The case for divorce in the Philippines
A column from earlier this month, published in Bacolod City's Watchmen Daily Journal, advocating the faithful and moral side of allowing divorce in the Philippines.
Balancing faith and common sense in divorce
Last week, the Gabriela Women's Party, introduced House Bill 2380, or the "Divorce Bill," for the fifth time. The bill has been fought for repeatedly by the women's rights organization for years in the only country, besides Vatican City, where divorce is still not permitted.
During the 2016 elections, all presidential and vice presidential candidates were asked their position on the subject during their respective debates, with every candidate opposing the legalization of divorce, with the exception of former Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago.
In an interview in 2012, the former judge said, "I want to return to the old order where civil annulment was allowed only in two cases: one is an attempt on the life of the spouse by the other, and the other is when one spouse is already living with another person, that is adultery."
The same position is shared by Gabriela. "A marriage can only be considered sacred when there is no violence and abuse," said Gabriela Party-list Rep. Emerenciana 'Emmi' de Jesus in a statement. "Divorce is also not an entirely new concept in the Philippines since this has been a remedy given for couples in irreparable marriages even during the American period."
Domestic violence
The words from Rep. de Jesus are both a common and logical argument for the dissolution of marriage. No individual, be it man or woman, should be locked in a commitment where one is abusive – essentially, where one's life is at risk.
Gabriela Negros Secretary-General Mardem Jalandoni called annulment and legal separation, the only options provided for married couples, difficult and expensive, respectively. Which is very much true – as evidenced by the number of people who up-and-leave their spouses and disappear, the only way for them to leave their current situation.
Perhaps some of the cases may be pure abandonment, but there are many that are truly escapes.
The primary argument in the case against divorce is the religious angle; every defender of the status quo considers themselves more virtuous than the next by standing against the ability to dissolve a marriage – despite how turbulent or violent it may be.
Even the Code of Canon Law, the laws and legal principles of the church, mentions domestic violence. In Article II of Title VII-Marriage, it states, "If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse, or to the offspring, or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving."
To allow an individual an escape from a marriage that is threatening one's life is a matter of morality, using the word of God as a method of trying to appear more pious does more harm than good.
Adultery
As the San Sebastian Cathedral is posting banners with the saying "Thou Shalt Not Kill," as a rebuke to the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte's "shoot-to-kill" method of apprehending drug criminals, with San Sebastian Rector and Diocese Social Communications Head Fr. Felix Pasquin saying, "This is a question about life, a primordial right to life, and if there is an institution that should speak up against [extrajudicial killings, it] is the church" – he walked it back the next day with, "Our tarpaulin does not single out any person or group but all forms of killing" – it is clear, the Ten Commandments are still very relevant among the Catholic faithful.
What about "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery?"
If the virtues of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are so momentous that the church must invest in campaign materials to display for the public, in the case of an adulterous spouse, are those marriage vows taken before the eyes of God still legitimate? If a husband or wife cheats on their spouse, they are breaking both a commandment and the statement, "Take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity."
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "The married couple forms 'the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent.' Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble. 'What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.'"
What if one were to put the said union asunder? It would appear to be yet another violation.
For such an offensive act, so many politicians seem to bend over backwards just to defend it. Does protecting a philandering spouse also make one appear more honorable?
Common Sense
This is not a matter of allowing divorce for any and every case – dissolving some shotgun marriage or frivolous matters pertaining to money – the arguments presented are directly in line with the politician's decision to play the "morally upright" individual. A commitment to faith allows a person to escape being abused or gives the spouse an opportunity to adhere to the words of the church and find a faithful partner.
The Code of Canon Law says abuse is not permissible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says no man shall discard the commitment of marriage vows; and to stand besides those religious conduct guidelines would make one even more rich in their faith – legislating for both physical safety and personal dignity by embracing what has already been dictated by the church.
Share This Article
