sexandsensibilities.com

Re-posted from the Manila Standard Today.

by Elizabeth Angsioco

Last week, I dealt with three of the most common arguments against divorce: that it is unnecessary, anti-Filipino, and destructive to the family. This piece deals with three more arguments. Hopefully, I will be able to provide more clarity on why I, and many others are taking the pro re-legalization of divorce in the country.

4. Marriage is sacred.

First, marriage is both a ceremony and a contract voluntarily entered into by both parties.

As a ceremony, marriage celebrates the love and desire of two people to live together. As a contract, marriage carries with it responsibilities of both parties.

Because entering marriage is voluntary, the decision whether to stay together or not should be taken by the individuals involved, not society, other people, or the Church.

As a contract, marriage comes with responsibilities. If one is gravely abused by the other, the contract is violated. In this case, what options does the other party have?

All contracts can be revoked. This should also be true for marriages. Divorce may be the option for the aggrieved party to get out of the marriage contract.

Studies in the United States and other countries indicate that the majority of those who file for divorce are women. The major reasons cited are: unfaithfulness, physical and other forms of abuse, neglect and desertion, alcoholism, and drug abuse. If most of those who violate marriage contracts are men, why punish women for their irresponsibility?

Second, if God is a party to the marriage, will God insist that individuals stay in abusive marriages?

The Roman Catholic Church speaks of a loving, just and forgiving God. If this is so, God would not want people to suffer and would save people from oppressive situations. As one woman member of Couples for Christ (who separated from her husband) said, “I don’t believe that God wants me and my children to stay in a marriage that almost killed us.”

Third, there is Church annulment.

The Roman Catholic Church annuls some marriages. Isn’t this an acceptance that some marriages are simply wrong and that marriage is NOT inviolable? However, Church annulment process is said to be long and expensive. Poor Catholics will never be able to afford this.

The well-being and happiness of people count in marriages. An understanding God would choose this. The line, “what God has put together, let no man put asunder” used against divorce is convenient for those who have not experienced marriage.

5. There is no assurance of happiness after divorce and upon marriage to another.

First, people do not get divorced to immediately marry someone else.

Wanting to contract another marriage is not among the earlier identified major reasons for wanting a divorce. This means that the immediate concern is to legally get out of a problematic marriage.

For women abused by their husbands, the most important thing is for the abusive men to lose their power over them. Culturally, this power emanates from the marriage and the only way to remove it is to dissolve the bond.

I know cases of women who have separated from their husbands but are still followed and abused by them. Most cases of separation do not go through the courts, thus, marriages remain valid. For many men, they think they still have the power over the women because the latter remain married to them.

The abuse should stop. For many women, freedom comes after their marriages become void.

Second, women’s happiness does not lie only in men’s hands in marriage.

There are women who never married and are happy. There are those who got married and happy. There are those who got married, separated from their husbands, remained single, and happy. Still, there are those who got separated, entered into another relationship, and happy. Happiness, therefore is not purely dependent on marriage.

Each of us determines what makes us happy and happiness can come in different situations, with different people.

Third, there is nothing wrong in having another spouse after a failed relationship.

Divorce gives the right to legally enter new relationships, even marriage, if and when one so desires. A subsequent marriage may make people happy. If it also fails, it’s one of the “risks” of having relationships, whether divorce is legal or not.

Happiness may or may not come after a relationship that’s proven to have caused misery. What’s important is freedom from such misery and the chance to pursue life anew.

6. Children are the worst losers in divorce cases.

No one wants children to suffer. However, hasty conclusions also won’t help.

First, recent studies reveal more nuanced findings about divorce and children.

Earlier reports concluded that divorce is bad for children. More recent ones, however, are more careful in making conclusions. While there are problems more commonly observed in children with divorced parents, it is equally important to emphasize the following findings:

There are more SIMILARITIES than differences between children whose parents are divorced and those whose biological parents are together;

Not all children are significantly affected by divorce;

Parents who decided to have a divorce are most likely to have had long drawn and severe problems BEFORE a divorce was taken. Said problems affect their children and it is highly possible that the effects are worse than those caused by the actual divorce;

The problems before divorce, not the actual separation, may have caused the differences observed between children whose parents got divorced and those who did not experience the same. Data from the National Survey of Children (USA) indicate that the experience of having parents getting a divorce has no significant or important effect on children IF the children’s wellbeing was given importance before the divorce;

In the long run, children in families with a lot of problems and fighting even if parents are together will be more negatively affected than children whose parents got divorced but the tension within the home was significantly lessened;

Divorce’s effects on children are varied depending on the level of arguments and tension before and after separation. The effects are more negative when before divorce, the conflicts are prolonged and frequent. Likewise, the high level of tension after aggravates and prolongs its negative effects on children.

Note also, that more recent studies on divorce’s effects on children carry important pointers on how parents can adequately take care of their children after separation.

It can be concluded, therefore, that when it comes to children, it might even be better for parents to have a divorce AND ensure their children’s wellbeing after than continue to expose them to tension and conflict.

Second, children born out of wedlock are discriminated against in law.

Since separations outside of law and contracting new ‘illegal’ relationships are quite common, children borne out of these subsequent relationships are considered ‘illegitimate’ by law. They have less rights compared with those born within marriages.

Not only do these children carry the stigma of being illegitimate, they are also deprived of the right to legally carry their father’s names and have less inheritance rights.

Why should children suffer for decisions made by their parents?

In the end, the position for the re-legalization of divorce cannot be considered as unnecessary, anti-Filipino, anti-family, or anti-children. A divorce law may even improve the quality of and strengthen the family as an institution.

Divorce also gives freedom and the chance to start life anew to those abused within marriage. The divorce law should be there for those who need it, especially those whose marriages are already broken and irreparable.

eangsioco@yahoo.com

        

Re-posted from the Manila Standard Today

by Elizabeth Angsioco

Vilma Santos, Nora Aunor, Maricel Soriano, Sharon Cuneta, Dina Bonnevie, Pops Fernandez, Aiko Melendez, Carmina Villaroel and Snooky Serna are big names in Philippine showbiz. They are also in the long list of personalities who separated from their first husbands through divorce or annulment.

Divorce is again a hot issue after the people of Malta, the only other country in the world (aside from ours) without a divorce law, decided in a referendum that they want one.

Here, each time lawmakers file bills legalizing divorce, loud opposition voices are immediately heard. Arguments against divorce are almost always based on religious dogma, much like those against the reproductive health bill, even if the two are quite different from each other.

By definition, divorce is a court decision dissolving a legal marriage and giving the concerned parties the right to remarry. Divorce are of two types: first, that which is based on grounds defined by law and which need to be proven; and second, “no fault” divorce where there is no need to prove that one party was abused by the other.

I favor re-legalizing divorce in the country. I am of the position that arguments against it do not hold water. Allow me to counter these.

1. Divorce is unnecessary. We already have legal separation and annulment.

The Family Code of the Philippines indeed provides for legal separation, declaration of nullity of marriage, and annulment. Conceptually, however, these are different from divorce.

The first gives the right to legally separate from one’s spouse in terms of abode and provides for property settlement WITHOUT dissolving the marriage. Thus, the marriage remains legal and both parties cannot remarry.

Declaration of nullity of marriage and annulment declare that the marriage contracted was invalid from, or can be declared void, from the start. Both are grounded on specific bases that MUST have existed before or at the time of the wedding ceremony.

The existence of these grounds is often difficult to prove and requires expertise, thus, the need for psychologists and psychiatrists. No wonder, annulment cases are usually long-drawn and quite expensive.

We already have laws for those who only want property settlement, and those with void and voidable marriages. Why not a law for valid but failed marriages?

2. Divorce is a foreign concept and not applicable to Filipino culture.

First, what really is Filipino?

Are democracy and Christianity or Catholicism Filipino? Definitely, they are not indigenous to the Philippines. Spain brought us Roman Catholicism. The Americans taught us democracy.

If origin is the basis for saying that certain ideas are not applicable to one’s culture, then the same standard should be used for these concepts.

Second, divorce is not new in the Philippines.

Even before Magellan “discovered” the Philippines, our ancestors had practices similar to divorce. Separation of “couples” and their right to enter another relationship was accepted as part of community life. Some of the known communities that practiced this were Palawan’s Tagbanwas; Nueva Vizcaya’s Gadang; Cordilleras’ Igorots; the Manobos, Bila-ans and Muslims of Visayas and Mindanao.

The Spaniards scrapped, and replaced these practices with “Siete Partidas,” or legal separation.

In 1917, the Americans removed Siete Partidas and institutionalized Act 2710, or the Divorce Law that had two grounds: adultery on the woman’s part and concubinage for men.

During the Japanese occupation, Act 2710 was replaced by EO No. 141, which, had ten grounds upon which one could divorce one’s spouse. After defeating the Japanese, the Americans removed EO No. 141 and Act 2710 was again put in place. Nevertheless, divorce remained legal until 1950 when the Civil Code of the Philippines re-instituted legal separation.

Third, divorce is still presently practiced in the Philippines.

Muslims practice divorce and the national government recognizes this as legal. Some indigenous cultural communities in the country still have practices similar to divorce.

Fourth, divorce is legal (nearly) worldwide, except in our country.

While Malta has yet to pass its actual divorce law, its Prime Minister has already said that he will vow to the will of the Maltese people. Thus, in the very near future, it will only be us, Filipinos, who will not have this option.

Spain, which brought us our religion, has divorce. Italy, where the Vatican is, has divorce. All other predominantly Catholic countries have divorce. What makes us so special?

Are we saying that what is good for the entire world is bad for us? Do we really have perfect marriages?

Why can’t we face the reality that there are marriages that fail and that people should have a legal option that will not declare their marriages void from the beginning?

Divorce is nothing new and cannot be considered as foreign to us, Filipinos. We should re-enact it.

3. Divorce will destroy the Filipino family.

First, the quality of family relationships is more important than its composition.

Indeed, the family should be protected. But what kind of families are we after? Is it simply about its composition? Doesn’t the quality of relationships count?

In my view, there must be love, understanding, trust and respect in families. If these are gone and hatred, abuse, violence and/or mistrust become the norm, do we insist that people stay together as a “family”? Is this what we want?

In a country where violence against women, specifically wife abuse, remains common, must we force women to stay in abusive relationships so as not to “destroy” their families? Truth be said, these families are already ruined and there is nothing more to destroy.

Our culture expects women to be submissive especially on family matters. It becomes the women’s responsibility to ensure that the family remains INTACT regardless of abuses or problems they have.

Women ordinarily fulfill this role and it takes a lot before they want out. I know too many cases when women only get out of marriages after many years of abuse and when such is already unbearable, at times, almost killing them.

Leaving an abusive relationship is more difficult when one is unprotected by law, and when the marriage cannot be invalidated.

Second, it is a fact that separations happen left and right.

It is common knowledge that our courts are clogged with annulment cases. This is because annulment is the only option open to the thousands of couples who want out of broken and/or failed marriages. In our communities, countless ordinary people separate from their spouses without bothering to go through legal processes.

Such separations are not invented by divorce since we do not have it.

Third, even during those years when divorce was legal in the Philippines, the family as an institution remained and until now, continues to be strong.

The foundation for taking the marriage vows is the love between two people. This remains whether divorce is legal or not. Because people continue to fall in love, there will be no shortage of those who will get married and raise a family.

I say that having divorce may make people more careful and responsible in their relationships because the possibility of their spouses wanting to get out of a failed and/or abusive relationship is real. When people nourish their marriage, the family as an institution is strengthened and divorce is a distant possibility.

Even if countless couples have separated and/or divorced, many still learn to love, eventually get married and raise families. The family as an institution will not be destroyed because of the legality of divorce.

I dare say that divorce may even strengthen and improve the quality of existing families. It may be one way of protecting the kind of families that can possibly contribute more to our society in general. More next week!

eangsioco@yahoo.com

        

MEDIA STATEMENT:

P-NOY’S RECENT ANTI-DIVORCE BUT PRO-REMARRIAGE PRONOUNCEMENT

By Ms. ELIZABETH ANGSIOCO

National Chairperson

Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP)

24 August 2010

Hearing the President’s pronouncements on divorce made me cringe.  When President Benigno S. Aquino III stated that divorce in the Philippines is a no-no, but in the same breath said that those who want to remarry may just use legal separation, my initial reaction was – “Does he know that legal separation does not allow remarriage?” The President contradicted himself and his statement may be described as confused, or perhaps, misguided. Unfortunately, Presidential pronouncements are usually taken as the administration’s positions on issues and strongly influence Congress decisions.  In this case, the President’s message is unclear.

His statement that legal separation should be enough for couples who cannot stay together and who want to remarry reveals wrong appreciation of existing laws.  Legal separation does not dissolve the marriage and only settles separation of abode, and in some cases, of properties.  Our work with women from all over the country taught me that some marriages break down, divorce or no divorce. Many times, women’s decision to get out of relationships is due to abuse and violence they suffered for years and could no longer bear.  For these women, legal separation is not enough even if they do not have plans of remarrying. Reports consistently show that in this country, violence and other forms of abuse against women are primarily committed by husbands and partners, the very same people who vowed to love and protect them ‘till death do they part’.  We know of cases where even if legally separated, women are unable to escape abuse from husbands because they remain “owned” by them in marriage.

President Aquino also said that the sanctity of marriage must be protected and I agree.  However, this should not be at the expense of women, particularly those who are victims of abuse.  Does the President really believe that those abused should not be given another chance at life? Would the President prefer women to suffer in silence for the sake of making it appear that their marriages are intact even if in reality, they have broken down? Mr. President, many women want to be free from abusive relationships. The goal is to get their lives back. Whether they will remarry or not is beside the point.  The government, which you lead, should make possible women’s freedom from abuse within marriages. Legalizing divorce will help and we hope that you will side with us on this urgent matter.  We want to know if you are for or against divorce.

Reference: Ms. ELIZABETH ANGSIOCO

National Chairperson

Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines