SBC- HRA DEBATE CUP 2018

MOTION: Let it be resolved that the Divorce Bill should

be passed.

NEGATIVE POSITION PAPER

Submitted by: 1-D

Debaters:

Garcia, May

Riñon, Jerome

Santos, Jamila Arianne

Surigao, Andre Jose

Head Researcher: Rubio, Viktor Kevin

Beadle: Quijano, Nathanael

March 9, 2018

San Beda College of Law

Mendiola, Manila
 Let it be resolved that the Divorce Bill should be passed.

BACKGROUND

“The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law.

Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength, nor greed for power debase its

rectitude.1”

The supreme law of the land provides— “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life

and shall protect and strengthen the family as basic autonomous social institution.” Corollary to

this, it has been proclaimed that “marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation

of the family and shall be protected by the State.”

These pronouncements are not mere embellishments—they are not engraved in the

Constitution for flattery. Rather, they are positive duties that the State must perform. These

Constitutional mandates are reflected all throughout our legal system. For instance, Philippine

jurisprudence is replete with decisions in favor of the subsistence of a marriage. General laws,

like the New Civil Code, likewise is full of provisions tending to the same end. This leads to the

sole conclusion that the State has the primordial duty, under the fundamental law, to prevent

the breaking up of marriages.

How could the State then stay faithful to its bounden duty when divorce as a legal option

is sanctioned?

The totality of the legal system in the Philippines reinforces the vital role of the

government to recognize and protect the sanctity of family life. Whether the Constitution, our

1
general laws, or even case laws are consulted, the dissolution of a perfectly valid marriage is

clearly eschewed. This holistic conclusion is the consequence of the government being faithful to

the mandates of the Constitution. Marriage is a special contract that, when entered into, binds

not only the spouses alone, but also them to the State. This must be so, for marriage is an

institution that enjoys protection no less from the supreme law. Its nature, consequences, and

incidents are governed by law, and not merely by the spouses.

Marriage, in the context of the Philippine society, should not and cannot be taken lightly.

This is simply a matter of law. Hence, it is presumed that couples before deciding to solemnize

their union know exactly what they are getting into. If unfortunate events and circumstances,

unforeseeable and uncontrollable, befall the marriage of two persons, the Family Code is more

than sufficient to deal with these contingences. The Code does so through its provisions regarding

void and voidable marriages, and legal separation. The operative phrase here is unforeseeable

and uncontrollable. Under our law, spouses may only be released from a marriage if it suffers

from a fatal flaw absolutely beyond their wisdom or control. This is the only logical consequence

because, once again, marriage is a matter of law—not of whim. For any other situation outside

those which cannot be foreseen or controlled, the State may not simply offer a crutch to those

who are burdened, lest it run afoul of Constitutional mandates.

It is a known argument for divorce that the current laws are insufficient to protect the

rights of either spouse. Granting but without conceding, it is still our position that the passing of

the Divorce Bill is not the answer. Majority of the privileges and protections sought to be

implemented by the Divorce Bill are already achievable with current laws. As for what novelty

the Bill may still offer, they can be done through mere amendments. Divorce is simply alien in
our current legal system. By allowing the same, we are also entertaining the possibility of opening

Pandora’s Box. We would be straying from the path that has been the foundation of the Filipino

family since time immemorial.

Furthermore, instead of pushing for divorce, strengthening the provisions of the current

laws, as we shall prove, is the better course of action. For instance, the salutary provisions of

Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children could be improved

upon, with spousal abuse being one of the more compelling reasons for divorce (as claimed by

the proponents thereof). This should instead be so, because divorce will not necessarily put an

end to domestic violence as many believe. Rather, it will only act as a band-aid solution to a

deeper societal issue of abuse. What the country needs is a long-term solution to the existing

problem of violence against women and children.

The proponents of the divorce bill likewise claim that it will “give [people] another chance

at marital bliss.” This supposed benefit, we believe, is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that

people who have been in irreparable marriages will necessarily benefit from more subsequent

marriages. Not only that, this claim is bereft of concrete evidence to support itself. In fact, we

categorically state that the effect of allowing divorce will have the opposite effect. It has been

proved by studies in countries where divorce is available that the subsequent marriages of

divorcees have higher failure rates. Therefore, not only is there no actual guarantee of marital

bliss after divorce, actual data further show that the opposite is likely to ensue.

As long as the root causes of failed marriages are left unattended, the most benevolent,

most lenient divorce law will not cure what ultimately ails the institution of marriage. From our

perspective, the passage of such law would only open the possibility of people entering into a
marriage as a matter of trial and error. Whereas under the status quo, spouses-to-be would first

deliberate upon the possible serious consequences of their action, the Divorce Law would render

such careful deliberation futile. After all, they can always avail of the quick-fix that is divorce.

Sooner or later, a new malady would pervade our society—the vicious cycle of failed marriages.

The proponents of the divorce bill, no less, essentially concede that their proposed policy

would provide an easy way out. They argue, however, that this is a design deliberate. In effect,

they actually countenance and encourage failed marriages. Because instead of requiring spouses

to make every possible measure to make the relationship work, they would rather allow the

spouses to have the easiest solution there is—quitting. Proponents in essence would leave to the

citizenry at large the option to debase the sanctity of marriage. Clearly, the net effect here is not

only the contravention of constitutional mandates, but also a dereliction of State duties.

To this end, we strongly disagree—we do so only in faithful deference to the dictates of

the Constitution.