DIVORCE 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, absolute divorce should be an option. The Philippines is faced with the issue on divorce, yet again. A. Facts Survey shows that Filipinos favors Divorce Fifty percent of 1,200 adult Filipinos agree to making divorce legal in the country, results of a recent survey by Social Weather Stations. A statement by the SWS on their first quarter survey showed that half of their respondents agreed to allow couples file for divorce while 33 percent disagreed to making divorce legal in the Philippines. Fifty percent of adult Filipinos, according to the survey results, agreed that married couples who have already separated and cannot reconcile anymore should be allowed to divorce so that they can get legally married again. Thirty-three percent disagreed while 16 percent were undecided about the issue. Results of the survey conducted from March 4 to 7, 2011 indicated a big change from merely neutral opinion six years ago, when 43 percent agreed and 44 percent disagreed, the SWS stated. There was also a consistent rise in support for legal divorce, the SWS survey result showed. In Metro Manila alone, the survey stated that the support for legal divorce switched from neutral to favorable as it increased from 44 percent last May 2005 to 52 percent this year. Support for legal divorce in Luzon rose from 51 percent to 54 percent while those from Visayas also hiked support ratings as the percentage of those who agreed to making divorce legal rose from 32 percent to 50 percent. The percent of legal divorce supporters living in Mindanao also increased from 36 percent to 44 percent.

DIVORCE Filipinos categorized under class E have also shown a change in their attitude towards legal divorce as those who opposed divorce changed their minds, raising the support from 2005s 37 percent to 45 percent. Support also rose from the masses (class D) where the percentage of those who agreed to legal divorce rose from 42 percent to 52 percent. Legal divorce however had decreased support ratings from class ABC as the 59 percent who agreed to it back in 2005 have gone down by 2 percent (57 percent). Both men and women regardless of civil status showed increased support for legal divorce in the Philippines as the percentage of those who agreed rose from 44 percent to 52 percent in men. Support from the women on the other hand, rose from 41 percent to 49 percent when compared to data from 2005. Support for legal divorce rose among single Filipinos from 45 percent to 52 percent with the percentage of women agreeing to it rising from 44 percent to 51 percent while that of men rose from 45 percent to 53 percent. Meanwhile it also increased among those married from 41 percent to 49 percent with the married women showing increased support from 39 percent to 47 percent. Married men who supported legal divorce also rose from 43 percent to 50 percent. Most live-in partners still favored the legalization of divorce with the 63 percent that agreed back in 2005 sliding to 62 percent this year. Percentage of men who live with their partners that agreed to legal divorce rose from 54 percent to 63 percent while the percentage of women who agreed to it was less this year (71 percent) compared to 2005 survey data (62 percent). Divorce Defined Let us look into what divorce is. Divorce (or the dissolution of marriage) is the final termination of a marital union, cancelling the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage and dissolving the bonds of matrimony between the parties. The legal process for divorce usually involves issues of spousal support, child custody, child support, distribution of property and division of debt.

DIVORCE Two Basic Approaches to Divorce Divorce laws vary among countries, there are two basic approaches to divorce: fault based and no-fault based. No-fault Approach Under a no-fault divorce system, divorce requires no allegation or proof of fault of either party. The barest of assertions suffice. For example, in countries that require "irreparable breakdown", the mere assertion that the marriage has broken down will satisfy the judicial officer. In other jurisdictions requiring irreconcilable differences, the mere allegation that the marriage has been destroyed by these differences is enough for granting a divorce. Courts will not inquire into facts. A "yes" from one party is enough, even if the other party vehemently says "no". The application can be made by either party or by both parties jointly. Fault Approach Prior to the late 1960s, nearly all countries which permitted divorce also required proof by one party that the other party had committed an act incompatible to the marriage. This was termed "grounds" for divorce (popularly called "fault") and was the only way to terminate a marriage. Most jurisdictions around the world still require such proof of fault. Fault-based divorces can be contested; evaluation of offenses may involve allegations of collusion of the parties (working together to get the divorce), or condonation (approving the offense); connivance (tricking someone into committing an offense), or provocation by the other party. Contested fault divorces can be expensive and not usually practical as eventually most divorces are granted. Comparative rectitude is a doctrine used to determine which spouse is more at fault when both spouses are guilty of breaches. However, even in some jurisdictions that do not require a party to claim fault of their partner, a court may still take into account the behavior of the parties when dividing property, debts, evaluating custody, and support. Laws vary as to the waiting period before a divorce is effective. Also, residency requirements vary. However, issues of division of property are typically determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which the property is located.

DIVORCE Historical Background of Divorce Now, let us delve into the evolution of divorce around the world throughout history. The ancient Athenians liberally allowed divorce, but the person requesting divorce had to submit the request to a magistrate, and the magistrate could determine whether the reasons given were sufficient. Divorce was rare in early Roman culture but as their empire grew in power and authority Roman civil law embraced the maxim, matrimonia debent esse libera ("marriages ought to be free"), and either husband or wife could renounce the marriage at will. Though civil authority rarely intervened in divorces, social and familial taboos guaranteed that divorce occurred only after serious circumspection. The Christian emperors Constantine and Theodosius restricted the grounds for divorce to grave cause, but this was relaxed by Justinian in the sixth century. In Medieval Europe, after the fall of the Roman Empire, familial life was regulated more by ecclesiastical authority than civil authority. By the ninth or tenth century, the divorce rate had been greatly reduced under the influence of the Christian Church, which considered marriage a sacrament instituted by God and Christ indissoluble by mere human action. Although divorce, as known today, was generally prohibited after the tenth century, separation of husband and wife and the annulment of marriage were well-known. What is today referred to as separate maintenance (or "legal separation") was termed divorce a mensa et thoro (divorce from bed-and-board). The husband and wife physically separated and were forbidden to live or cohabit together; but their marital relationship did not fully terminate. Civil courts had no power over marriage or divorce. Furthermore, the grounds for annulment were determined by Church authority and applied in ecclesiastical courts. Annulment was for canonical causes of impediment existing at the time of the marriage. For in cases of total divorce, the marriage is declared null, as having been absolutely unlawful ab initio. The Church held that the sacrament of marriage produced one person from two, inseparable from each other: By marriage the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being of legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything. Since husband and wife became one person upon marriage, that
4

DIVORCE oneness could only be annulled if the parties improperly entered into the marriage initially. After the Reformation, marriage came to be considered a civil contract in the non-Catholic regions, and on that basis civil authorities gradually asserted their power to decree a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, or divorce from all the bonds of marriage. Since no precedents existed defining the circumstances under which marriage could be dissolved, civil courts heavily relied on the previous determinations of the ecclesiastic courts and freely adopted the requirements set down by those courts. As the civil courts assumed the power to dissolve marriages, courts still strictly construed the circumstances under which they would grant a divorce, and now considered divorce to be contrary to public policy. Because divorce was considered to be against the public interest, civil courts refused to grant a divorce if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between the husband and wife to divorce, or if they attempted to manufacture grounds for a divorce. Divorce was granted only because one party to the marriage had violated a sacred vow to the "innocent spouse." If both husband and wife were guilty, "neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage." Eventually, the idea that a marriage could be dissolved in cases in which one of the parties violated the sacred vow gradually allowed expansion of the grounds upon which divorce could be granted from those grounds which existed at the time of the marriage to grounds which occurred after the marriage, but which exemplified violation of that vow, such as abandonment, adultery, or extreme cruelty. Divorce in other countries Japan In Japan specifically, during the Edo Period (16031868), only husbands could divorce their wives by writing letters of divorce. But actually, their relatives or marriage arrangers often kept these letters and tried to restore the marriages. It was not allowed for wives to divorce their husbands. Some wives were able to gain sanctuary in certain Shinto "divorce temples" for several years, and were able to obtain a divorce thereby. In 19th century Japan, at least one in eight marriages ended in divorce.

DIVORCE India A Special Marriage Act of India was passed in 1954, and the Hindu Marriage Act, in 1955 which legally permitted divorce to Hindus. Divorce can be sought by husband or wife on certain grounds, including: adultery, cruelty, desertion for two years, religious conversion, mental abnormality, venereal disease, and leprosy. Divorce causes great stigma among Hindus, especially those of the higher castes, and thus it is not common in this population. For consensual divorce there is a 6 months cooling off period after filing the consent terms in court before the divorce is granted. USA Divorce is not new to America. Divorce laws grant an absolute divorce, a limited divorce, and no fault divorce. However, divorce laws in America vary from state to state. Different states follow their own state divorce laws. Italy Divorce is also legal in Italy since a referendum approved on May 13, 1974. Before that, it was generally believed that Italy's obligations under the Lateran Treaty, entered into in 1929, prohibited Italy from authorizing divorce, and, consequently, there was no provision for divorce in Italian law, and the difficulty of ridding oneself of an unwanted spouse in the absence of any legal way to do so was a frequent topic of drama and humor, reaching its apotheosis in the 1961 film Divorce, Italian Style. Australia The divorce in Australia since the Family Law act changed in 1975 is a fairly simple process if you only consider the law. The new law made no fault divorce possible and there is only 1 reason for divorce that the court recognizes, which is citing irreconcilable differences. Before the change in the law, the reason for divorce could change the settlement outcome i.e. an adulterer may have been given a smaller piece of the matrimonial pie. This is no longer the case and in effect when you get divorced in Australia today, the court doesnt take into account the real reason the marriage broke down when deciding on matters around property and children.

DIVORCE United Kingdom To get a divorce in the United Kingdom, youll need to go through 4 steps: 1.) Deciding the reasons for divorce, 2.) File a divorce petition, 3.) Applying for a decree nisi, 4.) Getting a decree absolute. These stages can take about four months if you and your spouse agree on:

the reasons you want to divorce; how youll look after children; and how youll split up money, property and possessions

However, if you and your spouse dont agree on these issues the divorce can take much longer. Divorce in the Philippines Today, the Philippines and the Vatican are the only places in the world where divorce is prohibited, after Malta voted to remove its ban just recently. Historically, divorce had been part of the Philippines 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 Gaddangs of Nueva Vizcaya, the Sagadans and Igorots of Cordilleras, and the Manobos and Bila-ans 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.1410) 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 the basis for declaring the marriage void. In recognition of the history of divorce in the Philippines, the framers of the 1987 Constitution left the wisdom of legalizing divorce to the Congress.

DIVORCE Religious Perspective on Divorce Dharmic religions do not allow divorce. Christian views of divorce vary, with Catholic teaching allowing only annulment, but most other denominations discouraging but allowing divorce. Jewish views of divorce differ, with Reform Judaism considering civil divorces adequate. Conservative and Orthodox Judiasm require that the husband grant his wife a divorce in the form of a get. In addition, in Muslim societies, legislation concerning divorce varies from country to country. Several countries use sharia (Islamic law) to administrate marriages and divorces. No-fault divorce is allowed in Muslim societies, although normally only with the consent of the husband. A wife seeking divorce is normally required to give one of several specific justifications. If the man seeks divorce or was divorced, he has to cover the expenses of his ex-wife feeding his child and expenses of the child until the child is two years old (that is if the child is under two years old). The child is still the child of the couple despite the divorce. If it is the wife who seeks divorce, she must go to a court. She must provide evidence of ill treatment, inability to sustain her financially, sexual impotence on the part of the husband, her dislike of his looks, etc. The husband may be given time to fix the problem, but if he fails, the appointed judge will grant divorce should the couple still wish to be divorced. Philippine law through the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1083 of 1977) allows divorce among Filipino Muslims, in deference to their Muslim faith which recognizes divorce. The Philippines is considered a predominantly Catholic nation. In this light, it bears stressing that there is a low rate of divorce in Italy, where the Vatican is located, and Spain, two predominantly Catholic countries which practice divorce. Although divorce is permitted, Italy registers a 7% rate while Spain registers 15%. The figures still reflect the strong influence of religious beliefs and culture on individuals in deciding to terminate marital relations.

DIVORCE Modes of Separation In lieu of divorce in the Philippines, the options to end bad marriages legally are restricted to three. First is legal separation, which allows the couple to separate on the basis of repeated violence and physical abuse, sexual infidelity, conviction of a criminal offense with a penalty of more than six years, and abandonment. But this option does not allow the couple to re-marry and requires that they maintain fidelity. So individuals legally separated from their spouses should not have any sexual relations, lest they be charged with concubinage or adultery. Second is declaration of nullity of marriage which declares a marriage void from the very beginning. Children in this type of marriage are considered illegitimate. This legal option is available to minors who married without parental consent and those who were married by an unauthorized person. Bigamous marriages, mistaken identity, and incestuous marriages may also be declared void from the very beginning. Additionally there is Article 36 of the Family Code, which states that a marriage can be declared void if one of the parties is psychologically incapacitated to perform his or her marital obligations. This has often been used by couples seeking a way out of marriages and is sometimes dubbed as the Philippine de facto divorce law. And third is annulment which declares the marriage legal until it is declared void. This legal option is available to minors married without parental consent and to individuals who may have been of unsound mind at the time of the marriage. Couples married under deceitful circumstances such as the failure to inform the other party of a sexually transmitted disease, a pregnancy involving another man, criminal conviction, addiction, impotence, or homosexuality may also file for annulment. A Need for Divorce Thus far, getting out of a wrecked and obviously irreparable marriage in the Philippines is a tedious and very expensive process. The process cost about P100, 000 P200, 000, which is about a year's wages for a typical Filipino. The process takes about 12 years or more. One of the steps in the process is a psychological assessment for use or reason of annulment. This costs an additional P10, 000-P15, 000. Another step in the
9

DIVORCE process is an interview with a court appointed social worker to eliminate possible "collusion" among the parties involved especially if there are children. At present, reality tells us that there are many failed, miserable marriages across all Filipino classes. In 2007, it was recorded that eight marriages were annulled every week or about 7, 753 annulled marriages. Note that before 2006, cases for annulment never even reach the 7,000-mark. Additionally, according to 2010 statistics, there are more or less 800 cases for legal separation and annulment is filed each month in the Philippines, 61% of these are women. 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) alone, shows that there are just too many couples who are desperate to get out of failed marriages. Yet, many couples especially from the marginalized sectors, who have no access to the courts, simply end up separating without the benefit of legal processes. In Filipino culture, marriage is regarded as a sacred union and the family founded on marriage is considered as a wellspring of love, protection and care. Philippine society generally frowns upon and discourages marital break-ups and so provides cultural and legal safeguards to conserve marital relations. Filipino families show that separation is usually the last resort of many Filipino couples whose marriage has failed. 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. Even when couples start out well in their marriage, political, economic and social realities take their toll on the 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
10

DIVORCE and perpetuate their oppression. Official figures support this. The 2010 report of the Philippine National Police (PNP) 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. Also, instances of violence against women (VAW), according to the Philippine National Police Womens Desk, have been increasing: from 1,100 cases in 1996 to over 6,500 in 2005, almost a six-fold increase. Of VAW cases filed from 2001 to 2007, domestic violence comprised 76.2 percent. The perpetrators, likewise, were found to be mostly the victims husbands. According to Gabriela, a national alliance of women in the Philippines, of the 294 cases of violence against women reported to them from January to May, 2011, 204 involved domestic violence. Despite the alarming figures, the numbers can be considered conservative as most women opt to suffer in silence to keep the family together and to avoid the stigma of a broken marriage. Efforts to Legalize Divorce in the Philippines In 1999, Representative Manuel C. Ortega filed House Bill No. 6993, seeking for the legalization of divorce. 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 2005, party-list representative Liza Maza of Gabriela filed a divorce bill, anew. Then in the 14th Congress, Gabriela filed a bill to introduce divorce in the Philippines again. Accordingly, seeing the dire need to have divorce in the Philippines; undeterred, the Gabriela Womens Party representatives Luzviminda Ilagan and Emmi de Jesus re-filed on July 2010 the Divorce Bill (House Bill 1799) as an additional option for ending an unhealthy marriage, and as a means to reintroduce divorce into the Philippine legal system, during the 15th Congress. The bill was crafted in consultation with women lawyers and inspired by the studies and

11

DIVORCE inputs of various womens groups and the experiences of abused spouses, all were gathered by GABRIELA from its various chapters nationwide. The explanatory note of House Bill 3461, filed by Gabriela Womens Party Representatives states: Lets open this topic for discussion by everyone. Lets avoid namecalling and focus on the merits. If you support or oppose the bill, then perhaps you could talk to your respective representatives in the House. The bill has been filed during the 13th and 14th Congress and died at conception. Lets hope that this time around, it will have a better fate. Divorce is an additional option for ending an unhealthy marriage and the Divorce Bill as a means to reintroduce divorce into our legal system. So far, we have Legal Separation, Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Annulment. But these do not give women the freedom to get out of a marriage and to start a new life if she cant remarry. The intent of the passage of the bill is not meant to break up the Filipino family, as detractors claim. According to the Gabriela, it is just another option to get out of an already failed marriage. Divorce is all about the individuals right to reclaim a dignified and secured life. It can also protect a battered woman and her children from further violence in the case of an abusive relationship. Gabriela believes that the divorce bill is a dignified way out of women suffering in an already failed relationship.

12

DIVORCE
B. Relevant Laws and Jurisprudence

1987 Constitution As stated above, the Filipino family is founded on marriage; considered as a wellspring of love, protection and care. The 1987 Philippine Constitution provide for the following: Article II: STATE POLICIES Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Article XV: THE FAMILY Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. The Family Code From the enactment of the New Civil Code in 1950, divorce was already illegal in the Philippines (except among Muslims and Indigenous groups.) Then Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines came into force. Pertinent provisions are as follows:

13

DIVORCE Marriage Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code. Void Marriage Article. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: (1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians; (2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so; (3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered the preceding Chapter; (4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41; (5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and (6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53. Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. (As amended by Executive Order 227) Article 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate: (1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and (2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood. (81a)

14

DIVORCE Article 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy: (1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree; (2) Between step-parents and step-children; (3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law; (4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child; (5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child; (6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter; (7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter; (8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and (9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person's spouse, or his or her own spouse. Voidable Marriages Article 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage: (1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife; (2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; (3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; (4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; (5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or
15

DIVORCE (6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable. Legal Separation Article 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds: (1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner; (2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation; (3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement; (4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned; (5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent; (6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent; (7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad; (8) Sexual infidelity or perversion; (9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or (10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year. For purposes of this Article, the term "child" shall include a child by nature or by adoption. Marital Obligation Article 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

16

DIVORCE The Civil Code Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. UN-CEDAW For our discussions the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (UN-CEDAW) will be helpful. Article 1 For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "discrimination against women" shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. Article 3 States Parties shall take in all fields, in particular in the political, social, economic and cultural fields, all appropriate measures, including legislation, to en sure the full development and advancement of women , for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men. Article 15 1. States Parties shall accord to women equality with men before the law. 2. States Parties shall accord to women, in civil matters, a legal capacity identical to that of men and the same opportunities to exercise that capacity. In particular, they shall give women equal rights to conclude contracts and to administer property and shall treat them equally in all stages of procedure in courts and tribunals. Article 16 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:
17

DIVORCE (a) The same right to enter into marriage; (b) The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent; (c) The same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution; Republic Act No. 9262 Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 will likewise be of assistance in our discussion. Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and children and guarantees full respect for human rights. The State also recognizes the need to protect the family and its members particularly women and children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and security. Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against women and children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and the Provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination Against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a party.

Potenciano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139789 / 139808, July 19, 2001 Marriage is definitely for two loving adults who view the relationship with

amor gignit amorem" respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to togetherness, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution. Antonio vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006 But the Constitution itself does not establish the parameters of state protection to marriage as a social institution and the foundation of the family. It remains the province of the legislature to define all legal aspects of marriage and prescribe the strategy and the modalities to protect it, based on whatever socio-political influences it deems proper, and subject of course to the qualification that such legislative enactment itself adheres to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This being the case, it also falls on the legislature to
18

DIVORCE put into operation the constitutional provisions that protect marriage and the family. While it may appear that the judicial denial of a petition for declaration of nullity is reflective of the constitutional mandate to protect marriage, such action in fact merely enforces a statutory definition of marriage, not a constitutionally ordained decree of what marriage is.

William Ong vs. Lucita Ong, G.R. No. 153206, October 23, 2006 As a final note, we reiterate that our Constitution is committed to the policy of

strengthening the family as a basic social institution. The Constitution itself however does not establish the parameters of state protection to marriage and the family, as it remains the province of the legislature to define all legal aspects of marriage and prescribe the strategy and the modalities to protect it and put into operation the constitutional provisions that protect the same. Republic vs. Tanyag-San Jose and San Jose, G.R. No. 168328, February 28, 2007 Accordingly, We can safely conclude that said deficiency is so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. This Court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship in which the parties found themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations, can do no less but to declare the marriage between the herein petitioner and the respondent herein dissolved. While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Article 68 of the Family Code), however, what is there to preserve when the other spouse is an unwilling party to the cohesion and creation of a family as an inviolable social institution. In fine, Laila Tanyag-San Jose must be allowed to rise from the ashes and begin a new lifefreed from a marriage which, to us, was hopeless from the beginning and where the bonding could not have been possible.

Ngo Te vs. Te, G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009 The Court should rather be alarmed by the rising number of cases involving

marital abuse, child abuse, domestic violence and incestuous rape.

19

DIVORCE
C.

Issues Aptly, we shall make use of these foregoing laws and jurisprudence to answer the

following issues: I WHETHER OR NOT THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS A DIVORCE LAW II WHETHER OR NOT THE FILIPINOS IS IN FAVOR OF DIVORCE III WHETHER OR NOT DIVORCE DESTROYS THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE IV WHETHER OR NOT DIVORCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL The issues herein raised, aim to resolve if there is a need for a divorce law in the Philippines and why there is a need for such. Then, if such need is established; are Filipinos agreeable with divorce? Does it devastate the sanctity of marriage? And finally, is a divorce law in tune with our present Constitution?

20

DIVORCE D. Discussions / Argumentations I WHETHER OR NOT THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS A DIVORCE LAW There is a need for a divorce law now On the first issue, we answer in the affirmative. Considering the increasing number of wrecked marriages and the relative increase in petitions for annulment of marriages (which more often than not yield an unfavorable outcome), it is high time for the Philippines to have a divorce law, for a more expeditious and inexpensive preference to sever an apparently broken marital union. As GABRIELA puts it; a divorce law is just another option to get out of an already failed marriage. Facts will show that wife battering accounted for 53.6 percent from 8,011 cases of violence against women as provided by the PNP. The Philippines needs a divorce law, largely for the sake of those who have suffered and is still suffering from domestic abuse, especially women. It is not acceptable for a spouse to stay in a battering relationship just because the state provides for no other expedient option. It is in our view that the available means to sever a marriage in the Philippines i.e. annulment, declaration of nullity and legal separation; are not enough to address the concern on wife battering or spousal abuse. In the case of Ngo Te vs. Te, G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009 The Court shouldbe alarmed by the rising number of cases involving marital abuse, child abuse, domestic violence ... Lack of Divorce law violates CEDAW The absence of a divorce law in the Philippines violates the countrys obligation to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the country being a party in said convention. Given the factual setting in the Philippines that domestic violence against women accounts as a major reason for the want of married women to get out of a violent marriage, lack of a divorce option, is, in a significant way, a form of discrimination against women. According to Article 1 of CEDAW: "discrimination against women" shall mean any
distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental 21

DIVORCE
freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It is clear that lack of a divorce law restricts fundamental civil freedom of women to freely choose to get out of an already detrimental marital union. Article 15.1 of CEDAW furthers that: Parties shall accord to women equality with men before the law, and Aticle15.2 provides that: Parties shall accord to women, in civil matters, a legal capacity identical to that of men and the same opportunities to exercise that capacity, such that there is a need to enact a divorce law to address the need for a better and more efficient way of getting out from a marriage attended with unforgivable violence.

Article 16.1 of CEDAW emphasizes that: Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women: (a) The same right to enter into marriage; (b) The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent; (c) The same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution;...
Indeed, the society and the law generally gives women freedom to choose who they want to marry. It is, therefore imperative that these women should also be given the same freedom to get out of the marriage, if and when they have a valid cause i.e. when domestic violence and spousal abuse is present. Furthermore, when women are given the opportunity to get a divorce, this will ultimately ...ensure their full development and advancement as a woman ... guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms ... (Article 3 of CEDAW.) Women

will, as a result, be released from a troubled marriage and will be allowed to resume a life free from uncertainties, mental anguish and physical and emotional pain, thus restoring their strayed liberty. Divorce will strengthen R.A. 9262 Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 provides that: Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and children and guarantees full respect for
22

DIVORCE human rights. The State also recognizes the need to protect the family and its members particularly women and children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and security. Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against women and children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and the Provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination Against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a party. Divorce will provide a means for battered wives to ultimately put an end to a seemingly never ending cycle of violence. Thus, the dignity of women will be upheld. Absolutely severing the bond between the victim and the abuser will give women the opportunity to start anew. As appositely stated in the case of Republic vs. Tanyag-San Jose and San Jose, G.R. No. 168328, February 28, 2007: In fine, Laila Tanyag-San Jose must be allowed to rise from the ashes and begin a new lifefreed from a marriage which, to us, was hopeless from the beginning and where the bonding could not have been possible. Breaking one link to the cycle will eventually stop the cycle of violence. Because the bond between husband and wife seem to be a permit to perpetrate violence against the latter, divorce as a means to dissolve such bond will be a tool to impede further violence. Consequently, divorce will be a reasonable way to lessen if not put an end to violence against women. DIVORCE vs. Annulment and Legal Separation Although annulment and divorce will sever the marital ties, they are significantly distinct. Annulment is too expensive (P100, 000 P200, 000) and it is common knowledge that only the rich can afford it. Divorce on the other hand, is affordable, thus it can be available to more Filipinos who wish to benefit from it. The availability of divorce enfranchises those who currently dont have the means to get out of a failed marriage through annulment.

23

DIVORCE Annulment takes too long. It takes 1-2 years for the complete annulment process, while divorce takes roughly 4-5 months. In failed marriages where domestic violence is the major reason, divorce will be a simpler way out of violence. Instead of bearing the agony for at most 2 years, divorce will pave a way for a more practical means of obtaining freedom from marital woes. With divorce as an available means for battered wives, they will NOT be subjected and exposed to the graveness of annulment proceedings. The faster they can get out of the unhealthy marriage, the sooner they can regain their lost dignity, recover from the cruelty and start their full development and
advancement (Article 3 CEDAW)

With regard to legal separation, its main disadvantage is that it does not dissolve the marriage, hence, spouses cannot remarry. This is very much contrary to what is offered by divorce, which is to free both parties from the bond of marriage, in order to find the right person to share mutual love and respect (Article 68 Family Code.) We believe that when a marriage is beyond repair, divorce is the more humane option for both spouses. Filipinos should be given more liberty through a divorce law. To frustrate a weary spouses need to get out of a perilous marriage, by way of a legal separation, is but pitiable to say the least, since it is not what the spouse really needs. Legal separation is merely way to retain the presence of a marriage, but in fact the fundamental nature (mutual love and respect) of marriage no longer exist. It is time that we do away with this mirage in our country about preserving marriage and the family. We have to face reality, however painful it might be. There are bad marriages in the Philippines, those beyond repair.
It would be un-Christian, uncharitable and even going against the law of God if you continue to be in a relationship where you continually beat another person. Bear in mind that every person

must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith (New Civil Code, Article 19.) With their right and duty in a marital union, husbands should act with justice; give what is due to their wives and be honest and good towards their spouse, at all times. If the husband does otherwise, wives should have the option to end the marital union. To reiterate once more, the sanctity of marriage is not based on the number of marriages existing but on the quality of marital relationships.

24

DIVORCE Moreover, when legal separation is granted, it will leave a spouse constrained to violate the law pertaining to chastity. Although as a fact a marriage is already irreparably broken, but because, both spouses are still married under the eyes of the law, being with another person (other than your estranged spouse) and sharing mutual love and respect with that person will be construed as unlawful and dissolute. There is more misery instead of reprieve! Why is Divorce for Muslims ONLY? There is unequal protection before the law. Muslims have divorce under the Muslim Code of Personal Laws but non-Muslims don't. If the Philippines is a secular, pluralist state, why is it that it recognizes and protects the beliefs of Muslims but imposes a single religious standard on non-Muslims? Are Muslims any different? We believe not. Whatever marital troubles Muslim families experience, are likewise experienced by Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew and Shinto families, among others. Thus, a divorce law should equally be available to all sectors of Philippine society. The government should leave the moralizing to the church and objectively address the reality of marriages breaking up, of countless Filipinos having families outside of marriages, and all the social issues related to this phenomenon. The separation
of the church and the state shall be inviolable (Article II Section 6, 1987 Constitution.) The Government should answer the clamor for a divorce law and let the church do their part in inculcating to the Filipinos how to strengthen the family. More importantly, there must be equal protection of the law. The right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law, should be recognized and respected.

25

DIVORCE II WHETHER OR NOT THE FILIPINOS IS IN FAVOR OF DIVORCE

There is ominous need for a divorce law in the Philippines. Hence, we arrive, now, to answer the second issue posed. We, likewise, answer in the affirmative; the Filipinos are in principally in favor of legalizing divorce. Concept of Philippine Divorce Most common perspective is that the Pinoy imagine it like the divorce law in Las Vegas where people could just marry easily and on the next day they would file for divorce. It is not like that. This Divorce Bill is crafted, carefully studied and in consultation with leading lawyers in the country that they sensibly recognize and consider the Filipino culture. The idea of couples wanting to end their marriages is not a new to Filipinos. As womens rights advocate Beth Angsioco wrote in her column, "We already have laws for those who only want property settlement, and those with void and voidable marriages, why not a law for valid but failed marriages? House Bill 1799 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. Majority of Filipinos are in favor of Divorce More than any other voice heard in debates on television and or commentaries read in other media forum; let us look at the ordinary people and citizens of our country whose opinion regarding divorce matters most.
26

DIVORCE The Social Weather Stations (SWS) conducted a survey in March 4 to 7, 2011 asking questions on legalizing divorce in the Philippines. Fifty percent of 1,200 adult Filipinos agree while 33 percent disagreed to making divorce legal in the Philippines and 16 percent were undecided about the issue. The SWS stated that there was a consistent rise in support for legal divorce as indicated in the result of the recent survey compared to the results of the survey six years ago when 43 percent agreed and 44 percent disagreed. The survey shows a dramatic increase in the percentage of Filipinos in favor of divorce. Therefore, mass-based support for the legalization of divorce is already present. This claim is further supported by the rise of percentage, across the archipelago, in favor of legalizing divorce in the country. In Metro Manila, the survey stated that the support for legal divorce switched from neutral to favorable as it increased from 44 percent last May 2005 to 52 percent this year. In Luzon rose from 51 percent to 54 percent while those from Visayas also hiked support ratings as the percentage of those who agreed to making divorce legal rose from 32 percent to 50 percent. In Mindanao, the percent of legal divorce supporters also increased from 36 percent to 44 percent. Filipinos categorized under class E have also shown a change in their attitude towards legal divorce, raising the support from 37 percent in 2005 to 45 percent in the recently conducted survey. From class D or the masses, the percentage of those who agreed to legal divorce rose from 42 percent to 52 percent. Both men and women regardless of civil status showed increased support for legal divorce in the Philippines as the percentage of those who agreed rose from 44 percent to 52 percent in men. Support from the women on the other hand, rose from 41 percent to 49 percent when compared to data from 2005. It also increased among those married from 41 percent to 49 percent with the married women showing increased support from 39 percent to 47 percent. Married men who supported legal divorce also rose from 43 percent to 50 percent. The public, regardless of their marital status, is now more open to accept the possibility of divorce. The survey reflects the growing need for divorce as an additional remedy for failed and abusive marriages.

27

DIVORCE Peoples Perspective on Divorce The Philippines is predominantly Roman Catholic, where marriage is highly revered and divorce is not an option. But, Filipinos are not all Catholics; there are other Christian sects and denominations, Islam and many other. The Muslims have practiced divorce from time immemorial, so this pending bill is not an issue for them anymore but for Non-Muslims who are also citizens in this country, who do not avail such right. The most vocal in campaigning against Divorce are the Roman Catholic Bishops and influential members who are mostly interviewed on television and who writes blogs or articles in newspapers. But, it does not mean that the rest of the Christian community is against divorce. The Catholics are not the sole representatives of the Christian community, so we should not just tie them all with the Catholics commentaries and criticisms. In reality, even the members of the Catholic Church have different opinions on divorce. A United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) church leader in Davao City expressed support for the controversial divorce bill pending in the 15th Congress. Bishop Modesto Villasanta said: House Bill 1799 will address failing relationships among married couples who have been living together sans love. He said that the UCCP is open-minded on the issue. Responding to claims by the bills opponents (that it will affect the sanctity of marriage in the country), Bishop Villasanta said: Its up to the Church on how they will teach their people on the importance of marriage and not on barring its (divorce bills) approval. House Bill 1799 seeks to make Philippine law consistent in the way it treats religious beliefs with respect to termination of marriage. The passage of divorce bill does not mean Filipinos outlook on the importance of marriage has waned. With the predominance of the Catholic faith in the Philippines, the fear that divorce will erode personal values on marriage appears unfounded, stated congresswomen Ilagan and De Jesus (authors of the current house bill on divorce.) Despite the projection of conservatism of the Filipino culture especially when being tied with the Roman Catholic Churchs perspective, Filipinos nowadays recognizes that in reality, not everybody are living their fairy tales and happy endings, because, life is a continuous journey and we do not hold the full control of circumstances that come
28

DIVORCE along the way. To reiterate once again, this bill seeks to introduce divorce as another option for couples in failed and irreparable marriages. Debates in Congress This bill has opened formal debates not only in Congress. Credible public officials have verbally supported it as expressed in their statements. Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano believes that the present laws can provide an unhappy couple other avenues to dissolve their marriage. The Gabriela representatives found allies in Negros Occidental Rep. Ignacio Arroyo Jr, Zambales Rep. Ma Milagros Magsaysay and Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello. Rep. Ignacio Arroyo said that he is in favor of the bill." Rep. Magsaysay, on one hand, believes that the bill should be seriously looked into as times have changed and more couples are separating without protection for the rights of both spouses and their children. "Though it will encourage a lot of debates, this will be good as it will really bring the real picture of the state of family and how we can ensure and protect everyones rights," Magsaysay added. Rep. Walden Bello, another member of the House of Representatives, publicly supports the proposed divorce bill as he gestured encouragement: Lets join the 20th century. In addition, House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said in a media interview: It is bound to be another contentious bill, but let me just say that I myself am in favor of the bill. Its very difficult to make the people who cannot continue to live together do so. What for is liberty when people are tied down by limitations imposed by harsh laws when our lawmakers can pave way to free the people they serve from this burden. Every person or couples deserve to be given options that would make choices more available to correct their failure and move on with a better life. Although divorce is consistently met with opposition, it is clear that, presently Filipinos are more open to the idea of divorce in the Philippines. From amongst the social classes, there are favorable nods for the legalization of divorce.

III
29

DIVORCE WHETHER OR NOT DIVORCE DESTROYS THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE Effects on the Sanctity of Marriage Divorce does not destroy the sanctity of marriage. As stated in the explanatory note: In the 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. Congressman Ben Evardone has publicly opposed the bill. He said: We must continue to work for the preservation of the sanctity of marriage and the family. Legalizing divorce might encourage or promote destruction of families. According to Gabriela party-list Representative Luzviminda C. Ilagan (author of House Bill 1799, to the committee on youth, women and family relations), this proposal does not violate the sanctity of the family. It may even strengthen the sanctity of marriage. People will be aware that there are vows and responsibilities to be fulfilled, but reality is, some marriages fail. The sanctity of marriage is not based on the number of marriages existing but on the quality of marital relationships.

IV
30

DIVORCE WHETHER OR NOT DIVORCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL Divorce is constitutional In the case of Antonio vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006 the Supreme Court had the chance of pointing out that: While it may appear that the judicial denial of a petition for declaration of nullity is reflective of the constitutional mandate to protect marriage, such action in fact merely enforces a statutory definition of marriage, not a constitutionally ordained decree of what marriage is. Divorce does not clash with the States principle of protecting the sanctity of family life, as stated in Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution. Although a huge number of anti-divorce supporters have attacked divorce as unconstitutional, no provisions on the Constitution prohibit the passing of any law regarding divorce. According to Representative Maza of the Gabriela Partylist, it was apparent in the discussions during the Constitutional Commission that the inviolability of marriage is not prohibitive of divorce. Divorce does not infringe the inviolability of the family because it would pave the way to strengthen the sanctity of marriage. The legislators who spearheaded the divorce bill made sure that divorce will not violate the Constitution and the rights provided by it to Filipinos. The legislators made sure that the strict legal framework of divorce will be indisputably implemented. Divorce would also serve as a last resort for married couples who have no hope of restoring their marriage into a happy and harmonious one. With these substantive facts, it can be presumed that no legal impediments bar the passage of any law regarding divorce and no issues on its unconstitutionality exist. Also in the same case of Antonio vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006, the Supreme Court furthers that the Constitution itself does not establish the parameters of state protection to marriage as a social institution and the foundation of the family. It remains the province of the legislature to define all legal aspects of marriage and prescribe the strategy and the modalities to protect it, based on whatever socio-political influences it deems proper, and subject of course to the qualification that such legislative enactment itself adheres to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This being the case, it also falls on the legislature to put into operation the constitutional provisions that protect

31

DIVORCE marriage and the family. Yes, the state has the duty to protect the family and divorce can be one tool for accomplishing such duty. We believe that, a strong nation is founded on strong families. The state should invest on strengthening quality families rather than on the quantity of families it traps into a troubled union. What is quantity when it is of poor quality? Right to a secure life Article II, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution provides: The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. In this light, we see divorce as more responsive to the rights of men and women. For abused women, divorce will be more responsive to their rights and needs. Women have the right to develop to their full potential and live peaceful and fulfilling lives. Women also need to have freedom to make choices that make them more whole as individuals and responsible members of the nation. This is not possible if they are restricted and bounded by a failed marriage which cannot be restored to its normalcy. The case of William Ong vs. Lucita Ong, G.R. No. 153206, October 23, 2006, would prove to be useful to rest our case as it emphasizes: As a final note, we reiterate that our Constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution. The Constitution itself however does not establish the parameters of state protection to marriage and the family, as it remains the province of the legislature to define all legal aspects of marriage and prescribe the strategy and the modalities to protect it and put into operation the constitutional provisions that protect the same.

E. Conclusion and Recommendations

32

DIVORCE Conclusion: Divorce is inevitable and it must be legalized. With statistics to prove that Filipinos are in favor of divorce, then there is a need for divorce in the country. And as proven that divorce does not violate or destroy the sanctity of marriage, divorce cannot be labeled as unconstitutional. The Philippines needs a divorce law, and countless Filipina needs divorce now! Recommendations: The Filipinos should be encouraged to support the pending Divorce Bill. The difficulty of being allowed to marry should be as difficult as getting an

annulment or legal separation. The Legislature can provide sterner rules on couples who are planning to get married.

33