Divorce is a controversial topic, except that it’s often discussed with hushed voices (related discussion here). In 2005, party-list representative Liza Masa of Gabriela filed a divorce bill. In 2001, similar bills were filed in the Senate (Bill No. 782), introduced by Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon, and House of Representatives (Bill No. 878), introduced by Honorable Bellaflor J. Angara-Castillo. In 1999, Representative Manuel C. Ortega filed House Bill No. 6993, seeking for the legalization of divorce. This Congress (14th Congress), Gabriela again filed a bill to introduce divorce in the Philippines. Here’s the explanatory note of House Bill 3461, filed by GABRIELA Women’s Party Representatives Liza Largoza-Maza and Luzviminda Ilagan. Let’s open this topic for discussion (use the comment section below; see also Mixed Marriages). Let’s avoid name-calling and focus on the merits. If you support or oppose the bill, then perhaps you could talk to your respective representatives in the House.
Underpinning this proposal is a commitment to the policy of the State to protect and strengthen marriage and the family as basic social institutions, to value the dignity of every human person, to guarantee full respect for human rights, and to ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. The provisions of this bill are consistent with and in pursuit of those State policies.
In Filipino culture, marriage is regarded as a sacred union and the family founded on marriage is considered as a fount of love, protection and care. Philippine society generally frowns upon and discourages marital break-ups and so provides cultural and legal safeguards to preserve marital relations. Cultural prescriptions and religious norms keep many couples together despite the breakdown of the marriage. But the cultural prescriptions for women and men differ. Women are traditionally regarded as primarily responsible for making the marriage work and are expected to sacrifice everything to preserve the marriage and the solidarity of the family. While absolute fidelity is demanded of wives, men are granted sexual license to have affairs outside marriage. Yet when the marriage fails, the woman is blamed for its failure.
Reality tells us that there are many failed, unhappy marriages across all Filipino classes. Many couples especially from the marginalized sectors, who have no access to the courts, simply end up separating without the benefit of legal processes. The sheer number of petitions that have been filed since 1988 for the declaration of the nullity of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code (commonly known as “annulment”) shows that there are just too many couples who are desperate to get out of failed marriages.
Even when couples start out well in their marriage, political, economic and social realities take their toll on their relationship. Some are not prepared to handle the intricacies of married life. For a large number of women, the inequalities and violence in marriage negate its ideals as the embodiment of love, care and safety and erode the bases upon which a marriage is founded. The marital relations facilitate the commission of violence and perpetuate their oppression. Official figures support this. The 2003 report of the Philippine National Police shows that wife battering accounted for 53.6 percent of the total 8,011 cases of violence against women. About three of ten perpetrators were husbands of the victims. Husbands accounted for 28 per cent of the violence against women crimes. The Department of Social Welfare and Development reported that in 2003, of the 15,314 women in especially difficult circumstances that the agency serviced, 25.1 per cent or 5,353 were cases of physical abuse, maltreatment and battering.
Given these realities, couples must have the option to avail of remedies that will pave the way for the attainment of their full development and self-fulfillment and the protection of their human rights. Existing laws are not enough to address this need. To quote the Women’s Legal Bureau, Inc., a legal resource NGO for women:
“The present laws relating to separation of couples and termination of marriage are inadequate to respond to the myriad causes of failed marriages. Particularly, the remedies of declaration of nullity and annulment do not cover the problems that occur during the existence of marriage. Legal separation, on the other hand, while covering problems during marriage, does not put an end to marriage.”
“Though both divorce and a declaration of nullity of a marriage allow the spouses to remarry, the two remedies differ in concept and basis. A declaration of nullity presupposes that the marriage is void from the beginning and the court declares its non-existence… Beyond [the] grounds specified [in the law], declaration of nullity is not possible. “
“In annulment, the marriage of the parties is declared defective from the beginning, albeit it is considered valid until annulled. The defect can be used to nullify the marriage within a specified period but the same may be ignored and the marriage becomes perfectly valid after the lapse of that period, or the defect may be cured through some act. The defect relates to the time of the celebration of the marriage and has nothing to do with circumstances occurring after the marriage is celebrated. In annulment, the marriage is legally cancelled, and the man and woman are restored to their single status. “
“Since August 3, 1988, couples have been given a way out of failed marriages through Article 36 of the Family Code…The remedy provided under Article 36 is declaration of nullity of the marriage. The article voids a marriage where one party is “psychologically incapacitated” to comply with the essential ofmarital obligations. Consistent with the concept of void marriages (where the remedy is declaration of nullity), the law requires that the incapacity must have existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage In practice, Article 36 has become a form of divorce, as valid marriages are declared void every day in the guise of “psychological incapacity.” The innumerable Article 36 cases brought to trial courts is an indication of the elasticity of Article 36 to accommodate the needs of many couples desiring to terminate their marriages. It is proof that divorce is needed in the Philippines. Article 36 provides a remedy only for spouses who can prove “psychological incapacity”. The concept certainly cannot accommodate all cases where divorce would have necessary. What we need is a divorce law that defines clearly and unequivocally the grounds and terms for terminating a marriage. That law will put an end to the creative efforts played daily in courtrooms across the country to accommodate a wide range of cases in order to prove “psychological incapacity.” (Women’s Legal Bureau, Inc., The Relevance of Divorce in the Philippines, 1998)
Thus, this bill seeks to introduce divorce as another option for couples in failed and irreparable marriages.
This bill was crafted in consultation with women lawyers and inspired by the studies and inputs of various women’s groups and the experiences of spouses gathered by GABRIELA from its various chapters nationwide.
The bill seeks to introduce divorce in Philippine law with a strong sense of confidence that it will be used responsibly by Filipino couples. This confidence stems from the experiences of Filipino families that show that separation is usually the last resort of many Filipino couples whose marriage has failed. Cases of battered women also support this. Battered women invariably seek separation only after many years of trying to make the marriage work; separation only becomes imperative for them when they realize that it is necessary for their and their children’s survival. Divorce could actually provide protection to battered women and their children from further violence and abuse. With the predominance of the Catholic faith in the Philippines, the fear that divorce will erode personal values on marriage appears unfounded. The experience of Italy, where the Vatican is located, and Spain, two predominantly Catholic countries which practice divorce, supports this. Those countries have a low rate of divorce. Italy registers a 7% rate while Spain registers 15%. The figures reflect the strong influence of religious beliefs and culture on individuals in deciding to terminate marital relations.
Historically, divorce had been part of our legal system. In the beginning of the 16th century, before the Spanish colonial rule, absolute divorce was widely practiced among ancestral tribes such as the Tagbanwas of Palawan, the Gadangs of Nueva Viscaya, the Sagadans and Igorots of the Cordilleras, and the Monobos, Bila-ans and Moslems of the Visayas and Mindanao islands. Divorce was also available during the American period, starting from 1917 (under Act No. 2710 enacted by the Philippine Legislature), and during the Japanese occupation (under Executive Order No. 141) and after, until 1950. It was only on August 30, 1950, when the New Civil Code took effect, that divorce was disallowed under Philippine law. Only legal separation was available. The same rule was adopted by the Family Code of 1988, which replaced the provisions of the New Civil Code on marriage and the family, although the Family Code introduced the concept of “psychological incapacity” as a basis for declaring the marriage void.
In recognition of the history of divorce in the Philippines, the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution left the wisdom of legalizing divorce to the Congress. Thus, the 1987 Constitution does not prohibit the legalization of divorce.
This bill is respectful of and sensitive to differing religious beliefs in the Philippines. It recognizes that the plurality of religious beliefs and cultural sensibilities in the Philippines demand that different remedies for failed marriages should be made available. For this reason, the bill retains the existing remedies of legal separation, declaration of nullity of the marriage and annulment and only adds divorce as one more remedy. Couples may choose from these remedies depending on their situation, religious beliefs, cultural sensibilities, needs and emotional state. While divorce under this proposed measure severs the bonds of marriage, divorce as a remedy need not be for the purpose of re-marriage; it may be resorted to by individuals to achieve peace of mind and facilitate their pursuit of full human development. This bill also seeks to make Philippine law consistent in the way it treats religious beliefs with respect to termination of marriage. Philippine law through the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1083 [1977]) allows divorce among Filipino Muslims, in deference to the Islamic faith which recognizes divorce. Non-Muslim Filipinos should have the same option under Philippine law, in accordance with their religious beliefs.
The bill proposes five grounds for divorce. All the five grounds are premised on the irreparable breakdown of the marriage and the total non-performance of marital obligations. Thus, the bill provides that a petition for divorce may be filed when the petitioner has been separated de facto (in fact) from his or her spouse for at least five years at the time of the filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable, or when the petitioner has been legally separated from his or her spouse for at least two years at the time of the filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable.
Not all circumstances and situations that cause the total breakdown of a marriage could be defined in this proposed measure. Thus, the bill also provides that divorce may be granted when the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage. Spouses living in a state of irreparable marital conflict or discord should be given the opportunity to present their marital contrarieties in court and have those differences adjudged as constituting a substantial ground to put an end to the marriage.
Another ground for divorce included in the bill is when one or both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. This provision will consequently repeal Article 36 of the Family Code. The bill seeks to include “psychological incapacity” in the grounds for divorce in the belief that the concept is consistent with the termination of marital ties rather than with a void marriage.
The bill seeks to eliminate “condonation of the act” and “consent to the act” as grounds for denying a petition for legal separation and, by extension, a petition for divorce. Many spouses especially women ignore the offense because of the social and economic conditions they are in. Many women in the marginalized sectors tend to condone the offense because they are economically dependent on their spouses or because of the stigma attached to failed marriages. Some women who are perceived to be condoning the acts of their husbands actually suffer from the cycle of spousal abuse such that they have become so disempowered to address their situation.
Under this proposed measure, a decree of divorce dissolves the absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains. The assets shall be equally divided between the spouses. However, this bill also proposes that in addition to his or her equal share in the assets, the spouse who is not gainfully employed shall be entitled to support until he or she finds adequate employment but the right shall only be effective for not more than one year. This provision is meant to address the economic deprivation or poverty that many women experience as a result of a marital break-up.
The bill also proposes that the custody of any minor child shall be decided by the court in accordance with the best interests of the child and their support provided in accordance with the Family Court provisions on support. Actual, moral and exemplary damages shall be awarded to the aggrieved spouse when proper in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code on damages. The proposed measure also provides that parties shall be disqualified from inheriting from each other by intestate succession. Moreover, provisions in favor of one spouse made in the will of the other spouse shall be revoked by operation of law.
The Philippines and Malta are the only two remaining countries in the world without a divorce law. This bill is being introduced based on indications that Philippine society is ready for the legalization of divorce.
The sanctity of marriage is not based on the number of marriages existing but on the quality of marital relationships. When a marriage is no longer viable, divorce should be an option.
Thus, the approval of this bill is urgently requested.
- Extension of Filing Periods and Suspension of Hearings for March 29 to April 4, 2021: SC Administrative Circular No. 14-2021 (Full Text) - March 28, 2021
- ECQ Bubble for NCR, Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna and Rizal: Resolution No. 106-A (Full Text) - March 27, 2021
- Guidelines on the Administration of COVID-19 Vaccines in the Workplaces (Labor Advisory No. 3) - March 12, 2021
ang twist kasi dito ikinokompara niyo ung divorce sa ibang bansa at ung divorce dito sa Pinas. magkaibang issue po yun. madali ung divorce sa ibang bansa dahil “sariling kagustuhan” system ung umiiral don. eh ung dto po sa pinas, may 5 grounds na kino consider for divorce. hindi u instantly na divorced kau. focus lang tayo sa divorce system in the philippines. may sariling system naman tayo, hindi tayo coppycat. just to make ur mind clear lang guys. i think kasi karamihan sa mga NO to divorce eh dahil sa kumukuha sila ng conclusion based sa mga resulta ng divorce ng bansa kaya nagiging complicated lang ang isyu!
even if u asked attorneys who are dealing with cases for separation, karamihan po ng bata eh masaya pa na nagkahiwalay ang mga magulang dahil ligtas na sila sa abuso. eh ung kasi namang mini-mean nyo na naapektuhan na ang bata sa divorce eh yung mga hiwalayang SINASADYA. gaya nalang ng kung anong nangyayari sa ibang bansa. to repeat it again, may grounds for divorce ang philippines on its proposal. why not read about it? then saka niyo ilagay yung sarili nyo sa sitwasyon bilang anak, bilang asaawa o bilang magulang.
“The sheer number of petitions that have been filed since 1988 for the declaration of the nullity of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code (commonly known as “annulment”) shows that there are just too many couples who are desperate to get out of failed marriages.”
-i believe that annulment is different from declaration of nullity.
I was taught by our professor in law school that ANNULMENT is for VOIDABLE MARRIAGES (valid marriages which have defects) whereas the DECLARATION OF NULLITY is for VOID MARRIAGES (invalid marriages)
I am definitely againts it.
Why do we need divorce when there is annulment and legal separation if the only excuse to legalize it is to escape from an unredeemable situation? I’m not saying that annulment and legal separation is better but my point is, why is there a need of making another law of abolishing the legality of a marriage when there is already an existing law that can do that? And besides, using divorce to solve the problem of unhappy marriage is evading the real issue of why there is fighting, of why a situation like that arises. It is like resolving the pain of a wound in the foot by breaking the arm so as not to feel the pain from the foot because the pain is greater in the arm.
Professional studies both here and abroad show that street children, juvenile delinquent prisoners, prostitutes, criminals and the likes are most often than not a product of broken families. Therefore, it is only a figment of imagination that children were being spared from the destructive effect of broken homes by divorcing.
Legalizing divorce will encourage and or provide excuse for others to change partners from one to another as if they are only changing their clothes and allowing them to abuse the sanctity of marriage and surely, broken homes will abound all the more. Legalizing it will not make it moral either so it will be insanity if we consider it moral because everybody is doing it.
Lastly, legalizing divorce will only breed selfishness and self-indulgence. Why is that? Just listen on the reasons of the people pushing this bill, don’t I have the right to seek a first, second or third happiness? It is always I, I think that’s one of the unspoken reasons why the Church is against beside divorce will diminish the true spirit of marriage which is giving and taking in the name of love and which in the first place the reason why they entered into the union of marriage.
The people who are pushing this bill always says that the divorce bill here in the Philippines is different from the divorce bill in other countries. My question is, tell me a bill that was put into law that Filipinos didn’t abuse? what gals me is that they did it within the law so they didn’t break it somewhat. I believe that after ten years of legalizing divorce, the true meaning of Filipino style will manifest its ugly head.
im against divorce bill.
simple lang mga tol, kung hindi ka siguradong magpakasal, huwag kang sasabak. problema kasi sa marami panay puso lang ang sukatan, baka pwedeng gamitin ang utak? try mo. . .
ang pagpapakasal, hindi gaya ng mainit na kanin, na kapag napaso ka ay iluluwa mo na. aba mga pinoy, manindigan ka naman sa desisyon mo.
oo ngat may limang proseso/grounds bago ma-aaprove ang divorce, pero teh, sa bawat gusto mong asawa na nais mong palitan, aba, talagang gagawa ako ng paraan para masunod lang ang 5 grounds para maaprubahan ko ang divorce bill.
1 pa, may iba pa tayong mga batas na nagsusulong ng proteksyon ng mga kababaihan. ang dapat siguro, gisingin ang diwa ng tapang ng mga babae gayundin ang diwa ng kanilang mga utak, ng nalalaman nila ang dapat nilang sa mga asawa nilang umaabuso sa kanila.
hindi ba’t masakit din yun sa pride ng babae? ikaw na nga ang inabuso, kaw na ang nagfile ng divorce, at right after ng divorce, aba, si kuya, mas may advantage pa para magbuhay binata. as though, para mo na rin siyang binigyan ng insentive sa kanyang pang-aabuso sa’yo. thanks nga naman sa divorce bill, o db?
o sige, iba daw ang konteksto ng divorce bill dito sa pilipinas, e teka, san ba nanggaling ang konseptong yan. bakit teh, anong assurance mo na hindi sa ganong tahak ng daan tayo tutungo gaya ng landas ng mga supah liberated countries?…isipin mo nga.
oh, heto pa para sa mga may nais ng divorce bill, kung gusto niyo, irevise niyo na rin ang mga vows/promises sa kasal. nang sa ganon ay hindi naman nakakahiya sa yo na nangako ka pa sa harapan ng Diyos para lang masabi na may naganap na kasalan.
hindi ka nga nahihiya na makipaghiwalay ka, pero, hindi ka rin nahiya na may pinangako ka pa sa Diyos na tinuturing mo. ano nga ba kaya ang mas nakakahiya, ano?
galing talaga ano, grabe..ang dami-daming dapat na isatupad na mga lumang batas na mukha namang mas karapat-dapat na ipatupad, bakit kaya hindi mas pinagtutuunan ng pansin———siguro, magandang ihain na lang to uli, kapag naman may say na ang gobyerno na marami na silang batas na mas makabuluhan ang naisabatas at naisagawa.
dagdag na lang ng dagdag na mga bills, samantalang marami pang mas nauna nang mga batas ang naisabatas na, pero pagdating sa implementasyon? BULOK. utang na loob, wag nio ng dagdagan.
BAKIT BA TAYO TAKOT SA BATAS?
DI PA BA NATIN MAISIP NA PROTECTION ITO PARA SA LAHAT?
SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE DI NAMAN NATIN KAILNGAN NA BALIWALAIN YAN PERO PAANO YONG NAG DUURUSA DAHIL FAILURE AND MARRAIGE LIFE NILA?
WE NEED A LAW FOR EVERYONE ND ONLY THE LAW THAT ONLY RICH CAN AVAIL.
SA ANNULMENT MALAKI ANG GAGASTOSIN KAYA YONGMAY KAYA LANG HALOS ANG NAKAKA AVAIL NITO.
BAKIT BA MADAMOT ANG HUSTISYA PARA SA LAHAT!?!
SABI NILA JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL! SAAN?
IF WE HAVE DIVORSE IT’S A PROTECTION FOR ALL THE PILIPINOS…
WE NEED A LAW NA KAYANG ABUTIN NG KAHIT SINO MAHIRAP OR MAYAMAN.
ITO NA ANG PANAHON NG PAGBABAGO.
SUPPORTAHAN NATIN ANG DIVORSE TO SEE THAT WE ARE (PILIPINOS) ARE MATURED ENOUGH.
WE HOPE THAT GABRIELA WILL FIGHT FOR THIS TO MAKE A LAW AND MAKE IT A HISTORY FOR THE FILIPINOS.
WE SUPPORT YOU!!!
teka bkit parang favor sa girls lng ung divorce?
ei panu nmn ung mga lalaki na kinaliwa ng mga asawa nila???
I hope the divorce law will soon be passed. There are a lot of women in the Philippines suffering from their failed marriages. I would rather have a marriage legally dissolved than have women oppressed because the partner they decided to spend the rest of their lives have decided to go out of their promised fidelity.Natural law has been modified over time in all parts of the world. The time for change is now. Ignorance of this change will only cause irrepairable damage to whatever comes from a failed marriage. Saving a failed marriage is a fantasy saved for fairy tales. Reality is that humans are not perfect and not everyone are born with the biological tools to stay faithful.
Women suffer more because of nullity of marriage law which is the only remedy for them to seek. The threat of divorce will make a philanderer either to think twice about his actions or go ahead and face the reality of dissolving a failing marriage. Suffering a failing marriage need not be the proving grounds for one’s fidelity to their Christian beliefs. God implements natural law, not human laws.
Let us face reality. What are the things that the world can see about this issue that Malta and Philippines can’t see? We are now in New Generation and we must move together with changes to get it better. Let us open our eyes and brain.
Philippines is pro family. I am sure that when this bill is passed. this will not be a burger that every one will take a bite. I am sure divorce is not a good thing to do. I am sure that people will do everything to save marriage before going to this last option.
We are always looking at Filipino idealism about keeping family together. I accept that. But let us also face reality. When it is not really working, why this whole family need to live in darkness? Is it the same people we are trying to protect? To give a normal life? Normal family as well? Re-marrying is also a family that we want to built right?
Looking at present law, what are the problems that a lot of us are tying to close our other eye just to keep this idea about religion is always trying protect.
Reality:
1. Family leave in darkness forever. Instead of protecting the people.
2. How many people are separated and having other family now?that even both are all living with different families now? Why we can not protect those people as well?
3. How many illegitimate child need to be born and receive less acceptance in this society because of this old idealism?
4. Annulment is for rich people. So where is equality?
5. Corruption from some government officials, lawyers and judges who are taking advantage from this suffering couples. Why we open that window here? if it is legal and affordable, do you think people will find ways how to make money out of it?
6. How many crime committed for murder that is connected to these issues? How many people get away and criminals was not convicted due to careful planning and not obvious to public that the lead was due to unhappy marriage. Why we need to open up this threat? Is it easier to talk about it to find solution rather than committing a crime????
7. How many people committed suicide because of this??? Are we blind???
8. Is it good that law if for all? rich and poor can afford it?
All of these happens because of what??? Idealism.. “Filipino people preserve the right of keeping the family together” Hellooooo… let us open our eyes… and accept reality… same as the whole world that Malta and Philippines choose to close their eyes….
GABRIELA.. Please fight for the right of people to live a normal life even for the innocent kids… we will support you.. Divorce is not the option that people will pick-up first to solve a family problem. Same as other country, there are alot of ways that will take place first before a couple decide to this. Counselling, talk it over, family assistance… i am sure no one wants divorce but if this is the best solution for all. Why we keep it hard for everyone?
Welcome to 2011 those who are not agreeing to this… maybe you are one of the lucky family… but give a chance to those people who are not.. do not dictate to them how they should live their life and just pray for their happiness too.