Bishop Teodoro Bacani has argued that the proposed divorce bill is “unconstitutional because the family is recognized by the State as the foundation of the nation” and that it “requires a lot of imagination” to say that separating spouses and giving them a chance to remarry strengthens the solidarity of the family.
He is presumably referring to Article XV of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.
But if Bacani is correct in his interpretation of the Constitution, why does the State recognize Muslim divorce? Are Filipino Muslims exempted from the above sections of our Constitution? And why do we have legal separation that entitles the spouses to live separately from each other when the State is supposed to strengthen the family’s solidarity and actively promote its total development? How can a family develop when the spouses are living apart? It seems more likely that Bacani is wrong.
Legal separation may be granted on certain grounds like physical violence and grossly abusive conduct (see Art. 55 of the Family Code for the complete list), and most of these grounds look very much like symptoms that the marriage has already broken down and that there is no longer any “foundation of the family” to protect; what is left to protect is the offended spouse and children, and this can be done not by forcing the so-called “family” to stay together but by keeping them safely apart.
The proposed divorce bill uses exactly the same grounds but with the following provision:
In addition, a petition for divorce may be filed upon showing that there is an irremediable breakdown of the marriage relationship due to irreconcilable marital differences. Said petition must specifically allege the grounds which destroy the legitimate ends of the marriage relationship and prevent any reasonable expectations of reconciliation.
It is clear that as far as this bill is concerned, divorce does not destroy the marriage which the State is supposed to protect; rather, it merely acknowledges that the marriage has already been essentially destroyed and has now become a hollow shell that obstinately binds two people at least one of which is already hurting from such bondage and wishing for nothing more than to be set free. Article 68 of the Family Code states that “the husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.” If love and respect are irredeemably lost and it is no longer possible for the spouses to live together, much less to support each other, what marriage is there to save?
Just like with the RH Bill, it seems that the true objections against divorce are actually religious in nature and that these constitutionality issues are just rationalizations to support an underlying conviction that “what God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” Well, aside from accepting the fact that our Constitution guarantees that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,” when a marriage turns into a living hell, one must ponder, did God really join them together, or did they perhaps just use the name of God in vain?
I personally think that the author of this blog is totally correct. If a couple comes to the point that they believe they are in need of a divorce, it seems unreasonable to say that them staying together would be better for the family. I have a friend whose parents have talked about divorce many times, but they always come back to feeling like it would be bad for their kids. What they don't realize is that them staying together actually makes it worse on the whole family.
Therefore, I think that the marriage bill is in on way "unconstitutional." The evidence and examples of passages from the Constitution presented by the author seem to support his claim for the bill.
the RCC says that divorce should not be allowed. it says that it is against the will of GOD. but what about Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Jer. 3:1 where divorce is allowed? i need to be enlightened.
just like what has been emphasized in section 1, article XV of the 1987 constitution, the state adheres to the strengthening of the family's solidarity and the promotion of its development. it did not say that it will preserve the family and marriage when there's nothing in it but abuse, infidelity and violated rights.
Marriage is from the Bible while wedding is in the Dictionary… Divorce is from the Bible… would it be fair to say that 'separation' should be in the Dictionary?
Anyway, thanks to 'my debated friends' out there for voting against me. 😛
please get your facts straight:
"Wedding" is the actual ceremony / ritual / event
"Marriage" is the relationship / social contract
Both these concepts have been practiced around the world by people who have never even heard or read the bible. I have been to modern-day secular, Hindu, Buddhist, and even one pagan wedding and I can say that they are just as beautiful and meaningful as christian weddings. So please don't claim any sort of ownership over the institution of marriage on behalf of your religion because there is no historical basis whatsoever.
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
wed·ding
noun, often attributive \ˈwe-diŋ\
1
: a marriage ceremony usually with its accompanying festivities : nuptials
2
: an act, process, or instance of joining in close association
Well, as you see facts are now within the truth of in the making…. The truth of the facts that matters… is behind of its finality of manifestation.
Marriage is between man and a woman but now, it is just a social ceremony… where divorce can separate the two… If a woman had one God through his soulmate… men have God through laws.
From a biblical-historical standpoint, all marriages are actually "joined" by God. Why? Because he made everything, simple as that. He may not agree with all of them (as stated in what seems to be a missing post of mine), such as those with ungodly reasons.
Family is not just the husband and wife, there are kids. When one parent abuses the other, the kids either hate it or learn it, either causes damage to their young minds.
Strengthening and protecting the family should not prevent the family for looking for the right member, the right mother or father. You can't protect or strengthen what is already non-existent.
The best thing to do is to allow the family to become complete again, albeit with a new member.
Also, divorce won't make couples marry, then divorce just for fun. Hell, if I don't want to be in a relationship for a long time, I'd just stay legally single.
If marriage is an investment, annulment is bankruptcy. Unfortunately for the latter, the majority of Filipino families would literally become bankrupt should they attempt to have one.
I’ve always wondered how the hell can divorce destroy a family? Similar to the author, I’ve always thought that divorce is done because the family has already been irreparably destroyed or if there was no family in the first place.
Unless the (possible) divorce law states that a divorce can be done with a push of a button or by tearing up a piece of paper, it does not fail protect the family as an institution. (Oops, we’re not married anymore. I’m free!)
“What God has joined together, let not man put asunder”
Here’s the thing, not all marriages are out of love. Some are for money, position, power, or lust.
Does God support these? I believe not and I believe that God did not join those who married for the wrong reasons.
Divorce empowers women in a macho society. I hate to admit it but the Philippines is a macho society and this will be something of an equalizer.
Also, the family is not only composed of a couple, some if not most families have kids. Some of these kids suffer an incredible amount of mental anguish because their father abandoned their mom (and them) to be with another woman or if the father constantly beats up the mom. Worst case would be if the kids come to believe that what their family has is normal, and would apply the same things to their family on the future.
Strengthening the family does not always mean they have to strengthen the bonds of the parent. How can you strengthen something that has already become non-existent?
The best thing they can do is to allow the mother to marry again, hopefully to a better husband and father figure that would mold the kids into better citizens. That’s strengthening the family.
And what ticks me off the most is that Bishops have the balls to talk about something they would never experience. From my point of view, these guys are lazy, too lazy to teach proper values to their followers.
If the church does its job properly, there would be no need for divorce. The people would be comfortable enough to seek advice from priests about how to improve their marriage, or at least make it tolerable. When a couple feels that “its not working out”, the priest can do something to make it work.
Hell, maybe some obviously failed marriages in the making can be prevented if priests do a bit of research and solicit advise as the couple attempts to get married.
Thanks for the comment, Ajca. Hey, haven’t we “met” before in the comments section of Jose Sison’s Philstar article “Dubious Means”? 🙂
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=72…
Yup, that was me. 🙂
yeah, I'll bet the dissolution of Kris Aquino's marriages required "a lot of imagination” … not to mention lots of $moolah$… maybe Robin Padilla had better sense to marry using Islamic rites because it'll be cheaper to back out… eventually.
How much $$$ did it fill the Catholic coffers to approve the annulment of all those weddings? Divorce-annullment in the Philippines is not so much a "right of every Filipino" but a "luxury service" being offered by the Catholic Church for obscene amounts of money and only the rich and powerful can afford.
Of course all explanations and play of words are only a rationalization attempt for upholding Catholic dogma. The Catholic dogma states that the marriage is a holy sacrament and eternal, which the priest is bounding on behalf of god. So no more separation possible even if the relation is totally broken just because of this sacrament status.
And the Philippines is beside Malta (Vatican doesn’t count as no marriages and families founded there) which have this Catholic dogma included into their secular constitution.
So why are Muslims singled out as permitted to divorce for religious reasons but all the various non-Catholic Christian denominations, which allow divorce (beside married priests or female priests … ) are falling under Catholic dogma ??