There are a good number of not only elementary but also concrete questions that come to mind when rather close allies of Malacanang especially in the Legislative Department as well as from the secular and/or ideological sectors of society, are earnestly and repeatedly batting for the institution of divorce in the Philippines. They use all known and possible media outlets to speak and promote divorce so that people by and large become used to it, be at ease with it and eventually like and affirm it as a fact of life. If and when divorce become a reality, then change the Phil. Constitution and revise the Family Code of the Philippines in order to accommodate divorce – contrary to their respective defining provision about the nature of marriage.
In substance, the reasons usually given are the following: One, it is only in the Philippines that there is no divorce when all other countries in the world have it long since. Two, it is time to be realistic and practical in addressing the matter of marriage and divorce as a realistic and practical pairing. Three, there are more marital separations in the country to thereby less and less marriages therein. Four, it is so expensive to obtain Civil Annulment such that only the rich can have it while cheap divorce could be readily obtained even by the poor. Five, there are solid grounds for divorce such as violence, infidelity, abandonment – in addition to the “No Fault Divorce” such as that observed in the USA.
Question 1: Is it really a shame – or an honest pride and honor – that Filipinos continue to hold on to marriage for life, to honor their marriage commitment in health or sickness, until death do them part?
Question 2: Is it truly difficult to understand that those who subscribe to marriage and divorce at the same time wallow in self-contradiction – if not also indulges in fakery and hypocrisy?
Question 3: Is it divorce that in effect would prevent marital separations and increase the number of those getting married – or would divorce instead actually inspire such conjugal divisions and underrate the fact of marriage?
Question 4: Is it then by a matter of what is cheap to have instead of what is right to do, simply an issue of what is convenient to undergo rather than what is proper to subscribe to?
Question 5: Is it all right then to intentionally commit violence, to purposely engage in infidelity or to stage an abandonment of one’s spouse in order to seek and obtain divorce?
More questions: How many marriages and divorces may one have? One, three, five, eight? More?