INDEED, Article XV, Section 2 of our Constitution clearly stipulates, “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.”
But we need to confront this argument with the fact that protection by the State comes in a legal environment where legal separation and annulment remain as options. If indeed there is an absolute protection, the nullification of marriage, or the declaration of the separation of married couples, should never appear for consideration as a legal option.
One therefore can only surmise that the protection of marriage as an inviolable social institution is not synonymous with turning it into a lifetime imprisonment for people who made wrong decisions. At best, protection as cited in Section 2 can be interpreted in the form of support for married couples. Furthermore, protecting marriage as a social institution doesn’t necessarily mean keeping intact every single marriage but should be interpreted as the state protecting its integrity. This can be done by ensuring that marriage is a bond that enables persons who are married to live a fulfilling and happy life.
Thus, ensuring that marriage will not become an excuse for abuse, or for it to be an institution that coddles and protects domestic violence against family members or for it to bring out the worst in people, would be a more meaningful way of protecting the integrity of marriage as a social institution. A marriage that preserves an abusive relationship cannot be countenanced. This is precisely why legal separation and annulment are allowed for people who can no longer live with each other, and if forced to do so would degrade and violate the integrity of marriage itself.
Many of those who oppose divorce begrudge the option of divorced persons to remarry. They argue that it would cheapen, if not assail, the integrity of marriage as a social institution. This argument is simply untenable because while legal separation is an option to be free of a bad marriage, it will always be a fetter on anyone who is in that kind of marriage to truly celebrate its beauty and benefit from its being an important social institution, albeit now with others more deserving of the bond.
I simply cannot agree that the institution of marriage will be cheapened and diluted just because people who find themselves in a bad marriage the first time and have tried everything to make it work but failed would seek a second chance to truly benefit from a happy marriage and live its real meaning.
What heightens the inconsistency is that when nullity of marriage is declared in situations that are in fact also grounds for divorce, such as psychological incapacity, that such prohibition to remarry is no longer present. Considering that nullification proceedings are expensive and require a tedious process, this further creates a class distinction between those who have the resources to hire lawyers and mental health professionals, and those who don’t.
Those who oppose divorce always advise people to really think hard before they enter into a marriage because it is a lifelong commitment. And those who find themselves making the wrong decisions are advised to make it work, even if the differences are irreconcilable and fundamental.
There is even a tendency to chastise partners to make a sacrifice if only to preserve the family, where marriage is deemed as the foundation. This admonition particularly falls heavily on the shoulders of women who are stereotyped as the ones bearing more responsibility to keep the family intact. Thus, our social landscape is full of narratives of battered women, either physically or emotionally, by abusive, financially incapable, philandering husbands. They are forced to suffer bad marriages if only for the children and the family name. These women are asked to bear the burden of keeping marriage as an inviolable social institution, even if it becomes an enabler for the violation of their fundamental rights. Many are asked to suffer if only not to destroy their families that have already been destroyed by a bad marriage.
And the travesty is as bad should the victim of abuse be the husband.
Many would like to recast the argument in religious terms, except that here there is also no solid constitutional ground. In fact, the most egregious defense of bad marriages warranting divorce is the one that comes cloaked in religious arguments. This is aggravated when the same people argue, grossly misleading I must stress based on what I just pointed out earlier, that the Constitution directs us to protect marriage as an institution. They forget that the same Constitution prohibits the celebration of any state religion and deems it a violation for the State to pass any law that would either enable one particular religion or deny another its free exercise.
Certainly, having a divorce law will not compel Catholics and other Christians to violate the sanctity of their marriage vows, and thus will not deny them the right to freely exercise their faith. On the contrary, insisting not to have a divorce law on religious grounds is the one that is patently unconstitutional since it would have the effect of enabling and giving preferential treatment to the Catholic and Christian religion to have influence on our system of laws. What makes it even patently unequal is that divorce and polygamy are allowed under Muslim Sharia law to avoid preventing Muslims from freely exercising their religion.
The Philippines is the only country in the world, except for the Vatican, where divorce is not legalized, except for Muslim Filipinos, and where marriage can only be nullified on narrower and expensive grounds if people want to remarry. There is no clear evidence that this has made us a better country and society and has increased our collective social intelligence and our ability to become critical and useful citizens not only of our country but of the world. It is not even an assurance that we live better Christian lives.
Credit: Source link