1.

The Philippines is right to reject divorce

April 7, 2022 | 5:12 p
Being Right
By Jemy Gatdula

The pejorative argument has always been is that the Philippines is the only country in the world (aside from the Vatican)
that doesn’t allow for divorce. The reply should be: So what? After all, 165 countries in the world don’t recognize same sex
marriages and that fact is not raised against it. The bandwagon fallacy should therefore be recognized for what it is and
truth — as a wise man once said — is never decided by majority opinion.

DIVORCE WORSE THAN DEATH

There are two significant arguments made by pro-divorce advocates which are effectively debunked by scientific studies.
One is that children are better off with their parents divorcing rather than seeing them constantly arguing. Such is not true.
Researchers from Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, culling data from 17 countries, saw parental divorce having a larger
negative impact over even that of parental death (see “Variation in the educational consequences of parental death and
divorce: The role of family and country characteristics”; Carlijn Bussemakers, et al.; Demographic Research, March 31,
2022).

Thus, “parental death and divorce may not be equally harmful to all children’s educational attainment. Although both
experiences lead to family stress, due to either the loss of a parent or conflict between parents, the reduction of resources
may be less profound for children who face parental death (Biblarz and Gottainer 2000). This is because in families where a
parent has died, children often receive support from extended family members and friends of the deceased parent, who
take over some parenting duties and support children’s educational attainment (Albertini and Dronkers 2009; Sapharas et
al. 2016; Steele, Sigle-Rushton, and Kravdal 2009). Children of divorced parents, however, tend to have much less contact
with their nonresident parent, as well as that parent’s family and friends over time, providing less opportunity to
compensate for the loss in parental resources and support (Steele, Sigle-Rushton, and Kravdal 2009; Westphal, Poortman,
and Van der Lippe 2015).”

Furthermore, “the emotional and relational pain caused by divorce can lead to a parenting style that is harsher, less
consistent, and less involved, which may negatively affect children’s educational performance.”

BETTER TOGETHER THAN APART

The foregoing essentially substantiates previous studies (see foryourmarriage.org, citing Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, “A
Generation at Risk,” Harvard University Press, 1997; also “Ten Findings from a National Study on the Moral and Spiritual
Lives of Children of Divorce,” Elizabeth Marquardt, 2002) putting the lie to the myth that divorce is a positive alternative for
children. While children in quite high conflict homes may benefit by being removed from that environment (not necessarily
through divorce), the situation of children in lower-conflict marriages (of which two-thirds of divorces are of this type) can
get much worse following a divorce.

Furthermore, such children experience lasting tension even after their parents’ divorce, particularly because of increasing
differences in parental values and ideas. The point: children of even so-called “good divorces” fare worse emotionally than
children who grew up in an unhappy but “low-conflict” marriages.

DIVORCE IS NOT A SOLUTION

Which leads us to the second argument and that is divorce is a good remedy for unhappy couples. Again not true. A 2002
study (“Does Divorce Make People Happy? Findings From a Study of Unhappy Marriages”; Linda J. Waite, Maggie Gallagher,
et. al.; Institute for American Values, January 2002) found the following profound insights:

• Unhappily married adults who divorced were no happier than unhappily married adults that stayed married;

• Divorce did not reduce symptoms of depression for unhappily married adults or raise self-esteem, on average, compared
to unhappy spouses who stayed married;
• Unhappy marriages were less common than unhappy spouses;

• Staying married did not typically trap unhappy spouses in violent relationships. Eighty-six percent of unhappily married
adults reported no violence in their relationship (including 77% of unhappy spouses who later divorced or separated); 93%
of unhappy spouses who avoided divorce reported no violence in their marriage five years later.

But the most important finding is this: Two out of three unhappily married adults who avoided divorce or separation ended
up happily married five years later. Just one out of five unhappy spouses who divorced or separated had happily remarried
in the same time period.

And another equally important finding: The kinds of marital troubles that lead to divorce cannot be sharply distinguished
from marital troubles that other spouses overcome. Many marriages that experience serious problems survive and
eventually prosper.

CHILDREN ARE BETTER OFF WITH MARRIED PARENTS

Such corroborates previous studies showing that “children benefit if parents can stay together and work out their problems
rather than get a divorce.” Read this alongside research showing that if couples only stick together, reform themselves, and
pull through, they’ll find themselves much happier later on (see “The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier,
Healthier and Better Off Financially,” Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, Crown Publishing, 2001).

Hence, this famous passage: “We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more
likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up
in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents
themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.” (Barack Obama, Father’s Day speech, 2008).

FORGET DIVORCE, PROTECT MARRIAGE

Rather than divorce, the better policy is to look for ways to raise the quality of marriages. Many divorces being
contemplated are simply cases of one spouse self-indulgently wanting to “self-actualize” even though the marriage or the
family are not undergoing any problem whatsoever. The promotion of virtue and encouragement leading away from self-
centeredness is a good step forward.

The other is to discourage pre-marital cohabitation. Stanford’s Michael J. Rosenfeld and Katharina Roesler (“Cohabitation
Experience and Cohabitation’s Association With Marital Dissolution,” 2018) reaffirms that premarital cohabitation remains a
significant risk factor for divorce: “The results show that in the first year of marriages, couples who cohabited before
marriage have a lower marital dissolution rate than couples who did not cohabit before marriage, a difference that may be
due to the practical experience of cohabitation, as couples who have cohabited learned to adapt to each other. We find that
the association between marital dissolution and premarital cohabitation has not changed over time or across marriage
cohorts. The benefits of cohabitation experience in the first year of marriage has misled scholars into thinking that the most
recent marriage cohorts will not experience heightened marital dissolution due to premarital cohabitation.”

To protect marriage is utterly crucial because — as data and common experience demonstrated — the stability of a country
is very much dependent on it. And it certainly deserves greater thought than merely inanely saying the Philippines is only
one of two countries without a divorce law.

Jemy Gatdula is a senior fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer
for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence

https://www.facebook.com/jigatdula/
2.
Why the President is against divorce
By: Bernardo M. Villegas – @inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer

Future generations will be very grateful to President Duterte if he is able to prevent the passage of a divorce law during his
watch. He has announced that he is not in favor of a divorce law because its worst victims will be the children who will be
deprived of a two-parent home indispensable for integral human development. He hit the nail on the head when he
considered children, the most vulnerable of human beings, as the beneficiaries of a society that does not legalize divorce.
His instinct is fully supported by the strongest evidence found by social scientists from all over the world—especially the
United States where divorce has reached epidemic proportions—about the harm done to children when broken families are
facilitated by a law that allows the dissolution of the permanent bond of marriage.

The largest known assembly of social scientists from the most diverse disciplines met in December 2014 in Princeton, New
Jersey (not the university), under the auspices of the think tank The Witherspoon Institute (www.winst.org). They presented
empirical results from their fields of study—history, economics, psychiatry, law, sociology and philosophy—to relate the
stability of marriage and the family to the common good. The conference gathered the 70 experts to share the findings of
their research on why marriage, understood as the permanent union of husband and wife, is in the public interest.

Without using religious arguments (which Mr. Duterte does not), one can explain to the uninformed masses—whatever
their religious affiliation—that a divorce law can lead to social and economic problems, as can be gleaned from the
experiences of other countries where divorce is legal. Although the 70 experts whose consensus is summarized here also
cite data from other countries, most of the information used was from the United States, which can be considered the
Mecca of divorce. Over a 40-year period (1960-2000), the divorce rate more than doubled in the United States, from about
20 percent to about 45 percent of all first marriages. The data suggest that about two-thirds of all divorces involved low-
conflict marriages where domestic violence or emotional abuse was not a factor in the breakup of the union.

Unfortunately, as Mr. Duterte has pointed out, the children seem to bear the heaviest burden from their parents’ divorce.
Children from broken homes are significantly more likely to divorce as adults, to experience marital problems, to suffer from
mental illness and delinquency, to drop out of high school, to have poor relationships with one or both parents, and to have
difficulty committing to a relationship. Furthermore, in most respects, remarriage is no help to children of divorced families.
Children who grow up in stepfamilies experience about the same levels of educational failure, teenage pregnancy and
criminal activity as children who remain in a single-parent family after a divorce.

The adverse impact on boys is especially worrisome. From anecdotal evidence, I have observed that practically all the
perpetrators of mass killings in the United States were teenage or adult men who come from dysfunctional families. The 70
social scientists presented strong evidence that boys benefit in unique ways from being reared within stable, married
families. Research consistently finds that boys raised by their own fathers and mothers in an intact, married family are less
likely to get in trouble than boys raised in other family situations. Boys raised outside an intact family are more likely to
have problems with aggression, attention deficit disorder, delinquency, and school suspensions, compared to boys raised in
intact, married families.

Some studies suggest that the negative behavioral consequences of marital breakdown are even more significant for boys
than for girls. One study found that boys reared in single-parent and step-families were more than twice as likely to end up
in prison, compared to boys reared in an intact family. It is pretty clear that stable marriage and paternal role models are
crucial for keeping boys from self-destructive and socially destructive behavior.

And it is also quite clear that one can object to divorce for nonreligious reasons. Mr. Duterte, who is very conscious of his
presiding over citizens of various faiths (or no faith at all), has spoken. Divorce is bad for children. I hope the majority of the
senators will heed his very wise and timely advice: Say no to divorce.

Bernardo M. Villegas ([email protected]) is senior vice president of the University of Asia and the Pacific.
3. Fight for divorce law in Philippines continues
THIRD ANNE PERALTA-MALONZO
July 13, 2022

THE fight for the enactment of a law allowing divorce in the Philippines continues as three senators, including two newbies,
filed their respective bills pertaining to the matter.

Allowing divorce in the Philippines is one of the pet bills of Senators Risa Hontiveros (Dissolution of Marriage Act), Raffy
Tulfo (Divorce Act of 2022) and Robin Padilla (Divorce Act of the Philippines).

A survey conducted by the Social Weather System (SWS) in 2017 showed that an average of 53 percent of adult Filipinos
were in favor of the legalization of divorce in the country.

The Philippines and Vatican, which is one of the smallest states in the world, were the only ones that have no divorce law.

Grounds

Article 45 of the Family Code of the Philippines, however, sets grounds to which a union may be annulled. These grounds
include:

* No parental consent if either party was between 18 and 21 years at the time of marriage

* Psychological incapacity

* Fraudulent consent, including non-disclosure of either party of a material fact before marriage, such as pregnancy by
another man or a sexually transmitted disease

* Consent obtained by force, intimidation, or undue influence

* Physical inability to consummate the marriage

* That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable

In a gist, annulment makes a marital unity null and void, or as if it never happened, while divorce recognizes and ends a
legally valid marriage.

According to the Office of Solicitor General, there is an uptrend in the number of annulment and nullity of marriage cases
filed in the country since 2001, where there were only over 4,000 cases filed as against the more than 11,000 filed in 2014.

The agency said over 50 percent of the petitioners were women, and among the reasons for seeking the nullity of their
marriage with their spouses are abuses.

In the findings of the 2017 National Demographic and Health Survey conducted by the Philippine Statistics Authority, it
showed that one in every four married woman experienced spousal violence, either physical, sexual or emotional.

Tulfo, host of a radio/television program that primarily helps those who are abused, said he has received, over the years, a
lot of reports pertaining to marital problems.

He said majority of the spouses wants to avail themselves of annulment or legal separation, but they are financially
incapable to afford the process.

“Saan, halimbawa, kukuha ng pambayad sa lawyer’s acceptance and appearance fees, court filing fees, professional fees ng
mga eksperto gaya ng psychologist at iba pa, ang isang minimum wage earner o wala pa gaya ng security guard, factory
worker, kasambahay, at simpleng empleyado? Sweldo pa lang nila kapos na para sa pang-araw-araw na pamumuhay,” said
Tulfo.

“Marami ring kasong ganito: Nagpasyang maghiwalay ang mag-asawa. Nagpirmahan pa nga sa barangay. (Hindi na sila nag-
file ng annulment sa korte dahil magastos nga yun). Makalipas ang ilang taon ng walang pakialamanan sa buhay at pag-
abandona, nagka-boyfriend si babae (o nagka-girlfriend si lalaki), tapos ayun, biglang susulpot si esposo/esposa mula sa
kawalaan at iiinvoke ang kasal at kakasuhan ang misis/mister nya. Sa tingin nyo makatarungan ba naman yun?” he added.

Cost

Lawyer Philip Jurado, who discussed Padilla’s proposed Divorce Act of the Philippines, along with the senator in a recent
Facebook live, said a person may spend an average of P250,000 to P500,000 to fulfill an annulment case.

An annulment in the Philippines may take two to four years on average, if the other spouse does not contest the
proceedings and there are no issues, such as property and custody and/or support of/for the children.

Tulfo said one of the usual grounds for annulment of couples is the psychological incapacity, where the petitioner needs to
prove that his/her spouse is psychologically incapable in performing his/her marital obligations.

This may need a psychological examination by a licensed psychologist that may also include the witnesses, which may be
presented by the petitioner.

Tulfo said this is one of the factors that make the annulment process expensive.

“Yan kasi ang lalong nagpapamahal at nagpapatagal sa proseso ng paghihiwalay nang matiwasay -- yung kailangan pang
patunayan sa korte na ang isang partido ay may ‘psychological incapacity.’ Maraming kaso na kailangan pang magsiraan ang
dating nagmahalan, gumawa ng kwentong-kutsero, at umupa ng psychologist para lamang mapanindigan ang kaso,” he
said.

He said it also affects a person’s reputation, noting that he/she will have a “psychological incapacity” record in court.

“Requirement kasi ang mental health clearance sa trabaho, so malinis dapat ang mental health record ng isang indibidwal,”
said Tulfo.

What adds to the stress caused by the annulment proceedings is the conduct of hearings where one party will have to
destroy the other in order to win the case.

The other factors that affect the speed of reaching the finality of an annulment case include retirements or promotion of
judges, difficulties in scheduling the hearing considering the availability of the witnesses, opposition by the other party and
issues such as custody, support or property and court inventory.

Padilla’s bill

Among the grounds for the filing of a divorce petition based on Padilla’s proposed bill are the following:

* When either of the spouses has no capacity to perform the essential marital obligations of the marriage and the incapacity
continues and appears to be incurable;

* When there is an existing irreconcilable marital difference;

* When a spouse obtained a divorce abroad;

* When a spouse is presumed dead under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code of the Philippines;
* Upon conviction of an offense under Republic Act 9262, otherwise "Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act
of 2004";

* Attempt by the respondent against the life of a common child or a child of the petitioner;

* Having a child with another person other than one’s spouse during the marriage, except when upon the mutual
agreement of the spouses, a child is born to them in vitro or through a similar procedure or when the wife bears a child
after being a victim of rape;

* When any of the grounds for annulment of marriage under Article 45 of the Family Code of the Philippines, filed by the
persons and within the periods provided in Article 47 of said Code are present;

* Except when circumstance is present under Article 56 of the Family Code of the Philippines when any of the grounds for
legal separation under Article 55 of the said Code are present;

* When the spouses are separated in fact for at least two consecutive years at the time of the filing of the petition for
divorce;

* When the spouses have been legally separated by judicial decree under Article 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines

Padilla’s proposed bill also includes a six months cooling-off period after the filing of the petition and this will be observed
before a competent court. During the period, the court shall exercise all efforts to reunite and reconcile the parties.

Hontiveros’ bill

Under Hontiveros’ proposed bill, the grounds are as follows:

* Five continuous years of separation, with or without a judicial decree of separation;

* The commission of the crime of rape by the respondent-spouse against the petitioner-spouse before or after the
marriage;

* The grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code of any other special law;

* A final decree of absolute divorce validly obtained in a foreign jurisdiction;

* Irreconcilable marital differences or irreparable breakdown of the marriage despite earnest effort at reconciliation.

Lawmakers said the process of divorce may take only “a few months,” or at most a year, but assured that the procedures
will be more accessible and way ahead inexpensive.

Once annulment and/or divorce has reached finality, the husband and wife will be allowed to remarry.

The children of the estranged parties will still be considered legitimate while their custody, particularly of the minors, will be
determined by the court.

The judgment in both processes should provide a liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the
custody and support of the children, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated shall be adjudicated in
accordance with the Family Code of the Philippines, and the effects on the spouses of the intestate successions,
testamentary dispositions, donations, and insurance on beneficiaries shall be observed. (SunStar Philippines)
4. ASIA/PHILIPPINES - Bishops: No to bills on divorce, anti-constitutional and anti-family
Friday, 20 September 2019
http://www.fides.org/en/news/66656-
ASIA_PHILIPPINES_Bishops_No_to_bills_on_divorce_anti_constitutional_and_anti_family

Manila - (Agenzia Fides) - "Divorce is, first of all, unconstitutional, it is anti-family, anti-marriage and anti-children". This is
what was stated in a message sent to Agenzia Fides by Father Jerome Secillano, executive Secretary of the Bishops'
Conference of the Philippines and in charge of public relations. The position taken by the Philippine Bishops, confirms their
"No" to introduce divorce in the national legislation, and disprove the statements of Senator Riza Hontiveros who is
conducting a public divorce campaign, defining a law in that sense "pro family and pro children". In a recent hearing in the
Senate, Hontiveros said that a divorce law "will offer people the opportunity to find true and meaningful relationships", as
well as "protect children from abuse and rebuild broken families".

The Bishops express their radical dissent, noting that "Senator Hontiveros’ statement contradicts the provisions of the 1987
Constitution", says Fr. Secillano.

"In this way do we perhaps mean that the Family Code and our Constitution are against marriage and against children, given
that they do not allow divorce?", he asks. According to the spokesman, "divorce can never be pro-marriage, pro-family and
pro-children. Do not twist facts about divorce just to suit a particular agenda". The Church's position is clear: "Legalizing
divorce in the Philippines would only lead to the destruction of many families. Filipinos deserve better", the Bishops'
spokesman said, asking instead legislators to "work to modify existing laws on marital separations" in a path that "respects
the Constitution".

Currently there are three divorce bills pending: Senate Bill No. 67 - Recognizing the Foreign Decree of Termination of
Marriage"; Senate Bill Nos. 288 and 356 - Instituting Absolute Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage in the Philippines";
Senate Bill No. 504 - Recognizing the Civil Effects of Church Annulment Decree".

The second bill, which promotes the full legalization of divorce, presented by senators Riza Hontiveros and Pia Cayateno,
seeks to go beyond psychological incapacity, lack of consent, incapability to bear children, among others, as the acceptable
reason for annulment.

Christian communities of various denominations oppose the legalization of divorce in the Philippines. "Marriage is a
sacrament and must be protected from any possible human intervention. Divorce is not the solution to human problems",
lay Catholic Mary Christine Ortega, a mother of four, tells Fides.

The Philippine Constitution (Article XV, section 2) states that "marriage, an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of
the family and shall be protected by the State". The State, observes a document written by 77 Catholic organizations and
sent to Fides, "has the task of protecting rather than weakening marriage as a social institution". (SD-PA) (Agenzia Fides,
20/9/2019)

5.
The Last Country in the World Where Divorce Is Illegal
Welcome to the Philippines, home to philandering politicians, millions of “illegitimate” children, and marital laws that make
Italy look liberal.
By Tom Hundley and Ana P. Santos

JANUARY 19, 2015, 9:54 AM

MANILA, Philippines — On the occasion of his 84th birthday in 2011, friends of former Filipino Senator Ramon Revilla, a
darkly handsome film star turned politician, unveiled an imposing 10-meter-high bronze statue in his honor.
Revilla’s films are mostly forgettable and his accomplishments as a lawmaker were marginal, but he will be long
remembered in the Philippines for having sired at least 72 children by 16 different women, only one of whom was his wife.
Thirty-eight of the children bear his surname.

It’s unclear what the statue is supposed to honor, but it is a fitting monument to something that is sorely lacking in the
Philippines: a divorce law.

The Philippines is now the only country in the world that denies divorce to the majority of its citizens; it is the last holdout
among a group of staunchly Catholic countries where the church has fought hard to enforce its views on the sanctity of
marriage. Pope Francis, who visited the Philippines last week, has urged his bishops to take a more forgiving stance toward
divorced Catholics, but this is a moot point in the Philippines: There is no such thing as a divorced Catholic.

A bill that would legalize divorce in the Philippines is now before the legislature, but it has little chance of becoming law
without the support of President Benigno Aquino III, who is on record saying divorce is a “no-no” for this archipelago nation.
Aquino, a bachelor and a practicing Catholic, said he does not want the Philippines to become like Las Vegas, where “you
get married in the morning [and] you get divorced in the afternoon.”

Aquino ignored the bishops and their threats of excommunication three years ago when he signed a reproductive health
law that provides subsidized contraceptives to poor women, but most analysts here believe that he has no appetite for
another politically bruising battle with the Catholic hierarchy on another of its hot-button issues.

For its part, the global church has been steadily losing ground in the fight against divorce. The first big blow came in 1970
when Italy legalized divorce, despite the ferocious opposition of the Vatican. An attempt to repeal the Italian divorce law
was soundly rejected in a 1974 referendum. Next came Brazil, which legalized divorce in 1977, followed by Spain (1981),
Argentina (1987), Ireland (1997), and Chile (2004).

That left only the Philippines and the tiny Mediterranean island nation of Malta (and, of course, the independent but mostly
celibate Vatican city-state). In 2011, Malta held a referendum on divorce. The church pulled out all stops in a particularly
nasty campaign against legalization, but came up short. Soon after the referendum, the archbishop of Malta issued a rare
apology for the church’s harsh attacks on pro-divorce activists.

Here in the Philippines, the Catholic hierarchy takes particular pride in the country’s status as the last holdout.

One archbishop emeritus called it “an honor that every Filipino should be proud of.” Another said Filipinos should not follow
the example of “de-Christianized countries.”

It wasn’t always thus. Before explorer Ferdinand Magellan claimed the Philippines for the Spanish crown and began
converting the natives to Catholicism in 1521, divorce was commonly practiced by the archipelago’s traditional tribes,
according to anthropologists. But four centuries of Spanish rule, carried out for the most part by Catholic religious orders,
effectively stamped out the custom.

Things eased up a bit when the Americans became the new colonial masters after the 1898 Spanish-American War. A 1917
law allowed divorce, but only for adultery if committed by the wife or for “concubinage” on the part of the husband. The
Japanese, during their otherwise horrific World War II occupation of the Philippines, introduced modern divorce laws, but
those were canceled and the old 1917 law restored when, in 1944, U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur famously returned. Six
years later, after the Philippines had been granted independence and the church had reasserted its authority, the 1917 law
was revoked and divorce was banned outright.

Separation, but equal

Philippine law does allow divorce for the country’s Muslim minority — about 11 percent of the population — but for now,
the only legal option available to non-Muslim couples who want out of a bad marriage is to seek either a church annulment
or a civil annulment. (The church accepts legal separations, but separated persons are not allowed to remarry.)
Annulment is different from divorce in that the parties must establish that the marriage was defective from the beginning:
that one or both were too young to get married (the minimum age in the Philippines is 18; for male Muslims it’s 15, for girls
“puberty”); that proper parental consent was not obtained; that one of the parties was already married or had an incurable
sexually transmissible disease; or — most commonly — was “psychologically incapacitated” at the time of the marriage. A
church tribunal or civil judge can then declare that the marriage never happened.

The usual problems that cause the breakdown of a marriage — infidelity, physical or mental abuse, or plain old
“irreconcilable differences” — don’t count in an annulment proceeding.

Sen. Pia Cayetano, who was the main sponsor of the controversial reproductive health law and who is frequently mentioned
as a potential successor to Aquino, called the absence of a realistic and reasonable divorce law in the Philippines “a
travesty.”

“It needs to change, definitely. Do I see it happening soon? No, it will take a while for the Philippines to separate human
rights and civil rights from religious belief,” she said.

Professional services

What is most troublesome about using the annulment process as a substitute for divorce is that it forces two people who
might otherwise have a reasonably civil split into manufacturing or faking an adversarial relationship with each other and
with a state prosecutor — or in the case of church annulment, a “defender of the bond” — whose role in the proceeding is
to defend the sanctity of the marriage by arguing that the unhappy couple stay together.

“It’s inhumane — and I speak from experience,” said Cayetano, whose own annulment was granted in 2013.

The process is not only slow and psychologically painful, but it’s also expensive. It can take years to finalize a civil annulment
unless you are wealthy enough to pay the judge a substantial bribe to speed things long.

Michelle, a 40-year-old Manila physician from a well-to-do family, got her civil annulment in a mere six months. All she had
to do was hire the right lawyer and pay 350,000 pesos (about $8,000), more than triple the per capita GDP in the Philippines
and thus well beyond the reach of most Filipinos.

About a third of the money went to the judge as a “professional service fee.” Michelle, who asked that we not publish her
last name, said her lawyer and the judge were pals from law school days, which helped smooth things considerably. She
only had to appear in court once, and she was asked only one question: her name.

Michelle and her husband, also a physician, were both 30 when they married. Michelle told us she felt pressured because
she was pregnant at the time. Although the marriage lasted seven years, she said that she regretted her decision almost
from the beginning and that an annulment, despite the social stigma attached to it, somehow felt right.

“It’s like I am forgiven,” she said. “It’s like going to confession. It erased whatever sin I committed.”

A lawyer … or a hit man

Most people, however, find the process to be less than uplifting. Paolo Yap, 35, a graphic designer in Manila, separated
from his then wife in 2004 and stopped communicating with her entirely two years later. Four years ago, when he and his
new partner decided they wanted to marry, Paolo needed an annulment.

He hired a lawyer for 300,000 pesos, but let her go when he realized it was going to cost at least twice that. So he made a
deal with a lawyer friend who agreed to take the case in exchange for Yap’s services as a designer.

A psychologist was hired to certify “mental incapacity.” Yap was found to be “depressive and anti-social”; his former wife
“narcissistic and histrionic.”
As the case was wending its way through the system, Yap made the startling discovery that his former wife had already
obtained an annulment. Her lawyer’s strategy had been to file the case with a local court in a remote corner of the
Philippines that had a reputation as an annulment mill.Her lawyer’s strategy had been to file the case with a local court in a
remote corner of the Philippines that had a reputation as an annulment mill. Yap was never notified, even though the court
papers seemed to suggest he was actually present, as the law requires. And even when the former wife learned that Yap
had started annulment proceedings, she didn’t tell him, allowing him to spend hundreds of thousands of pesos
unnecessarily.
“You know, it’s only about 10 or 15 thousand pesos to hire a hit man to kill your spouse,” he noted sardonically. “Much less
than an annulment.”

Philanderers and statesmen

In the fight to uphold the sanctity of marriage, the Catholic bishops of the Philippines can bank on solid support from an
unlikely quarter: the country’s male politicians, for whom multiple mistresses and maintaining second — and even third —
households is a seemingly sacred privilege and a badge of manly pride.

Former Senator Revilla, of course, is the gold standard in this department, but Joseph Estrada, who served as president
from 1998 until 2001 (and, like Revilla, is a former film star), proudly sired three children by his wife and at least nine
additional offspring by six other women.

Longtime ruler Ferdinand Marcos also had numerous extramarital affairs, while Fidel Ramos, Estrada’s predecessor in the
Malacañang Palace, acknowledged at least one well-publicized dalliance.

The lack of a divorce option provides “a sense of comfort to male philanderers,” according to Evalyn Ursua, an attorney who
specializes in annulment cases and who has advocated for the legalization of divorce. “With a [law prohibiting divorce], they
know they can continue this lifestyle where they have their beautiful and loyal wife — and also the comfort and status of
their mistress,” she said. “A divorce law would allow women to put an end to it.”

Despite a veneer of religious piety, philandering is deeply embedded in Philippine society, from the privileged to the
poorest. “It’s the machismo thing … and wives are expected not to make a fuss about having mistresses,” said Rep.
Emerenciana De Jesus, who is co-sponsoring the divorce bill. But while rich men often continue to support their wives and
children for appearances’ sake, poor women generally find themselves abandoned and left to care for their children on their
own. There are laws that require gainfully employed fathers to support their biological children, but they are so rarely
enforced that most people don’t know they exist.

A poverty of options for the poor

In a typical year, civil courts in the Philippines will grant about 10,000 annulments — a very small number for a country with
a population of more than 100 million. This is not an indication of widespread marital contentment in the Philippines, but
rather that annulments are only available to the well-off.

As a result, experts say, most Filipinos who find themselves in an unhappy relationship simply move on to the next one. The
women, of course, are expected to deal with the children. “For these women, the survival mechanism is to find another guy
to support her and her kids,” said Mary Racelis, a sociologist at the Ateneo de Manila University.

Among the very poor, there is a growing tendency toward what the government calls “unions without benefit of valid
marriage,” or what the church calls “living in sin.” Precise statistics are not available, but Racelis estimates that only 30 to 40
percent of the urban poor now bother to get married in the first place.

“It’s too expensive,” she said. “You’re expected to have a big celebration, and they simply can’t afford it.” That and the
realization that once you enter into a marriage there’s no getting out.

The social cost is compounded by the Philippine economy’s heavy reliance on its most important export: cheap labor. An
estimated 10 million Filipinos work abroad. Although men used to dominate the field, the majority are now women. They
work as nannies, nurses, caregivers, maids, and shop clerks, sending home some $25 billion in 2013, according to the
Philippines’ central bank, to support families back home. Unsurprisingly, the long separations are a strain on married life,
and women who work overseas frequently discover that the money they faithfully send home each month is supporting
hubby and his new girlfriend.

Far from turning the Philippines into another Las Vegas, as suggested by President Aquino, the divorce bill that has been put
forward by De Jesus and the Gabriela Women’s Party is very conservative and, according to its authors, respectful of the
“cultural sensibilities in the Philippines.” Grounds for divorce in this bill include physical violence against a spouse or child,
imprisonment of a spouse for more than six years, abandonment for more than a year, sexual infidelity or perversion,
bigamy, homosexuality, or drug addiction. Except in cases that involve violence against women or children, the court would
not be allowed to take any action for six months after the initial filing — a kind of cooling-off period. The bill also obliges the
court to “take steps toward the reconciliation of the spouses” before granting the final decree.

Most importantly, the bill provides guidelines for the division of assets, child support, and payment of damages to “the
innocent spouse.”

De Jesus, the bill’s co-sponsor, says the Catholic Church remains the loudest opponent of divorce because it “is afraid of
losing its cultural dominance over the majority of the country.”De Jesus, the bill’s co-sponsor, says the Catholic Church
remains the loudest opponent of divorce because it “is afraid of losing its cultural dominance over the majority of the
country.” But she noted that under the 1987 constitution, the separation between church and state in the Philippines is
supposed to be inviolable.
The church and its faithful, De Jesus argues, are entitled to their beliefs on the sanctity of marriage, but are not entitled to
impose those beliefs on others who may disagree. The state, she added, shouldn’t view divorce as a damnable sin, but
rather as a civil right. “The state should recognize that if you have a right to enter into a contract, you have the right to get
out of it,” said De Jesus.

The church begs to differ. “[Proponents of divorce] see marriage as a contract. For us, it is a sacrament,” said the Rev.
Edgardo Pangan, a canon lawyer who specializes in annulments. “We cannot compromise with the laws of God.”

Who’s your daddy?

One result of the church’s opposition to divorce and its opposition to virtually every form of contraceptive has been millions
of “illegitimate” children. No one knows the number, but one study suggests that about 30 percent of births in the
Philippines go unregistered, often because of the stigma of illegitimacy.

Former Senator Revilla, who has probably contributed more to this problem than anyone, has at least acknowledged and
tried to do something about it. He is the father of the so-called Revilla Bill, which allows children born out of wedlock to
legally use their father’s surname so long as both biological parents give their consent.

“These children must be spared from the stigma attached to being ‘illegitimate,’ and their parents’ faults must not be
passed on to them,” he said in 2004. “It is the state’s responsibility to shield them from unwarranted shame and
discrimination.”

Revilla, who is said to be a generous provider to all his children, has also made provisions to leave behind samples of his
DNA so that any claims of paternity that arise after his death can be verified.

JAY DIRECTO/AFP/Getty Images