Transcript
c
!" " #
$ "
%
& '()
" %
* !&
+*
& ')()
" + " & ,- . /
#000
*
/1
. +& '2003
4 .
.
5
/ .#6
/ .
!" . "
7 +
+& 362#
" !-&*8 -9$ 7
*
.
$ .
"
$ .
$
"
4
+
::::::::
; .
$$
$
%
.
$ .
$ "
.
$
.
$ .
$
<
"
$ $ 5
"
%
=
$ . .
$ $ .
7
.
.$
"4
. .
$
/
. $4 $
.
"4
$ .&
$ $ 9$
. $ " $4 .
$ .4
.
$ .
$ 9 "
$
$ .
$ .>
$ .
$ " $
*
$
$ . =
$
$.
$
.
"
. 5 $"
" #0))
$ . -
32
=$ /$$ 4
? $
@
A
$
.
$ .
8
$ .
$
4
%$
$ = .
$"$
<
$ . .
$" $
" $ . 5$
$$
1 .
5
3
7 '
7
"
.
32
)
## .
$ -"
"
$+"
)
.
$ $5
c
$
% 9 c $
3
#
3#6$
$
.
#
33
"
$
$
"
.
!
$
$
$
$
$
$ .
8
.
.
5<
9$ . &
.
'!1$ B
?5
.
$
$ . <
$ $ .7
$
$
" $
.
$ . .
. " $ .$ .
$ .@
?5."
$ .
$
$
" -
$ .
$
". .
C& D
E. D
E
" @
? $
$ .
$
". .
"
5
"
$ .
"
$$ " .
$ ."$
$ "
.$
5
$
"
$ .
.
$
.
$ . "
$
$ . .
$ $
.
@
?% -.
3
#0))
" .
$ .
.-
32
=$ /C5$ -
32
$ .5
$ .
? .
@
$
$
" .
/
$ .
$
<
$
$
"
$ .
-
32"$$
$ .
. ? .
@5 $" -
32".
-
32
$$
$
.
$
$ .
7 -
32
$ ? .
@5
$$
9
<
.
$
$
.$ .5
$
$$
.
? .
@9$ . &
5
* c
7
#00)
5
" 4
"
$ .
5 "
$ "
$ .
.
" !-&*8 -$
5" 4
7
.
"
" " = 5
$$
= $
$ = $ .
/"
$
&
$ " 4
$
.
$4
$ .4F
"$ $
$
c
"
$
$
"9
$
/
7
$ . 5
G
%
$
/
5
.
(H
% .
#H5 .
.
. "
.
$
$
+
"
.
$
". .
#2
"
%
"
$ .
"
5." 7
! .'G
%. .
/
"
& $
G
c
" .
-$
.$#0#( -
'(#
"
7 .
.
,
8
1'#6#
#0
-.
3
#0
'/ /
4
7 1 .
" 5$
"
=$ /#0))
'/ / $ .
$
.
=$ /
? .
@"
.
$ .
.
7
$
#0)(7
/
$ . .
/ .5
#0)(/
"
.
5 "
. . "
7
.
. "
"
7 $
$ $ . "$ " =
"
.
$ .
$ . $
$$ / $ $
$ .
. "
"
$
9
$
" $ .
$
"
$ .F
$ "
"
$
$ $
5 " 4
$47
. "
$
$ .7
.
/ $
7
7 7
c'#)3D#0((E $ .=
$
$
. ' $=
$
7
. "
5" . -
. $
"
"4
$ .
$ $
" .
5
"
$ "
"
u
$
$
.
. $ ""
" .
$
$
.
.
$ ""
'
$
"4 $ . "
$5
"
$ ".
$ "
" "4
$ .
% .
" $
".
$
A.
.
"
.
$ .
-
.
" "
.
$
$
" .
5 <
-
32
=$ /5" 4
? .
@
.
"
$
$
$ .
5" 4
$
?
@ ?
@. .
.
"
$
.
"
$
$
$.
"
$
"
.$
$ .%$$
"
.
"
$
"
"$ $
;
$
"
$$
A.
. 5
"< "
+
"
<
.
$ "
<
$ $
"
.
"
$
5 $
$
$ $
$
"4
5"
$ " "
"
=$ /
-
$ $ $. "
..
/ / $.5
$
" < $
.$
"
$
"
4"
57
$ .
5
" " .
"
7
.
5
$ .
"
$"$ .
."
<
$
9 $ . . "
"
5
" .
<
þ
þ þ
þ
þ !
"#$%&&
'!
()* +%,+-$-
( ( "þ./0
1 !
þ
!
2 .34' #. !
(4þ #'*
þ' 'þ . ,4' þ
þ .,þ .5566 .'þ .+6
7 þ'þ#+-&,4'',þ/8/
4.9 ' . ,'þ . þ .:64
','þþ þ
"
!
(
!
!
( þ
!
2
! 0 ()
$#
;
2 ( #+-&,!0
( (,
< =
<
! !0 (
, !0
( (
!(! <)
>.
. . þ''þ ?
+#
55,56,5%,5@,5&,6-,6$,6+A6:,6B,65!
(66
;
2 ( #+-&,!!0
( (,
< =
<
! !0 (
,! ! !0
( (
!(! <)
>
#55CA#
! ! !
0! (
!
<
()
C$A
þ !
( !2
!2
(
(
(! !
,!00
(, ! (
D
C+A
!2
0 !
0
!
!! !
D
C:A
0
(
(
,!00
(, ! (
,
!
,
2!
( 0
D
CBA
!E( 0
(
0
0
0
!
; ! , 2
! (
(D
C5A
' !((
!
!! 0
(
D
C6A
. !
0 0 ;!
F
(
D
C%A
!
(
! G
!00! ! ,
<
! !(D,
C@A
;!
(
2
D
C&A
0
(
! !
D
C$-A!
(
0
(
<
E
! !
0
!
! #
,
0> (? !
( ! (
!
!(
#
C"A þ'þ 49".'9
../ þ')
C$A þ" þ'' þ4þþ
þ.9þ4.
'þ . .94 þ"".D
C+A þ". ..9 þ'þ4þþ
þ./9þ4.
'þ . .94 þ"".D
C:A/9 þ'þ. . þ'þ þ þ
CAþ . 'þþ þ"."þ8'/
4þþ D
CBA/þ" þ 9 . ..9
' 4 .9/.4þ.". D
C5A
/
þ
þ4
þþ .".'þ 'þþ þ".
"þ8'/4þþ #?
>
#56#
! ! !
þ'þ ! (
(
!
<
()
HC$A/
! 2 (!
!
(
(
!
0!
( D
C+A/
! 2 (!
!
(
00
!
0!
( DI
HC:AIH$I/
2!
<
!
00
!
( ! ! !
þ'þ D
HCBA/
!
!2 2
( ! ! !
DI
HC5AIC+A/
<
!
!
(
! ! !
þ'þ DH
C6A/
!
! (
#I>
>
#5%#H
!
! ! !
! (<
2 ! 0
0
! #I þ. . þ
þ'þ 49".'94#?
>
#5@#
!
! ! !
!
!
( ;
0
! !2 ! (
#4þ...
.9 þ'þ "'þ .55C"A,4"þ:
'5 '#þ... .9/þ
þ. . þþ'þ . .
/4'þ .'þ'þþ ". #&+6+#
, $&þ ". #&+6+.. .9?#
>
#5&# ! ! !
þ'þ 0! ( (
!
!=
#6-#( ! ! !
þ'þ ! ! (
!
!
!
!
E( 0
#
>
#5&# ! ! !
þ'þ 0! ( (
!
!=
#6-#( ! ! !
þ'þ ! ! (
!
!
!
!
E( 0
#
!
! ,
! (
!
!!
(
!=
2
<
!
!
(
!= !
!
2(
! !
( (#?
>
#6$#
! ! !
þ'þ ,
!
(
2 ! !
0 !
#
!
! ,
! (
!
!!
(
!=
2
<
!
!
(
!= !
!
2(
! !
( (#?
>
#6$#
! ! !
þ'þ ,
!
(
2 ! !
0 !
#
,
!
!<
! 0
<
, !(
!
0 !
(
!(0
!
00
E !!
# !(0
!
!
(
! !2
!0 < !
((
!
! ! (!
(
þ
#?
GOD WANTS by Conrad De Quiros
FINALLY, THEY¶RE discussing divorce again in Congress. And expectedly, Catholic Church leaders are
raising hell again in the pulpits.
What sparked the (re)consideration in Congress was Malta, a predominantly Catholic country, voting in a
referendum to legalize divorce. That leaves only the Philippines, apart from the Vatican, that still rejects it.
PiaCayetano wants to go the route of Malta. It¶s time, she said, to expand the meaning of annulment, a
thing that is allowed in the country. ³Call it divorce, call it another animal, (but) there has to be some
change because the reality is, (the lack of) it is one of the discriminatory practices we have (against
women).
³Luz Ilagan puts it more trenchantly: ³Let us not keep our country in the Dark Ages.´
The usual suspects, the same people who believe contraceptives are the devil¶s invention, are unfazed.
³Let¶s not get into the habit of copying what other countries are doing,´ says Tito Sotto. ³Referendums are
merely a political, not a moral exercise,´ said Archbishop Ramon Arguelles. ³What is right or wrong is not
dependent on how many voted for it,´ said Archbishop Emeritus Oscar Cruz.
Well, let me put it this way: You find another fellow to be wrong, you deserve a hearing. You find a
second fellow to be wrong, you deserve a hearing. You find still a third fellow to be wrong, you still
deserve a hearing. You find everybody to be wrong, you deserve dismissing. When you find everybody to
be wrong, the problem is not everybody, it is you.
Referendums are political exercises, but they can also be moral ones. In the same way that elections are
political exercises but they can also be moral ones. Certainly, someone cheating in them is a moral
question. Certainly, someone stealing the vote is a moral question. Someone does that, you invoke God¶s
wrath upon the cheater. Someone does that, you invoke hellfire upon the thief. Arguelles did not. He said,
³Everybody cheats anyway.´ That is political. That is immoral.
I agree as well that morality cannot give way to political expediency. But so only if you can defend what is
moral on the strength of what is comprehensible, not on the strength of dogma, or ³Basta, it is what God
wants.´ It is the hardest thing in the world talking with someone who thinks his position comes from God.
It does not produce a discussion, it produces a dead end. It doesn¶t make love, it makes war. That is so
whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or whatever religion you subscribe to. Fundamentalism
and dogmatism are the most destructive things on earth. The road to hell is paved with all the
monstrosities fanatics claim God wants.
In the end, that is the most infuriating thing about this, that what is moral is defended only on the basis of
some abstract and ex-cathedra principle about God wants and not on the basis of actual, observable,
comprehensible human experience.
What is so moral about preventing divorce? Or for that matter what is so moral about banning
contraceptives? All it does is spawn hypocrisy, quite apart from unwanted children, and if that is not the
most immoral thing in the world, then I don¶t know what is.
In the case of RH, I¶m perfectly willing to bet my life that if many of those opposing it really practiced what
they preach, they would be in big trouble right now. Marital fidelity in this country being virtually
nonexistent among the rich and powerful, particularly among public officials, appointive or elective, they¶d
have a horde of illegitimate children running around if they truly eschewed contraceptives. They would
either be already dead right now from their spouses¶ wrath or turned into the walking wounded from
having had their offending organs lopped off.
Just as well, in the case of divorce, or the lack of it, all it does is to legitimize keeping mistresses or lovers,
the mistresses to have additional children with and the lovers to go for emergency purposes to but to
avoid being seen with or leave any evidence behind with. Quite apart from that, all it does is force couples
who have become positively homicidal toward one another, or where the husband routinely beats up the
wife when he comes home drunk, to keep together.
The justification for it is that ³what God has put together, let no man put asunder.´ But what lunatic can
possibly imagine God to have had a hand in putting all of this together? Half the time, what put it together
was just plain libog, the Church also officially frowning on premarital sex (but tolerating priestly one), and
driving the youth to go to the whorehouse for the initiation (a veritable and venerable cultural tradition)
and to get into marriage for more of heaven. Only to find²or give²hell.
Far more formidably, there¶s the utter hypocrisy of annulment being permitted while divorce is not. The
hypocrisy does not just lie in separation being made available only to the rich²it costs a veritable
fortune²it lies in the nature of the annulment itself.
To have your marriage annulled, you have to lie through your teeth. Annulment is premised on the idea
that the marriage was never consummated physically or psychologically. The psychological part being
that one of the couple was an out-and-out bastard from the start and never gave the marriage a chance to
work. A couple seeking annulment may not say that they loved each other once but the love turned to
hate, or even less but that that they grew apart in time. That is not permissible. So they have to invent the
most atrocious things about each other, which they can only hope their children, like everybody else
including the judge, will just take with a grain of salt. A couple may not separate except under conditions
of strife and spite. And deceit.Lots and lots of deceit.
That¶s what God wants?
'.þþ4. !
!2!
!
Next to the unhappy wives of the Republic of Malta, population 410,000, only one other country can claim
to be affected by the results of last month¶s non-binding referendum on divorce. Malta¶s contentious
approval of the legalization of divorce leaves Catholic Philippines the only nation in the world without the
right to freely divorce ± with the exception of the Vatican.
Malta may be cause for celebration for the progressives, whose champions lost no time pushing House
Bill 1799 to the House committee on revisions, but it is also a reason to give thanks to the Lord God, at
least according to the Catholic Bishops¶ Conference of the Philippines.
³Being the only country in the world that has no divorce law is an honor that every Filipino should be
proud of.´
Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz said that love for the family was at the core of the cultural identity of Filipinos,
and should not be destroyed through divorce.
³That is a distinction! I¶m very proud of that!´ he said.
It is not a surprise that the Philippines remains alone in its exercise of national irresponsibility, as it also
remains one of the few democratic nations to claim that a condom is a murder weapon, and that the
preaching of abstinence will stop the hormonal manifestations of the Catholic God¶s temple of the spirit.
Pride in the Filipino culture does not pay for the education of children whose fathers regularly beat their
wives. Perhaps Cruz refers to the Catholic Church, whose breast-beating sons of the cloth can now stand
tall among the world¶s priests as the only nationality able to beat back progress, even the possibility of
progress.
It has never been particularly difficult to spout morality in Manila, largely because politicians hold the
same patronizing view of the Filipino citizen. For the Church, legalizing subsidized contraception means
that every virginal pair of legs will open along with the possibility of abortion, prostitution and the gates of
Gomorrah. Now, with the possibility of divorce, suddenly every couple will separate to ³ultimately tear up
society.´
³On a personal life of prayer,´ says CBCP secretary general Monsignor JuanitoFigura, ³µdeliver us from
evil, Amen.¶´
To allow the Filipino a choice implies that the Filipino will go the way of evil. Choice is dangerous to the
Filipino, who cannot think for himself, who cannot weigh the values of family and sanctity. It is the priests
who know better, because God says they do. It is the politicians who know better, because they think they
do. Senate Majority Leader Tito Sotto, for example, who says those pushing for the legalization of divorce
are attempting to weaken the Church, believes that Filipino couples should not be given options.
³If there¶s a divorce law, couples facing some minor problems may choose not to work on their marriage
anymore.´
Cagayan de Oro Representative Rufus Rodriguez takes it further. All couples will divorce. All children will
belong to single parent families. All society will suffer. He cannot allow a law that ³opens the floodgates
for all to get divorce.´
³Children will grow up with only one parent. That¶s the worst punishment we can give to our children.´
It is not a surprising stance from the Catholic Church, whose inability to differentiate free speech from
religious intolerance airs live on national television at debates over the Reproductive Health bill. Men and
women cannot be trusted to do what is right, yet they are expected to make no mistakes. It is a ridiculous
stance for politicians to take. The Filipino, they imply, has the intelligence to decide on who runs the
nation and the implications of value-added tax, but they cannot be trusted to decide on who they marry
and when to have sex. For a secular nation that recognizes the rights of Muslims enough to allow them
separate laws ± including divorce ± it is the height of discrimination to deny that right to Buddhists,
Christians, Jehovah¶s Witnesses, and Catholics of varying persuasions whose gods are not necessarily
the same as the Old Testament tyrants the CBCP seems to uphold.
Many of divorce¶s proponents talk about spousal battery and the rising numbers of abused women.
Although Cruz claims that the Church is willing to void marriages that prove battery, he forgets that only
the wealthy have the capacity to spend the P300,000 necessary for an annulment. Even if an indigent
woman has the means to secure an annulment, many do not, for fear of being left unable to support
themselves and their children. The divorce law makes this a legal requirement to divorce. And still, even
with its own concession that battery is an exception, the Church continues on by claiming that abuse is in
itself not such a heinous act.
³Why would a husband beat his wife? We have discovered again that it¶s a vicious circle and poverty is
the biggest reason why a husband would beat his wife. Unemployment is also another reason. These are
all social concerns that the government should address instead of coming up with remedies which are just
temporary, band-aid remedies.´
The murderer may have killed because of poverty, and the thief may have stolen in aid of a dying mother,
but they are thieves and killers just the same.
Bills such as these are distractions, claim the Church. They do not prioritize the true cancers of society:
poverty, corruption, prostitution. This is the same Church whose accusations of a lack of proper
prioritization by the government come hand in hand with its declaration that the rape of a young girl by her
father is less offensive than the abortion committed to save her life. Yet these bills are not in themselves
meant to be answers to national concerns. Divorce does not solve poverty; neither does contraception.
The RH bill may curb overpopulation, but it is not the only reason. More than the resolving of national
interests, the state¶s responsibility as a democracy is to protect individuals from discrimination, even from
the state itself.
The ills of divorce, and they are manifold, are not for the government to weigh. It is for the wife, the
husband, the children, whom the government now considers unable to make these decisions. The penalty
for a wrong decision at the age of 20 should not mean a lifetime with an unsuitable husband. The right to
live freely is fundamental to a citizen of democracy, and for as long as these rights harm none and are not
against fundamental laws.
Although the gentlemen of Congress may find it crude, that right implies the right to pursue happiness: to
have sex when it is consensual, to leave adulterous husbands and nagging wives, to determine lives that
are not at the service of anyone¶s God but their own.
ë
& /
57 %
;
, #
###B- /$$
p
IJ$
-' -
7 -
.
/
%
.
%
$c %
.
*
+
*+"
$
$ .
" .
/
/
%
. "$ "
.
.
?
4
" " "$$
.
5
$"
$4 .
$ "
$
.
@%
.
6
. "
+
%
. " "
.
A.
?$ "
.
%
.
.
$ .
"
@
5
$
$
4
$ -" !
/ *
$ .
$ .
%
$
.
*+
$ ."
%
+*
9
/
%
. $ .
.
"
$
% 4*
.
%
.
"
"
" , .
$ .
? = $ @
".
$
$4 " .
?5
.
$
.
.$
. $ .
.
= $
$
-
.
$
/
$
@%
.
%"
/
.* ""
.
$
?
/
@
'
c .
" ;
' %
.,
%
4
?
@
22 " " . " %
%
"
#$
"2 $ .
$$"
"
.
7
-< "
$
$7
! . - , 8
$
$
+
8 .
" $
5.$
22
. K" .
5 .?5$
5 - @" 7 ?5$
G
@" / 4&
.$
.$ "
$
$
-4
$ ..$
$
ë
8
% G
$
.
& $ c ./A .
"
.
8
$
$
".
&
" .
%
.
# $ "
8
$
8
"
.
-4 $
8
A
$ .
.
?%
$ .L7
$
$.
@
$
. .
$
.
? 4$ ,
.
@
7
8
$
$ 4$ .$
.
8
.
5$
$A4"
$
?
M$ .
$
$ .
$
$
?@N$ $
" $
N
"
$
% " "
$
@
$
.
. $
.
&
8
$
A4
$7
* ! -
"
0
$
.-
$
8
A "<
+
.
" -
-
8
. $"
.
.
"
?c %>@"
7 /$
?9
!
@ ? .-
4
@
"& .
$
$"
<
.
.
-
$
$ .
/
& $
.
A
$
$
$
. " "
"4 $
-
"
"4 $$
"
9
" .
$
$
"
$
" $
"
7
-<
"
/
& $
.
7
$
..
$
..
%
7
7 5$ , .. 8
"
, .. .?; .
" @
+
8 .
$
.
-4
.$ .
%
.
.
%
"
.
"
?A
$
A
. .
"
$ .- "
$
$ "
"
"
@%
.
.
"
?$ . "
/
@
1
%
. $ .5
%
$% *
" G 7
,A$&
+
$
"
M %
5
.%
7
7 5$ , .. 8
G
*$ * ,
8.- .
" .7 - 7
/
.
-
5 G
-
.c c 8 .
J !$$/ -
% 5
! .
/
5
"
.
5 7 %5-*
& $
7
7 c
<
1 -&% /&'
, /$ +
"
= ! ! - ( % 5
% / F &
8$ > 7
F
-$"8/A ., 7 /A .5
/ ,
*
/ ,
/ > %
.
7
8
& -
%
.
"
.$
?5 .
"
4
$.
.
@%
.
?9
$ .$ .
* .
$. $
@
%
.$
$
? .@
"
" " .
G *
.
.
&
4
$
.
*.
.
-<
%
G /
M
" $ 7 . 8
% .
%
.
4
.
.
.
%
$ ./
&
$
4 " "
$
" .
$
4
. .
.
.
? "
$ .+
8 .
" .
4 " &
$
. A
" .
.
@
'
$
?$
" ." $
. .
$ $
@
% $
. "
"
4
%
.
"
.
.
?9$
$
$
"
$
. 5 $
4$
5
. $$
$
@
7
%
.
/ ! +
,$c
,
/
5c $4
2
.
þ'/.
0 !
!
!
Divorce is a current buzzword in the public discourse. However, before discussing the termination of a
valid marriage (to be distinguished from declaring the nullity or annulment of an invalid union), let me first
write about its beginning. When a groom and a bride exchange ³I do¶s,´ the law instantly takes over their
personal and property relationship.
Union of wallets. During the marriage, or even after its dissolution, a spouse cannot be examined without
the consent of the other as to any letter, promise or other communication received by one from the other
during the marriage. To enhance the marital unity, neither spouse can be examined for or against the
other, without the latter¶s consent, except in a civil case filed by one against the other, or in a criminal
case committed by one against the other.
Every prospective couple must however know that our Family Code unites not just their hearts and spirit;
it also binds their wealth and wallets into what is known as the ³absolute community of property.´ Under
this system, all pieces of property owned by each of the couple prior to their marriage, or acquired
thereafter, ipso facto become commonly or jointly owned by both spouses.
By saying ³I do,´ each of the spouses automatically loses sole ownership of what each of them owned
prior to the marriage, even if the titles thereto remain registered in the name of only one of them.
Accordingly, land, condominiums, cars, bank deposits, jewelry and other assets of each become
communal in ownership.
Excluded from joint ownership are (1) property for personal or exclusive use like clothing, shoes and
cosmetics; (2) donations obtained (to be more precise, ³property acquired by gratuitous title´) during the
marriage; and (3) property of a widow or widower who has legitimate children and grandchildren by the
former marriage, who stand to inherit such property.
Consistent with the third item, the widow or widower is required to liquidate and distribute the estate of the
deceased spouse within six months from the latter¶s death. Otherwise, ³a mandatory regime of complete
separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage.´
The administration and enjoyment of all community property, including those owned separately prior to
the marriage, belong to both spouses jointly. Thus, each is entitled to the equal use of the family home,
car or TV set. Neither spouse may sell, mortgage or donate any communal asset without the other¶s
consent.
Together, the couple shall fix the family home, manage the household, and exercise parental authority
over their minor children. However, either of the spouses may exercise any legitimate profession,
occupation or business without the consent of the other. The latter may object only on ³valid, serious and
moral grounds.´ But the income derived from such profession, occupation and business is communal.
Prenuptial agreement. To be exempt from this all-embracing union of wealth and wallets, the couple
needs to execute a ³prenuptial agreement´ (also called ³marriage settlement´).
In the marriage settlement, the couple may agree on the absolute community of property, or the conjugal
partnership of gains, or the complete separation of property, or any other regime (like placing all property
in the ownership and control of only one spouse). Unless a marriage settlement is executed, the absolute
community system automatically kicks in upon the celebration of the wedding.
The prenuptial agreement must be in writing and signed by the couple before the wedding. The provisions
of the agreement must be carefully defined and studied prior to its execution, because they can no longer
be revised or changed after the wedding. Like the marriage vow, the marriage settlement cannot be
ended or modified even by mutual agreement after the wedding. Modifications or changes must be made
before the wedding.
Conjugal partnership of gains. Prior the effectivity of the Family Code on Aug. 3, 1988, the automatic
marital property system was called the conjugal partnership of gains. Under this regime, each of the
spouses retains the ownership of their respective assets.
But the products, fruits or rentals of these assets and the income derived from the spouses¶ separate
profession, occupation or business accrue to a common fund. Thus, the rentals of a condo owned by a
spouse prior to the marriage are conjugal even if the condo itself is still separately owned. In contrast,
under the absolute community system, both the condo and the rentals are conjugal.
The regime most commonly opted by those who enter into marriage settlements is the conjugal property
of gains. One advantage is that the agreement need not contain many details because the parameters of
this system are already laid out in the Family Code. In fact, those who were married prior to the effectivity
of the Code were automatically covered by this property system.
When a man and woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall
be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by them through their joint effort, work or
industry shall be owned by them in equal shares.
However, if one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall
accrue to the absolute community of property or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage.
'þ ' þ
!*0
F'!2(
A lawyer-friend once remarked that divorce in the Philippines is a matter of great concern only to the
middle class, since it hardly matters to the very rich and to the very poor.
Rich couples who want to bring an end to their marital union could very well split up and leave the dirty
details to their lawyers. They can certainly afford the long and expensive process of seeking a declaration
of nullity both from the Church and from the courts. Or they can move abroad and seek a divorce there.
Otherwise, they can simply brazen out their separated status, their still-existing union becoming relevant
only if the matter of inheritance or division of assets arises upon the death of one spouse.
Having nothing to divide or dispute, impoverished couples have little motivation to go through the
expense and inconvenience of a legal process. Couples shack up with little fuss, and end their cohabitation with little or no fanfare. Having no social status to protect, they beget children with little thought
to their legitimacy or illegitimacy. Ironically, it¶s when they seek to enroll their children in school that the
matter of a birth certificate and parentage arises. If it¶s a Catholic school, the matter of the parents¶
marriage (or lack of it) or the child¶s legitimacy might even be brought up.
It¶s only to the middle-class, caught up in matters of legality, morality and propriety that divorce matters, it
seems. Marriage is still very much a social contract, and it¶s important that when a marriage ends, its end
is marked with a clear legal mandate, a thorough division of the fruits of the marriage, and clear-cut
arrangements with regard to child custody, child support and perhaps alimony.
But in the Philippines, it seems that our officials prefer that things remain murky and indeterminate, with
the official status of a couple and their children remaining under the shadow of legal ambiguity.
***
I can well understand the panic and anger of Catholic prelates who see the filing of a divorce bill close on
the heels of the still-disputed RH bill as a harbinger of the apocalypse, or at least the beginning of the end
of the Catholic stranglehold on Filipino society.
But in truth the RH measure has nothing to do with the bill calling for the legalization of divorce. Divorce
bills have been filed in previous Congresses, but none of them have gone as far as a formal House
committee hearing or received as much publicity. The current bill, filed by Gabriela partylist
Representative Luz Ilagan, is believed to have been spurred by the recent plebiscite conducted in Malta
in which majority of the population indicated support for a divorce law.
With the expected legalization of divorce in Malta, where 98 percent of the population is Catholic, the
Philippines is now the only country in the world (with the exception of the Vatican) where divorce remains
illegal. If Malta can fall in step with the rest of world, why can¶t the Philippines? And what is so special
about our being the last holdout against divorce?
***
If married couples in the Philippines ± or at least the majority of them ±were constantly faithful, remained
true to their vows, avoided temptation and founding second or even third families, then we could very well
be proud of our anti-divorce statute.
But even as the Constitution trumpets state support for the ³sanctity of the family,´ the people by their
actions bring that ³sanctity´ to question. The number of couples seeking legal separation and declarations
of nullity is rising, and census figures on the number of couples living under one roof without benefit of
matrimony indicate a growing trend.
Politicians, who should be protective of their reputations and thus careful in their behavior, instead flaunt
their many affairs and mistresses. Perhaps they know that instead of endangering their political careers,
they are in fact burnishing their reputations as ³macho men´ and ³go-getters´ by their many amorous
adventures.
No wonder observers say the chances of passage of a divorce bill in the House and Senate at this time
are very poor, at best. The current system works too well to the men¶s advantage, and they aren¶t about
to rock the boat. Why initiate change when the status quo is much too convenient and advantageous?
***
Divorce proponents may be overreaching at this time when the social landscape is being roiled by the RH
bill debate. Perhaps our capacity for social reform can handle only one change at a time. But the
introduction of a divorce bill now is wrong only as a matter of strategy, avoiding overloading the alreadysensitive sensibilities of conservative Catholics. But the need for such a law here has long been evident,
and the experiences of women caught in the no-divorce bind are no laughing matter.
A friend recalls meeting a group of rural women who brought up during the open forum their dilemma
about their ³missing´ husbands. It seems that many of the women had long been abandoned by their men
and they had no idea where their mates had gone. Despite many years¶ absence, the women said, they
still could not ³move on,´ and were loatheto start new relationships because of their ³ambiguous´ legal
status.
My friend told the women that, under the law, if one¶s spouse had gone missing and had not made any
contact in five years, then the missing spouse could be declared dead. ³Let¶s all agree that from now on,
all your missing husbands are dead!´ my friend declared.
Now I don¶t know if that ³declaration´ had any legal basis, or how many went ahead and had their
husbands declared dead. But when love flies out the window and leaves only bitterness and regret, it
seems a shame to be forced to live among the walking dead.