Divorce and question Marks (Part 1)

QUESTION 1:

WOULD AN ABSOLUTE DIVORCE LEGISLATION BE PURSUANT TO THE TEXT, CONTEXT AND SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES?

Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, in nonetheless than the declaration of principles, and State policies, very expressly and even categorically says that the State shall strengthen the family as a basic autonomous entity. Furthermore, the very first Article of the Family Code of the Philippines provides that marriage is an inviolable social institution.

How could absolute divorce strengthen the Filipino family? How would absolute divorce make the family an inviolable social institution? It is a big sophism and an untenable rationalization to say that by destroying the family, it is strengthened; by dividing the family, it is made inviolable!

The undeniable fact is that it is precisely the absence of absolute divorce in the Philippines that has kept millions of couples together in joy and in pain, that has saved practically innumerable families from breaking apart. The law on absolute divorce already threatens to violate the marriage vows for life even before these are pronounced.


QUESTION 2:

WOULD IT STAND REASON AND LOGIC TO CLAIM THAT ABSOLUTE DIVORCE IS AFTER ALL PRACTICALLY THE SAME AS MARRIAGE NULLITY DECLARATIONS AND MARRIAGE ANNULMENTS?

The present Family Code of the Philippines has already provisions for nullity and annulment of marriage—in addition to legal separation. A nullity declaration means that a marriage is ab initio null and void. Marriage annulment on the other hand means that a valid marriage is voided or invalidated. Absolute divorce however means that a valid and non-voidable marriage is still dissolved. These three legal actions against de jure and de marriages actions are definitely not the same, neither in significance nor implications.

If it is argued that the effects are the same. This is tantamount to saying that deaths by sickness or old age, by accident or lethal injection, by torture, massacre, terrorism and the like, nare all the same. This is ridiculous to say the least as far as the causes of death are concerned, ranging from the obvious to the vicious.

The truth of the matter is that for humanistic reasons if not for purposes of convenience or hedonistic intents, there appears to be the insidious attempt to break and dissolve Filipino marriages by any and all possible means, at whatever the costs to the family, to the community, to the Country. If one is not content with legal separation, try marriage nullity. If nullity is not possible, go for annulment. And, now, if even annulment is not viable, file for absolute divorce. With all these possibilities of getting rid of the reality of factual marriages, the question may be legitimately asked: Why get married at all? Would plain and open cohabitation be then the better option for men and women “in love”?


QUESTION 3:

WOULD IT BE CONSONANT WITH THE DICTATES OF REASON AND THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE TO REWARD WITH A DIVORCE DECREE NOT ONLY THE VICTIM BUT ALSO THE CULPRIT ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR ABSOLUTE DIVORCE?

It is said that an absolute divorce may be obtained on the grounds of drug addiction, homosexuality, sexual perversion among many other envisioned possible causes. In any of presence of any of these factors causative of divorce, the freedom to remarry favors not only the victim but also the culprit.

The disturbing but surely meritorious question is this: If the culprit is still allowed to remarry, then all his or her subsequent re-marriages are all open and subject to divorce. Reason: A divorce grant does not cure drug addiction, neither reverses homosexuality nor correct sexual perversion.

Or is it rather the simple matter of alimony or financial support imposed on the party concerned? Is such were the case, the moneyed people are favored as they are capable of giving as much money demanded by as many “ex wives” or “ex husbands” and “ex-families” possible. And what if the said party concerned cannot afford to pay the imposed alimony/support? Would this party be also allowed to remarry as well, allowed to divorce again, and thereby again allowed to leave his or her spouse and the children without financial support?


OVCRUZ, JCD
6 June 2011

Reproductive Health Bill: HB 4244

STRANGE but true: There is this other distinctly cited and strongly proposed pro-choice reproductive (read: unproductive) and health (read: unhealthy) HB 4244 that is poised to penalize and /or fine those who precisely make the choice to be against it! Translation: The Bill in effect leaves no choice for people than to comply therewith—or else. One can only wonder what inspired the formulation of this threatening and fearsome Bill: Malacañang patronage? Lobby money? Adventurism?

Thus it is that the people in general are subject to the penalty of imprisonment and / or fine in the event that as individuals or as groups of citizens, they express their conviction and/or considered opinion against any provision of the Bill. The penalty is imposed in the event that such a stance is judged as “malicious disinformation”

So too are health care providers subject to the penalty of imprisonment and/or fine in case they fail to provide reproductive information and care to their respective assigned community. The said task should be extended to everyone therein, irrespective of their status and gender, their creed and age. Let it be also pointed out that the said information and care include mutilation such as vasectomy and tubal ligation.

And employers themselves are subject to imprisonment and/or fine when they do not provide free reproductive health care, supply, services, devices and anti-pregnancy surgical procedures, to their workers/employees—particularly to women. Said penalty and/or fine is imposed upon the employers every time they fail to comply with the contraceptive provisions of the Bill.

The Bill supposedly thought of and premised on the pro-choice principle, is a big falsity as there is really no choice for all those concerned than to comply therewith. The “pro-choice” Bill is in fact a proposed penal legislation. The “pro-choice Bill penalizes those who choose otherwise—not only with imprisonment or with fine but possibly with both imprisonment and fine. The “pro-choice” Bill is downright obligatory!

There are several RH Bills—individually proposed or reconciled with other similar RH Bills. It is said that the people are free to have children or not, free to have this or that number of children, free to have them when and where. Filipinos however are not free to choose where their direct and indirect taxes should go—to contraceptive means / services or pro-life means/ services. Pay they must but choose they may not. Free they are to be pro-choice, but not to be pro-life.

Interesting!


OVCRUZ, JCD
3 June 2011

Children

“Some people brought children to Jesus for Him to place His Hands on them and pray. But the apostles scolded those people. Jesus said: ‘Let the children come to Me. Do not stop them, because the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.’ He placed His Hands on them …” (Mathew 19:13-15)

Thus narrates the Gospel of life according to St. Mathew. Plainly and clearly said, the above cited passage exalts children, affirms the love of Jesus Himself for children, and proclaims children as the heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words, children have a special place in the Gospel of Life, have the distinct care of Jesus and have too an assured heavenly destiny hereafter and beyond.

It is worth asking: In the big wide world, is there any reality more dear and endearing than a child? Is there any jewel really more precious than a child? Innocence and trust, worry-free and light-heartedness, genuine cries and smiles—can these enviable attributions be found elsewhere than in the face and eyes of a child? And come to think of it, what and how would be the world be without children?

The right to be born, the right to life, the right to be cared for, the right to be nurtured and safeguarded, the right to be informed and formed, the right to become not only a member of the family but also a constituent of society, the right to be heard and respected—all these and more belong to every child. And all these do not merely make a beautiful poetry but forward a composite fundamental truth and cardinal reality.

There is a wise and realistic saying: “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.” This maxim acquires a distinct relevance in the country during these specially trying times. Reasons: Among other socio-ethical errant thoughts and advocacies, there is the concerted move to deny the right to be born, the right to be a child. What is truly distressing about this legally and morally questionable stance is that it is avidly defended and ardently promoted by those already long since born.

If such an anti-child posture is upright, then: Christ would be wrong in welcoming and blessing and praying over children! And this would be blasphemous—to say the least!

OVCRUZ, JCD

1 June 2011