skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Half of the entire Filipino population is already ready for divorce while a big part of the remaining half is just undecided. Our advocacy for divorce is related to our fight against violence against women. It is also in keeping with the women’s movement toward the promotion for bodily rights, autonomy and empowerment of the oppressed gender. It is not against men. It is against oppressors.
My sense is that a knee-jerk objection to divorce is just based on fear for the word divorce whose connotation is associated with the “ end of romance.” But it is not so. It is about what to do when the romance and the marriage contract have failed irrevocably. So, before we object, let us be informed first. The current proposed law is authored by our own feminist mentor, professor, then Davao City local legislator, now Party list Representative Luz Ilagan & Rep. Emerenciana de Jesus of the Gabriela Women’s Party.
The Gabriela Women’s Party proposed grounds for divorce are very straightforward and serve to improve on the current grounds for legal separation and more:
a) When the petitioner has been separated in fact for at least five years and reconciliation is
highly improbable;
b) When the spouses have already been granted a court decree of legal separation for at least
two (2) years & reconciliation is highly improbable;
c) When any of the grounds of legal separation has caused irreconcilable differences;
d) When one or both of the spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations &
e) When the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage.
Notice the words used are superlatives : irreconcilable, irreparable, marriage breakdown and highly improbable reconciliation. In turn, divorce as a remedy is an option.
In keeping with the women’s movement’s advocacy against violence, the bill proposes that the existing six (6) months cooling off period after filing of the petition for divorce shall not be applied where the action for legal separation or divorce involves acts of violence under the Anti- Violence Against Women & Their Children Act ( R.A. 9262)
Under current law on legal separation, a decree of relative divorce or legal separation does not sever marital ties; one is still married and thus a separated spouse is criminally liable if a spouse takes on an extra marital relationship. But, under the proposed divorce law, the effect or a decree of divorce cuts marital ties and thus remarriage is allowed; support is given to the innocent spouse who is not yet gainfully employed but only up to one year and custody is decided by the court for minor children in keeping with the “best interests of the child.”
Shouldn’t a remedy available to all nations of the world be available to us also? We have no right to celebrate national freedom and independence day if we continue to legally cage and imprison some of our women and men in broken and failed marital unions.
This remedy is not for couples who are in marital bliss. We should be confident that all around us we witness romance almost all of the time and couples living happily together. We should just bear in mind that marriage contracts are human made and that we are only improving the terms and conditions of the contract and thus by so doing we are improving the institution of marriage through law and policy. Our God in heaven will not surely be against improvement and our pursuit of human happiness and rights.
If I were to frame all I want to say in an unforgiving page just before the relentless press time, what will I say to all students out there? Suddenly, my life and my world flashed before my eyes, so to speak. Much of what I feel is embedded in my life through work with disadvantaged communities & these embodied experiences inspire my university work.
The first thing that stands out is the great divisions of all kinds: between the rich and poor, between the educated and uneducated, between genders or women and men, between the religious hierarchy and the church over a reproductive health measure, between the majority cultural group and the minority group, between politicians who are supposed to be public servants and their constituencies, etc, etc. Understanding our world or community and contributing our bit towards making this world a better place should be one task and promise of education.
Making this world a better place is not the monopoly of one discipline but the one discipline I know that makes us understand ourselves and the world are the social sciences. All the advances in science and technology have not made this world a better place. The vast mass of humanity is just going through all the motions and is not too bothered about the problems of the world. The university itself is a microcosm of the big society. Education, per se, reinforces the social class divisions in our society. So, how do we teach citizenship and love of country or community?
From the social sciences, we are exhorted that our history classes should have a theory of society and that our theory of society must have a sense of history. Looking back in my basic education I do not remember that a discussion of why there is so much social inequality was ever emphasized. Thus, the conclusion that I can make now is that indeed our education has reinforced the status quo much like the theory of equilibrium that society maintains itself through social inequality.
So, in going to the classroom later, the task I have in mind is to inspire my students (who are so trapped in the age of information technology without purpose) that they have a big role to play in improving our society in their lifetime. The challenge is to convince them that there is a connection between their personal life and the texture and context of the kind of society that we are in by providing them with the glaring evidence of so much social inequality.
I remember one student who seemed so blasé about the kind of poverty that we are in. I asked her if she has access to the books in my required reading list or if she can afford to buy the recommended textbook. Only then did she realize that she is in want.
That they do not have to look far to see this social inequality: across in malls we find sales ladies standing eight hours for just a couple of hundred of pesos or so, a few blocks from the university are thousands of urban poor making homes in coastal areas designated as parks and who are at the mercy of strong monsoon waves and storm surges that visit us with clockwork regularity, watch your car boys across the street who should be in school and one of these boys snatched my daughter’s cell phone when she was not looking, farmers who could use more income to keep body & soul together, etc, etc. Our incomes should be enough for all so that we can make both ends meet and enjoy a little bit of fine culture such as music and theater and books galore.
I am glad that I work for a university whose mission is to be a person for others. I am glad that my university has social involvement coordinating programs for communities which can also mentor a successor generation of leaders whose social awareness and skills will make them work for the social and economic well being of our communities. This and the excitement of meeting new students warm my heart and fill me with much hope for the future.
During the grand debate on Reproductive Health Bill at GMA News TVs Grand Debate aired last Sunday, one of the themes that came out was the issue of “When Life Begins.” Because the question is very philosophical, many of us used the reductio ad absurdum argumentation and said that
“ Life begins at 40!” Seriously, the discussions on the Reproductive Health bill is getting to be very emotional and some of the main players are men and celibate priests who have no embodied sexual experiences, much less who have never been pregnant.
We love Fr Joaquin G. Bernas, a Jesuit and brilliant constitutionalist when he said & I quote “ I am happy that the CBCP has disowned the self destructive views of some clerics…. I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH Bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication ! I find this to be irresponsible.” Still, the official stand of Fr Bernas is that “ sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation.” This remark is associated with our faith and religion. And clearly, our constitution is secular and not a theocracy.
We have encountered this debate very early on when we were promoting emergency contraception as one of our programs. So, we are kind of settled on our view to the question “ When Does Life Begin?” For this, I wish to quote Emelina Quintillan, an international development lawyer and Coordinator of the Asia Pacific Network on Emergency Contraception (APNEC). Emel, as we fondly call her said,
“ What's this thinking of some lawmakers about finding an answer to "when life begins" in connection with the reproductive health bill? Don’t they know that a single cell has life, a sperm has life, an egg has life, a strand of hair has life? A sperm and an egg don't have to meet for life to begin. There is already life even before there is a fertilized egg! The question on "when life begins" can only be answered philosophically. It is a question that will only spark debates and arguments from different perspectives. Not even the different religions can agree on when life begins. The question of when human life begins has been pondered, discussed, and debated in a multitude of cultural contexts. The "answer" has been changing throughout history. Any answer about when human life begins is deeply integrated with the beliefs, values and social constructs of the community or individual that draws the conclusion. The anti-choice or anti-contraceptive group will always say that human life begins when the egg and the sperm meet and consider the taking of contraceptives as killing a human being. However, the fertilized egg or zygote is not yet a human being and there is no guarantee that it will become a human being. Scientific studies have shown that around half of the fertilized eggs naturally don't implant in the uterine lining, never develop into fetuses, and will never become human. Thus, it seems as if the anti-choice group are simply conveniently using the "life begins upon the meeting of the egg and sperm" contention to support their anti-contraceptive argument. The question on "when life begins" is irrelevant to the RH bill. If concern of some lawmakers is about abortion and abortifacients, maybe the more relevant question to ask is "when does pregnancy begin." There can be no abortion without pregnancy. Contraceptives prevent pregnancy.”
Finally, I found this provision ( Article 40-41) in our Civil Code : “ Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the condition ….(that) the foetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother’s womb. …if the foetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months, it is NOT deemed born if it dies within twenty- four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb.”
The Philippines is now almost the only nation in the world which has no absolute divorce, except for Vatican City. When I shared this lately in an international group, they said that maybe it is one of the reasons why a whole community wants to secede from the Philippines. Italy where the Vatican is has recognized divorce a long time ago. I said almost because we have divorce among our Muslim communities. As an available option, absolute divorce which once existed in this country and available in Muslim communities, is very long overdue and should also be available as a remedy for majority of Filipinos. The absence of a divorce law for the majority of women in the Philippines is particularly oppressive for women trapped in violent marriages. Forever etched in my mind is the celebrated case of Maria Teresa Carlson, reportedly trapped in a very violent marriage and she tragically jumped to her death.
Then, in our communities, we have a village justice system that for purposes of maintaining what is their false concept of peace and harmony at home would opt for an “amicable settlement” among couples who are forever fighting and who clearly cannot be together anymore.
For now, only those who can afford the costly annulment process have access to the effects of absolute divorce. Which is why, we say that annulment is for the rich. A mother of my student recently spent more than half a million pesos for her annulment to happen. A cousin of mine who now lives in Paris recently engaged the services of a lawyer and as well she got an annulment from a far away court in exchange for a large sum. But, I also know of many friends and neighbors who wish to be separated from their husbands but the costs of annulment are so prohibitive.
In the case of Muslims and in keeping with fundamental Quranic concepts of justice and equality, divorce is part of the Islamic complete code of life around the world. Among our Muslim sisters and brothers in the Philippines, they have one of the most sophisticated laws on divorce. A woman can divorce her husband through mutual agreement or by returning the dower or mahr. The mahr is nuptial gift or dowry given to the wife by the husband which is an essential requisite of a Muslim marriage contract. Or a Muslim woman can orally divorce her husband – if she has demanded this in her marriage contract – or by just placing the delegated right of divorce in the marriage contract. The challenge is to popularize this legal option as most Muslim women are not aware that she can opt for this delegated right of oral divorce in the marriage contract. Of course, all divorces should be registered so that when a woman remarries she will not be liable for adultery or zina.
That a community of nations in the whole world shares a remedy called divorce and that it is not yet available to the majority of Filipinos for the longest time now are very revealing and disturbing. Long ago, many Catholic majority countries – Spain, Brazil, Ireland , Mexico , Portugal and all of Latin America – have recognized divorce.
So, the passage of law on divorce will formalize an existing extra legal remedy of separation in fact. The divorce law will be a right and a remedy accessible to those who need to move on from a marital arrangement that is not working anymore.
Posts
