Why in the World Dont We Have

Divorce in the Philippines?

BY B. WISER

This column may contain strong language, sexual content, adult humor, and other themes that may
not be suitable for minors. Parental guidance is strongly advised.

We Filipinos seem to be inordinately proud of certain things. The born-again boxing champion
with the day job as a congressman who barely showed up for work yet returned to Congress as
a senator. The endless parade of stunning half-breedlasses who win all the international
beauty pageants. The world record for tweets41 millionabout a manufactured TV love
team. And the dubious honor of being, along with The Vatican, the only other state that forbids
divorce.

Why that should be a source of pride is beyond me. That it is even enshrined in the Constitution
the right to live in wedded misery with very limited and convoluted legal avenues of reliefis in
itself a blatant injustice, a clear blurring of the lines between church and state because the other
thing we are oh, so proud of as Filipinos is that we are oh, so Catholic, and therefore, marriage is
forever.

What people seem to forget is that marriage may indeed be a religious sacrament, but in the eyes of
the law, it is first and foremost a civil contract between two partiesfor now, in the most backward
of societies, that means a man and a woman. Hence, there is such a thing as a Civil Status: Single,
Married, Widowed or Separated, with Separated referring to those whose marriages have been
dissolved via the process of legal, not canonical, separation or annulment. And because divorce is
still not legal, Divorced does not appear as a valid Civil Status.

Which strikes me as abysmally stupid and myopic, and inconsiderate of the fact that there is a larger
world outside of the Philippines in which people do marry and divorce. It irks me when I have to fill
out forms in this country and there is no box to tick that indicates my actual statusDIVORCED (and
happily so, by the way). While obtaining my divorce was a long and draining process, (not because
of lack of grounds or legal impediments, but because of an intransigent and contentious ex who
deliberately delayed proceedings) it has definitely been one of the best things I have ever done for
myself and my children. Its easy to be rather blithe about it now, but the five years it took to get
divorced were pretty hellish.

The reasoning often cited by critics of divorce that making divorce legal would somehow erode the
institution of marriage, hence the almost insurmountableand costlyhurdles one must overcome
to get a mere legal separation or annulment. Perhaps that is true to a certain degree, but what is
also true is that most people get married with the best intentions, wishing it to endure as a happy,
fruitful, and mutually beneficial union for as long as it reasonably can. In fact, marriage is probably
the clearest example of the triumph of hope over reality.

In the Philippines, however, the longevity of a marriage can sometimes be the clearest example of
the triumph of chauvinism over common sense. Lets face it, making a marriage last is no easy feat,
even if the bright-eyed socialites featured in glossy magazines appear to make it so. With the help of
God, of course. But there are those marriages that last way beyond their shelf life, not because of
the power of love or prayer, but because of legal impediments making it next to impossible to
dissolve such a union. And nine out of 10 times, these prolonged, unhappy marriages tend to put the
wives at a greater disadvantage than the husbands.

While extricating oneself from a marriage that has ceased to be happy, rewarding, or mutually
beneficial, not to mention emotionally, psychologically, and physically safe, shouldnt be as effortless
as, say, blowing a candle on a birthday cake, but it shouldnt be so excruciatingly and demoralizingly
difficult. Ending a marriage is just as fraught as entering into one, perhaps even more so. One
enters a marriage filled with hope and love and dreams of a happily ever after; one ends a marriage
filled with despair and trepidation and fears of an unsure future.

So it comes as welcome news that a member of Congress, Rep. Edcel Lagman, recently filed a bill
to allow absolute divorce in the Philippines, which he termed the merciful liberation of the
hapless wife from a long-dead marriage.
The congressmans intentions are sincere. After all, he was the principal author of the landmark
Reproductive Health Law, which was finally passed, albeit watered down, during the Aquino
administration. Its passing was a major victory for women in this country, who remain oppressed,
disempowered, and disadvantaged despite the Philippines apparently impressive ranking in the
Global Gender Gap Index.
At least one man in Congress has the balls to champion prowoman legislation. According a report
in the Inquirer:

Traditionally, in a marriage relation, the husband is more ascendant than the wife. It is the woman
who is usually brutalized and it is the man who philanders and gets away with it.

Under these foreboding and unequal circumstances, a wife needs an absolute divorce more than the
husband.

In divorce proceedings, the wife as the innocent spouse, needs a court-decreed alimony and support
for the child or children under her custody.

Absolute divorce is not only a womens issue. It is a poor womens issue. Poor women cannot afford
the current exorbitant expense for legal separation or annulment of marriage.

House Bill 116 includes as grounds for absolute divorce the realities that beset many marriages, such
as irremediable breakdown, spousal abuse, marital infidelity, and psychological incapacity. As Edcel
Lagman remarked, Most marriages are supposed to be solemnized in heaven, the reality is that
many marriages plummet into hell.

Thanks to this bill, hell need not last forever, either.