After the all the debates and commotion on the RH Bill, I watched the news with eagerness when I learned that House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte has started lighting the fire for the passage of the Divorce Bill. This, despite the insistence of Malacanang that the issue is not on their radar screens. Note that the Philippines in one of two countries in the world that has no law allowing absolute civil divorce, the other one being, for obvious reasons, the Vatican City. I would suppose that the Executive Branch is worn and tired from the battle on the RH Bill, and that while the RH Bill was a big victory, the powers-that-be would not like to wage another war against the Catholic Church over an issue with an uncertain chance of winning.
Congratulations to the Gabriela representatives who have filed the Divorce Bill, it is timely (actually it should have been addressed ages ago) and very important to the country. I have been very vocal about this issue since the middle seventies and I have always pointed to the reasoning of the constitutionalist Fr. Bernas on the issue: Why is it we allow the Catholic belief be imposed on the general populace when the issue is absolute CIVIL divorce?
On the other end of the spectrum, I'm pretty disappointed at the gentleman from Marikina who has filed a bill making it illegal to introduce divorce in the Philippines. Now that smacks of authoritarianism and goes against the definition of a democratic free society where the exchange of ideas and debate is paramount. You can't file a bill like that--it's like saying you can't debate on ideas. If you are opposed to divorce, let's debate on the issues, and let's see where the numbers on the floor stand.
The preliminary solution may lie in the proposal of the Bayan Muna representatives to expand the list of items that constitute "psychological incapacity" under the present rules on annulment. Physical abuse, infidelity and abandonment, for example, will be included as grounds for annulment, and this will enable estranged couples to seek legal redress.
I would venture to put some twist to the bill allowing absolute civil divorce in order to hasten the passage of a bill--
a) If a couple chooses to get married under a purely civil union (i.e. in front of a judge, a mayor or a captain of a ship), then absolute civil divorce is available as a remedy to a failed marriage.
b) If a couple chooses to get married under a civil union that is administered by a duly authorized religious figure and sanctioned under a religious rite (i.e. in front of a priest, a reverend, or pastor), then the religious union is automatically a civil union that may or may not have divorce, depending on the religious rules of the rite. Remember that the Church of England was formed to allow divorce, so if you get married under such religious rites, you enjoy the same civil freedom for a divorce. Following the logic, if you get married under the Catholic rites, then your civil union does not have the remedy for civil divorce. To some extent, this is already practiced under Moslem law, which is recognized in the Philippines. The marriage contract will indicate whether or not the religious rite allows divorce--the officiating authority will simply state the religious rite and check the box "divorce allowed" or "divorce not allowed." Whatever box is checked will be recognized by the state as the contract between the couple.
If you think about it, isn't that a truly democratic way of doing things?
No comments:
Post a Comment