Unnecessary bill

The recent news about a decision of the Supreme Court (SC) recognizing the divorce obtained abroad by a Filipina from her foreign spouse has been excessively hyped up. The decision has even been described as a “landmark ruling.” The impression being conveyed here is that divorce will eventually be recognized in our country especially considering that there is now a divorce bill endorsed by the Lower House committee on population and family for deliberation, revision and eventual approval of the body in plenary session. Obviously, the SC decision is being used to get more support for the passage of said bill recognizing divorce here. Actually however, the Supreme Court ruling is not, strictly speaking, a “landmark” or a precedent-setting decision.

For proper information and clarification, it must be pointed out that our Family Code (FC) which was enacted on July 6, 1987 through Executive Order 209 by virtue of the powers vested in the President under a revolutionary government instituted right after martial law, already recognizes foreign divorces. As provided in Article 27 of said Code which became effective on August 3, 1988, “where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”

The above quoted provision has been inserted in Article 27 of the FC in the interest of fairness and equity. It is really unfair and unjust if the foreign spouse can remarry but the Filipino spouse is prohibited from remarrying just because divorce is not recognized here. The recent SC ruling is clearly based on this provision. Indeed there are already several SC decisions based on this Article except that in this recent case of Republic vs. Manalo, G.R. 221029, April 23, 2018, the divorce is secured abroad (Japan) by the Filipino spouse rather than by the foreign spouse. But the basis and the underlying reason behind this recent ruling is the same – justice and equity. The only difference of the latest ruling in this regard is that it is the Filipino spouse who obtained the divorce abroad instead of the Japanese spouse. On this aspect, it can be said that the SC decision in Manalo is a precedent and a landmark ruling.

This latest SC ruling should not therefore be interpreted to mean that the SC is in favor of recognizing absolute divorce in our country as proposed in the Divorce Bill now pending in the House of Representatives. Again, it would not be amiss to point out in this connection that absolute divorce undermines one of the basic principles enshrined in our Constitution which considers “marriage as an inviolable institution and the foundation of the family,” which in turn is the foundation of our nation. So if absolute divorce will be recognized here, it will eventually destroy our country.

It is worth stressing once again that the proposed bill on divorce is not really necessary. Its main purpose is supposedly to provide an aggrieved spouse with a better alternative to get out of an unbearable relationship. Actually however, our Family Code already provides such kind of alternative. It can even be said that we already recognize divorce in this country except that it is not absolute but only relative or what is technically known as “legal separation.” Here the spouses also end their relationship based on grounds which are also considered as unbearable more specifically the following: (1) repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct by one spouse on the other spouse or their common children; (2) physical violence or moral pressure to compel a spouse to change religious or political affiliations; (3) attempt to corrupt or induce spouse or children to prostitution; (4) imprisonment of a spouse for more than six years; (5) concealment of drug addiction and habitual alcoholism by a spouse; (6) concealment of lesbianism or homosexuality; (7) contracting of a subsequent bigamous marriage; (8) subsequent infidelity or perversion; (9) attempt against the life of a spouse; and (10) abandonment without a just cause (Article 55 FC).

Then there is also annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage. Annulment is the invalidation of marriages which have some defects at the time of celebration particularly: (a) lack of parental consent; (b) insanity of a spouse; (c) fraud in obtaining the consent; (d) force, intimidation or undue influence in obtaining such consent; (e) impotency or physical incapacity in consummating the marriage; and (f) affliction of a spouse with a sexually transmissible disease.

Declaration of nullity on the other hand refers to marriages that by law are considered non-existent from the beginning because of psychological incapacity of one spouse to perform the essential marital obligation (Article 36, FC); because of blood relationship of the spouses up to the fourth civil degree; marriage between step-parents and step children, between parents-in-law and children-in-law; between adopting parents and adopted child; between surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child; between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter; between the adopted child and the legitimate child of the adopter; between adopted children of same adopter; and between  parties where one kill the other person’s spouse or his or her own spouse, with the intention to marry the other (Article 38 FC).

The divorce bill is therefore no longer necessary. There are already existing laws providing for adequate alternatives to unbearable marriages. In fact said bill will only favor or reward the guilty spouse like the philandering or violent husband as it will enable him to repeatedly get out of the marital relationship by battering his wife or committing acts constituting grounds for divorce and then remarry again and continue committing same acts in subsequent marriages.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]