A number of people seem to view divorce as the ultimate solution to an unhappy marriage, thinking that

it would greatly alleviate, and perhaps eliminate, domestic violence and the presence of high-conflict
family environments. Good evening counsels, allow me to state how beneficial not to legalize divorce in
the Phillippines.

Article XV Section 2 of the Constitution titled “The Family” which protects the sanctity of marriage
provides: “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the State.” the Constitution unequivocally declares that marriage is an “inviolable social
institution” and that the state, including Congress, “shall protect it.” “So how could the State or
Congress pass a law destroying or violating marriage?”

In fact it has been mentioned in the family code that, marriage is the foundation of the family and an
inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law.

There are criticisms that the existing laws on annulment are anti-poor, as the high cost needed to pursue
a case for annulment prevents the poor from securing one. This, however, is the very reason cited by
those who oppose divorce — the high cost is intended to discourage the people from trifling with
marriage. Allowing divorce would serious weaken the institution of marriage. Anyone could decide to
get married without thinking twice because they can get out of the marriage easily with divorce. If the
current increase of annulment cases is alarming, imagine how the allowance of divorce would greatly
increase the figure. Other arguments against the legalization of divorce are contained in the Position
Paper of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) against these bills. Allow me to state the benefit of not
legalizing divorce here in the Philippines.

The highlights are:

1. The proposal to legalize absolute divorce with the right to remarry violates relevant international
instruments on human rights, particularly Article 16(3) of the United Nation Declaration of Human
Rights.

2. The innocent spouse and the children in most cases may suffer economic difficulties. Aside from being
abandoned by the guilty spouse, the innocent spouse and children, in most cases, will suffer untold
economic difficulties. The divorced spouses who will remarry will have to maintain another family of
their own.

3. The human rights of the innocent spouse is violated. The guilty spouse in the divorce case is allowed
to abandon or neglect his obligation to provide company and care of the innocent spouse and the
children, thus violating Article 68 of the Family Code which reads: “The husband and wife are obliged to
live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual help and support.”

4. Irrespective of any religious beliefs, divorce of spouses with right to remarry constitutes a grave
offense against a natural law. Divorce is unnatural and immoral as it causes disorder in the family and
society. Because of its contagious effect in society, it becomes a plague on society. A divorce invites
another divorce. The innocent spouse who has not contravened any law is unlawfully deserted.

5. Absolute divorce is destructive of the family as a social institution mandated under the Constitution.
One of the basic policies of the State, as declared in the principles of the Philippine Constitution reads:
“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 young for civic
inefficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the
government.”(Article 11, Section 12) The relevant constitutional provisions will have to be amended
before the divorce bills will be enacted into law.

6. Absolute divorce violates the concept of marriage, a permanent union of man and woman. The Family
Code defines marriage as a permanent union of man and woman (Art.1). “since marriage is a permanent
union, any law that allows absolute divorce is contrary to the aforesaid provisions and destroys the very
concept of family as an inviolable social institution. The Civil Code also provides for the presumption of
the solidarity of the family and the indissolubility of marriage bonds (Art. 220).

7. Divorce is unconstitutional for being contrary to law, public policy, public morals, and good customs.
As previously mentioned, the application of divorce in the Philippines violates multiple laws herein, such
as the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the New Civil Code, the Family Code, and other generally accepted
laws and principles of international law. The common argument of the affirmative side is that divorce is
validly recognized and applied in multiple countries worldwide, thus it must be valid. The author
believes that such mindset is fallacious for being as weeping generalization.

It is not beneficial to legalized divorce in the Philippines because CHILDREN SUFFER MORE DURING AND
AFTER DIVORCE. "Divorce increases 2 or 3 times the incidence of all kinds of bad effects on children of
divorce, including psychological problems, juvenile delinquency, suicide, under education, teen
motherhood. Problems arise during and after the divorce more than from conflict during marriage, and
there is an increased incidence of detriment even if the divorce is low conflict." Wallerstein and
Blakeslee found out that divorce often causes a bitter dispute between the parents, even worse than
before the divorce was decided upon. Ahrons (1994) suggested that children's problems may be directly
related to the parental conflict during the divorce process…the escalating conflicts with lawyers, judges
and negative feelings associated with the divorce process can often cause inner turmoil in the child.
Chelrin (1991) suggested that economic hardships may explain why relationships between mother and
child suffer after divorce. What is more alarming is the increasing rate of children under 18 years old
being involved in divorce cases, implying that children are increasingly seen as secondary to the
perceived personal needs of the spouses. The number of children under 18 involved in divorces and
annulments has increased from 6.3 per 1000 in 1950 to 17.3 per1000, a whopping 175% increase.
Haskey (1989) showed the proportion of all independent children who live in 1-parent families increased
by 50% since the 70's while those living with lone-mothers has trebled in number. Such disregard for the
children (worse, if they are also used as pawns in the legal battles of the parents) are very damaging to
them.

In fact,  The Commission on Human Rights further condemned the application of divorce in the

Philippines, inasmuch as it is a violation of a child’s right to special protection of a family
environment. The Commission wrote that “the divorce of parents will have adverse effects on the
children’s rights. Any dispute of parents which will result in the absolute divorce will not only destroy
the foundation of the family as an inviolable social institution but will adversely affect the rights of
children who are entitled to special protection of a family environment.”
Absolute divorce destroys the very concept of family as an inviolable social institution. The purpose of
the proponents of the Senate and House Bills that it will give an opportunity for spouses to separate
from an intolerable spouse and by entering into a new marriage is not altogether an assurance that the
new marriage will be a happy and permanent one. The experience in countries where divorces are
allowed and easily obtained, such as the United States, is that people divorces have experienced
multiple divorces and have remarried several times in their selfish desire to get rid of unwanted spouses
by intentionally creating the cause of the divorce.

It is not beneficial for the law makers and the people that divorce will be legalized because the
Constitution has to be amended first and that will take a long period of time. The divorce bill in the
country will have to be approved at the House committee on revision of laws before members of the
House of Representatives debate on it in the plenary.