Divorce is a controversial topic, except that its 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. Heres the explanatory note of House Bill 3461, filed by GABRIELA Womens Party Representatives Liza LargozaMaza and LuzvimindaIlagan. Lets open this topic for discussion by everyone. Lets 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 Womens 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 CodeThe 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. (Womens 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 womens 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 childrens 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 the1987 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 severes 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.

Republic of the Philippines HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Quezon City FIFTEENTH CONGRESS First Regular Session House Bill No.1 79 9 Date Filed: July 27, 2010 Introduced by GABRIELA Womens Party Representatives LUZVIMINDA C. ILAGAN and EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS AN ACT INTRODUCING DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE TITLE II, ARTICLES 55 TO 66 INCLUSIVE AND ARTICLE 26 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND REPEALING ARTICLE 36 OF THE SAME CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Title II of Executive Order No. 209, amended, otherwise known as The Family Code of the Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows: TITLE II LEGAL SEPARATION AND DIVORCE SECTION 2. Articles 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62) 63, 64, 65 and 66 of

Executive Order No. 209, as amended, otherwise known as The Family Code of the Philippines, are also hereby amended to read as follows: Art. 55(A). 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 commonchild, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, orconnivance 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 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. (B) A PETITION FOR DIVORCE MAY BE FILED ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

(1) THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN SEPARATED DE FACTO FROM HIS ORHER SPOUSE FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OFTHE PETITION AND RECONCILIATION IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE; (2) THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN LEGALLY SEPARATED FROM HIS ORHER SPOUSE FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OFTHE PETITION AND RECONCILIATION IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE; (3) WHEN ANY OF THE GROUNDS FOR LEGAL SEPARATION UNDERPARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS ARTICLE HAS CAUSED THE IRREPARABLEBREAKDOWN OF THE MARRIAGE; (4) WHEN ONE OR BOTH SPOUSES ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED TO COMPLY WITH THE ESSENTIAL MARITAL OBLIGATIONS; (5) WHEN THE SPOUSES SUFFER FROM IRRECONCILABLEDIFFERENCES THAT HAVE CAUSED THE IRREPARABLE BREAKDOWN OF THEMARRIAGE. Art. 56. The petition for legal separation OR DIVORCE shall be denied on any of the following grounds: [(1) When the aggrieved party has condoned the offense or act complained of; (2)Where the aggrieved party has consented to the commission of the offense or act complained of;] [(3)] [1] Where there is connivance between the parties in the commission of the offense or act constituting the ground for legal separation OR DIVORCE; [(4) Where both parties have given ground for legal separation;] [(5)] (2) Where there is collusion between the parties to obtain the decree of legal separation OR DIVORCE; [or (6) Where the action is barred by prescription.] Art. 57. [An action for legal separation shall be filed within five years from

the time of the occurrence of the cause.] AN ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION OR DIVORCE MAY BE FILED AT ANY TIME. Art. 58. An action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before six months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition.THE SAME RULE SHALL APPLY TO AN ACTION FOR DIVORCE BASED ON ARTICLE 55 (B), NUMBERS 3 AND 5 OF THIS CODE. THIS RULE SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION OR DIVORCE INVOLVES ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262. IN A SUCH CASE, SECTION 19 OF THE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262 SHALL APPLY. Art. 59. No legal separation OR DIVORCE may be decreed unless the Courthas taken steps towards the reconciliation of the spouses and is fully satisfied,despite such efforts, that reconciliation is highly improbable. Art. 60. No decree of legal separation OR DIVORCE shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment. Art. 59. No legal separation OR DIVORCE may be decreed unless the Courthas taken steps towards the reconciliation of the spouses and is fully satisfied,despite such efforts, that reconciliation is highly improbable. Art. 60. No decree of legal separation OR DIVORCE shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment. In any case, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assignedto it to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that theevidence is not fabricated or suppressed. Art. 61. After the filing of the petition for legal separation OR DIVORCE, the spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other. In any case, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assignedto it to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that theevidence is not fabricated or suppressed. Art. 61. After the filing of the petition for legal separation OR DIVORCE, the spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other. The court, in the absence of a written agreement between the spouses, shalldesignate either of them or a third person to administer the absolute community

orconjugalpartnership property. The administrator appointed by the court shall havethe same powers and duties as those of a guardian under the Rules of Court.
GOD WANTS by Conrad De Quiros FINALLY, THEYRE discussing divorce again in Congress. And expectedly, Catholic Church leaders are raising hell again in the pulpits. What sparked the (re)consideration in Congress was Malta, a predominantly Catholic country, voting in a referendum to legalize divorce. That leaves only the Philippines, apart from the Vatican, that still rejects it. PiaCayetano wants to go the route of Malta. Its time, she said, to expand the meaning of annulment, a thing that is allowed in the country. Call it divorce, call it another animal, (but) there has to be some change because the reality is, (the lack of) it is one of the discriminatory practices we have (against women). Luz Ilagan puts it more trenchantly: Let us not keep our country in the Dark Ages. The usual suspects, the same people who believe contraceptives are the devils invention, are unfazed. Lets not get into the habit of copying what other countries are doing, says Tito Sotto. Referendums are merely a political, not a moral exercise, said Archbishop Ramon Arguelles. What is right or wrong is not dependent on how many voted for it, said Archbishop Emeritus Oscar Cruz. Well, let me put it this way: You find another fellow to be wrong, you deserve a hearing. You find a second fellow to be wrong, you deserve a hearing. You find still a third fellow to be wrong, you still deserve a hearing. You find everybody to be wrong, you deserve dismissing. When you find everybody to be wrong, the problem is not everybody, it is you. Referendums are political exercises, but they can also be moral ones. In the same way that elections are political exercises but they can also be moral ones. Certainly, someone cheating in them is a moral question. Certainly, someone stealing the vote is a moral question. Someone does that, you invoke Gods wrath upon the cheater. Someone does that, you invoke hellfire upon the thief. Arguelles did not. He said, Everybody cheats anyway. That is political. That is immoral. I agree as well that morality cannot give way to political expediency. But so only if you can defend what is moral on the strength of what is comprehensible, not on the strength of dogma, or Basta, it is what God wants. It is the hardest thing in the world talking with someone who thinks his position comes from God. It does not produce a discussion, it produces a dead end. It doesnt make love, it makes war. That is so whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or whatever religion you subscribe to. Fundamentalism and dogmatism are the most destructive things on earth. The road to hell is paved with all the monstrosities fanatics claim God wants. In the end, that is the most infuriating thing about this, that what is moral is defended only on the basis of some abstract and ex-cathedra principle about God wants and not on the basis of actual, observable, comprehensible human experience. What is so moral about preventing divorce? Or for that matter what is so moral about banning contraceptives? All it does is spawn hypocrisy, quite apart from unwanted children, and if that is not the most immoral thing in the world, then I dont know what is. In the case of RH, Im perfectly willing to bet my life that if many of those opposing it really practiced what they preach, they would be in big trouble right now. Marital fidelity in this country being virtually nonexistent among the rich and powerful, particularly among public officials, appointive or elective, theyd have a horde of illegitimate children running around if they truly eschewed contraceptives. They would either be already dead right now from their spouses wrath or turned into the walking wounded from having had their offending organs lopped off. Just as well, in the case of divorce, or the lack of it, all it does is to legitimize keeping mistresses or lovers, the mistresses to have additional children with and the lovers to go for emergency purposes to but to avoid being seen with or leave any evidence behind with. Quite apart from that, all it does is force couples

who have become positively homicidal toward one another, or where the husband routinely beats up the wife when he comes home drunk, to keep together. The justification for it is that what God has put together, let no man put asunder. But what lunatic can possibly imagine God to have had a hand in putting all of this together? Half the time, what put it together was just plain libog, the Church also officially frowning on premarital sex (but tolerating priestly one), and driving the youth to go to the whorehouse for the initiation (a veritable and venerable cultural tradition) and to get into marriage for more of heaven. Only to findor givehell. Far more formidably, theres the utter hypocrisy of annulment being permitted while divorce is not. The hypocrisy does not just lie in separation being made available only to the richit costs a veritable fortuneit lies in the nature of the annulment itself. To have your marriage annulled, you have to lie through your teeth. Annulment is premised on the idea that the marriage was never consummated physically or psychologically. The psychological part being that one of the couple was an out-and-out bastard from the start and never gave the marriage a chance to work. A couple seeking annulment may not say that they loved each other once but the love turned to hate, or even less but that that they grew apart in time. That is not permissible. So they have to invent the most atrocious things about each other, which they can only hope their children, like everybody else including the judge, will just take with a grain of salt. A couple may not separate except under conditions of strife and spite. And deceit.Lots and lots of deceit. Thats what God wants?

DELIVER US FROM EVIL by Patricia Evangelista

Next to the unhappy wives of the Republic of Malta, population 410,000, only one other country can claim to be affected by the results of last months non-binding referendum on divorce. Maltas contentious approval of the legalization of divorce leaves Catholic Philippines the only nation in the world without the right to freely divorce with the exception of the Vatican. Malta may be cause for celebration for the progressives, whose champions lost no time pushing House Bill 1799 to the House committee on revisions, but it is also a reason to give thanks to the Lord God, at least according to the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. Being the only country in the world that has no divorce law is an honor that every Filipino should be proud of. Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz said that love for the family was at the core of the cultural identity of Filipinos, and should not be destroyed through divorce. That is a distinction! Im very proud of that! he said. It is not a surprise that the Philippines remains alone in its exercise of national irresponsibility, as it also remains one of the few democratic nations to claim that a condom is a murder weapon, and that the preaching of abstinence will stop the hormonal manifestations of the Catholic Gods temple of the spirit. Pride in the Filipino culture does not pay for the education of children whose fathers regularly beat their wives. Perhaps Cruz refers to the Catholic Church, whose breast-beating sons of the cloth can now stand tall among the worlds priests as the only nationality able to beat back progress, even the possibility of progress. It has never been particularly difficult to spout morality in Manila, largely because politicians hold the same patronizing view of the Filipino citizen. For the Church, legalizing subsidized contraception means that every virginal pair of legs will open along with the possibility of abortion, prostitution and the gates of Gomorrah. Now, with the possibility of divorce, suddenly every couple will separate to ultimately tear up society. On a personal life of prayer, says CBCP secretary general Monsignor JuanitoFigura, deliver us from evil, Amen. To allow the Filipino a choice implies that the Filipino will go the way of evil. Choice is dangerous to the Filipino, who cannot think for himself, who cannot weigh the values of family and sanctity. It is the priests

who know better, because God says they do. It is the politicians who know better, because they think they do. Senate Majority Leader Tito Sotto, for example, who says those pushing for the legalization of divorce are attempting to weaken the Church, believes that Filipino couples should not be given options. If theres a divorce law, couples facing some minor problems may choose not to work on their marriage anymore. Cagayan de Oro Representative Rufus Rodriguez takes it further. All couples will divorce. All children will belong to single parent families. All society will suffer. He cannot allow a law that opens the floodgates for all to get divorce. Children will grow up with only one parent. Thats the worst punishment we can give to our children. It is not a surprising stance from the Catholic Church, whose inability to differentiate free speech from religious intolerance airs live on national television at debates over the Reproductive Health bill. Men and women cannot be trusted to do what is right, yet they are expected to make no mistakes. It is a ridiculous stance for politicians to take. The Filipino, they imply, has the intelligence to decide on who runs the nation and the implications of value-added tax, but they cannot be trusted to decide on who they marry and when to have sex. For a secular nation that recognizes the rights of Muslims enough to allow them separate laws including divorce it is the height of discrimination to deny that right to Buddhists, Christians, Jehovahs Witnesses, and Catholics of varying persuasions whose gods are not necessarily the same as the Old Testament tyrants the CBCP seems to uphold. Many of divorces proponents talk about spousal battery and the rising numbers of abused women. Although Cruz claims that the Church is willing to void marriages that prove battery, he forgets that only the wealthy have the capacity to spend the P300,000 necessary for an annulment. Even if an indigent woman has the means to secure an annulment, many do not, for fear of being left unable to support themselves and their children. The divorce law makes this a legal requirement to divorce. And still, even with its own concession that battery is an exception, the Church continues on by claiming that abuse is in itself not such a heinous act. Why would a husband beat his wife? We have discovered again that its a vicious circle and poverty is the biggest reason why a husband would beat his wife. Unemployment is also another reason. These are all social concerns that the government should address instead of coming up with remedies which are just temporary, band-aid remedies. The murderer may have killed because of poverty, and the thief may have stolen in aid of a dying mother, but they are thieves and killers just the same. Bills such as these are distractions, claim the Church. They do not prioritize the true cancers of society: poverty, corruption, prostitution. This is the same Church whose accusations of a lack of proper prioritization by the government come hand in hand with its declaration that the rape of a young girl by her father is less offensive than the abortion committed to save her life. Yet these bills are not in themselves meant to be answers to national concerns. Divorce does not solve poverty; neither does contraception. The RH bill may curb overpopulation, but it is not the only reason. More than the resolving of national interests, the states responsibility as a democracy is to protect individuals from discrimination, even from the state itself. The ills of divorce, and they are manifold, are not for the government to weigh. It is for the wife, the husband, the children, whom the government now considers unable to make these decisions. The penalty for a wrong decision at the age of 20 should not mean a lifetime with an unsuitable husband. The right to live freely is fundamental to a citizen of democracy, and for as long as these rights harm none and are not against fundamental laws. Although the gentlemen of Congress may find it crude, that right implies the right to pursue happiness: to have sex when it is consensual, to leave adulterous husbands and nagging wives, to determine lives that are not at the service of anyones God but their own.

Miriam favors divorce, RH bills

By Christina Mendez (The Philippine Star) Updated June 21, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (2)

| Zoom

MANILA, Philippines - After the powerhouse wedding anniversary rites at the Manila Cathedral last Sunday night, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago has expressed her support for the divorce and Reproductive Health (RH) bills, two controversial measures that might bring her at odds with the Catholic Church. Santiago said divorce should be made available to couples who can no longer stand the sight of each other. I think that divorce should be availed by people who become homicidal at the sight of each other. That is much better than making each other miserable for the rest of their lives, and impacting the lives of their children as well, Santiago told reporters at the dinnerreception of her 40th wedding anniversary celebration at the Manila Hotel. Santiago said she had always been open about her views since she was a regional trial court judge. I am in favor of a divorce bill provided that the grounds for divorce are very strict. So we will not encourage young people to rush into marriage and rush out by divorce, the senator said. The senator made the statement when asked for her reaction to the homily of Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales who stressed the sanctity of life and family during the couples renewal ofmarriage vows. She said she wrote the cardinal several months ago and expressed her position on the divorce and RH measures now pending before the Senate and the House of Representatives. While she is a devout Catholic, Santiago said she has learned from her higher theology studies about the freedom of conscience. She said she has asked for Rosales understanding. Santiago, who bore two birth children with husband Jun during their four decades of marriage, said she wanted every poor Filipino woman to be given a chance to full information on the choices that she can make in bearing children. Thats why I will continue the fight. I am not fighting for myself, or any political agenda. I am fighting for the oppressed poor Filipino woman who does not have any access to information. All I want to do is to give her access to full information. Certainly, there is no crime or sin involved in that, Santiago said. She believes that the Catholic leaders including Rosales will be able to understand her stand, adding that she considers them as the apotheosis of Catholic love. Total happiness During her renewal of vows with husband Undersecretary Narciso Santiago Jr. last Sunday, the senator was a picture of total happiness as she walked down the aisle.

I feel very sexy, said the 66-year-old bride who was in a ruby red gown by Inno Sotto. She arrived at the church about 15 minutes before 6 p.m. and greeted members of the bridal entourage that included President Aquino (best man), former Presidents Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Joseph Estrada as well as former first lady Imelda Marcos, and actress Heart Evangelista (bridesmaid). The groom, also 66, was also dashing in a pia barong. The processional songs were Trumpet Tune and Air by Purcell and Trumpet Voluntary by Clarke. Before the wedding march, the groom passed by the media with not much fanfare. Asked if he felt nervous, the smiling groom answered in the affirmative and pointed to his heart. More years together Estrada, Marcos and Sen. Manuel Villar wished the couple more years of togetherness. Businessman DandingCojuangco was also present in the event but he and Marcos did not greet each other. Estrada, meantime, brought the house down when he serenaded the power couple. But before doing so, he wished the Santiagos another 10 years of married bliss. Estrada said he and his wife, former senator Loi Estrada, celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. A known womanizer, Estrada explained in jest why his marriage with Loi has lasted this long. She refuses to listen to my song Please, release me, let me go, the former president said, eliciting laugter from the guests. My kumpadre Jun does not have the nerve to sing this to you, he told Miriam. Prior to this, Estrada called Miriam his kumadre and (godmother) since she was also a sponsor during the Estrada couples 50th wedding anniversary. The former president also made jokes about himself. I would say, Kumadreng Miriam, that among them I have the most ex I am an ex-movie actor, Ive been an ex-mayor, an ex-senator, ex-vice president, ex-president then Ive been an ex-detainee, and I am now an ex-convict. So nobody can beat me here, said the former president, getting him another round of laughter and applause. But Estrada made the joke after former President and now Rep. Gloria Arroyo left the reception at about 9 p.m. It was during Arroyos term that Estrada was jailed and subsequently convicted for plunder. He was later granted pardon by Arroyo.

After Estradas song number, Marcos also sang two songs, but not her usual DahilSaYo but a Perry Como classic titled I Want to Give, and MalipayongAntakna, said to be a Boholano song. Miriam did not invite professional performers but requested her guests to sing. An instrumental medley of love songs was played at the lavish Centennial Ballroom while the guests enjoyed the dinner menu of seasonal salad with poached shrimp, cream of zucchini and spinach, guyabano sherbet, baked salmon, Australian beef tenderloin baked in mushroom crust, and a dessert of frozen banana walnut crunch parfait. What could have been a great finale was the much-awaited duet from the best man and the bridesmaid, but President Aquino had to leave the hotel before he reached the Centennial Ballroom where the wedding reception was held. It was announced later that the President had something urgent to attend to, prompting organizers to tap Senate President Pro-Tempore Jinggoy Estrada to substitute for the president. Jinggoy sang Unforgettable with actress Heart Evangelista, which also drew applause from the guests. Never flirted Asked for tips for a lasting marriage, Santiago stressed the need for a couple to give each other space. She also said that her husband does not need to give her an itinerary of his whereabouts everyday. I just presume that he is just going to be loyal to his marriage vows. And I have been extremely faithful to my husband. I never flirted with anybody, even abroad, Santiago added, saying that she has always been attached to the concept that marriage is an invariable social institution as the Constitution provides. Powerhouse cast Others who attended the Santiago couples renewal of vows were Incoming Transportation Secretary and former Sen. Manuel Roxas III, who was defeated by Vice President JejomarBinay in the last elections. He came with his wife, broadcaster Korina Sanchez. The senators who were part of the entourage were Senate President Pro-Tempore Jinggoy Estrada, Manuel Villar, Ramon Revilla Jr, Edgardo Angara, siblings Pia and Alan Peter Cayetano, Loren Legarda, and Antonio Trillanes IV. Also part of the entourage were Dr. LinneaDefensor-Evangelista, ZenaidaLazaro and Gemma Cruz-Araneta. Sen. TeofistoGuingona III was also present at the Cathedral. The two top honchos of the top national broadsheets and television stations in the country were also at the church wedding rites. They are Philippine STAR editor-in-chief Isaac Belmonte and MarixiPrieto, chair of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Oscar Lopez of ABS-CBN was first in line of the principal sponsors with Jocelyn Campos Hess, followed by lawyer Felipe Gozon of GMA-7 and SMs TeresitaSyCoson; Manila Bulletins Emilio Yap and Prieto; Ambassador Eduardo Cojunagco Jr. and Ma. Paz CojuangcoTeopaco, Chief Justice Renato Corona and Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago, President Estrada and Marcos, and Binay and Arroyo. Interviewed after the reception, Santiago said she was happy that her friends and fellow politicians attended the anniversary celebration even though some were at odds with each other. Their willingness to bury the differences in politics so as to show a united front in our country, that is to say, a united front, a sense of shared destiny, I think that is the message of tonight, Santiago said. We have several ex-presidents who may have exchanged words or may have disagreed with each other. Right now, the only message is we must have a shared destiny in this country, she added. Santiago was amused that some of the warring personalities in business and politics went beyond being civil. Villar and Roxas were spotted greeting each other as they lined up. Both were locked in intense competition during the run-up to the presidential elections last year. Roxas gave way and ran for vice-president, leading to the Aquino presidency. Senator Villar and wife Cynthia, Mar and Korina, as well as businessman Manuel Pangilinan and Evelyn Singson were secondary sponsors. Santiago said she wanted to walk down the aisle again while they still could instead of waiting until their 50th wedding anniversary. She said the renewal of vows is a tradition among Catholic couples in the country. But she said she was not too mushy to even kiss her husband in public despite attempts by guests who wanted them to kiss, which was expressed through a wedding practice of the tapping of the glasses. Maybe, if I am as young as Heart Evangelista, it would be endearing to kiss in public. But to do that at my age would just be disgusting, she said. No more honeymoon Neither was a honeymoon needed. I am not a blushing bride. I am not going into a honeymoon. I am veteran wife, she said. She lamented that her three grandchildren who were below five years old were not able to walk the aisle with her. Santiago also recalled that when she celebrated her 25th wedding anniversary, her youngest son was still alive.

We were a complete family, my two birth children with me and now, one is gone. The one who was most like me in personality and intellectual process. The other one is living away from me with his own family with three children, she said. Prior to the Santiago couples renewal of vows, the head of the Chinese General Hospital, James Dy, and his wife Julieta, also renewed their vows at the Cathedral. The Dy couple marked their 60th wedding anniversary.

UNION OF HEARTS AND WEALTH by ArtemioPanganiban

Divorce is a current buzzword in the public discourse. However, before discussing the termination of a valid marriage (to be distinguished from declaring the nullity or annulment of an invalid union), let me first write about its beginning. When a groom and a bride exchange I dos, the law instantly takes over their personal and property relationship. Union of wallets. During the marriage, or even after its dissolution, a spouse cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any letter, promise or other communication received by one from the other during the marriage. To enhance the marital unity, neither spouse can be examined for or against the other, without the latters consent, except in a civil case filed by one against the other, or in a criminal case committed by one against the other. Every prospective couple must however know that our Family Code unites not just their hearts and spirit; it also binds their wealth and wallets into what is known as the absolute community of property. Under this system, all pieces of property owned by each of the couple prior to their marriage, or acquired thereafter, ipso facto become commonly or jointly owned by both spouses. By saying I do, each of the spouses automatically loses sole ownership of what each of them owned prior to the marriage, even if the titles thereto remain registered in the name of only one of them. Accordingly, land, condominiums, cars, bank deposits, jewelry and other assets of each become communal in ownership. Excluded from joint ownership are (1) property for personal or exclusive use like clothing, shoes and cosmetics; (2) donations obtained (to be more precise, property acquired by gratuitous title) during the marriage; and (3) property of a widow or widower who has legitimate children and grandchildren by the former marriage, who stand to inherit such property. Consistent with the third item, the widow or widower is required to liquidate and distribute the estate of the deceased spouse within six months from the latters death. Otherwise, a mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage. The administration and enjoyment of all community property, including those owned separately prior to the marriage, belong to both spouses jointly. Thus, each is entitled to the equal use of the family home, car or TV set. Neither spouse may sell, mortgage or donate any communal asset without the others consent. Together, the couple shall fix the family home, manage the household, and exercise parental authority over their minor children. However, either of the spouses may exercise any legitimate profession, occupation or business without the consent of the other. The latter may object only on valid, serious and moral grounds. But the income derived from such profession, occupation and business is communal. Prenuptial agreement. To be exempt from this all-embracing union of wealth and wallets, the couple needs to execute a prenuptial agreement (also called marriage settlement). In the marriage settlement, the couple may agree on the absolute community of property, or the conjugal partnership of gains, or the complete separation of property, or any other regime (like placing all property in the ownership and control of only one spouse). Unless a marriage settlement is executed, the absolute community system automatically kicks in upon the celebration of the wedding.

The prenuptial agreement must be in writing and signed by the couple before the wedding. The provisions of the agreement must be carefully defined and studied prior to its execution, because they can no longer be revised or changed after the wedding. Like the marriage vow, the marriage settlement cannot be ended or modified even by mutual agreement after the wedding. Modifications or changes must be made before the wedding. Conjugal partnership of gains. Prior the effectivity of the Family Code on Aug. 3, 1988, the automatic marital property system was called the conjugal partnership of gains. Under this regime, each of the spouses retains the ownership of their respective assets. But the products, fruits or rentals of these assets and the income derived from the spouses separate profession, occupation or business accrue to a common fund. Thus, the rentals of a condo owned by a spouse prior to the marriage are conjugal even if the condo itself is still separately owned. In contrast, under the absolute community system, both the condo and the rentals are conjugal. The regime most commonly opted by those who enter into marriage settlements is the conjugal property of gains. One advantage is that the agreement need not contain many details because the parameters of this system are already laid out in the Family Code. In fact, those who were married prior to the effectivity of the Code were automatically covered by this property system. When a man and woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by them through their joint effort, work or industry shall be owned by them in equal shares. However, if one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community of property or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage.

DIVORCE AND THE STATUS QUO by Rina Jimenez-David

A lawyer-friend once remarked that divorce in the Philippines is a matter of great concern only to the middle class, since it hardly matters to the very rich and to the very poor. Rich couples who want to bring an end to their marital union could very well split up and leave the dirty details to their lawyers. They can certainly afford the long and expensive process of seeking a declaration of nullity both from the Church and from the courts. Or they can move abroad and seek a divorce there. Otherwise, they can simply brazen out their separated status, their still-existing union becoming relevant only if the matter of inheritance or division of assets arises upon the death of one spouse. Having nothing to divide or dispute, impoverished couples have little motivation to go through the expense and inconvenience of a legal process. Couples shack up with little fuss, and end their cohabitation with little or no fanfare. Having no social status to protect, they beget children with little thought to their legitimacy or illegitimacy. Ironically, its when they seek to enroll their children in school that the matter of a birth certificate and parentage arises. If its a Catholic school, the matter of the parents marriage (or lack of it) or the childs legitimacy might even be brought up. Its only to the middle-class, caught up in matters of legality, morality and propriety that divorce matters, it seems. Marriage is still very much a social contract, and its important that when a marriage ends, its end is marked with a clear legal mandate, a thorough division of the fruits of the marriage, and clear-cut arrangements with regard to child custody, child support and perhaps alimony. But in the Philippines, it seems that our officials prefer that things remain murky and indeterminate, with the official status of a couple and their children remaining under the shadow of legal ambiguity. *** I can well understand the panic and anger of Catholic prelates who see the filing of a divorce bill close on the heels of the still-disputed RH bill as a harbinger of the apocalypse, or at least the beginning of the end of the Catholic stranglehold on Filipino society.

But in truth the RH measure has nothing to do with the bill calling for the legalization of divorce. Divorce bills have been filed in previous Congresses, but none of them have gone as far as a formal House committee hearing or received as much publicity. The current bill, filed by Gabriela partylist Representative Luz Ilagan, is believed to have been spurred by the recent plebiscite conducted in Malta in which majority of the population indicated support for a divorce law. With the expected legalization of divorce in Malta, where 98 percent of the population is Catholic, the Philippines is now the only country in the world (with the exception of the Vatican) where divorce remains illegal. If Malta can fall in step with the rest of world, why cant the Philippines? And what is so special about our being the last holdout against divorce? *** If married couples in the Philippines or at least the majority of them were constantly faithful, remained true to their vows, avoided temptation and founding second or even third families, then we could very well be proud of our anti-divorce statute. But even as the Constitution trumpets state support for the sanctity of the family, the people by their actions bring that sanctity to question. The number of couples seeking legal separation and declarations of nullity is rising, and census figures on the number of couples living under one roof without benefit of matrimony indicate a growing trend. Politicians, who should be protective of their reputations and thus careful in their behavior, instead flaunt their many affairs and mistresses. Perhaps they know that instead of endangering their political careers, they are in fact burnishing their reputations as macho men and go-getters by their many amorous adventures. No wonder observers say the chances of passage of a divorce bill in the House and Senate at this time are very poor, at best. The current system works too well to the mens advantage, and they arent about to rock the boat. Why initiate change when the status quo is much too convenient and advantageous? *** Divorce proponents may be overreaching at this time when the social landscape is being roiled by the RH bill debate. Perhaps our capacity for social reform can handle only one change at a time. But the introduction of a divorce bill now is wrong only as a matter of strategy, avoiding overloading the alreadysensitive sensibilities of conservative Catholics. But the need for such a law here has long been evident, and the experiences of women caught in the no-divorce bind are no laughing matter. A friend recalls meeting a group of rural women who brought up during the open forum their dilemma about their missing husbands. It seems that many of the women had long been abandoned by their men and they had no idea where their mates had gone. Despite many years absence, the women said, they still could not move on, and were loatheto start new relationships because of their ambiguous legal status. My friend told the women that, under the law, if ones spouse had gone missing and had not made any contact in five years, then the missing spouse could be declared dead. Lets all agree that from now on, all your missing husbands are dead! my friend declared. Now I dont know if that declaration had any legal basis, or how many went ahead and had their husbands declared dead. But when love flies out the window and leaves only bitterness and regret, it seems a shame to be forced to live among the walking dead.