by: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Divorce: An exit from a dystopia
(Fourth Part)
(Author’s note: This article is a report presented by the author in his Regulative Love, Sex, and Marriage class. It is intended to present a factual account of a situation in the Philippines where no absolute divorce is allowed. This article does not necessarily represent the author’s belief on the issue.)
In the previous article, the public sentiment on divorce was presented. Surveys show that majority of the Filipinos now agree that divorce should be allowed to married couples who have already separated and cannot reconcile anymore so that they can get legally married again.
Divorce as a customary international law
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family and they are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”
A similar provision is also found in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and in the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The Human Rights Committee is of the opinion that remarriage is an “aspect of the right to marry.”
The UDHR was adopted in 1948 and remains to be the foundation of many treaties. With the overwhelming number of countries adopting the UDHR, the ICCPR, the CEDAW, and considering that the Philippines is the lone state with no divorce law, divorce can be considered to have evolved into a customary international law.
Is the Philippines ready for a general divorce law?
The Philippines used to have a divorce law (Siete Partidas on relative divorce, Act No. 2710 permitted absolute divorce, E.O. 141 issued on March 25, 1943 permitted divorce).
Philippine culture is now open to divorce (SWS Survey in 2003 reported 36% of Filipinos were in favor of divorce. A repeat survey in 2011 revealed 50% voted affirmatively for divorce. Another survey in 2014 shows 60% of Filipinos were in favor.
There is a double standard in the Philippines allowing divorce for Muslims and indigenous peoples but denying from other Filipinos.
The accepted grounds for canonical annulment of marriage include: homosexuality in men or lesbianism in women, satyriasis in men or symphomania in women, extremely low intelligence, immaturity, permanently recurring epilepsy, and habitual alcoholism.
Conclusion
In conclusion, allow me to quote Dr. Justin P. McBrayer who said:
“We should be careful with the promises that we make to our marriage partner on our wedding day. These promises ground special moral obligations, and yet they are all too often vague, unclear, or impossible to fulfill. Have explicit conversations about expectations for the future.
Whether a divorce is morally permissible depends on a great many things, including the content of the promises made between the partners. Merely citing a right to be happy does not dissolve the moral obligations we have in other areas of life. Nor does it on its own obviate the moral obligation we have to stick with a spouse when doing so makes us unhappy.”
Despite the compelling state interest to preserve the family as a foundational unit of society, it is likewise duty-bound to provide a way out of the permanent union where the consequences of a turbulent union do not serve the best interest of the society.