Share

In the Philippines, marriage is an extremely important sacrament, marked by

celebration. However, Filipinos rarely discuss those marriages that are
unsuccessful since discussions of marital problems are considered taboo.
Lucky are the couples who have successful marriages, but what happens to
those who fail?

In a predominantly Catholic country, the strong position of the Church is

possibly the central reason why the Philippines, along with the Vatican City,
is one of the only sovereign states that prohibits divorce. While the Vatican
City has a population of only 900, with most people being members of the
clergy, the Philippines is home to over a hundred million people. The
Philippines also registered 431,972 marriages in 2019.

Additionally, in contrast to the Philippines, divorce is already legal in Latin

American countries where Roman Catholicism also has a huge influence.
While parental rights, social redistribution, and LGBTQ2+ rights
were factors in legalizing divorce in these countries, it is outlawed in the
Philippines because the government wants to preserve marriage as a strong
family foundation and social institution.

Several previous political attempts legalizing divorce, including the 2019

Divorce Bill, remain unsuccessful because of strong traditional family norms
in the Philippines. Those in opposition to divorce view it as a threat to the
sanctity of marriage, but the question remains: what is there to protect in an
already broken relationship?

\“The couple lighting a unity candle at a wedding“ by wuestenigel is licensed

under CC BY 2.0.
Inaccessibility as a systemic barrier
With the exception of Muslims and Filipinos who marry a foreigner, married
couples in the Philippines must file a legal separation or annulment if they
wish to officially terminate their marriage. The former option only permits
them to separate their possessions and live apart, but their marriage’s legal
validity remains intact. In contrast, the latter option dissolves the marital
union, allowing both parties to remarry another person.

While the annulment is the final destination for couples who seek freedom,
for others, especially the working class, the process can be torturous. The
grounds for annulment include “fraud, impotence, mistaken identity, or being
under the legal age to marry.” However, the legal processes for seeking
annulment are immensely lengthy and expensive: the processing time can
range from four months to four years, with overall fees of around
PHP140,000 to PHP725,000, equivalent to $4,000-$20,000.

Although the option of annulment is feasible, for most unfortunate and

vulnerable citizens, it is inaccessible. In 2021, the average monthly income in
the Philippines is PHP12,500, or approximately $315. Only those with
substantial means can evidently afford it, which excludes working-class
women who mostly suffer most from abusive marriages. Without an option to
leave, they are forced to stay in a toxic marriage.

“Conversation on the balcony” by Wayne S. Grazio is licensed under BY-

NC-ND 2.0.

Normalization of domestic violence

While the Filipino government may believe that they are protecting the
sanctity of marriage, what’s disturbing in an unhealthy marriage is the
normalization of abuse towards women. A 2017 survey showed that one in
every four Filipino women between the ages of 15 and 49 has been
physically, emotionally, or sexually abused by her husband or partner.
Because of the culture of silence among women victims, many are
embarrassed to speak out about their horrific experiences, while others decide
not to report due to a lack of faith in the Philippines’ justice system. Victim-
blaming is also prevalent where women are often questioned and scrutinized
over their accounts.

When asked why couples stay in toxic relationships, the most common
response women give is for the interest of their children. Little do they know,
the effect of a dysfunctional marriage on kids is deeply
concerning. Studies show that children who grow up witnessing parents
quarrel tend to experience stress, unhappiness, and insecurity. For male
children, if they see their father regularly showing aggressive and controlling
treatment to their mother, they are more likely to adopt this behaviour,
thinking that it is how women should be treated. For female children, they are
more likely to perceive this aggression as normal and acceptable. As a result,
they could enter the same abusive marital lifestyle later in life.

“Working Mom 3rd-world style.” by FotoGrazio is licensed under CC BY-

NC-ND 2.0.

Lack of protection to women

In the absence of legal divorce, the lawmakers in the Philippines neglect to
protect abused women and children. Women comprise 49.5% of the
Philippine population, but their choices are controlled by religion-influenced
laws, ironically in an independent secular country. In a land without divorce,
the majority of married women are hesitant to file for annulment because
they are financially dependent on their husbands. It is too risky for women to
divorce, especially if their children still need financial support from them.

In their utmost will to protect the pride of the Filipino family, the lawmakers
are contrarily influencing the decisions of new generations. There is a decline
in reported marriages in the Philippines, with affirmations that younger
generations prefer to cohabitate than get married because of the lack of legal
mechanisms in place for failed unions. While it is not an outcome they
intend, it is the safest option for many.

“Divorce” by Jesper Sehested Pluslexia.com is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Should the Philippines legalize divorce?

The lack of legal divorce in the Philippines exacerbates existing class and
gender inequalities. With the current system, only the upper class can afford
the legal options to inquire about the dissolution of unsuccessful marriages,
not to mention the lengthy process required for legal separation. This
emphasis on protecting the sanctity of marriage over all else also normalizes
domestic violence, mostly suffered by women through verbal and sexual
harassment, and children through exposure to parents’ conflicts. Moreover,
the absence of divorce reflects lawmakers’ lack of protection to women
suffering abuse with an inability to escape from their horrible reality of
marriage.

Divorce should be legalized because, without it, Filipino women and children
are left in a precarious and dangerous position. It should be legal in a country
where women play a vital role in society. Divorce does not dishonour the
sanctity of marriage in the Philippines but rather aims to give Filipino
couples a more accessible choice if their marriage is unsuccessful. Legalizing
divorce would be beneficial for everyone regardless of gender, age, and
status.

Senator Raffy Tulfo on Monday assured critics that divorce under his proposed
measure won't be as easy as the procedures in Las Vegas as it will require documents
and evidence to show that a spouse had been physically, mentally and emotionally
abused.

advertisement

"Kung iniisip ng iba, aha, magiging katulad ng Vegas--magpa-file ako ng divorce

bukas, sa makalawa approved na. Hindi. Sorry mali ang pagkakaintindi ninyo. Ang sa
akin dadaan pa rin kayo sa butas ng karayom," Tulfo said in an interview shared with
reporters.

(If they think it would be like in Vegas where once you file for divorce, you'll get it
days later, it's not. Sorry, you are wrong. You will still pass through the eye of the
needle.)

"Dito sa divorce bill, I will make it hard. In fact, very hard na para sa isang tao na
kung akala niya e napakadali 'to, then nagkakamali siya. I will make it hard. I will not
make it easy for anybody to get a divorce pag naipasa itong bill na ito," he added.

(In my divorce bill, I will make it hard. In fact, it will be hard that if one thinks it
would easy, it is not. I will make it hard. I will not make it easy for anybody to get a
divorce it this bill gets passed.) 
The House of Representatives committee on population and family relations approved
the absolute divorce bill which allows it to proceed to plenary for debate. This is the
closest we have come to finally allow people to have full freedom to decide on the
course of their relationships. As a predominantly Catholic nation, this understandably
will cause fierce arguments and culturally entrenched righteous indignation. However,
as someone who works with families, let me offer some points on this issue.
ADVERTISEMENT

If you as a couple do not want to consider divorce in your marriage, you don’t have
to. Legalizing divorce does not threaten harmonious families. People who are happy
and content within their marriages will not suddenly rush to get one just because it is
available. If you worry that your spouse will divorce you the moment it becomes
legal, then you have much more important things to worry about in your relationship.
It can, however, save the lives of many victims of domestic violence (mostly women)
and allow people to determine their own lives.
Not allowing divorce as a legal option is like not allowing emergency exits in a
building. Imagine there’s a fire but the building owner didn’t put in emergency exits
because he “does not believe in it” and that you were expected to keep managing the
fire, not escape it. Imagine still a building infested with toxic mold but that you were
not permitted to evacuate because others couldn’t fathom why you don’t have the
willpower to tough it out. Most people hopefully will not need to use emergency exits
in their lifetime. And you’ll be glad it’s there when you need it.
Divorce can also be a protective tool against domestic violence, which is the strongest
reason why it should exist. In other countries, they found a significant reduction of
spousal conflict and extreme partner violence once divorce was an accessible option.
When you know that your spouse has legal rights to leave, you are disabused of the
notion of your spouse as property and less likely to mistreat them. Domestic violence
also takes up a significant portion of reasons for divorce, around 25-50 percent in
other countries. By refusing to provide this option, you are condemning victims of
domestic violence to a lifetime of hell. Not having access to options can also turn into
desperation—leading some individuals to consider a lethal option.
Even without the threat of domestic violence, we should consider the natural course of
intimate relationships. You can only realistically commit to a set of behaviors, not a
set of feelings. You cannot genuinely promise to make someone happy. You can,
however, promise to not have sex with anyone else (you can still break this promise,
of course, but it is more than possible to keep). Feelings, by nature, are temporary.
They can be lost and regained. They can strengthen and fade.
Love is both a feeling and an act. Love, as a feeling, can change. I do not know which
Hallmark writer decided that love should be forever. The act of loving, however, is
within your control and something you can choose to commit to. By accepting the
nature of feelings, we must accept the possibility that we might lose the feeling of
love for our spouse despite our best intentions. The act that follows this loss—whether
it be active efforts to rekindle the lost feeling, redefining the marriage as platonic
mutual respect, or acknowledging that the marriage is over—can still be done in a
loving way. The best way to shield children from the harmful effects of separation or
divorce is for both parents to commit to respecting each other and to still care for each
other as co-parents. Ironically, couples who do acknowledge the wax and wane of
romantic feeling are much more likely to stay together because they do not take each
other for granted and make repeated intentions to stay. They also tend to be more
generous and less calculative during separation and genuinely wishing each other
happiness.
Divorce is not the killer of happy marriages. It is simply a life raft for people
drowning in a marriage that’s already long dead. If you want to ensure the success of
a marriage, we should be providing couples with resources and support to help them
better adapt and not simply mandate them to stay together. If you love someone, you
don’t chain them to you; them choosing to stay is a greater sense of emotional security
than locking them in a divorce-less marriage.