Öffentlichkeit
Arianna Y. Lim
alim@theguidon.com
Since it was filed in 2010, the divorce bill, or House Bill 1799, has steadily been going nowhere. It has been criticized and commended, but ultimately, it’s been stalled.
The bill aims to write divorce into the Family Code, but with stringent requirements. The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), to the surprise of no one, vowed to campaign against it. Divorce will ruin the family and result in the “dysfunctional growth” of children, they argued. The Aquino administration had no intention of butting heads with them on this one, as the President himself doesn’t consider the issue “a priority.” And Marikina Representative Marcelino Teodoro, clearly looking to get two steps ahead, recently filed his own bill that seeks to guarantee that no legislation facilitating divorce can be passed.
Still, its proponents, representatives of the Gabriela party-list, are stubbornly refiling it in the 16th Congress—and rightly so.
We’re currently the only country left in the world that still bans divorce. This is not to say we ought to jump on the bandwagon, but it should give us pause. When you’re still preaching at the pulpit after everyone else has gone the other way, perhaps it’s time to reevaluate your position.
Since the age of six, I’ve belonged to what society flippantly terms a “broken family.” After three children and 25 years of marriage, my parents decided to part ways. Yet “broken family” has never been a title I’ve identified with, nor do I consider myself especially dysfunctional.
Naysayers argue that divorce hurts the children. To some extent, they’re right. But we are talking here of a relationship that has fallen apart irreconcilably, which presents a counter-argument: When you weigh separation against a household with bickering, miserable parents, the latter is unquestionably worse. Many parents think staying together despite a failed marriage is what is best for the children, but the truth is that the toxicity of their relationship poisons the children much more harshly.
If there were a point at which I considered us broken, it would be before the separation, when arguments between my parents were a staple at our house. It was never in front of us kids, but it was there in the pinched way they spoke to each other and the tension that surrounded them. It was only when my parents found happiness apart that my siblings and I found stability.
Others claim it is enough to strengthen the systems we already have, but these are fundamentally inadequate in one way or another. Annulment is only possible for the rich while legal separation bars remarriage. As it is, divorce remains the sole option that legally frees an individual from all aspects of the marriage, from the termination of the relationship to the division of assets and child custody.
That said, it’s absolutely backward that disallowing divorce is considered a means to uphold family, even in cases of violence, adultery, drug addiction and the like. Arguing that it is right to stay in a marriage that picks away at one’s dignity and happiness is myopic and naïve.
Acknowledging that marriages don’t always work is not defeatist, nor is vying for divorce necessarily disrespecting the institution of marriage. Rather, divorce can be a means of valuing happiness and stability. It is a way to give people the best opportunity to live out dignified, safe and ultimately happier lives. Where the fault lies in that, I draw a complete blank.
