Revocable “I Dos” | Opinion on the PH’s Divorce Bill

Legalizing divorce does not translate to the nation’s collective agreement to a moral evil that disrespects the sanctity of marriage, but a mere societal progress that prioritizes justice and human rights. The bill was long overdue and approved at a time when marital relationships had long been damaged and Filipino women had already suffered a greater evil—a painful history of domestic violence, emotional manipulation, and financial asymmetry. 

Fixated on their idealized perception of marriage combined with a dramatic image of separation, many Filipinos fail to recognize the law’s transformative power to liberate spouses, especially women, from enduring a depressing list of domestic abuse records. Further sponged in a very religious society, many have yet to grasp such maturation in societal attitudes towards marriage. However, for abused mothers, wives, inauthentic relationships, neglected children, and anyone else who needs it, this stands as an immediate relief from their truly dreadful positions, and suffice it to say that there is simply no justifiable skepticism to deny them this opportunity. 

Looking outside of religious justifications, personal opinions, and other moral bases, alternative opinions against divorce are targeted against its accessibility and necessity in light of already existing laws that nullify marriages. While foreign divorce, legal separation, and annulment already rest within the realm of the Philippines’ legal framework, these options are unable to remedy the emotionally and financially unstable women trapped in abusive marital relationships. Foreign divorce faces constraints under the "nationality principle." Legal separation falls short of complete dissolution, denying the opportunity for remarriage. Meanwhile, annulment comes at a hefty cost, takes forever, and does not even consider grounds of abuse, which the Senate President Escudero is, to my honest confusion, trying to endorse for refinement instead of supporting the divorce bill. Annulment stands stiffer to judicially establish because it has to prove that the raised issue existed before the marriage. This erases the aggrieved spouse’s right to seek alimony and is in no way reassuring to those who have been already married for more than a decade. If annulment were to be refined, it would need to refine its very core. But wouldn't that essentially become equivalent to divorce?

Honestly, I have yet to know a definitive assurance that divorce will be more affordable than annulment, though I believe it must be and is the Senate's job to make it so. Moreover, an additional argument could be that since divorce does not void the marriage itself, it could be regarded as the "easier" separation. The Philippines, alongside the Vatican, has long stood as the lone country without a divorce law, and there is no good reason to prolong this status any further. 

Even outside the Senate, the passage of the bill gave birth to a growing internet discourse of whether the law undermines the sanctity of marriage. “If you cannot keep a promise, do not make it at all,” though coming off as a strong statement, such an argument fails to recognize the existing societal prejudice that unfairly blames married individuals, particularly abused women, for finding themselves falling into the trap of faulty marriages that are in no way their fault. The disapproval of divorce places an intangible notion of marriage on a pedestal, stepping over the reality of abuse that irreparably damages marriage and families while romanticizing the idea of an unbreakable and heteronormative union that continuously fails to see the nuances of human relationships.

Like every other Filipino, I too believe that marriage should be respected. However, for it to be respected, it must be home to a safe room of healthy love and trust without a door to a tolerance of exploitative deeds, because what is there more to a marriage if it can no longer hold the value of a genuinely loving relationship?

People should campaign for the cultivation of a healthy marriage instead of denying its potential flaws while flooding social media with posts like that one featuring an image of a glass cup while suggesting something about the idea of “fix the marriage instead of throwing it away.” Imagine uttering such words to a woman who has endured the brink of relentless violence or to her children, who have witnessed every second of it. A divorced marriage or family is obviously not ideal, but so is the rent-freely living emotional turmoil in a problematic household. Such a split only represents the end of a failed marital relationship; not the demise of a healthy one. 

Divorce is deeply personal to the individuals involved and should therefore be no one else’s decision.  

Now, passing the divorce bill is apparently mistaken by some to equate to a forced wave of marital separations. Hence, this serves as a reminder that people with happy marriages need not to divorce. People who do not see the need to divorce need not to. It only applies to those marriages where being together causes greater dread, hurt, anxiety, and animosity than being apart.

It is not because of the legalization of divorce that the sanctity of marriage becomes harmed. In a failed marriage, the sanctity of the union is already compromised. Allowing divorce would not torment anyone’s faith or successful marriage but opposing its legislation would forever torment every living second of those who need it.