MANILA, Philippines -- The opening salvo of debates on the proposed divorce law gave a preview of how contentious the measure will get in the House of Representatives.
The committee on revision of laws on Wednesday held its first hearing on House Bill 1799 (An Act Introducing Divorce in the Philippines) that pushes for the legalization of divorce for marriages “that have been rendered to the point of no repair.”
Cagayan de Oro Representative Rufus Rodriguez said having a divorce law would “open the floodgates for marriages and families to be broken . . . by mere irreconcilable differences.”
Rodriguez cited cases in the United States where people can easily resort to divorce for troubled marriages.
“Elizabeth Taylor was divorced six times,” he said.
Ilocos Norte Representative Rodolfo Farinas said the divorce bill contravenes with the provision in the Constitution about the inviolability of marriage and the state’s mandate to protect it.
“If we want divorce, then let’s amend the Constitution first,” Farinas said, adding that he would raise the matter before the Supreme Court if the bill is passed into law.
Farinas said that couples in troubled marriages have other remedies under the law to either fix the relationship or get out of it, citing annulment or legal separation. Those who seek to leave the marriage because of violence can resort to the law on violence against women, he added.
“If ain’t broke, don’t fix it … and if it’s broke fix it … Marriage is for better or for worse, it isn’t always just happy,” he said.
Cavite Representative Elpidio Barzaga Jr. said having a divorce law will not help strengthen the Constitutional provision declaring marriage as inviolable.
During the hearing, Elizabeth Maynigo and Elsie Tapis gave a short testimony on why they favor the bill.
“I am in favor of divorce for unhappy marriages,” Maynigo said.
Tapis said some women experience battering from their husbands but could not get out of the relationship because of the lack of means to do so.
Authors and advocates of the bill offer divorce as the fourth remedy to get out of marriage due to irreconcilable differences.
The Family Code of the Philippines prescribes three options for couples who can no longer make their marriage work, namely: Declaration of Nullity, under Article 36, Annulment under Article 45, and Legal Separation under Article 55.
“In as much as we appreciate good marriages, we recognize that there are other components that cause the failure of marriage,” Gabriela party-list Representative Emmi De Jesus said, one of the two main authors.
Former Gabriela party-list Representative Liza Maza said “it’s about time” the country legalizes divorce.
Maza said divorce was practiced in the Philippines before the Spanish came and during the occupation of the Americans and the Japanese. The Muslims also allow it.
Records citing the framers of the Constitution also did not intend the provision on the inviolability of marriage to be prohibitive of divorce, Maza added.
Lawyer Evalyn Ursua, a University of the Philippines professor and advocate of women’s issues, said the country already has a de facto divorce law in the provision for annulment. But she said poor couples are unable to avail of this because of the cost and the length of time that courts decide on case.
Ursua said it’s time the government consider a policy of having an absolute divorce bill that would address the problems of Filipinos abroad.
Ursua said the many Filipinos who work overseas return to the country and find out that their husband or wife already has another partner. She said some obtain dual citizenship to be able to get a divorce abroad because it’s not available in the country.
“Many have obtained divorce abroad, what do we do with them? We can’t ignore this reality,” she added.
Bayan Muna party-list Representative Neri Colmenares contradicted the views of Farinas and Rodriguez, who said that divorce is unconstitutional.
“If divorce is unconstitutional, then annulment, legal separation, even the Sharia law providing for divorce are also unconstitutional. There is no need to amend the Constitution,” he said.
