Law and divorce around the world

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is a general overview of divorce laws around the world. Every nation except Malta,the Philippines and the Vatican City allows legal divorce.[1]
Contents

* 1 Muslim societies
* 2 Brazil
* 3 Canada
* 4 England and Wales
* 5 France
* 6 India
* 7 Ireland
* 8 Italy
* 9 Japan
* 10 Malta
* 11 Philippines
* 12 Scotland
* 13 United States
* 14 Global issues
* 15 References

Muslim societies

In the Muslim world, legislation concerning divorce varies from country to country. Different Muslim scholars can have slightly differing interpretations of divorce in Islam, (e.g. concerning triple talaq).

No-fault divorce is allowed in Muslim societies, although normally only with the consent of the husband. A wife seeking divorce is normally required to give one of several specific justifications (see below).

If the man seeks divorce or was divorced, he has to cover the expenses of his ex-wife feeding his child and expenses of the child until the child is two years old (that is if the child is under two years old). The child is still the child of the couple despite the divorce.

If it is the wife who seeks divorce, she must go to a court. She must provide evidence of ill treatment, inability to sustain her financially, sexual impotence on the part of the husband, her dislike of his looks, etc. The husband may be given time to fix the problem, but if he fails, the appointed judge will divorce the couple if the couple still wish to be divorced.[2]

See also: Talaq in Conflict of Laws, At-Talaq and Triple talaq.

Brazil

In Brazil, divorce was forbidden until 1977.

Since January 2007[3], Brazilian couples can request a divorce at a notary's office when there is a consensus, the couple has been separated for more than a year and have no underage or special-needs children. The divorcees need only present their national IDs, marriage certificate and pay a small fee to initiate the process, which is completed in two or three weeks.

Canada

Canada did not have a federal divorce law until 1968. Before that time, the process for getting a divorce varied from province to province. In Newfoundland and Quebec, it was necessary to get a private Act of Parliament in order to end a marriage. Most other provinces incorporated the English Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 which allowed a husband to get a divorce on the grounds of his wife's adultery and a wife to get one only if she established that her husband committed any of a list of particular sexual behaviours but not simply adultery. Some provinces had legislation allowing either spouse to get a divorce on the basis of adultery.

The federal Divorce Act of 1968 standardized the law of divorce across Canada and introduced the no-fault concept of permanent marriage breakdown as a ground for divorce as well as fault based grounds including adultery, cruelty and desertion. [4]

In Canada, while civil and political rights are in the jurisdiction of the provinces, the Constitution of Canada specifically made marriage and divorce the realm of the federal government. Essentially this means that Canada's divorce law is uniform throughout Canada, even in Quebec, that differs from the other provinces in its use of the civil law as codified in the Civil Code of Quebec as opposed to the common law that is in force in the other provinces and generally interpreted in similar ways throughout the Anglo-Canadian provinces.

The Canada Divorce Act recognizes divorce only on the ground of breakdown of the marriage. Breakdown can only be established if one of three grounds hold: adultery, cruelty, and being separated for one year. Most divorces proceed on the basis of the spouses being separated for one year, even if there has been cruelty or adultery. This is because proving cruelty or adultery is expensive and time consuming.[5] The one-year period of separation starts from the time at least one spouse intends to live separate and apart from the other and acts on it. A couple does not need a court order to be separated, since there is no such thing as a "legal separation" in Canada.[6] A couple can even be considered to be "separated" even if they are living in the same dwelling. Either spouse can apply for a divorce in the province in which either the husband or wife has lived for at least one year.

On September 13, 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared a portion of the Divorce Act also unconstitutional for excluding same-sex marriages, which at the time of the decision were recognized in three provinces and one territory. It ordered same-sex marriages read into that act, permitting the plaintiffs, a lesbian couple, to divorce.[7]

England and Wales

A divorce in England and Wales is only possible for marriages of more than one year and when the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Whilst it is possible to defend a divorce, the vast majority proceed on an undefended basis. A decree of divorce is initially granted 'nisi', i.e. (unless cause is later shown), before it is made 'absolute'. Relevant laws are:

* Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which sets out the basis for divorce (part i) and how the courts deal with financial issues, known as ancillary relief (part ii)
o Cruelty has been made irrelevant. See Gollins v Gollins [1964] A.C. 644
* Family Law Act 1996
* Children Act 1989
* Family Proceedings Courts (Matrimonial Proceedings etc.) Rules 1991
* Marriage Act 1949
* Marriage Act 1994

Here is a rough outline of the undefended divorce procedure from start to finish:

1. Filing of Divorce Petition & if necessary Statement of Arrangements for the Children
2. Documents issued by Court and posted to the Respondent
3. Respondent returns Acknowledgement of Service to the Court (if he/she does not you will need to consider Bailiff Service, Deemed Service or other options)
4. Petitioner completes Affidaviti in Support of Petition and Request for directions
5. A Judge will then consider all the divorce papers and if he/she is satisfied issue a Certificate of Entitlement to a Decree and Section 41 Certificate (confirming he/she is content with arrangements for any children)
6. Decree Nisi is granted
7. Six weeks later the application can be made by the Petitioner for the Decree Absolute.

From beginning to end, if everything goes smoothly and Court permitting, it takes around 6 months.

If there are any outstanding financial issues between the parties, most solicitors would advise resolving these by way of a 'Clean Break' Court order prior to obtaining the Decree Absolute.

There is only one 'ground' for divorce under English law. That is that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

There are however five 'facts' that may constitute this ground. They are:

1. Adultery
* often now considered the 'nice' divorce.
* respondents admitting to adultery will not be penalised financially or otherwise.
2. Unreasonable behaviour
* the petition must contain a series of allegations against the respondent that the Judge considers serious enough that the petitioner cannot be expected to live with the respondent.
3. Two years separation by consent
* both parties must consent
* the parties must have lived separate lives for at least two years prior to the presentation of the petition
* this can occur if the parties live in the same household, but the petitioner would need to make clear in the petition such matters as they ate separately, etc.
4. Two years desertion
5. Five years separation

France

The French Civil code (modified on January 1, 2005), permits divorce for 4 different reasons; mutual consent (which comprises over 60% of all divorces); acceptance; separation of 2 years; and due to the 'fault' of one partner (accounting for most of the other 40%).

India

Hindu women were banned from obtaining divorce in India before the 1956 Hindu Marriage Act. Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act. Christians are governed by the Indian Divorce Act, Parsis by the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, and Muslims by the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act.

Only five reasons are allowed for the dissolution of a marriage when contested: adultery, abandonment, impotency, disease, and spousal abuse, although court interpretations have widened their scope. However, if both couples agree to mutually consent to divorce each other, no reason has to be given. Usually such a divorce is given on the grounds of incompatibility. [8]

Ireland

The largely Catholic population of Ireland has tended to be averse to divorce. Divorce was prohibited by the 1937 Constitution. In 1986, the electorate rejected the possibility of allowing divorce in a referendum. Subsequent to a 1995 referendum, the Fifteenth Amendment repealed the prohibition of divorce, despite Church opposition. The new regulations came into effect in 1997, making divorce possible under certain circumstances. In comparison to many other countries, it is difficult to obtain a divorce in Ireland.

A couple must be separated for four of the preceding five years before they can obtain a divorce. It is sometimes possible to be considered separated while living under the same roof.

Divorces obtained outside Ireland are recognised by the State only if the couple was living in that country; it is not therefore possible for a couple to travel abroad in order to obtain a divorce.

Italy

Presumably due to the strong influence of the Roman Catholic Church, divorce was all but unobtainable in the Italian Republic and its predecessor states. The difficulty of ridding oneself of an unwanted spouse was a frequent topic of drama and humor, reaching its apotheosis in the 1961 film Divorce, Italian Style. On December 1, 1970, the civil code of Italy was amended to permit the granting of divorces by the civil courts. Subsequent efforts at repealing the divorce statute by referendum have so far been unsuccessful .

Japan

In Japan, there are four types of divorce. Divorce by Mutual Consent (kyogi rikon), Divorce by Family Court Mediation (chotei rikon), Divorce by Family court Judgement (shimpan rikon), and Divorce by District Court Judgment (saiban rikon).[9]

Divorce by mutual consent is a simple process of submitting a declaration to the relevant government office that says both spouses agree to divorce. This form is often called the "Green Form" due to the wide green band across the top. If both parties fail to reach agreement on conditions of a Divorce By Mutual Consent, such as child custody which must be specified on the divorce form, then they must use one of the other three types of divorce. Foreign divorces may also be registered in Japan by bringing the appropriate court documents to the local city hall along with a copy of the Family Registration of the Japanese ex-spouse. If an international divorce includes joint custody of the children, it is important to the foreign parent to register it themselves, because joint custody is not legal in Japan. The parent to register the divorce may thus be granted sole custody of the child according to Japanese law.

Divorce by Mutual Consent in Japan differs from divorce in many other countries, causing it to not be recognized by all countries. It does not require the oversight by courts intended in many countries to ensure an equitable dissolution to both parties. Further, it is not always possible to verify the identity of the non Japanese spouse in the case of an international divorce. This is due to two facts. First, both spouses do not have to be present when submitting the divorce form to the government office. Second, a Japanese citizen must authorize the divorce form using a personal stamp (hanko), and Japan has a legal mechanism for registration of personal stamps. On the other hand, a non-Japanese citizen can authorize the divorce form with a signature. But there is no such legal registry for signatures, making forgery of the signature of a non-Japanese spouse difficult to prevent at best, and impossible to prevent without foresight. The only defense against such forgery is, before the forgery occurs, to submit another form to prevent a divorce form from being legally accepted by the government office at all. This form must be renewed every six months.

Malta

There is currently no legislation providing for divorce, only separation and annulment are available under the Civil Code and Marriage Act respectively.

Philippines

Philippine law, in general, does not provide for divorce inside the Philippines. The only exception is with respect to muslims. In certain circumstances muslims are allowed to divorce. For those not of the muslim faith, the law only allows annulment. Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines does provide that

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.[10]

This would seem to apply only if the spouse obtaining the foreign divorce is an alien. However, the Supreme Court of the Philippines declared in the case of RP vs. Orbecidio

[..] we are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code (E.O. No. 209, as amended by E.O. No. 227), should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry.[11]

Complications can arise, however. For example, if a legally married Filipino citizen obtains a divorce outside of the Philippines, that divorce would not be recognized inside the Philippines. If that person (now unmarried outside of the Philippines) then remarries outside of the Philippines, he or she could arguably be considered in the Philippines as having committed the crime of Bigamy under Philippine Laws]. The above complications will not arise if the legally married Filipino citizen obtains foreign citizenship first, then secures a foreign divorce decree.

Also, Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that

Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.[12]

This can lead to complications regarding distribution of conjugal property, inheritance rights, etc.[13][14][15] , etc.

Moreover, Article 26, par.2 may have raised some problems than it solves. A number of questions can be raised with respect to the operation of this provision, to wit:

1. Is there a need for a judicial decree in Philippine courts to declare the Filipino spouse qualified to remarry? The Family Code has no explicit provision to that effect, unlike in cases of void marriages and of a remarriage in case of absence of one of the spouses amounting to presumptive death (Art. 40 and 41, Family Code) where a court decree is required.

2. Is Art. 26, par. 2 applicable to foreign divorces obtained before the effectivity of the Family Code in view of Art. 256?

3. What if the Filipino spouse does not intend to remarry, what is the status of any children they may have after the divorce decree? Does the Filipino spouse have a right to demand support from his/her former alien spouse? What is his/her status with respect to his/her former foreign spouse? Can he/she claim share of property or income acquired by the former foreign spouse.

Scotland

About one third of marriages in Scotland end in divorce, on average after about thirteen years.[16] Actions for divorce in Scotland may be brought in either the Sheriff Court or the Court of Session. In practice, it is only actions in which unusually large sums of money are in dispute, or with an international element, that are raised in the Court of Session. If, as is usual, there are no contentious issues, it is not necessary to employ a lawyer. Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976.

It is likely that the two year separation period required for a no-fault divorce with consent will be reduced to one year. See now the changes introduced under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament through the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. Family law issues are devolved, so are now the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive.

Financial consequences of divorce are dealt with by the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. This provides for a division of matrimonial property on divorce. Matrimonial property is generally all the property acquired by the spouses during the marriage but before their separation, as well as housing and furnishings acquired for use as a home before the marriage, but excludes property gifted or inherited. Either party to the marriage can apply to the court for an order under the 1985 Act. The court can make orders for the payment of a capital sum, the transfer of property, the payment of periodical sums, and other incidental orders. In making an order, the court is, under the Act, guided by the following principles:

1. The net value of the matrimonial property should be shared fairly, and the starting point is that it should be shared equally; but
2. fair account should be taken of economic advantage derived by either party from contributions by the other, and of economic disadvantage suffered by either party in the interests of the other party or of the family; and
3. The economic burden of caring for a child of the marriage under 16 years should be shared fairly between the parties (but child support is not normally awarded by the court, as this is in most cases a matter for the Child Support Agency).

The general approach of the Scottish courts is to settle financial issues by the award of a capital sum if at all possible, allowing for a ‘clean break’ settlement, but in some cases periodical allowances may be paid, usually for a limited period. Fault is not normally taken into account.

Decisions as to parental responsibilities, such as residence and contact orders, are dealt with under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The guiding principle is the best interests of the child, although the starting assumption is in practice that it is in a child’s best interests to maintain contact with the non-custodial parent.

United States

Main article: Divorce in the United States

Divorce in the United States is a matter of state rather than federal law. In recent years, however, more federal legislation has been enacted affecting the rights and responsibilities of divorcing spouses. The laws of the state(s) of residence at the time of divorce govern; all states recognize divorces granted by any other state. All states impose a minimum time of residence. Typically, a county court’s family division judges petitions for dissolution of marriages.

Prior to the latter decades of the 20th century, a spouse seeking divorce had to show cause and even then might not be able to obtain a divorce. The no-fault divorce "revolution" began in 1969 in California, and was completed in 1985 (New York is the last holdout [1]). However, most states require some waiting period, typically a 1 to 2 year separation. Fault grounds, when available, are sometimes still sought. This may be done where it reduces the waiting period otherwise required, or possibly in hopes of affecting decisions related to a divorce, such as child custody, child support, or alimony. Since the mid 1990s, a few states have enacted covenant marriage laws, which allow couples to voluntarily make a divorce more difficult for themselves to obtain than in the typical no-fault divorce action.

Mediation is a growing way of resolving divorce issues. It tends to be less adversarial (particularly important for any children), more private, less expensive, and faster than traditional litigation.[17] Similar in concept, but with more support than mediation, is collaborative divorce, where both sides are represented by attorneys but commit to negotiating a settlement without engaging in litigation. Some believe that mediation may not be appropriate for all relationships, especially those that included physical or emotional abuse, or an imbalance of power and knowledge about the parties' finances.

States vary in their rules for division of assets. Some states are "community property" states, others are "equitable distribution" states, and others have elements of both. Most "community property" states start with the presumption that community assets will be divided equally, whereas "equitable distribution" states presume fairness may dictate more or less than half of the assets will be awarded to one spouse or the other. Commonly, assets acquired before marriage are considered individual, and assets acquired after, marital. Attempt is made to assure the welfare of any minor children generally through their dependency. Alimony, also known as 'maintenance' or 'spousal support' is still being granted in many cases, especially in longer term marriages.

A decree of divorce will generally not be granted until all questions regarding child care and custody, division of property and assets, and ongoing financial support are resolved.

Due to the complex divorce procedures required in many places, especially including many states of the United States, some people seek divorces from other jurisdictions that have easier and quicker processes. Most of these places are commonly referred to negatively as "divorce mills."

Global issues

Where people from different countries get married, and one or both then choose to reside in another country, the procedures for divorce can become significantly more complicated. Although most countries make divorce possible, the form of settlement or agreement following divorce may be very different depending on where the divorce takes place. In some countries there may be a bias towards the man regarding property settlements, and in others there may be a bias towards the woman, both concerning property, and also custody of any children. One or both parties may seek to divorce in a country which has jurisdiction over them. Normally there will be a residence requirement in the country in which the divorce takes place. See also Divorces obtained by US couples in a different country or jurisdiction above for more information, as applicable globally. In the case of disputed custody, almost all lawyers would strongly advise you stay to the jurisdiction applicable to the dispute, i.e. the country or state of you or your spouse's residence. Even if not disputed, the spouse could later dispute it and potentially invalidate another jurisdiction's ruling.

Some of the more important aspects of divorce law involve the provisions for any children involved in the marriage, and problems may arise due to abduction of children by one parent, or restriction of contact rights to children. For the Conflict of Laws issues, see divorce (conflict).

References

1. ^ Filipinos celebrate Valentine's Day discreetly
2. ^ Amani Aboul Fadl Farag. "Laws of divorce". islamonline.net. Retrieved on 2006-09-19.
3. ^ Irene Lôbo. "Nova lei de divórcio promete facilitar a vida das pessoas" (in Portuguese). islamonline.net. Retrieved on 2007-02-02.
4. ^ Douglas, Kirsten (Revised 27 March 2001). "DIVORCE LAW IN CANADA" (in English). Law and Government Division, Department of Justice, Government of Canada. Retrieved on 2007-03-28.
5. ^ "Family law, child custody, child & spousal support, property division & more.". ottawadivorce.com. Retrieved on 2006-09-19.
6. ^ "Family law, child custody, child & spousal support, property division & more.". A1-ontario-divorce.com. Retrieved on 2006-09-19.
7. ^ "Ontario court approves first same-sex divorce". theglobeandmail.com. Retrieved on 2006-09-19.
8. ^ Fried, Michael (1997). "Divorce in India".
9. ^ Japan Children's Rights Network. "Types of Divorce In Japan". Retrieved on 2007-06-18.
10. ^ "Family Code of the Philippines". Retrieved on 2006-09-06.
11. ^ "RP vs. Orbecidio, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005". Retrieved on 2006-09-06.
12. ^ "Civil Code of the Philippines". Retrieved on 2006-09-06.
13. ^ "Van Dorn vs. Romillo, G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985". Retrieved on 2006-09-06.
14. ^ "Licaros vs. Licaros, G.R. No. 150656. April 29, 2003". Retrieved on 2006-09-06.
15. ^ "Llorente vs. Court of Appeals and Llorente, G.R. No. 124371. November 23, 2000". Retrieved on 2006-09-06.
16. ^ Morrison, Anita; Debbie Headrick, Legal Studies Research Team, Scottish Executive Fran Wasoff, Sarah Morton (March 2004). "Family formation and dissolution: Trends and attitudes among the Scottish population". Scottish Executive Research 43. Retrieved on 2006-09-19.
17. ^ Hoffman, David A.; Karen Tosh (1999). "Coaching From The Sidelines: Effective Advocacy In Divorce Mediation" (PDF). Massachusetts Family Law Journal 85. Retrieved on 2006-09-10.

Also:

* Amato, Paul R. and Alan Booth. A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval. Harvard University Press, 1997. ISBN 0-674-29283-9 and ISBN 0-674-00398-5. Reviews and information at [2]
* Gallagher, Maggie. "The Abolition of Marriage." Regnery Publishing, 1996. ISBN 0-89526-464-1.
* Lester, David. "Time-Series Versus Regional Correlates of Rates of Personal Violence." Death Studies 1993: 529-534.
* McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. Growing Up with a Single Parent; What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994: 82.
* Morowitz, Harold J. "Hiding in the Hammond Report." Hospital Practice August 1975; 39.

* Office for National Statistics (UK). Mortality Statistics: Childhood, Infant and Perinatal, Review of the Registrar General on Deaths in England and Wales, 2000, Series DH3 33, 2002.
* U.S. Bureau of the Census. Marriage and Divorce. General US survey information. [3]
* U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Survey of Divorce [4] (link obsolete).

Marriage & Domestic Violence: A Fatal Combination in the Philippines, Yet Divorce Is Illegal

January 16, 2008

by Tess Raposas
- Philippines -

Maria was 16 when she first came to visit the Philippines from California and decided to remain here. Witty and talented, she became a popular movie icon. Then barely in her twenties, she plunged into an early marriage with an upcoming politician from the north. Nineteen years later, her body was found slumped on the stairwell of the 13th floor where she had fallen from the 23rd floor of the condominium unit where she was staying. She was only 38. Why?

Maria was also a mother of six whose life became an archetype of marital wretchedness. Even if she had wanted out of her marriage, it would have been impossible for her to opt for divorce: the Philippines is one of only two countries in the world where divorce is not allowed. (The other country is Malta, another Catholic stronghold, like the Philippines.)

• The church and fear of social rejection often pressure Filipinas to stay in abusive relationships. Photograph by Aby Arabit. •
Those in the know believe that she plunged to her death after enduring years of domestic violence from her politician husband. Before her death, she made several attempts to seek help. She placed several anonymous calls to a women’s organization hotline. “But fear always factored in and each time we would ask who she was and her circumstances,” recalls Ana Leah Sarabia of Kalakasan, a feminist group supporting women victims of abuse, “she would back off.” Sarabia’s group did their best to help her out -- but in the end, Maria dealt with her pain her way.

No Way Out

Maria’s is not an isolated case. Thousands of women suffer from domestic violence within marriage. In less than ten years, there was a big leap in the number of cases reported to police: 1,100 in 1996 shot up to over 6,500 by 2005. And those were just the reported cases of domestic violence. There are still more undocumented and unreported cases where women opt to suffer in silence for the sake of family togetherness. Violence also goes unreported due to victims’ embarrassment, not knowing how or to whom to report, or worst of all, the tragic belief that the violence was unimportant and that nothing could be done anyway. Yet these victims are wasting away from the unresolved injustice of their lives.

Of the reported cases, authorities say the primary perpetrators of violence are husbands. In 2003 the Social Weather Station, a research and survey institution in the Philippines, conducted a survey of men who admitted having physically harmed women. Thirty-nine percent had committed it against their wives; 15 percent were violent toward their girlfriends; 4 percent beat their unmarried partners. The rest of the attacks against women were committed by men unknown to them. Clearly, domestic violence or violence in the confines of intimate relationships is the most prevalent form of abuse against women in the Philippines. Combine a no-divorce policy and you get an agonizing picture of Filipino women. How they subsist and survive in this situation is hard to imagine.

On an international scale, a World Bank analysis indicates that half of the world’s women have been battered by an intimate partner. In Asia, 60% of all women have been assaulted.

The impact on children is appalling. Body Shop International estimates that 1.8 to 3.2 million children in the Philippines are exposed to domestic violence and suffer the traumatic effects for the rest of their lives. This number just escalates year after year.

Failed Attempts at Divorce

Curiously, The Philippines allowed divorce during the Spanish era, the American period and the Japanese Occupation.

Only in 1950 did a new civil code take effect, disallowing divorce under Philippine law. The 1988 Family Code adopted the same policy but it did provide for nullification of marriage on grounds of psychological incapacity.

While a few brave legislators have authored bills to legalize divorce, none of these have seen the light of day. Proposed bills regularly expire at the committee level before they can even be deliberated up in Congress.

To date, five bills have been filed in Congress, two in the Senate and three at the Lower House. Senator Rodolfo Biazon, Senator Tessie Aquino Oreta, Representative Bellaflor Angara Castillo, Representative Manuel Ortega and Representative Liza Largoza Mazaall all put bills up for a vote in their respective houses.

SB 782, Senator Biazon’s bill, sought to amend the Family Code by allowing absolute divorce and thereby granting legally separated spouses the right to remarry. The subject of scrutiny of SB 782 is the existing provision under the Family Code which allows psychological incapacity as the only grounds or basis for the nullification of a marriage. Attorney Carol Austria, a legal rights advocate notes:

“Psychological incapacity is a very limited basis but the Supreme Court describes psychological incapacity as an incurable disease. The focus must shift from psychological grounds to issues of gender inequality and freedom from unhealthy and devastating relationships. A petition for nullification of marriage is also a far cry from the usual divorce proceeding practiced worldwide.”

In formulating a national divorce law one must account for the existing indigenous community practices where proceedings are performed by mumbakis (indigenous priests) or tribal leaders. “Many marriages have been solemnized not in city halls, but in tribal communities. The important thing is to recognize what they deem as a practical and sensible divorce law in their own context,” she says.

In the end, these bills failed to advance beyond the filing stage and were not even calendared for reading because they were not considered “priority bills”.

The latest and most controversial of the divorce bills filed is House Bill 4016 authored by feminist-activist Representative Liza Largoza Maza. It emphasizes the need for a divorce law that defines unequivocally all the grounds and terms for terminating a marriage. “When a marriage is no longer viable, divorce should be an option because it could actually provide protection to battered women and their children from violence and abuse. Women must have the option of remedies that will pave for the attainment of their human development and self-fulfillment and the protection of their human rights. The existing law on petition for nullification of marriage as a provision in the family code is not enough to address this.”

Representative Largoza Maza’s bill was filed in 2005, but after tirades from the Catholic camp, nothing more has been heard of it. Meanwhile, those who oppose its passage spread the word against the bill, declaring it would destroy the sanctity of marriage, disintegrate the close-knit Filipino family and bring about all sorts of moral decay.

Paths Women Take

Stories like Maria’s and those of other celebrities with similar experiences are broadcast on national television. That should bring additional attention to divorce, but critically, such discussions are not sustained.

Most Filipinos take the side of the Catholic Church, although there has been no costly referendum. Anyone who advocates for divorce is judged immoral and without conscience. Staying married for the sake of the family is considered a sacrifice with heavenly rewards.

Plus, Filipino women tend to submit to society’s pressures. They dare not earn the ire and judgment of their community. The path usually pursued, which is still unpopular, is to separate, but this leaves women in a legal bind. It takes financial independence for a woman to make a successful getaway from an abusive partner. She must be able to sustain herself and her children to ward off the abusive husband who would try to harass her into coming back. The social stigma for a woman who breaks up her marriage is deep-seated, disconcerting and disempowering.

Those who have gone through annulment cases attest to just how painstakingly long and tedious the process is to prove the other person is “psychologically incapacitated”. Women who have gone through annulment claim that it eats up an enormous part of their resources, makes their lives a public show, and even then they wait for years for the court to grant them marital freedom. Others have waited in vain when the courts simply denied their claims.

Dinah, a private school teacher,finds her lack of choice tragic. She describes the man she has been married to for a decade as “a man in an iron mask”: every day he inflicts some form of abuse on her. She did not know this about him at the beginning. Dinah is now vulnerable to mistreatment by the very person who made an eternal promise to love her.

Of Choice and Repression

When will the government realize that a divorce law is not meant to advocate separation and broken marriage, but merely expands the choices of its citizenry? When the state offers no viable alternative to desperate, hopeless marriages it is tantamount to a human rights violation by the state.

Fortunately the authors of these divorce bills have not lost their fighting spirit. Divorce advocates are always looking for new venues where they can be heard. Maybe this time, the debate should not just be had in the halls of the Filipino congress but in a much larger venue with worldwide coverage. The United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and other international organizations must be persuaded to step in. Taken together, Maria’s story, Dinah’s, and all the other voices crying out in pain represent a systemic disgrace.

This is after all, a story about bondage and illegal confinement on a national scale, where women are both the willing and unwilling victims.


About the Author
For the past 15 years, Tess Raposas has been a freelance journalist and media and development consultant, having worked on various writing and research projects on gender and environmental concerns. She believes that every journalist must grow from being an "objective", somewhat robotic truthsayer to a socially aware and accountable truthseeker. She is based in Quezon City, Philippines.

Divorce - reducing marriage to a temporary sexual contract.

Many people support the creation of divorce for plain selfish reasons.

If there is such a thing as divorce, then there is really no such thing as marriage.

"When we make a law, its inner logic may lead to all sorts of consequences we can’t foresee."

But we as Filipinos can see! We can see how divorce in the so called "more advanced" countries has destroyed the meaning of their marriage, destroyed their families, and has negatively impacted their children... for two whole generations!

Marriage in the so-called "more advanced" countries has been reduced to the level of legalized fornication. Contraceptive culture has reduced heterosexual sex to the level of Sodomy... so much so that homosexuals now feel emboldened to claim their own "right" to redefine marriage to include homosexuals!

Do you still want to follow the so-called "more advanced" countries on the their proven self-destructive laws that deconstructed the very concept of marriage?

Would You Sign This Employee Contract?

"An employer can, at any time, dismiss an employee, without justification, and have that employee imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. For example, if the employee raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for 'violence'. In any event, an employer can dismiss an employee regardless of the circumstances, and at his sole discretion. He can fire him from his job, whenever he wishes, no matter how long the employee has served with the company, and even if the employee has done absolutely nothing wrong. Further, the employer can insist that the employee is evicted from his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. An employer may further demand that the sacked employee must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the employer for some considerable time into the future."


Now read this. It is the Lovers Contract. The Western Marriage Contract.

"A woman can, at any time, dismiss her male partner, without justification, and have that partner imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. For example, if he raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for 'domestic violence'. In any event, a woman can dismiss the man regardless of the circumstances, and at her sole discretion. She can fire him from his jobs as father and partner, whenever she wishes, no matter how long he has served the family, and even if he has done absolutely nothing wrong. Further, the woman can insist that the man is evicted from his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. If she has children, a woman may further demand that her sacked partner must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the woman and her children for some considerable time into the future - and this is the case even if her children turn out not to be his."

In the West, these ARE the terms and conditions of marriage!

(This is a big big reason why western marriage is collapsing, this is a big big reason why we in the Philippines must never merely copy laws from other countries, and a big big reason why divorce should never be legalized.)

Taken from the work of Angry Harry

Legalize Divorce?

The Filipino family is threatened with extinction. Loose sexual mores, a birth control mentality, open homosexuality, new age philosophies and economic distress are only a few of the pressures that come to bear on families. Certain social, political and economic forces, both local and global, are threatening the venerable institution of the "domestic church" - the father, the mother and their children.

According to the World Congress of Families, "slogans such as modernity, globalization, progress, and the concept of civil society, are the forces that have weakened the bonds between husbands and wives, parent and child, and the generations.

These ideologies deny the natural origin and status of the family, the equal but complementary roles of men and women, the miracle of human fertility and procreation, the dignity and worth of every human person and the autonomy of family itself. The family, which develops and sustains not only individuals but also larger communities, has been subordinated to the agendas of pressure groups and government decision-makers and subjected to social experimentation.

One such manifestation of this appalling low regard for the family unit is the proposed enactment of four house bills, termed by pro-life and pro-family advocacy organizations. These are:

HB 6993 or the "Legalization of Absolute Divorce" filed by Congressman Manuel Ortega of La Union that allows married to separate and remarry, both the aggrieved as well as the guilty spouse.

HB7165 or the "Lesbian and Gay Rights Act 1999" filed by Congresswoman Bellaflor Angara Castillo of Aurora Province, which will make same marriages legal. HB 173 which seeks to "establish a new population policy strengthening the Population Commission" initiated by Congressman Heherson Alvarez, requiring bigger budget and foreign funds for population control activities, distribution of contraceptives and sex education.

The Family Code of the Philippines gives two alternatives to people who want to get out of failed marriages: A relative divorce in the form of legal separation and annulment. Under our present laws on marriage, legal separation does not dissolve the marriage bond between legally separated spouses The law therefore, forestalls them from pursuing marital ties with others.

This is mainly the reason why proponents HB 6993 or the absolute divorce bill insist on its enactment. They claim that absolute divorce is necessary to free couples from impossible marriages such as in the case of battered women. By allowing remarriage for separated spouses, HB 6993 supporters say they are giving a chance for separated couples to "possibly succeed in attaining a stable and fulfilling family life."

But Archbishop Oscar Cruz, D.D. Canon lawyer and president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has this to say: "For those desirous only of doing away with an impossible relationship with no intention to remarry, the recourse is legal separation not divorce. Regarding anomalous relationships such as in the can of psychiatric persons or behavioral deviants, once proven by experts that any of these have been existent at the time of the wedding, then civil marriage annulment is the recourse, not divorce."

So many people have been intrigued by the bill end have taken a strong stand against it that a primer entitled "PERILS (which stands for Psychological, Economic, Religious, Identity, Legal and Social Aspects) of divorce is being circulated in Metro Manila.

The primer branded the bill as anti-women, anti-children, anti-society and a violation of our present Constitution. Listed here are some of the arguments presented in the PERILS primer.

All human beings believe in specific ways to attain happiness in life. In the past decade, some groups in society have emphasized personal happiness in marriage as a priority over responsibilities to spouse and children. Today, unhappy marriages are commonplace and divorce is accepted as an easy solution to marital problems. What has become more prevalent seems to be the unwillingness of people today to work through the stresses inevitable in every marriage.

The divorce bill currently pending in Congress contemplates remarriage for separated spouses to ''possibly succeed" in family life. A weight of evidence however does not support this hope. The bill is just seen as an endless entry-exit revolving door, which will likely result in a divorce spiral following that of the American society whose values becomes so easily assimilated into the Filipino culture. Look at the following U.S. numbers and draw your own conclusions:

YEAR------- MARRIAGES (M)------- DIVORCES (D)-----------%OF (D) TO (M)
1900---------- 709,000--------------------56,000---------------------- 8
1930---------1,127,000------------------196,000----------------------17
1960---------1,527,000------------------395,000----------------------26
1975---------2,126,000----------------1,026,000--------------------- 48

The belief that divorce equals happiness is utterly false. Cormac Burke, a noted authority on marriage and the family says: "If in divorcist societies, up to 50 percent of persons who fail to find happiness in marriage, where are they going to find it? I n a second marriage? The statistics say No. The divorce rate, among divorcees who remarry, is three or four times higher than among those who marry for the first time.

"Divorce does not tend to make for happiness. Divorce tends to make for divorce; and divorce always marks the final collapse of a hope for happiness. Divorce, it is frequently argued, is only meant for the hard cases, for those persons whose marriages have in fact failed, so as to give them the chance to start again. The evidence, however, is becoming massive that the remedy is worse than the illness," he adds.

The financial and economic resources of a family are generally divided upon the onset of a divorce. The father, who unusually initiates the separation in the Philippines, must now support two families which will require two homes, two sets of furniture and appliances, and subsequently two sets of children. Conflicts arise over money, property, custody and maintenance. This deepens bitter feelings between the spouses, children and in-laws.

As well as becoming impoverished, single mothers often become lonely, afraid and exhausted. Divorce has not made women equal to men but has only caused hardship in many ways to them and to their children. Statistics show that women generally fare worse in divorce because of maintenance default and raising children on reduced incomes. A U. S. study in 1985 made by the Stanford University found that mothers and children average a 73 percent decline in their standard of living the first year after divorce, while men's increased 42 percent.

Thus, many women and children find themselves needing public assistance and undergoing many changes in lifestyle and socioeconomic status. Then, too, the difficulty of raising children alone, causing many family problems.

Divorce is fundamentally a moral, not a legal issue. Were it not for its moral dimension, the issue would be totally within human competence and freedom. The reality is that the Catholic church, comprising about 85 percent of the Philippine population is absolutely against divorce as a universal error and a serious violation of God's law. And this is based on the clear teachings of Jesus Christ, who raised matrimony from a sacred contract to the dignity of a sacrament.

Divorce results to a dysfunctional home. This kind of home is hardly the breeding ground for a psychologically stable and emotionally mature person.
In divorce, the needs of children for parents are disrupted and their development process hindered or impaired.

Thus serious problems occur which usually lead to runaway teens, drug problems, alienation, prostitution, low self-esteem, depression and even suicide.

Moreover, long-term physical and emotional burdens are often placed on children which endure long after the divorce; These frequently take the form of post-adolescent fears of commitment or betrayal, lack of goals and feelings of not being in control of their life.

Whatever legal route the proponents of a divorce law in the Philippines may take, it will end up running smack against the 1987 Constitution, which provides that the family is an inviolable social constitution. (Art. XV, Sec. 2).

Other provisions regarding the family in our 1987 Constitution are:

Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. (Art. II, Ibid.)

Sec. I. The State recognizes the Philippine family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. (An. XV, Ibid.)

The social costs of divorce, as experienced in the United States, are also frightening. Divorce is essentially a social explosive that, in time, will go off in the form of sexual aberrations, acts of violence, drug addiction and other detrimental signs of social maladjustment.

Consider these facts:
"Most victims of child molestation come from single-parent households or are the children of drug-ring members." (Los Angeles Times, 9-16-85)

"Due to the significant drop in their income, mothers and their children often have to move to less expensive housing after a divorce or separation. Thus, each move which brings a change in friends and neighborhoods, frequently adds stress to an already high level of stress within the family." (Larson, Sawyers and Larson "Of the juvenile criminals who are a threat to the public three-fourths come from broken homes. (Ramsey Clark)

In a study of 72 adolescent murderers and 35 adolescent thieves, researchers for Michigan State University demonstrated that fully 75 percent of those charged with homicide had parents who were either divorced or had never been married at all." (Cornell, et. al.)

A habitual wife-beater, divorced and remarried, is not likely to morph into a tender, loving lamb with his second or third wife. Both goodness and evil have multiplier effects. It, therefore, makes enormous sense not to make it easy for persons to exit from and reenter into marriage.

A stable family is built upon the combined parental love and unified parental force of the spouses. In order to make children grow into mature, responsible and upright persons of society, strengthening of the family is needed. But this rests on no one else but the family itself. If God is at the center of the family unit, trust that the bulwark will weather all the storms in life.

For more information, go to:

ALLiance for the FAMILY Foundation Philippines Inc.
http://www.alfi.org.ph

Legalizing Divorce Not a Pro-Women Move

Mar. 20, 2006

If you think divorce will further the cause of women’s liberation in the Philippines, think again. Legalizing divorce is basically anti-women and will aggravate the problem of violence against women.

The call for women’s equality becomes louder these days as March has traditionally been designated International Women’s Month. It is ironic, though, that during this time when womanhood is being celebrated worldwide, a legislative measure in the Philippine House of Representatives presumably aimed at improving the lot of women by its author will do just the opposite if it is enacted into law.

House Bill 4016, also known as the divorce bill and introduced by feminist partylist Rep. Liza Maza, seeks to amend portions of the Family Code of the Philippines so as to make divorce legal in the country. The bill is currently pending with the Committee on Revision of Laws.

Jose Descallar, Pro-Life Philippines’ lobby and advocacy officer, says the bill which may be initially perceived as a pro-women measure, will actually make life even harder for women.

“Divorce is more anti-women. Think about it – who gets custody of the child of separated parents most of the time? The woman, because man is perceived as a philanderer, or an unsuitable parent for other possible reasons,” he says. “This leaves the responsibilities of rearing and nurturing the children to the woman. So with divorce, the man can engage in his philandering over and over. He can get a divorce, get married again, then go for divorce again, and just keep doing this – he can victimize more women.”

Descallar explains that Pro-Life chooses not to support the legalization of divorce because it doesn’t give solutions to the problem of troubled marriages. In fact, it creates more problems – for women and the children. The worst victims of divorce, he points out, are the children.

“Generally instead of strengthening the institution of marriage, the option of legal divorce will weaken it. Based on the experience of the United States, out of every 10 marriages, more
than half end in divorce. If there’s always the ready option to get out, instead of working to strengthen the marriage and to solve problems, and trying to understand your spouse, there’s an easy way out It’s kind of an ‘escape hatch’,” he says.

Furthermore, the definition of “irreconcilable differences” is nowhere in HB 4016. With plenty of room for disagreement in any marriage, stating “irreconcilable differences” as one of the grounds for divorce with no clear definition of the term may make even simple marital spats legitimate reasons for going separate ways.

Consequently, instead of being worked out, situations such as conflicting bathroom habits or bouts of petty jealousy become situations that – instead of being worked out – may eventually be treated as legitimate reasons for divorce.

This opposition to HB 4016 may be viewed by divorce advocates as shutting the door on workable choices for women in troubled marriages. Descallar disagrees.

“There’s the option of legal separation which has the spouses living in separate domiciles. This is very significant in cases where there is physical abuse – the woman is protected from abuse,” he explains. “Also, legal separation doesn’t dissolve the marriage even if the two live separately, so the husband continues to be bound by his financial responsibilities as a father. The wife still has a legal right to ‘sustento’ (financial support).”

“Introducing divorce in our country is imposing a foreign concept of family values instead of nurturing the positive points of our Filipino values, among which is being a family-centered society. Divorce is a western individualistic family value that will eventually destroy our families and our society.”

One congressional proposal that Pro-Life supports is House Bill 216 penned by Muntinlupa Rep. Rozzano Rufino Biazon, which aims to provide mandatory counseling from priests, pastors and imams for spiritual and values re-education as a means for preparing the couple before getting married.

“It’s a preventive measure, and the basic premise is that marriage is a very serious business. It’s not a bed of roses so people need to prepare for it. But this kind of preparation is not the kind that City Hall normally provides, which centers on the how-to’s of birth control,” Descallar points out.

“Values education and spiritual preparation are rooted in the concept of personhood, which is crucial before entering married life. This understanding of personhood will greatly diminish the causes of conflict in marriage. Now House Bill 216 requires couples to undergo counseling prior to the issuance of a marriage license.”