Divorce In The Philippines

[mc_darklight]

i'll go with divorce, just be an open minded para maunawaan nyo.

[hon_23]

basta ako sobrang agree sa divorce.. How i wish magkaroon na rin ng divorce dito sa atin.. Naging issue to sa Senado di ba? Di ko na nasubaybayan eh...

[pedrolabasulo]

pede na yun sa atin, be practical na tayo dapat

[Hudson]

I agree that we should have divorce in the Philippines. It was deliberated during the framing of the 1987 constitution but was deleted when it lost by a very small margin during the voting process. If you get to read the family code, it pretty much favors the women.

[MA]

Yes, please! I've seen a lot of failed marriages in this country that is beyond salvation, and I don't believe  in couples staying together even though the relationship is obviously f**ked up. Unfortunately for us, the Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country, and the chances of getting divorce implemented here can be compared to a snowball's chance in hell. So-called moralists came up with various arguments as to why divorce is evil, they keep on insisting that divorce would ruin the lives of the children and that couples who are joined together by God in the holy bonds of marriage should not be torn apart. Would you still subscribe to this bullshit even though the husband is beating the wife to a pulp every night and spending hard-earned money on gambling, alcohol and other women? (Women have their faults too, just to be fair to the men.) Would you still not contemplate breaking off the union even though the children are getting traumatized to listening to their parents yelling at the top of their lungs for all the neighbors to hear? Children would be better off in a civilized arrangement where the parents are divorced, peacefully, and not biting each other's heads off. Conservatives have to accept that not all relationships can be mended, and that dissolving it is a far better solution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree with you completely BMW.

 

Good points you raised there.

 

In addition, i heard divorce is cheaper and a lot easier to file and obtain compared to annulment. This, to my think, should ease up the financial concerns of couples who want to pursue individual happiness but are held back by financial inadequacies.

 

Also, i think it's lame for couples to dilly-dally on the decision to separate (because obviously they can no longer co-exist) on account of the kids. I think kids nowadays are wiser beyond their age - I mean, I am at times surprised at how good they are in communicating their thoughts. And the questions they ask (goodness!) often leave me stunned and groping for answers. So having said that, I think cowering behind the pretense of "marital bliss" just to protect the kids from the harsh realities of life is tantamount to insulting the very core of their intelligence. I'm not saying the kids won't be devastated by the split as I'm sure the whole process will be just as painful to them as it is for the parents petitioning for the divorce/dissolution of marriage. But that isn't something that can't be solved by talking to them and properly explaining the situation. That's infinitely better than having them witness perpetual mudslinging and constant blame-trading between parents.

 

Just my thought on the matter.

[adriane888]

dapat lang ang divorce sa Phiippines.. para sa mga insecure lang ang ayaw pumyag at closed minded na sila..

 

At para mapetisyon na ng nanay ko ang tatay ko kasi matagal ng hiwaly ang tatay ko sa unang asawa nya...

[lomex32]

I agree for Divorce plus suspension of Parental Authority

 

Allow me to elaborate to extend a balance below

Would you still subscribe to this bullshit even though

- The wife irresponsibly squanders the family's moreso the husbands earnings on relentless shopping gambling and socializing ... and asks for more ...

- The wife with all the livings intended for children are frittered away by lavish unnecesary spendings

- The wife is undulged adulterous and fictitious lifestyle

 

 

....... would ruin the lives of the children and that couples who are joined together by God in the holy bonds of marriage should not be torn apart. Would you still subscribe to this bullshit even though the husband is beating the wife to a pulp every night and spending hard-earned money on gambling, alcohol and other women? (Women have their faults too, just to be fair to the men.) .....Children would be better off in a civilized arrangement where the parents are divorced, peacefully, and not biting each other's heads off. ......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Rovy_R]

I totally agree... two people no longer one... We must not live life in misery by being a martyr... divorce works both ways...

[Tanya08]

Yes, please! I've seen a lot of failed marriages in this country that is beyond salvation, and I don't believe  in couples staying together even though the relationship is obviously f**ked up. Unfortunately for us, the Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country, and the chances of getting divorce implemented here can be compared to a snowball's chance in hell. So-called moralists came up with various arguments as to why divorce is evil, they keep on insisting that divorce would ruin the lives of the children and that couples who are joined together by God in the holy bonds of marriage should not be torn apart. Would you still subscribe to this bullshit even though the husband is beating the wife to a pulp every night and spending hard-earned money on gambling, alcohol and other women? (Women have their faults too, just to be fair to the men.) Would you still not contemplate breaking off the union even though the children are getting traumatized to listening to their parents yelling at the top of their lungs for all the neighbors to hear? Children would be better off in a civilized arrangement where the parents are divorced, peacefully, and not biting each other's heads off. Conservatives have to accept that not all relationships can be mended, and that dissolving it is a far better solution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yes its true, i am one of those kids na na-traumatized every time my parents fights each other, sobrang violente kse nila pagnagaaway sila, makikita mo silang nagsusuntukan sa harap mo. ever since nde n sila nagkasundo, and its really obvious na nde n nila mahal ang isat isa, so wat happened is, my 2 siblings didn’t finished their studies my young bro got into drugs then my young sis got pregnant and get married at very early age(17y/o) just to get away with my parents. my siblings life ruined and you cant blame them kung weak sila sa situation ng family nmen. I think it would have got better if maybe sna naghiwalay n lng sila nuon pa. of cors we still want to live with our both birth parents, but really in a family like ours you would feel na ok lng khit nde n lng. wag n lng..

[babymaker]

Ako I agree.. mukang d2 na lng sa philippines walang divorce.. pero marame din nman saten ang broken family khit walang divorce nde pa nasusuportahan ng maayos ang mga naiwang anak.. kung me divorce na d2 cguro mabibigyan na din ng tamang share yung mga kids yung tipong automatically ibabawas na agad sa sweldo yung sustento n dapat sa bata. O dba. kyo watyatink?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The government should get out of the business of marriage.

Marriage should have NEVER been a government's undertaking.

The problem with the government or any government's idea of a marriage contract is that it is a moving target, always changing with the times, with the whims of each congressman, senator or president.

What kind of a contract is that if it keeps changing as times go by?

Good grief! Would you sign such a contract?

Give me a break!

 

Each to his own contract.

I say each to his own religious ceremony ONLY.

Never sign up with any government sanctioned marriage!!!

 

[lomex32]

In short you mean There is no Divorce if there was no Marriage at the first place .... hmm

 

My friend as you and your partner move along there are elements produce, spent, invested, enjoyed and as time goes by it becomes greater.....

 

As time goes by the any of the partner's needs or wants changes ..... this is a moving target

How will then things be settled ... which of the elements goes to whom ?

 

I fully agree to you that government or yet not even anyone should interfer but who will?

 

 

The government should get out of the business of marriage.

Marriage should have NEVER been a government's undertaking.

The problem with the government or any government's idea of a marriage contract is that it is a moving target, always changing with the times, with the whims of each congressman, senator or president.

What kind of a contract is that if it keeps changing as times go by?

Good grief!  Would you sign such a contract?

Give me a break!

 

Each to his own contract.

I say each to his own religious ceremony ONLY.

Never sign up with any government sanctioned marriage!!!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[lomex32]

Correct.

 

If you look at Rupublic Act 9262 "Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004" masyadong pinapaboran ung mga babae ....

 

Even judges are doing so .... from the mere testimony of a woman alone even in the absence of witnesses they give a high merit

 

If there is Divorce men can avoid 9262 so they can leave and live

 

I agree that we should have divorce in the Philippines.  It was deliberated during the framing of the 1987 constitution but was deleted when it lost by a very small margin during the voting process.  If you get to read the family code, it pretty much favors the women.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[new2dabeat]

Divorce - both husband- OR wife-initiated - should be an integral part of any truly "mature" society. If the couple has a real desire to "work things out," great, and more power to them. Once all reasonable options are exhausted, a legally-sanctioned option should be available.

 

Annulment is a joke ("let's pretend that marriage never happened"). "Legal Separation" is a joke (it's not Divorce if you can't call it Divorce). Going-and-acting-your-separate-ways-while-still-legally-married is a joke.

 

More to the point, why even marry?

 

In this day and age, there certainly aren't any significant advantages to marriage (I'm speaking of situations wherein both partners are on an equal footing - finance-wise especially). And let's face it, if one's primary purpose for getting married is to be 'supported' by their spouse, you had better well cater to EVERY whim demanded by said spouse. Seriously. Such is not a "partnership" - it's called "employment."

 

Come to think of it, Divorce would still be usable in such a situation. The "employee" is free to "quit" and look for another "job." The "employer" is free to fire a non-performing "employee" and hire a better one.

[MA]

More to the point, why even marry?

 

In this day and age, there certainly aren't any significant advantages to marriage (I'm speaking of situations wherein both partners are on an equal footing - finance-wise especially). And let's face it, if one's primary purpose for getting married is to be 'supported' by their spouse, you had better well cater to EVERY whim demanded by said spouse. Seriously. Such is not a "partnership" - it's called "employment." 

 

Come to think of it, Divorce would still be usable in such a situation. The "employee" is free to "quit" and look for another "job." The "employer" is free to fire a non-performing "employee" and hire a better one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

hahaha. That is sooo true new2dabeat.

 

I often tell my friends that the day I marry will be the day I have my annulment money in the bank. Don't get me wrong, I dream of getting married someday soon. Well, actually, it's the WEDDING (the gown, reception, honeymoon, the whole shebang!) that mystifies me - more than anything. I mean, come on, the idea of spending the rest of my life with just one man scares me shitless. I know i am capable of loving - but up to what extent and for how long is something I can't answer in all certainty. So essentially, i am just protecting myself (in a way) by planning for the inevitable: that someday soon, when all the lovin' is gone I'm gonna have to break free from the chains of marriage. And I swear I won't be like any of those women who bear their pains, suffering, and frustrations in silence just because they don't have the financial capability to file for annulment.

 

As for your "employment theory", I suppose there's some truth to it. And i will be the first one to come out and say "Yah, i've thought about it." Truth be told, I like the idea of having someone to go home to, sleep with, cook meals/dinner with. But more importantly, split the bills/utilities/expenses with. It becomes disadvantageous, however, when one party earns so much more than the other. Thus, he/she ends up assuming the bigger chunk of their daily/monthly/yearly expenses. Something which I don't think will matter much assuming both parties are insanely in love with each other. Ah, but when love goes the way of the natural wear and tear schema, money and who-spends-more-than-who becomes an issue.

 

But then again, one can always have that (i'm referring to the expense-sharing practice here) even without the sacrament of marriage. One simply has to find someone he/she can live with and do just that. In which case, divorce/annulment/legal separation and the crippling financial implications that go with it become unnecessary.

[new2dabeat]

As for your "employment theory", I suppose there's some truth to it.    And i will be the first one to come out and say "Yah, i've thought about it."   Truth be told, I like the idea of having someone to go home to, sleep with, cook meals/dinner with.  But more importantly, split the bills/utilities/expenses with.   It becomes disadvantageous, however, when one party earns so much more than the other.  Thus, he/she ends up assuming the bigger chunk of their daily/monthly/yearly expenses.  Something which I don't think will matter much assuming both parties are insanely in love with each other.  Ah, but when love goes the way of the natural wear and tear schema, money and who-spends-more-than-who becomes an issue.

 

But then again, one can always have that (i'm referring to the expense-sharing practice here) even without the sacrament of marriage.  One simply has to find someone he/she can live with and do just that.  In which case, divorce/annulment/legal separation and the crippling financial implications that go with it become unnecessary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Exactly. Note that marriage has *never* (I speak historically here) been for the purposes of "love." Marriages have always been predicated on politics and economics:

 

Politics: Marrying into / with Family X guarantess security (whether it be military, political, social, or economic, see below).

 

Economics: This is the real clincher as it crosses all boundaries of any society (Politics usually only serves the elite of a given society). If you're poor, you marry to be "supported" (note that this means that said support is in return for tangible contributions: husband tills the farm, wife keeps the household in working order and - yes, this is part of the "duty" - provides sex. If you're middle-class, marrying another middle-class person expands your business base (merchant house marries merchant house - shades of Politics start entering at this level). Upper-class Economic marriages fall under the rubric of Politics.

 

Love is a luxury of the modern era - and that should further be confined to well-to-do societies. Why? Because of Politics and Economics. !Kung bushmen of the Kalahari do NOT marry for love. Australian aborigines do NOT marry for love. Chinese peasant farmers do NOT marry for love. Closer to home, Philippine peasant farmers do NOT marry for love.

 

As such, if one claims to marry for "love," then one should be fully capable of supporting themselves regardless of the marriage. Too, one should also accept the REALITY (yes ladies, it's true, you'll understand when you've grown past your hello kitty-hugging years) that love IS fleeting - irrespective of what modern media (literature, movies, pop-culture, even good old "values" systems) would have you believe. Don't mistake a long-lasting marriage (folks you know who've celebrated 10, 15, 25, 50, etc years of marriage) as "love." More often than not, it's because of economics.

 

A couple who has *lived together* (not married) for the same lengths of time are a truer representation of being together for "love" than any marriage.