Here’s something that will undoubtedly divide more than 100 million Filipinos: The House of Representatives on Monday approved on third and final reading a bill allowing divorce in the Philippines. Ignoring President Duterte’s pronouncement that he is against the passage of a divorce law, members of the lower chamber approved House Bill (HB) 7303, or the Absolute Divorce Act of 2018, that seeks to institutionalize absolute divorce and dissolution of marriage in the country, with 134 yes votes, 57 no votes and two abstentions. The bill will now be transmitted to the Senate for its own deliberation. However, the senators have yet to start drafting a counterpart measure.
What’s the chance that the 17th Congress will pass a divorce law despite strong opposition from the Catholic Church? Will the President exercise his veto power to strike it down?
Filipinos who know their history will say that divorce is not a new concept in this country. It was legal during the American colonial period and Japanese occupation, but it became illegal after the enactment of the 1949 Civil Code. Currently, the Philippines is the only country in the world—aside from Vatican City, the seat of the Roman Catholic Church—that has no divorce law.
HB 7303 provides the grounds for the grant of an absolute divorce, which include the reasons for legal separation and annulment of marriage under the Family Code, de facto separation of the couple for at least five years, legal separation by judicial decree for at least two years, psychological incapacity, gender-reassignment surgery, irreconcilable differences and joint petition of spouses. The measure says the interested party or parties shall file a petition for divorce in the proper court within five years of the accrual or cause of action.
Summary judicial proceedings, or the expeditious manner of resolving a divorce petition without regard to technical rules, are also provided for under the bill. Petitioners may or may not be assisted by a lawyer in summary judicial proceedings, and the proper court may allow presentation of evidence by the party concerned as needed. Grounds under summary judicial proceedings include instances when one of the spouses has contracted a bigamous marriage or has been sentenced to imprisonment for six years, among others.
Except for grounds under summary judicial proceedings, the divorce court shall start trial only after a six-month cooling-off period after the filing of a petition. During this time, the court shall exercise all efforts to reunite and reconcile the parties and the court shall await the submission of the report of the public prosecutor. However, the mandatory cooling-off period shall not apply in cases that involve acts of violence against women and/or children of the petitioner, under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. Neither shall it apply in cases involving an attempt against the life of the other spouse, a common child or a child of the petitioner.
Proponents said that, although current laws allow legal separation, declaration of a nullity of marriage and annulment, none of these options address the needs of the majority of couples who are searching for freedom from each other. They added that legal separation allows the couple to live apart and separate their assets, but they are not free to marry again. In fact, they may be charged with adultery or concubinage if caught with another partner.
Senior Deputy Minority Leader Lito Atienza of Buhay opposed the measure, saying HB 7303 is unconstitutional. His words: “The proposed law is against the Philippine Constitution. It is expressly stated in Article XV on The Family, Section 2, that marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. The Constitution is very clear and there is no room for misinterpretation. So, how can they interpret their proposed law as constitutional? Every definition that can be found on the word inviolable states that it is unassailable, cannot be broken, cannot be interchanged, and anything inviolable is considered hallowed, holy, sacred, sacrosanct and untouchable.”
Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz, a leading church voice against the bill, said Filipino Catholics should not be ashamed that they are global holdouts on divorce. “That is a distinction that we should all be very proud of. It means that we are not one of those who believe the family can be destroyed.”