By ANNE MARXZE D. UMIL Bulatlat.com MANILA There are nineteen victims of marital violence every day.

. In 2009, wife battery ranked highest among cases of violence against women at 72 percent, victimizing 6,783 women. About three out of ten perpetrators of violence against women are husbands of the victims, according to Philippine National Police (PNP). Some 800 cases for legal separation and annulment are filed every month before the Office of the Solicitor General. Over 43,650 applications were recorded from 2001 to 2007. These are the bases of Gabriela Womens Party (GWP) for introducing House Bill 1799 or An Act Introducing Divorce in the Philippines. The GWP said that HB 1799 is based on the concrete experiences of married Filipinos. These experiences were studied in their religious, socioeconomic, political, cultural and legal context. Lessons and insights were drawn up, and from these lessons, the provisions of HB 1799 were formulated. GWP Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan cited studies showing that not all countries that allow divorce have a high divorce rate. Divorce statistics show that In Italy, only 12 percent of marriages end in divorce, while in Spain it is 17 percent. Both countries are predominantly Catholic. The Catholic Church believes allowing divorce would lead to a breakdown of the family. Others who are likewise opposed to the bill thinks that a divorce law would be abused. Rep. Ilagan asserted that there are enough safeguards to prevent the divorce law from being abused. The bill has five grounds before a divorce is granted and the couple has to undergo a rigorous process. Divorce will not be granted just because a husband or a wife is bothered by the others snoring. This is not like divorce Las Vegas style, Ilagan said. Rep. Ilagan also said that HB 1799 is not modeled after divorce systems of other countries; they call it divorce-Filipino style. And it is sensitive to the rich and diverse cultural including moral and religious environment of our country. Divorce guarantees womens rights The progressive womens group Gabriela said that divorce provides an option to women who want to get out of abusive and unhappy marriages. This measure will benefit women, especially those who are victims of domestic violence, Lana Linaban, secretary general of Gabriela, said. From 2009 to March 2011, there were 1,452 cases of marital violence that have been referred to Gabriela. This constituted 67 percent of the total number of cases of violence against women that were handled by Gabriela. Domestic violence consistently ranks highest among cases of violence against women (VAW) that Gabriela has been handling. The divorce bill seeks to provide a remedy for couples who have come to a point where their marriage is beyond repair. We trust that the bill will especially benefit women who are in abusive relationships and want to get out of their marriage but are constrained by the inadequacy of existing remedies concerning the legal termination of marriage, Linaban added. According to the Social Weather Station (SWS) survey released recently, 50 percent of respondents agreed that couples who have already separated and cannot reconcile anymore should be allowed to divorce so that they can get married again. Ilagan noted that the recent survey result is a big jump from the results in 2005 that showed that only 43 percent favored divorce. This, she said, reflects the growing need for divorce as an additional remedy for failed and abusive marriages. We cannot deny the reality that there are marriages that turn sour. There are marriages that are abusive, even violent and there are bigamous marriages. We need to address this reality and give couples in these failed marriages the option of divorce, Ilagan said. Divorce vs other legal remedies There are already legal remedies available in the Philippines to terminate a marriage. There is legal separation, annulment and declaration of nullity, but these, according to GWP, are not enough. We cannot ignore the fact that existing laws just do not suffice. Getting an annulment can be very expensive while legal separation will not give estranged couples the right to remarry, said Ilagan.

Linaban explained: It is not true that abused wives could easily file annulment to get out of their situation. As provided for in the Family Code, annulment and declaration of nullity cover only grounds that happened before marriage or during solemnization. In other words, the grounds should be pre-existing. These remedies do not cover problems that occur during the life of the marriage such as spousal abuse. While a woman can file for legal separation on the basis of domestic violence, the marriage is not dissolved. The victim, therefore, remains married to her abuser. The Womens Legal Bureau (WLB), a legal resource for women agreed that present laws relating to the separation of couples and termination of marriage are inadequate to respond to the myriad causes of failed marriages. Particularly, the remedies of declaration of nullity and annulment do not cover the problems that occur during the existence of marriage. Legal separation, on the other hand, while covering problems during marriage, does not put an end to marriage. A person who is separated can still be charged with bigamy or concubinage, if and when he or she enters into another relationship. Both divorce and declaration of nullity of a marriage, the WLB said, allow spouses to remarry but the two remedies differ in concept and basis. A declaration of nullity presupposes that the marriage is void from the beginning and the court declares its non-existenceBeyond the grounds specified in the law of nullity, it is not possible. In an annulment, the marriage of the parties is declared defective from the beginning, albeit it is considered valid until annulled. The defect can be used to nullify the marriage within a specified period but the same may be ignored and the marriage becomes perfectly valid after the lapse of that period, or the defect may be cured through some act. The defect relates to the time of the celebration of the marriage and has nothing to do with circumstances occurring after the marriage is celebrated. In annulment, the marriage is legally cancelled, and the man and woman are restored to their single status, the WLB said. In an annulment case, the law requires the couple to prove that one is psychologically incapacitated, and this incapacity must have existed before or at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Article 36 of the Family Code only nullifies a marriage when one has proved that he or she is psychologically incapacitated. The WLB said the concept certainly cannot accommodate all cases where divorce would be necessary. What we need is a divorce law that defines clearly and unequivocally the grounds and terms for terminating a marriage, it said. An annulment case also takes two years or longer to reach a conclusion. The cost could reach P250,000 ($5,813) which includes attorney fees, court docketing fee and filing fees plus a host of associated fees such as court appearances fees for the attorney. A blogger said money talks when one is seeking annulment. The blogger whose marriage is now annulled said that they shelled out P100,000 ($2,325) to pay the judge, solicitor general and initial investigator, as well as everybody involved in the case since her annulment case is not moving after one year. After paying P100,000, the case was concluded in a months time. Total cost of her annulment was P175, 000 ($4,069). Thus, the GWP guarantees that if the law is passed, divorce will be cheaper than annulment. Main features of HB 1799 In HB 1799, there are five grounds to grant a divorce; 1) When the petitioner who has been separated de facto from his/her spouse for at least 5 years and reconciliation is highly improbable; 2) When the petitioner has been legally separated from his/her spouse for at least 2 years and reconciliation is improbable; 3) When any of the grounds for legal separation under paragraph (a) of Article 55 of the Family Code has caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage; 4) When one or both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations; and 5) When the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused irreparable breakdown of the marriage. HB 1799 also has provisions to guard against possible abuses of the law. These safeguards are the same as the safeguards stipulated in the provisions for legal separation, which can be found in Articles 56, 58 to 61. Divorce proceedings would likewise be heard by courts, like annulment cases. But GWP believes that the process would be shortened as there would be no need to prove that the grounds for the divorce had been pre-existing. It also provides for equity between the spouses in divorce. The bill provides that the assets shall be equally divided between the spouses in order to provide for the well-being of each spouse and the children. It dissolves, in effect, the absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains since this property regime is inconsistent with divorce.

HB 1799 also leaves it to the courts to decide on the custody of minor children in accordance with their best interest and with provisions for their support. In proper cases, the aggrieved party can claim damages in accordance with the Civil Code provisions on damages. It also provides that the parties shall be disqualified from inheriting from each other by intestate succession and that any donation made by the innocent spouse in favor of the offending spouse may be revoked. A divorce obtained in foreign jurisdiction shall be considered valid in this country as long as the divorce is grounded on the circumstances enumerated in Article 55 (B). The sanctity of marriage is not based on the number of marriages existing but on the quality of marital relationships. When a marriage is no longer viable, divorce should be an option. GWP Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan By INA ALLECO R. SILVERIO Bulatlat.com Unhappy marriages where the parties have resorted to hurting and abusing each other should be allowed to end. This was among the calls made by Gabriela Womens Party Rep. Luz Ilagan as she made an appeal to the House of Representatives to seriously address the issues being raised in the proposals in House 1799 for the implementation of a divorce policy in the Philippines. The Gabriela lawmaker once more brought up the issue in congress in the wake of reports that Maltas recent referendum resulted to an affirmative vote to legalize divorce in the largely Catholic Mediterranean island. As a result of the referendum, Maltas parliament is soon expected to pass a law to legalize divorce and the Philippines is left to be the only country in the world without a law on divorce. Almost three-quarters of Malatas electorate voted last May 29, and 72 percent voted in favor of having divorce in the country. Ilagan appealed to representatives to not keep our country in the dark ages. The Committee on Revision of Laws is set to tackle HB 1799 An Act Introducing Divorce in the Philippines, which Ilagan filed together with Gabriela Rep. Emmi de Jesus. Ilagan said that the proposal is based upon the concrete experiences of married Filipinos and that it does not derive from divorce laws in other countries. I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to let the legislative mill run its course on the Divorce bill without further delay and give Filipino couples in irreparable and unhappy marriages this option. We cannot ignore the fact that existing laws just do not suffice. Getting an annulment can be very expensive while legal separation will not give estranged couples the right to remarry. Ilagan said that the proposed divorce bill elaborates on the need for a measure to address the commission of violence in marital relations. Women in abusive marriages will definitely benefit from this legislation,she said. Official figures from the Philippine National Police (PNP) in 2009 showed that 19 women fall victim to marital violence every day. Among the forms of violence and abuse against women committed in 2009, wife battery ranked the highest at 6,783 or 72 percent of all cases. Ilagans proposal aims to introduce divorce as another remedy to marriages on the brink of dissolution. Currently, the the Family Code provides three options, the declaration of nullity, annulment and legal separation. HB 1799 introduces another remedy, the remedy of divorce. Divorce, Filipino style The lawmaker said that the proposal is based upon the concrete experiences of married Filipinos. These experiences were studied in their religious, socio-economic, political, cultural and legal settings, their lessons and insights were drawn and processed into the HB 1799 provisions, she said. Ilagan said that because the bills recommendations take off from the actual experiences of Filipinos, especially of Filipino women, proves that the proposal was notplucked from thin air and that it was animated by the collective experience of married Filipinos desperately searching for real solutions to to failed marriages. The countrys legal system has been unable to respond to the reality of failed and broken unions and marriages. This bill is uniquely Filipino. It is not modeled after divorce systems of other countries. And, most importantly, it is sensitive to the rich and diverse cultural including moral and religious environment of our country, she said. Ilagan said that she and other proponents prefer to call the proposal that seeks to introduce as divorce-Filipino style.

HB 1799 proposes that divorce should be granted petitioners (1) who have been separated de facto from their spouse for at least five years and reconciliation is highly improbable; (2)who have been legally separated from their spouse for at least two years and reconciliation is improbable; (3) when any of the grounds for legal separation under paragraph (a) of Article 55 of the Family Code has caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage; (4) when one or both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations; and (5) when the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused irreparable breakdown of the marriage. Ilagan said that common and basic to all the grounds for divorce under the bill is that the marriage has already reached the point of no repair. She explained that the proposed measure also has provisions against possible abuses in resorting to divorce and that it has safeguards so it may not be used to destroy marriage and family as social institutions. These safeguards, she said, are the same with the safeguards for legal separation as can be found in Articles 56, 58 to 61 of the proposal. HB 1799 provides for equity between the spouses in divorce. It provides that the assets shall be equally divided between the spouses in order to provide for the well-being of each spouse and the children. It dissolves, in effect, the absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains since this property regime is inconsistent with divorce, she said. In the meantime, the proposal also leaves to the courts the duty to decide regarding the issue of custody of minor children based on their best interest and with provisions for their support. It states that in proper cases, the aggrieved party can claim damages in accordance with the Civil Code provisions on damages. It also provides that the parties will be disqualified from inheriting from each other by intestate succession and that any donation made by the innocent spouse in favour of the offending spouse may be revoked. The proposal also takes into consideration the matter of divorce obtained in foreign jurisdictions. It said that these will be considered valid in the Philippines as long as the divorce is grounded on the circumstances enumerated in Article 55 (B) of the proposal. The sanctity of marriage is not based on the number of marriages existing but on the quality of marital relationships. When a marriage is no longer viable, divorce should be an option, said Ilagan. Divorce in Philippine history The proponents of the divorce bill say that divorce had been part of the countrys legal system even before the arrival of the Spanish colonizers in the 16th century. Before the Spanish colonial rule, absolute divorce was widely practiced among ancestral tribes such as the Tagbanwas of Palawan, the Gadangs of Nueva Vizcaya, the Sagadans and Igorots of the Cordilleras, and the Manobos, Blaans and Moslems of the Visayas and Mindanao islands. Divorce was also available during the American period, starting from 1917 (under Act No. 2710 enacted by the Philippine Legislature), and during the Japanese occupation (under Executive Order No. 141) and after, until 1950, said Rep. de Jesus. It was only on August 30, 1950, when the New Civil Code took effect, that divorce was disallowed under Philippine law. Only legal separation was available. The same rule was adopted by the Family Code of 1988, which replaced the provisions of the New Civil Code on marriage and the family, although the Family Code introduced the concept of psychological incapacity as a basis for declaring the marriage void. In recognition of the history of divorce in the Philippines, the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution left the wisdom of legalizing divorce to the Congress. Thus, the 1987 Constitution does not prohibit the legalization of divorce. In the meantime, de Jesus said that the divorce proposal is respectful of and sensitive to differing religious beliefs in the Philippines. She said that it recognizes that the plurality of religious beliefs and cultural sensibilities in the Philippines demand that different remedies for failed marriages should be made available. Its because of this that we retained the existing remedies of legal separation. Couples may choose from these remedies depending on their situation, religious beliefs, cultural sensibilities, needs and emotional state, she said. De Jesus also said that while divorce under their bill severs the bonds of marriage, divorce as a remedy is not necessary for the purpose of remarriage. People can resort to it to achieve peace of mind and facilitate their pursuit of full human development, she said. She also explained that HB 1799 aims to make Philippine law consistent in the way it treats religious beliefs with respect to termination of marriage. Philippine law through the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1083 [1977]) allows divorce among Filipino Muslims, in deference to the Islamic faith which recognizes divorce. Non-Muslim Filipinos should have the same option under Philippine law, in accordance with their religious beliefs, she said.

Women already applying for divorce Women activists from Gabriela Southern Tagalog have already thrown their support behind the divorce proposal and demanded that President Benigno Aquino III support the bill as well. This is yet another important issue that the president should take a stand on. If Aquino really had a solid grounding on the issues affecting the Filipino people and women in particular, then he should not hesitate to give this proposal his support, said Rona Jane B. Manalo, Gabriela-Southern Tagalog secretary-general. Manalo said that there is an obvious need for a divorce bill in the country, and that in the communities their group help organize, there are already residents who want to apply for divorce if it would already passed into law. We have no intention of dissolving or destroying the Filipino family as an institution, but what we want are communities and a country where individuals have respect for one other and violence is not committed against women in faulty marriages. We have no need for unions or marriages where there is no respect, where the partners in it have no peace or happiness. Marriages that are no longer happy and those where the parties have resorted to hurting and abusing each other should be allowed to end, she said. In an interview with media, Ilagan said that some 800 cases for legal separation and annulment are filed before the Office of the Solicitor General each month. In the meantime, over 43,650 applications were recorded from 2001 to 2007. Women account for 61 percent of applicants, while 92 percent are Roman Catholic. Love is in the air? What is love anyway? Is it the heat derived from physical attraction? Is it the high that the financially capable and well endowed can provide? Is it the ring and marriage contract that defines a couple? Is it the number of children born out of the union? Is it undying loyalty? In a country where love is defined by all of the above and while all of the above are based on the temporal, why then is loves pit stop be a marriage contract? Just makes me ponder on divorce, if it was allowed during the time of Moses and Jesus, they might have seen divorce as a solution to a problem. Then why is it that the state does not provide this option to every Filipino when even the 3 Holy Books of the Jews, Christians and Muslims have marked it historically. Since the Philippines is a predominantly Catholic nation, lets define the whys of divorce based on Biblical theologically, the two Scriptural grounds for divorce and remarriage are: 1. Marital infidelity (sexual unfaithfulness) by the spouse. The innocent party may divorce and remarry. 2. A Christians unbelieving mate departs from the Christian. The divorced Christian is free to remarry. The Quran, Tanakh and the Bible have the same Mosaic Laws and the first 5 Books, so why are our men in robes acting on a moral high ground on House Bill (HB) 1799 or conveniently penned by media as the LATEST Divorce Bill? Again, wielding medieval power over the thin line that separates Church and State. They seem to have discounted Matthew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery., 1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. Matthew 5:31-32 It has been said, Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. Historically, divorce was practiced in the Philippines under the Divorce Law of 1917 (Act No. 2710), under the 1935 Constitution and during the Japanese occupation, pursuant to Executive Order No. 141 (1943) before it was removed in the New Civil Code. Even before Spain colonized the country, indigenous tribes such as the Tagbanua of Palawan, the Gadang and the Sagada of the Mt. Province, the Manobo of of Northern Mindanao and the Blaan of Southern Mindanao practiced divorce and upholds it to this day. Under Presidential Decree No. 1083, also known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, divorce is allowed in certain instances, but this law applies only when both parties are Muslims, or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law in any part of the Philippines. So, why is there discrimination on the basis of religion? For most of the go-with-the-flow, who thought that House Bill (HB) 1799 or An Act Introducing Divorce in the Philippines is patterned from the quick and easy Las Vegas model, HB 1799 lists down five grounds for the filing of a petition for divorce :

(1) the petitioner has been separated de facto (in fact) from his or her spouse for at least five years at the time of the filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable; (2) the petitioner has been legally separated from his or her spouse for at least two years at the time of the filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable; (3) When the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage; (4) When one or both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations; and (5) Any of the grounds for legal separation that has caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage. I see no wisdom from people who prescribe their opinion when they actually have not lived it. Would they be saying the same if they were the battered wives of philandering husbands? Would they say the same if they are the wives of a good for nothing bum who feeds off on the conjugal property? Would they say the same if they are subjected to marital rape? Would they say the same if they caught their wife in bed with another man over and over? You dont see those coming when one is madly in love. You see the strengths and faults of a partner when subjected to the realities of married life. Sometimes reconciliation is not enough to heal deep wounds. Scars re-open and bleed incessantly. Divorce isnt a threat to a marriage well founded on love and respect, for no human law can ever keep two people truly in love apart. Then why would a religion be threatened by a bill that provides an option that has been readily made available even before the Vatican came to existence? I reiterate, a part of 1 Corinthians 7:15 : God has called us to live in peace. I say YES to divorce, for it is an empowerment for couples to take the better and cost effective option to remedy irreconcilable differences detrimental to their well-being; an avenue for emancipation and for a second wind. Annulment as provided by our existing laws, is not the same as divorce. Annulment doesnt provide alimony and child support unless clearly stated in the final resolution of the case. Annulment is expensive, an extra and modest 5 digits is a must to support psychological incapacity. I say YES to divorce to rectify the mistake of those who fell into the Filipino small town mindset that the next best choice to redemption for a woman once considered as damaged goods is MARRIAGE. Divorce is for the many who had been deluded, that being a beaming & blushing bride would last forever. For the many that had been deluded, that love can be learned. For the many that had been deluded, that children galvanize a marriage. Once trials set in, only true love survives. Lovers are easy finds; sell sex and it is bought; hook, line & sinker but how many people are worthy of respect and to be remembered for a lifetime as someone for the books. RARE. Stability, looks and intelligence are not enough; taking out the prerequisite that would define love, as God has defined love to be, with respect and unconditional understanding, no ifs and buts then its all a fallacy. No strong future can ever be built on a shabby foundation. A marriage contract cannot define a husband and wife, when neither lives by the very definition of the Holy Books. Gods best plan for every married couple is that they remain married, and HAPPILY so. The one-flesh marriage bond expires when either husband or wife falls out of it. My spiritual journey has brought me to the fact and the realization that because God loves us so much and wants us to uphold the Mosaic Law, apoluo , the Greek word for DIVORCE, Greek being one of the original Biblical languages, was permitted by God regardless of its disservice to His grace, rather than having His children commit adultery and live in chaos. When a survivor learns to redefine ones self, not only does one redeem ones self but moreover, the children survives the dross. What needs to be done is to pick up what was left and do away with the delusions. Put up a brave face against the small town mentalities that plague the rebound and move on. Remember that in relationships, it always takes two to tango. A marriage fails because the couple have both forgotten to appreciate the basic human frailty present among every individual. Somehow when we learn to live beyond what we view and hear, we learn to see and listen to the prevailing Biblical exhortation to forgive one another and that includes ones self. It is when we seek God diligently in the repercussions of the mistakes and trials that we undergo and to find it in us the grace to forgive, learn and forget, only then can we live within the Great Grandmasters plan.