Divorce In The Philippines

[jetstorm]

f#&k THAT ANALOGY.

We may f#&k the analogy but what you've just mentioned doesn't actually refute the assertion I made, nor even try.

 

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS: THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF COUPLES THAT LIVE TOGETHER ONLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES.

 

THERE ARE EVEN MORE THAT ARE SEPARATED AND COULD NOT GET MARRIED TO THEIR CHOICE OF A PARTNER BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES.

 

FOR THEM, LIFE IS A COMPLICATED THING.

 

And so? Does that deny the fact that the unity of the family is still the societal fabric? Marriage by nature isn't just a simple contract regarding a sale or exchange of goods that can be conveniently terminated. Given its differing nature, transgressions within the married state is meant to be handled differently from a normal contract.

 

It has been proven through numerous studies that divorces have a long term negative effect in the family for starters - from reductions in living standards, to problematic children, to radical changes in relationships with people taking either side of the divorcing couple. Multiply this effect to a larger segment of society and you end up with a community that can't stand together, or indifferent, or apathetic to society simply because their answers to problems is to start schism than persevering.

 

You can't have a strong family with the couple in schism. You can't achieve unity of the household through division. A society divided against itself cannot stand for long. If society actively supports schism, it's hastening its fall.

 

There are more secular reasons why not. We'll not be touching the other reason as we may have an even longer debate.

 

AND WHY CAN'T WE HAVE DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES? BECAUSE THE CHURCH MEDDLES IN STATE AFFAIRS.

 

 

BUT LOOK AT THE CHURCH THESE DAYS. HOW MANY SCANDALS HAVE ROCKED THEM GLOBALLY? SEXUAL SCANDALS THAT IS. IN THE UNITED STATES ALONE, HOW MUCH IS THE CHURCH PAYING TO KEEP COMPLAINTS OUT OF COURT?

 

Look at the Church ever since the day it started. It survived a persecuting Israel, it survived persecutions by the Roman empire, it survived endless scandals brought by numerous schisms and the Protestant revolt, it still survives scandals brought by many unworthy and sinful members (from Judas, to unworthy popes, corrupt clergy, from past to the present), numerous internal (from Sedevancavists, abusive Charismatics, liberal theologians and modernist teachers) and external dissent (from every other doctrinally-disunited Christian group that are only united by their hate of Rome), and yet it still stands. It has outlasted all empires and kingdoms of men. If it was merely human-made it would have crumbled a long time ago.

 

So what's the point of dragging the Church here?

 

WE CAN HAVE A MORE HAPPY SOCIETY IF COUPLES THAT HAVE DECIDED TO SEPARATE CAN REMARRY THEIR CHOICE OF A PARTNER.

 

That's actually debatable.

[friendly0603]

in laymans term divorce is the easiest way to get out in a failed marriage...while annulment is more rigid and costly...

 

why need a divorce if there is annulment which i think in has the same concept and effect...

 

do we like filipinos na ang kontrata ng kasal para na lang simpleng kontrata which we can rescind anytime we want...

 

theres nothin special in the two countries where it dont have a divorce it just simply means the state respect the sanctity of marriage as an inviolable sociaL INSTITUTION...

 

it is not just im against in it...ill just find it unreasonable to sign a contract of marriage which like just a simple contract...

 

we do have the luxury of knowing who we want to be with for the rest of my life and if we fail dont just passed the blame to state for not having a law on divorce...in the first we place the state did not force you to sign the contract of marriage...it is we who decide on that matter...and if what we expect did not happen accept the consequences of it...

 

Annulment is actually easier since you don't have to support your ex-spouse since the marriage was never valid. Divorce is needed because it isn't the same concept. Some people do grow apart and aren't the same people when they got married. And some of course or most got married because of getting pregnant, forced to or anything else which wasn't really a conscious decision. The effect is the same but so is just leaving your spouse or living with another person.

 

Progress i think is more important for countries. I would assume that a first world country must be doing something right if they didn't allow divorce and therefore their society and family structure is better than us. But these two to be the exception, i beg to differ. If the state respected marriage, it probably respects a lot more. Why can religious person decide later that they want out of a priesthood/nunnery? Isn't that a marriage with God? Shouldn't that be unbreakable compared to marriage of two people.

 

For most people, even religion is just shoved down your throat. Not a lot of people actually choose their religion. If the spaniards didn't colonize the phils, do you think we would even have christianity or sanctity of marriage. Ever thought of why the people who spread christianity/catholicisim to the phils actually have divorce? The source should be more strict that those who just implemented or copied them, right? Why would you say that marriage is sacred? Isn't it a law as well? Why is there a need to enforce laws for those that violate marriage?

 

The reason why divorce won't happen in the phils because the unfaithful would be forced to pay alimony, will result in pre-nuptial agreements, child support payments. Right now, the unfaithful have the freedom to do anything they want. In other countries, the child support payments are actually deducted directly by the government.

 

This is one of the reasons why this won't happen because we elect crooks and morally deficient leaders who can't afford or not choose to have this kind of law .

 

And I say if you truly love each other, there's no stopping you from marrying them a second time. Divorce should be the last recourse for those having problems in their marriage. It shouldn't be the first option. But if divorce isn't there, there is no option.

 

Why do people even engage in a second marriage to the same person when the first one already meant forever? Redundant and expensive to do... just doesn't make sense except for those who are very rich and throwing money away isn't a problem.

[friendly0603]

So what's the point of dragging the Church here?

 

Because the Church influences the state which shouldn't be the case. Religion is different from government. Did you know that Spain which was so religious at the time it was spreading christianity believed in slavery? Is slavery right? No, that's why governments are against it.

 

Because religion makes you follow ur leader and vote for this person because he said so. Stand for your own beliefs.

[jetstorm]

Because the Church influences the state which shouldn't be the case. Religion is different from government. Did you know that Spain which was so religious at the time it was spreading christianity believed in slavery? Is slavery right? No, that's why governments are against it.

 

Believed in slavery? Oh please. One only needs to check history that Christianity actually removed the slave status. Now, as to how secular authorities handled things - it's their own ball game.

 

Btw, it wasn't the Church that perpetuated slavery, you know, even in the Southern states? The Church doesn't have a voice there in the 60's.

 

Because religion makes you follow ur leader and vote for this person because he said so. Stand for your own beliefs.

 

Because modernism and relativism pursue individual man as his own authority. Modern man is so accustomed to saying that there's no absolute truth, and yet he can't reconcile that the said statement is being peddled as an absolute truth. Logically the idea negates itself, and QED cannot be true.

[friendly0603]

The root of the philippine christianity is Spain. I didn't say the church believed in slavery.

 

If I remember from Amistad, it was the queen of spain who wanted to stop america from freeing the slaves. It is a work of fiction but i think most of these kind of movies are based on some sort of truth unlike harry potter which is pure fiction.

 

No voice of church in the southern states - pertaining to US? I never mentioned that.

 

I really can't relate why the country that proudly claims that it is the most christian/catholic nation in the world have the most corrupt leaders and haven't progressed the way it was supposed to be/projected to be.

 

when people believed that the world is flat, the minority believed and proved that it was round - so the major belief/truth was changed. Probably divorce wasn't that popular when it started but it changed the world and spread.

 

Did divorce propagate in the phils? No. So will the "No divorce" ideology/belief spread around the world because it is the truth and that it is right. --- I will wait for that to happen - probably not in my lifetime....

[friendly0603]

The root of the philippine christianity is Spain. I didn't say the church believed in slavery.

 

If I remember from Amistad, it was the queen of spain who wanted to stop america from freeing the slaves. It is a work of fiction but i think most of these kind of movies are based on some sort of truth unlike harry potter which is pure fiction.

 

No voice of church in the southern states - pertaining to US? I never mentioned that.

 

I really can't relate why the country that proudly claims that it is the most christian/catholic nation in the world have the most corrupt leaders and haven't progressed the way it was supposed to be/projected to be.

 

when people believed that the world is flat, the minority believed and proved that it was round - so the major belief/truth was changed. Probably divorce wasn't that popular when it started but it changed the world and spread.

 

Did divorce propagate in the phils? No. So will the "No divorce" ideology/belief spread around the world because it is the truth and that it is right. --- I will wait for that to happen - probably not in my lifetime....

[jetstorm]

I really can't relate why the country that proudly claims that it is the most christian/catholic nation in the world have the most corrupt leaders and haven't progressed the way it was supposed to be/projected to be.

 

when people believed that the world is flat, the minority believed and proved that it was round - so the major belief/truth was changed. Probably divorce wasn't that popular when it started but it changed the world and spread.

 

Actually divorces came earlier before the reestablishment of marriage as indissoluble. Divorces were dispensed in the pre-Christian era to prevent spouses who hated each other from killing each other in order to get remarried. It was permitted for "a people found to be so hard to teach".

 

Divorces only came back with Martin Luther, in his attempt for a state-sponsored church that is separate from the state, recognized secular divorces in his "church"

 

http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/History/...omen/WR0913.htm

[tranzfixer]

Annulment is actually easier since you don't have to support your ex-spouse since the marriage was never valid. Divorce is needed because it isn't the same concept. . The effect is the same but so is just leaving your spouse or living with another person.

 

Progress i think is more important for countries. I would assume that a first world country must be doing something right if they didn't allow divorce and therefore their society and family structure is better than us. But these two to be the exception, i beg to differ. If the state respected marriage, it probably respects a lot more. Why can religious person decide later that they want out of a priesthood/nunnery? Isn't that a marriage with God? Shouldn't that be unbreakable compared to marriage of two people.

 

For most people, even religion is just shoved down your throat. Not a lot of people actually choose their religion. If the spaniards didn't colonize the phils, do you think we would even have christianity or sanctity of marriage. Ever thought of why the people who spread christianity/catholicisim to the phils actually have divorce? The source should be more strict that those who just implemented or copied them, right? Why would you say that marriage is sacred? Isn't it a law as well? Why is there a need to enforce laws for those that violate marriage?

 

The reason why divorce won't happen in the phils because the unfaithful would be forced to pay alimony, will result in pre-nuptial agreements, child support payments. Right now, the unfaithful have the freedom to do anything they want. In other countries, the child support payments are actually deducted directly by the government.

 

This is one of the reasons why this won't happen because we elect crooks and morally deficient leaders who can't afford or not choose to have this kind of law .

 

And I say if you truly love each other, there's no stopping you from marrying them a second time. Divorce should be the last recourse for those having problems in their marriage. It shouldn't be the first option. But if divorce isn't there, there is no option.

 

Why do people even engage in a second marriage to the same person when the first one already meant forever? Redundant and expensive to do... just doesn't make sense except for those who are very rich and throwing money away isn't a problem.

 

i beg to disagree annulment is not the easier way out of marriage...you dont know your law...in annulment cases you have to prove that the 3 requisites of valid marriage are absent ...ie consent,legal age of the contracting party and authority of solemnizing officer...

while in divorce the grounds are mainly the act of the contracting parties in the marriage ie cruelty, incurable mental illness or adultery.....the above grounds are not available in annulment case except psycological incapacity which the party/ies failed to do his duties as husband/wife..

i say it has the same concept because in two cases the marriage ties is cut and the party/ies can remarry.and most important point both in two cases they are not obliged to support his/her partner..however in case of the innocent spouse can collect the financial benefits of marriage, such as the rights to community property, spousal support, child support, and equitable contribution to attorney fees for litigation expenses.

maybe you are miscontrued the fact that in both cases support to the child is neccesary and obligatory...(not the support to partner)..

"""""Some people do grow apart and aren't the same people when they got married. And some of course or most got married because of getting pregnant, forced to or anything else which wasn't really a conscious decision""""

why leaving the burden to the state the consequences of commiting ourself to others when it did not turn out well..

 

'''"This is one of the reasons why this won't happen because we elect crooks and morally deficient leaders who can't afford or not choose to have this kind of law . """"i think this argument is way out of line...if i may suggest you read first family code of the philippines which i think one of the best law ever been legislatated....

 

 

 

peace...

[wOwShakes]

a BIG BIG BIG YES!!!! :thumbsupsmiley: :thumbsupsmiley: :thumbsupsmiley:

[friendly0603]

i beg to disagree annulment is not the easier way out of marriage...you dont know your law...in annulment cases you have to prove that the 3 requisites of valid marriage are absent ...ie consent,legal age of the contracting party and authority of solemnizing officer...

while in divorce the grounds are mainly the act of the contracting parties in the marriage ie cruelty, incurable mental illness or adultery.....the above grounds are not available in annulment case except psycological incapacity which the party/ies failed to do his duties as husband/wife..

i say it has the same concept because in two cases the marriage ties is cut and the party/ies can remarry.and most important point both in two cases they are not obliged to support his/her partner..however in case of the innocent spouse can collect the financial benefits of marriage, such as the rights to community property, spousal support, child support, and equitable contribution to attorney fees for litigation expenses.

maybe you are miscontrued the fact that in both cases support to the child is neccesary and obligatory...(not the support to partner)..

"""""Some people do grow apart and aren't the same people when they got married. And some of course or most got married because of getting pregnant, forced to or anything else which wasn't really a conscious decision""""

why leaving the burden to the state the consequences of commiting ourself to others when it did not turn out well..

 

'''"This is one of the reasons why this won't happen because we elect crooks and morally deficient leaders who can't afford or not choose to have this kind of law . """"i think this argument is way out of line...if i may suggest you read first family code of the philippines which i think one of the best law ever been legislatated....

 

peace...

 

sir, are you a lawyer? I'm not. Why did i say it was easier? I said it was easier because after getting annulment, you are free of obligations to your ex-spouse. In divorce, you still have an obligation - most burden of all is the financial part. Psycological incapacity is a farce to me. Almost all rich people can avail of an annulment based on this. One thing you failed to mentioned if both parties agree to a divorce, it is possible to occur not only on the basis you mentioned above. I believe it's "no fault" divorce (incompatibility," "irreconcilable differences" or "irremediable breakdown of the marriage).

 

If you are incapable of getting married (psychologically), how come later on you are allowed to? Let's say you married wife 1, annulled her, go on to marry wife 2 - are you psychologically capable now? If not, annul wife 2, - should you be allowed to marry wife 3? If you weren't gay before, and became gay later? Or if you were gay and was reborn now to be straight, should you be allowed to marry now?

 

I never question the support for the child. The divorce is an issue with the spouses and not children. Custody is the issue with that.

 

If you leave your spouse, it has the same effect so is it the other option that is equivalent to the two above? Why isn't it the same concept? Because in the first place, it was never a valid marriage... Everything that happened after or before the marriage was false. Divorce means that initially you did agree to marry this person but later on you cannot make it work for any reason. Means at the time you married, all the words/contract were true. If you remove psychological incapacity, i probably to the terms of annulment and that would mean everyone should be stuck to the person they marry even if it was a mistake

 

I put on the burden to the state because the society is at fault. most phils, would force their daughter to get married when she get pregnant? Is this not a given? This is a real world observation of the phils. Of course there are some that don't, that is the minority.

 

""""i think this argument is way out of line...if i may suggest you read first family code of the philippines which i think one of the best law ever been legislatated....""""

 

I have read the philippine family code. If it is the one of the best laws out there, shouldn't it be copied or be the basis of other countries laws? This is a patriarchal society and the men who generalization are/were womanize/polygamous - kaya nga may MTC eh - and will not support this kind of law.

 

I don't want to go further into family code since it has been changed. Just like the death penalty, allowed one time - banned the next.

 

Peace 2 u too... I'm a very logical person so prove your points and I will accept them...

[louiemagic]

it doesnt matter if you agree or not. the PI is a conservative country.. where the catholic church treasures the sacrament of MATRIMONY.... so divorce??? DEFINITELY OUT OF THE QUESTION.. hehehe

Edited May 22, 2008 by louiemagic

[friendly0603]

stay out of mtc, louiemagic. you are in a conservative country hehehe

 

i don't care about what the catholic church has to say.

 

Divorce is a state issue.... - it's a law. If you want it and the faith doesn't allow it, it doesn't matter as long as the govt allows it.

Edited May 23, 2008 by friendly0603

[orionblaze000]

Eyyy call me "old school" but i am not really into this divorce thing. It would only be a cheap excuse to end up a relationship, and marriage will be nothing more than an extension of a "pretrial" relationship. Like a freaking "MU" thing.. ( which i reall don't understand). I'm into 2 parties living together for a number of years,

you know just to test the waters and see if they are truly compatible ( in sex, and other stuff) then after that get married. Now having children during this Wedlock should not force these parties into getting married ok.. I know it will be complicated but remember marriage is forever. Thru thick and thin, in sickness and in health. richer or poorer..

[tranzfixer]

One thing you failed to mentioned if both parties agree to a divorce, it is possible to occur not only on the basis you mentioned above. I believe it's "no fault" divorce (incompatibility," "irreconcilable differences" or "irremediable breakdown of the marriage).

you proven my point here that divorce is an easiest way to get out of marriage..by just a colussion between the spouse the divorce can be granted..while in annulment me collusion report pa from fiscal and the office of the sol gen will comment or file its opposition...

 

why i said it has the same concept and effect or i qualify almost ?why we need divorce to cut the marriage ties and remarry which basically available in annulment...the effect of whether it is apply retroactively is out of the question...

 

If you are incapable of getting married (psychologically), how come later on you are allowed to? Let's say you married wife 1, annulled her, go on to marry wife 2 - are you psychologically capable now? If not, annul wife 2, - should you be allowed to marry wife 3? If you weren't gay before, and became gay later? Or if you were gay and was reborn now to be straight, should you be allowed to marry now?

 

i follow your logic sir so if you file a divorce because of irreconcilable difference how sure that in your 2nd marriage

magiging ok samahan niyo wala naman di ba..its the same thing ....divorce and annulment is basically within the same genre though it differs on some points..and i proven my point here that still annulment is much stiffer that why some of us here wants divorce...

 

i reiterate my point here i have nothing against divorce but i just dont want that a marriage contract which im going to sign is just a mere scrap of paper..

 

If you leave your spouse, it has the same effect so is it the other option that is equivalent to the two above?

 

mali po sir because in case you just leave your spouse you cant remarry and exposed yourself for the crime of bigamy in case you remarried of if you just cohabit adultery and concubinage....

 

Why isn't it the same concept? Because in the first place, it was never a valid marriage... Everything that happened after or before the marriage was false. Divorce means that initially you did agree to marry this person but later on you cannot make it work for any reason. Means at the time you married, all the words/contract were true

 

i agree on this but this argument is does not deny the fact that divorce is the easiest way out...

 

If you remove psychological incapacity, i probably to the terms of annulment and that would mean everyone should be stuck to the person they marry even if it was a mistake

uulitin ko sir di lang psychological incapacity ang grounds ng annulment..its too many to mention pero bigyan kita isa following your example...a girl who gets pregnant and due to social norms sa pilipinas ang mga magulang ng babae pinilit pakasal ang anak nila sa lalake kahit sinabi pa ng anak nila it was just a mistake....in these example sir it can be a valid ground for annulment because there is lack of consent wc is the essential req of valid marriage...so theres a way out..divorce is not needed...

 

I have read the philippine family code. If it is the one of the best laws out there, shouldn't it be copied or be the basis of other countries laws? This is a patriarchal society and the men who generalization are/were womanize/polygamous - kaya nga may MTC eh - and will not support this kind of law.

 

if you read it sir then why youre argument is so lame...definitely other countries will not copied it whiy simple lang sagot diyan soveriegnity and countries have different constitution..i just wanna remind you that family code is legislated in consonance with our constitution..i dont wanna go deeper with that...maybe other countries constitution provides otherwise..i myself is polygamous in one time of my life but il just do it before marriage..divorce will not cure that problem much more worsen it...did MTC impart us not to respect our own laws and be polygamous?i dnt think so sir...

 

I don't want to go further into family code since it has been changed. Just like the death penalty, allowed one time - banned the next.

 

you cannot compare family code to death penalty because the latter is just imposing penalty, did not prescribe any offense and can be suspended anytime....while family code is continous in application and it never been suspended since it became law and it is applied to all filipino even though living abroad...family code is not changed the congress just propose ammendment...

 

peace :thumbsupsmiley: :thumbsupsmiley:

[wOwShakes]

hindi namna kasi lahat ng ikinasal ngaun ay masaya pa magkasama kaya dapat may divorse..