1. Whether or not divorce will prevent the protection of children?
In the case of Republic vs. Manalo, the Court held that the declared State
policy that marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is a foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the State, should not be read in total
isolation but must be harmonized with other constitutional provision. Aside
from strengthening the solidarity of the Filipino family, the State is equally
mandated to actively promote its total development. It is also obligated to
defend, among others, the right of children to special protection from all
forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development. To Our mind, the State cannot effectively
enforce these obligation s if We limit the application of Paragraph 2 or Article
26 only those foreign divorce initiated by the alien spouse. It is not amiss to
point that the women and children are almost always the helpless victims of
all forms of domestic abuse and violence. In fact, among the notable
legislation passed in order to minimize, if not eradicate, the menace are R.A.
No. 9262 ("Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004") R.A. No. 9710 ("The Magna Carta of Women"), R.A. No 10354 ("The
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012") and R.A. No
9208 ("Anti-Trafficking in Person Act of 2003"), as amended by R.A. No.
10364 ("ExpandedAnti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012"). Moreover, in
protecting and strengthening the Filipino family as a basic autonomous social
institution, the Court must not lose sight of the constitutional mandate to
value the dignity of every human person, guarantee full respect for human
rights, and ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and
men.8
2. Won divorce will undermine the sanctity of the family
Philippines is a family-oriented country – The Philippine Constitution
specifically provides the protection and preservation of the sanctity of
marriage, as well as the children. In fact, Article XV of the 1987 Constitution
is dedicated to the protection of marriage and family, to wit:
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.
Section 3. The State shall defend:
(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their
religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;
(2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and
nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse,
cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their
development;
(3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and
(4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the
planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect
them.
Section 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but
the State may also do so through just programs of social security.
In addition, Article 1 of the Family Code states that
“Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and
a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of
conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an
inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents
are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that
marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the
marriage within the limits provided by this Code.”
Taking these into context, it should be understood that divorce would
undermine not only the family code, but also the Constitutional guarantee of
protection of the sanctity of marriage and the right of children since divorce
is made to appear as an “easy way out” for people who want to get out of
their marriage just because a law allows them to.
In the case of Lavadia vs. Heirs of Juan Luces Luna, it was held that the
finding in the present case conforms to the Constitution, which characterizes
marriage as an inviolable social institution, and regards it as a special
contract of permanent union between a man and a woman for the
establishment of a conjugal and family life. The non-recognition of absolute
divorce in the Philippines is a manifestation of the respect for the sanctity of
the marital union especially among Filipino citizens. It affirms that the
extinguishment of a valid marriage must be grounded only upon the death of
either spouse, or upon a ground expressly provided bylaw. For as long as
this public policy on marriage between Filipinos exists, no divorce decree
dissolving the marriage between them can ever be given legal or judicial
recognition and enforcement in this jurisdiction.
Divorce does not abide by the Constitutional provisions of marriage – in
relation to Article XV of the 1987 Constitution and the Family Code, divorce
undermines not only these provisions, but also the sanctity of marriage that
the law has been protecting because divorce would result in dissolution of
more marriages.
Divorce as the “easy way out” – there is a reason as to why Philippine law is
strict in relation to marriages, and it is because it wants to protect the
sanctity of marriage. The Philippine courts only allow strict compliance with
the law before a dissolution of marriage.
3. Won divorce will be more beneficial to each partner’s mental or
psychological health
Reconciliation will be more processual as opposed to existing Philippine laws
– The Family Code provides for provisions relating to reconciliation after or
during pendency of legal separation cases, unlike in divorce wherein
remarriage, after a divorce decree, is the only way to reconcile, and not only
are the process of remarrying more complicated, but also the effects of the
divorce decree subsists.
4. Won declaration of nullity will suffice in lieu of divorce
Because there is no absolute divorce possible under the laws in the
Philippines, there are ways to legally separate or through Family Code to
obtain a relative divorce. However, legal separation between partners does
not lead to divorce proceedings, and the husband and wife are still married
by law. If there is a reason to consider one of the spouses guilty, he or she
is not permitted to inherit from the other that is aggrieved. And, neither is
able to marry again. This makes an annulment or nullity of marriage so
important so that the relationship is dissolved completely.
If the marriage between the two spouses has been considered null and void
from the very moment the two have been legally married together, there is
a proper path to file a Petition for the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Marriage. The other possibility is when there is a reason that the relationship
is voidable or valid until this point, it is possible to file action for Petition for
Annulment of Marriage. The differences are often slight, but they are entirely
dissimilar. It is vital for the spouses to understand what these two processes
mean so that one or the other may be utilized when necessary.
While declaring the marriage null and void has the same effect as divorce,
the former takes longer to process than the latter, giving both parties a
higher chance of reconciliation. Outside of our legal conclusions, I believe
our country should be more concern on the risk it poses as divorce could end
marital unions at a higher rate once divorce bill becomes a law.
