Villar is
currently the head of the Senate Committee on Agrarian Reform and Agriculture & Food.
We already have divorce. Under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, Muslim Filipinos can
divorce. Our ancestors like the Tagbanua in Palawan, the Gaddang in Nueva Vizcaya and the
Cordillerans all practiced divorce before the Spanish came and changed the rules. Various
permutations of divorce were allowed under the American Period and the Japanese Occupation
until the Civil Code was passed in 1950 and again outlawed divorce. To date, the Philippines is
the only country in the world without divorce. Divorce is also outlawed in The Vatican City
State but its residents are mostly men who vowed to celibacy so that doesn’t really count.
“Hindi ako pabor sa divorce kasi (I am not in favor of divorce because) I’m a Christian. What
God joined together, let no one separate,” said bible quoting Senator Manny Pacquaio. The
boxing world champion also claimed that he is a marriage counselor.
All of these counter agreements to divorce are premised on personal opinion or some baseless
prediction that if a divorce law is passed, those with repressed heartbreak will finally be able to
move on and do the unthinkable: trade in their Netflix binge watch weekends for a marrying-
divorcing-re-marrying-divorcing spree to possibly to make up for all those years when they were
imprisoned in failed marriages.2

Indeed, the proposed bill on divorce is not necessary anymore. Its main purpose of supposedly
providing an aggrieved spouse with a better alternative to get out of an unbearable relationship is
already available in our Family Code. It can even be said that we already recognize divorce in
this country except that it is not absolute but only relative divorce or what is technically known
as “legal separation.” Here the spouses also end their relationship based on grounds which are
also considered as unbearable, more specifically the following: (1) Repeated physical violence or
grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the
petitioner; (2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or
political affiliation; (3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common
child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or

Prepared by: Kate Joan Ballon J.D. 1 Persons and Family Relations
inducement; (4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six
years, even if pardoned; (5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent; (6)
Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent; (7) Contracting by the respondent of a
subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad; (8) Sexual infidelity or
perversion; (9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitione; or (10) Abandonment
of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year. (Article 55 of the
Family Code).

I'm not against for the resolution how to resolved a valid but failed marriage. But if we will look
our laws we already have a legal remedy for that situation and having an absolute divorce to be
implemented in our country will not be the best resolution. It will just give the citizen the idea
that anytime they can go out to a marriage that already failed even in a simple reason. They will
not even try to resolve it for the sake of the family, especially for their children who will be
affected. And let's not forget that Philippines is a Catholic country. Most Christians
believe marriage is an important part of life. They believe the purpose of marriage is to: unite
with someone they love for the rest of their lives, to be faithful and make this sacrament with
God's blessing and in God's presence. And for me, our wish for having a strong family will not
be realized if we allow divorce in the country. Divorce would not strengthen but in fact will
destroy the family.

Sources:
1
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/divorce-in-the-philippines-a-legal-history-45701
2
https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/237525-dash-sas-divorce-bill-legislating-love-sex-marriage

Prepared by: Kate Joan Ballon J.D. 1 Persons and Family Relations