Ridiculous

Too much freedom breeds individualism that saps the strength of any nation. This is the predicament of any democratic country especially the Philippines. Here we have a Charter named “Freedom Constitution”. And for the more than 22 years it has been in effect, never has there been so many noisy and arrogant voices demanding the protection and promotion of their individual human rights and freedoms.

The people’s voice is articulated and heard mainly through their representatives in Congress who were then elected by district or nationwide in the Senate. In that chamber, we have already seen and heard so many inane and self-serving voices especially in the Lower House. As if this is not enough, the present charter even added another silly and self-serving “voice” of the people in the Lower House coming from sectors and groups that are supposedly “marginalized”. These are the party-list representatives. The noisiest among them are…well, those coming from the leftist and radical women sector.

This is not to denigrate women in general. There are so many of them who are definitely contributing to nation building and performing their true roles in our society especially as homemakers of a strong and solid family. Others have also proven that they are equal to, or much better than men in business, professions and other fields of endeavor.

Unfortunately, so many others among them still hallucinate that they are being discriminated against and treated unequally. Despite social legislations making them equal to, or even “more equal” than men in dignity and worth, they are still demanding more legislations promoting women’s individual rights that are self serving. One such legislation is that proposed by a woman party-list group with a hilarious and absurd sounding name of “1-Ako Babaeng Astig Aasenso (1-ABAA) who wants an expiry date on marriage license.

1-ABAA allegedly represents women “separated and abandoned” because of “incompatibility” with their spouse. I am not sure if the COMELEC has already accredited the organization as eligible to participate in our elections to represent such category of women, but the group undoubtedly shows us how ridiculous this party list representation has become, or can become.

Under its proposal, a woman (and/or her husband) who have been validly and legally married — meaning that they are both 18 years of age or older who have freely given their consent in a marriage ceremony held before an authorized solemnizing officer and at least two other witnesses after obtaining a valid marriage license from the local Civil Registrar — can automatically get out of such relationship and marry again simply because she or her husband or both cannot get along with each other anymore. They can do so by just waiting for the lapse of ten years because under the proposed law, the marriage license is valid only for ten years and unless renewed it becomes invalid. This women’s group is of the belief that since the license of their marriage is no longer valid and existing, the marriage solemnized under such license automatically ceases to exist.

This women’s group seems serious with its proposal. But from the viewpoint of any other sane individual or group, it is really one big joke. Its proposal looks as funny as its name, isa akong babaeng astig at aasenso. It may be novel and original but it deserves to be debated more in a comedy program than in the halls of Congress. Nevertheless, even if taken seriously, the proposal is downright contrary to the very essence of marriage and the marriage license as recognized by any country or religion, not only by this country or the Catholic Church.

In other European and American countries, a valid marriage cannot just be dumped unceremoniously. Divorce proceedings must still be instituted to fix and delineate the rights and obligations of the parties involved. But 1-ABAA would do away with any proceedings and just require the couple to wait for the lapse of ten years. This is really cruel and oppressive to the children begotten by said couple. They would be subjected to so much mental anguish and serious anxiety on whether or not they will have another father or mother after the lapse of ten years.

Indeed in any civil society particularly in our country marriage is indisputably recognized as the foundation of the family which is the basic autonomous social institution that serves as the foundation of the nation. A strong nation really depends on strong families which in turn depend on marriages that should be considered as more sacred than ordinary contracts. Thus the Constitution itself considers marriage as an “inviolable social institution” which shall be protected by the State because it is the foundation of the family (Article XV Sections 1 and 2) the sanctity of which the State must also protect as it is the very foundation of the nation (Section 12 Article II). As a consequence our Family Code itself defines marriage as a “special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman” (Article 1, Ch.1). 1-ABAA would like us to defy and disregard all these well established and universally accepted concepts of marriage enshrined in our laws.

It is also patently erroneous to liken a marriage license to a driver’s license or a visa. A marriage license is used only once when the licensee gets married. A driver’s license or a visa is used every time a person drives or travels to the country issuing the visa. Hence once issued a marriage license certifies that a party is qualified to contract marriage. Such fact lasts until the contrary is proved in a proper court proceeding. Besides a marriage license is not even an essential but merely a formal requisite of marriage. A man and women without any impediment to marry each who have been living together for at least five years can get married even without a license.

It is thus undoubtedly clear that this proposal promotes the individual interest of women. It aims to make separated and abandoned women happy again by allowing them to remarry even if in the process the sanctity and inviolability of marriage is undermined. It is like the RH Bill that aims to give women a right to their reproductive health even at the expense of killing the viable foetus in their womb. These proposals should be junked outright.

E-mail us at [email protected]