Faith and Folly
by Isagani Miguel A. Ranillo
The law exists to protect the people, but one of its fundamental properties lends itself to both its progression and downfall — that it is people, flawed by design, that determine its fate. With every push toward progress comes a corresponding pull, and the heated debates in the Philippine Legislature on the legalization of divorce is one example.
The Philippine House of Representatives (HOR), in its most recent attempt to expand the scope of marital dissolution, has narrowly ruled in favor of the Absolute Divorce Bill, with 131 affirmative votes, 109 negative votes, and 20 abstentions. The sheer ratio between the votes raises concern, especially when they were made based on personal and religious beliefs without regard for those of contrasting values.
The Church is not the State
There is a reason why Article II, Section 6 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution specifies the separation of church and state — to ensure fair treatment of all beliefs. Because for every reason one religion values its beliefs and customs, the same applies to that of others. But despite this fact, many anti-divorce legislators justify their stance by saying, “I believe in the sanctity of marriage” or “Marriage is an inviolable social institution.”
But, so what? Legalizing divorce, in the first place, does not aim to dissolve the marriages of those satisfied with theirs. Ironically, it is those against divorce who demand that others be beholden to their beliefs.
Quite conveniently, nowhere in their defense do they consider why people seek divorce in the first place. Their incoherence would be obvious otherwise. Marriages are decisions made by people — people who change, make mistakes, and ultimately, regret. Article 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines is a testament to marriages gone awry — a concession to the realities of what marriage can become and why people choose to leave — from violence, abuse, and delinquent behavior among others.
Denying people divorce can be summed up simply; it is an attempt to skirt the displeasure of stomaching others’ beliefs. It caters not to those who have gone through soul-crushing hardship but instead, those who are tangibly unaffected.
There is no substitute for divorce
“File for annulment or legal separation instead,” they say, but they are not the same. Divorce allows for remarriage and can be granted simply on the grounds of irreconcilable differences; there is no need for extreme justifications.
An annulment dissolves a marriage by proclaiming it invalid from the start. Although it allows for remarriage like divorce, there is much less guarantee that it is granted. It must be proven that there was some form of deception, psychological incapacity, or lack of consent among others. You are unlikely to prove that a marriage was invalid when in fact it was not.
Conversely, legal separation prohibits remarriage. It simply allows spouses to live apart and own separate assets while retaining their marital status. However, it only allows for separation under extreme circumstances such as delinquency, violence, and abuse among others.
Both alternatives fall short of what divorce can offer — exclusionary resorts people are forced to settle for. At a point where a marriage is unsalvageable, these people have already endured immense pain, so why rub salt in their wounds by chaining them to people who hurt them?
The choice is theirs, not yours
Some people may choose to stay and mend what is broken, but different people have different wants and needs and thus will act differently. Even beliefs even within organized religion exist on a spectrum. Some may believe that their God would forgive them, and some may be ready to accept their God’s wrath regardless. For as long as they fall within moral bounds, whatever they believe and however they act is not something others can police.
Lawmakers moving to condemn divorce against all logic and reason is nothing but a shameless display of religious hegemony — an attempt to further institutionalize their beliefs through public policy. Unless these legislators look beyond their self-interests, minorities will continue to suffer. Under such conditions, other bills that challenge conservative norms — such as the SOGIE Equality Bill — face paths paved with thorns. But more than their failure to cater to minority interests, they set a precedent of how people ought to treat those different from themselves. It is imperative, therefore, that we hold our legislators accountable for their responsibilities to the masses and that we resist social regression.
With the Divorce Bill soon set to be examined by the Senate, we must demand they veer toward the side of the people — that they think not just for themselves but for the welfare of those who need it.
