THE divorce bill has hurdled third and final reading at the House of Representatives. This is the farthest any piece of legislatio
n on the matter has gone.
The debates continue. We hear the usual arguments for and against it. Those who are against it say that marriages are inviolable, that couples must persevere even if they are going through a tough phase, and that children will suffer the consequences of a “broken home.”
Those who advocate divorce, on the other hand, say that divorce addresses a power imbalance in society.
I believe there are three points that must be highlighted in the conversation.
First, absolute divorce will be an equalizer. There are existing laws governing situations where marriages fail. There is the option for legal separation, annulment, and declaration of nullity. The most akin to divorce is the third one, but it comes at a steep cost.
To get one’s marriage declared void ab initio, a party has to pay up in the tens, even hundreds, of thousands. This comes in the form of lawyer’s fees, court fees, psychologist’s fees. The role of the psychologist is central to the case if the ground being invoked is “psychological incapacity.” This is provided for in the Family Code of the Philippines.
A party cannot just come forward to claim he or she is psychologically incapable of marriage. One cannot self-diagnose. It is a psychologist or psychiatrist who makes this conclusion in a document submitted to the court, and through a testimony.
This costs money—something an average worker can ill afford. Thus, only those with means are able to go through the process. With the bill promising to make divorce inexpensive, more people can now afford to decisively close one chapter of their life, and begin the rest of it.
Second, it will help empower women trapped in abusive situations.
It appears that men and women see divorce differently. Many male advocates of divorce see it as a way of getting out of their unhappy marriages so they could be free to commit to another—self-serving, sure, but who is to say this is worse that pretending to be a family man while having a paramour on the side?
More importantly, the bill claims to be pro-women in that it affords a way out for those in abusive situations. Indeed, despite our gains in gender equality in recent years, too many marriages are like prison sentences instead. Women find themselves bound to abusive husbands, and are not able to contemplate a life beyond the marriage. They either believe they have no choice, or no strength to strike out on their own.
Divorce provides them the opportunity to assert their right to be free and to lead a satisfying, self-actualizing life, with or without a new partner.
Finally, divorce will encourage all of us to be honest and forthcoming. We learn to tell it like it is.
The truth is that many marriages start out in bliss. Over the years, however, trust and respect break down and the differences become irremediable.
The option of declaration of nullity denies couples this reality. What it says is that there was no marriage from the start because of this or that reason. But it’s a cop-out.
Denial is of little help. To move on to the next phases of their lives, erstwhile spouses should be able to acknowledge there was once a good thing, but despite their best efforts at reconciling for their mutual satisfaction, things have changed. Only when there is recognition can lessons be learned.
Those in happy and satisfying marriages are blessed, indeed. It is a rare gift to be with someone for decades and still really want to be with them. They should not be threatened by the option of divorce—they would not need it, anyway.
Sadly, others do.
Done the right way and as a last resort, the only thing divorce threatens is our tendency to keep up appearances and be dishonest with our partners—and ourselves.
The House of Representatives has done what it can. It’s time for the Senate to act.
