A bill that weakens our social and moral fabric

Like the House Bill 3773 or the Reproductive Health and Population Management Act, House Bill 4016 or the Divorce Bill tends to obfuscate. The author says that the bill is aimed at helping couples in the urban poor communities who encounter difficulties in their relationship and abandon their marriage and simply separate without going through the legal process because of the problem of producing huge fees for lawyers. Yet for a divorce to be obtained under the bill, a petition is also necessary to be filed in court entailing the same if not bigger expense in terms of money and time as demanded by the existing remedies of legal separation, annulment or declaration of nullity. The proposed means does not produce the desired end.

By allowing couples with "irreconcilable differences" not only to part ways but also to remarry, the bill plainly contemplates the dissolution of the marriage tie and the complete release of the parties from their marital obligation, since remarriage is possible only under such a situation. Yet the author herself intriguingly declares that her proposal "considers our culture, religions and traditions that give importance to the sanctity of marriage and the family". Obviously, there is an irreconcilable difference between what the author says and what her bill provides. A bill allowing the dissolution of the marriage bond on such flimsy and nebulous ground like "irreconcilable differences" cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be said to give importance to the sanctity of marriage and the family. To say otherwise is an affront to the intelligence of the average man. Let the bill speak for itself.

Undeniably, this bill speaks of undermining the sanctity of marriage. It seeks to cut the marital bond legally formed simply because difficulties and differences subsequently arise. It aims to dissolve a perfectly valid marriage held sacred by our culture, religions and traditions. Indeed, our laws respect and give importance even to the beliefs and traditions of our cultural minorities including those of our Muslim brethren. But this bill would disregard the prevailing values and traditions on marriage long held and cherished by the majority. The specified grounds are already found in our statute books but they only serve as basis for legal separation that does not dissolve the marriage bond precisely because the door to reconciliation is kept open. But the proposed law closes this door of reconciliation and encourages estrangement because of purely personal problems and whims arising out of selfishness. It provides a solution to the problems of a few that affects the entire society. As the bill’s author says, only "ten percent of marriages in the city are on the rocks". But with this bill that percentage will shoot up because an easier way out is made available. To be sure the bill runs counter to our Constitution which considers marriage as an inviolable social institution.

Our Supreme Court (SC) in several cases has already defined in clear and unequivocal manner what this Constitutional provision means. One case involves a man with a vice of entering into multiple marriages then leaving them behind by the mere expedient of resorting to legal remedies to sever them. The SC said that this vice must be checked and stopped because "the impact of his conduct is incalculable upon his ex-wives as well as the children he had by them, their lives having been dislocated beyond recall. Such pattern of misconduct undermines the institution of marriage and family, institutions that this society looks to for the rearing of our children, for the development of values essential to the survival and well being of our communities, and for the strengthening of our nation as a whole" (Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, 424 SCRA 42). The proposed bill would make it easier for such kind of man to continue enjoying his vice.

In another case involving a man who abandoned his family for another woman after being happily married for 36 years with eight children, the SC set aside the lower court order declaring his marriage void on the ground of the psychological incapacity of his wife who was declared in default for failure to answer. The SC said that the protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the exposure of an invalid one but the defense of a valid and genuine union because, "our Constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution. Our family Law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the State is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social and moral fabric; hence their preservation is not the concern of the family members alone. Whether or not a marriage should continue to exist or a family should stay together must not depend on the whims and caprices of only one party.." (Ancheta v. Ancheta 424 SCRA 725). In still another case of a childless husband and wife drifting apart, becoming strangers to each other, with the husband consequently falling out of love and wanting a way out, the SC ruled that, "An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage. Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest themselves". (Siayngco v. Siayngco, G.R. 158896, October 27, 2004).

So, this divorce bill is definitely not for the common good. Not because almost all other countries have a divorce law should we have it also. Even if our country is the only one without a divorce law, it is a distinction that we should, for once, be proud rather than be ashamed of.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]