As a very active participant in the deliberations of the members of the Committee on the Family headed by former Justice Ceclia Munoz Palma (who was at the same time the Chair of the entire 50-member Constitutional Commission), I can attest to the fact that in the minds of the Committee members and subsequently among the large majority of the Commissioners, the marriage bond should be indissoluble so that absolute divorce should not be allowed under Philippine laws.  In fact, I vividly remember how a good number of secular Nongovernmental Organizations  (NGOs) as well as religious organizations would frequently conduct sit-ins in front of the Congress building carrying placards which contained pro-life and pro-family messages.  Individual members of these organizations would wait for the delegates outside the gate and talk to each one about their pro-family and pro-life stance.  They even brought celebrities to add a joyful note to their campaigning.   I still remember a famous singer at that time, Celeste Legaspi, who would entertain the delegates and the campaigners with musical hits of that generation.

            As the years passed by, these NGOs and religious organizations have remained vigilant in making sure that those pro-life and pro-family provisions would be respected by future Governments.  In fact, one of them—Pro-Life Philippines—came out at the height of the deliberations in the House of Representative on House Bill No. 9349 legalizing absolute divorce with a leaflet that present well-argued non-religious reasons against legalizing absolute divorce in the Philippines.  First, Pro-Life Philippines argues that strengthening marriage strengthens the Philippines.  The wisdom of our Philippine Constitution mandates our legislators to “strengthen the family as an autonomous social institution and to protect the inviolable social institution of marriage as the foundation of the family.  Especially in the last thirty years or so, this wisdom has been confirmed by robust social science research that shows that the institution of marriage benefits society in a number of ways.  Among these clear benefits are high-quality committed relationships; greater happiness; better health, physical and mental; greater wealth; and improved parenting ability. 

            Divorce will add to our country’s problems rather than solve them.  We should learn from the experiences of other countries who have legalized absolute divorce.  Researches in the various fields of the social sciences have come out with the following negative effects of divorce:  (1) More crimes and child abuse; (2) More suicides and premature deaths of children; (3) More health problems and more depression; (4) Increased poverty.  All these entail additional costs to the Government.  For example, in the U.S., research has shown that if the U.S. Government pledged to reduce family breakdowns by just one percent, taxpayers would save around US $ 1.1 billion yearly.

            There are alternative solutions to marriage problems that already exist or can be developed.  It is notable that the reason given by those who voted for the House Bill No. 9349 is to “give another chance for marital bliss to those in an unhappy marriage.”    There is empirical evidence in countries with absolute divorce laws which shows that divorcees are not happier and they tend to have greater failures in their subsequent marriages.  Serial divorcees are not uncommon in the U.S., for example, especially among celebrities.  Given all these findings, it would seem wiser for the common good of society to look for solutions to marriage problems which do not lead to the destruction of the very institution that gives so much happiness to families and consequently to the whole nation.

            It is possible to look for alternative solutions to the problem of those who are trapped in an unhappy marriage.  First there is the declaration of nullity which is permitted in both civil and canon laws.  These laws can be finetuned and, as Senate President Chiz Escudero  proposes, getting an annulment should be simplified and made available at  much lower costs to the poor.  There can also be therapeutic separation for couples in gravely intolerable situations.  Both the Government and civil society organizations should multiply and intensify marriage preparation courses, many of which can be held online.  Congress should consider passing laws that help married couples address financial and other difficulties, such as tax deduction for each new child (without putting limits); improved leave benefits for father and mother with new born children; humane housing standards to accommodate larger families; flexible minimum wages to adjust to additional children; financial support for the education of children; improved social security (SSS and GSIS) to support families with larger number of children.  We need not wait until we reach the demographic crisis that practically all advanced countries are now facing to pass children-friendly laws.

            As regards the damaging effects on children and society of divorce, let me quote from a colleague of mine at the University of Asia and the Pacific, Dr. Jemy Gatdula, a prominent constitutionalist and political scientist.  I wouldn’t be surprised if this article which he wrote in August 2017 influenced  former President Rodrigo Duterte, not known for religious piety, to oppose   a divorce bill that was filed by the very same Congressman Edcel Lagman who must be congratulated at least for his admirable persistence in trying to introduce divorce into our country. Former President Duterte categorically opposed a divorce law because he said that the worst victims are children. Dr. Gatdula started by quoting, of all people, the former President of the United States, Barack Obama:  “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 twenty 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.”

            Dr. Gatdula pointed out that nowadays social commentators usually blame social media for the rising cases of depression, suicidal tendencies, mental illness, and inability to handle stress among today’s children.  They tend to ignore a more obvious cause:  the changing family structure.  Adolescent depression and suicide are closely linked with divorce and single parenting.   Teens who live with a single parent have twice the rate of suicide attempts than those who live with both parents.  The same is true of other forms of distress and self-harm.

            Then Dr. Gatdula referred to studies of Professor Robert George of Princeton University who clearly spells  out the benefits to society of making marriage inviolable:  “Marriage is the original and best department of health, education and welfare.  It plays an indispensable role in providing children with the structure, nurturing and education that enable them to flourish and to contribute to the flourishing of others.  It enables them to become people who will respect themselves and respect others and will order their own lives according to virtues like honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, the willingness to work hard, to defer gratification, and to respect the property and lives of others.” One cannot contemplate the horrifying images of the breakdown of law and order in U.S. cities like San Francisco and Philadelphia without instinctively relating it to the weakening of family ties.  To be continued.