WOULD IT BE CONSONANT WITH THE DICTATES OF REASON AND THE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE TO REWARD WITH A DIVORCE DECREE NOT ONLY THE VICTIM BUT ALSO THE CULPRIT ACCORDING THE PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR ABSOLUTE DIVORCE?
It is said that an absolute divorce may be obtained on the ground of a given crime, an errant behavior, a disagreeable option, and the like. In any of these cases, the freedom to remarry through divorce favors not only the victim but also the culprit.
Or is it simple a matter of alimony or support imposed on the guilty spouse? In this case, the moneyed people are favored as they are capable of giving as much money demanded by as many “ex-wives” and “ex-families” possible. And what if the spouse proven guilty cannot afford to pay the imposed alimony? Would this party be also allowed to remarry as well, allowed to divorce again, and again leave ex-spouses and children without support?
If the proponents of the absolute divorce legislation really want to strengthen the family as claimed, by preventing marital infidelity, abandonment, attempt at the life of a spouse and the like, they should rather be more serious in penalizing these crimes as provided by law – crime which sad to say, are covered by very dead laws in Philippines society.
WOULD IT BE UNREALISTIC TO ASK THE DIVORCE PROPONENTS HOW MANY MARRIAGES, FAMILIES AND HOMES CAN ONE BREAK? HOW MANY DIVORCES CAN ONE HAVE? HOW MANY SPOUSES MAY ONE ABUSE, VIOLATE, ABANDON AND THE LIKE?
The question really is how many marriages one may enter into and how many divorces may one obtain.
A spouse proven guilty of any of the divorce grounds does not have the best credentials to enter into another marriage. This is especially true on the ground of adverse personality constitution or ingrained character flaw which is certainly not cured by all absolute divorce grants.
The spouse victim on the other hand who unforgiving and perhaps even vindictively acted against the other with the full force of the law in order to have an absolute divorce, may not claim neither good personal credentials for a remarriage. And spouses, who privately agree and even intentionally collude to establish their ground for absolute divorce, are certainly not in command of the best intention for their remarriages.
WOULD THE ENACTMENT OF AN ABSOLUTE DIVORCE LEGISLATION REALLY PREVENT MARITAL INFIDELITY, SPOUSAL ABANDONMENT AND OTHER SIMILAR MARRIAGE MALADIES AS ENVISIONED BY ITS PROPONENTS?
Would that it does? But the truth is that it may in fact even inspire what it intends to deter or curtail. It is definitely not improbable that when a couple is tired or simply disgusted with their conjugal life, one or both of them would simply deliberately commit adultery, actually abuse each other or decidedly establish a ground for absolute divorce, and thus actually benefits from their reprehensible act.
WOULD IT BE JUSTIFIED TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ABSOLUTE DIVORCE LEGISLATION ON THE PREMISE THAT IT IS HARD BUT CHEAP TO OBTAIN IT – COMPARED TO MARRIAGE NULLITY AND ANNULMENT?
Has the issue been simply relegated to what is hard or easy to obtain? What is wrong may be hard to obtain, but this does not make it right. And what is right may be easy to obtain, but this does not make it wrong. And as to cost, “cheap divorce” – the same as the so called Las Vegas “quickie divorce” – such even depreciates absolute divorce more than what it already is!
If a marriage is ab initio null and void, why make it hard or costly for spouses to get a nullity declaration? And as far as civil law is concerned, if the marriage is voidable, why make it also difficult and expensive for them to have an annulment?
IT IS CORRECT TO CLAIM THAT THE ABSOLUTE DIVORCE LEGISLATION IS THE LAST RESORT TO FREE COUPLES FROM IMPOSSIBLE MARRIAGES.
If the intention is simply to free couples from already unbearable marriages, the recourse is legal separation, not absolute divorce. If the design is for a couple to get rid of one another for purposes of remarriages, their divorce is the wrong mains to an equally wrong end: Wrong means because this would make them liars when they pronounced their lifetime marriage vows, and wrong end because they would have to enter into but a temporary remarriage by precisely subscribing to absolute divorce.
Regarding impossible or anomalous conjugal relationships such as in the case of sex maniacs or sexual addicts, psychopaths and sociopaths behavioral deviants, emotionally unstable and any other duly identified grave mental disorder, once proven by experts that any of these has been existent at the time of the wedding then legal separation, marriage nullity or annulment is the recourse – not divorce.
Absolute divorce is not a “last recourse” but the final triumph of those who subscribe to the so called “free marriage” or “open marriage” which basically means a individualistic union, not a conjugal covenant.
SEPTEMBER 06, 2010
(Divorce and Question Marks continues on September 8, 2010)