Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
be passed.
Debaters:
Garcia, May
Riñon, Jerome
March 9, 2018
Mendiola, Manila
Let it be resolved that the Divorce Bill should be passed.
BACKGROUND
“The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law.
Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength, nor greed for power debase its
rectitude.1”
The supreme law of the land provides— “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life
and shall protect and strengthen the family as basic autonomous social institution.” Corollary to
this, it has been proclaimed that “marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation
These pronouncements are not mere embellishments—they are not engraved in the
Constitution for flattery. Rather, they are positive duties that the State must perform. These
Constitutional mandates are reflected all throughout our legal system. For instance, Philippine
jurisprudence is replete with decisions in favor of the subsistence of a marriage. General laws,
like the New Civil Code, likewise is full of provisions tending to the same end. This leads to the
sole conclusion that the State has the primordial duty, under the fundamental law, to prevent
How could the State then stay faithful to its bounden duty when divorce as a legal option
is sanctioned?
The totality of the legal system in the Philippines reinforces the vital role of the
government to recognize and protect the sanctity of family life. Whether the Constitution, our
1
general laws, or even case laws are consulted, the dissolution of a perfectly valid marriage is
clearly eschewed. This holistic conclusion is the consequence of the government being faithful to
the mandates of the Constitution. Marriage is a special contract that, when entered into, binds
not only the spouses alone, but also them to the State. This must be so, for marriage is an
institution that enjoys protection no less from the supreme law. Its nature, consequences, and
Marriage, in the context of the Philippine society, should not and cannot be taken lightly.
This is simply a matter of law. Hence, it is presumed that couples before deciding to solemnize
their union know exactly what they are getting into. If unfortunate events and circumstances,
unforeseeable and uncontrollable, befall the marriage of two persons, the Family Code is more
than sufficient to deal with these contingences. The Code does so through its provisions regarding
void and voidable marriages, and legal separation. The operative phrase here is unforeseeable
and uncontrollable. Under our law, spouses may only be released from a marriage if it suffers
from a fatal flaw absolutely beyond their wisdom or control. This is the only logical consequence
because, once again, marriage is a matter of law—not of whim. For any other situation outside
those which cannot be foreseen or controlled, the State may not simply offer a crutch to those
It is a known argument for divorce that the current laws are insufficient to protect the
rights of either spouse. Granting but without conceding, it is still our position that the passing of
the Divorce Bill is not the answer. Majority of the privileges and protections sought to be
implemented by the Divorce Bill are already achievable with current laws. As for what novelty
the Bill may still offer, they can be done through mere amendments. Divorce is simply alien in
our current legal system. By allowing the same, we are also entertaining the possibility of opening
Pandora’s Box. We would be straying from the path that has been the foundation of the Filipino
Furthermore, instead of pushing for divorce, strengthening the provisions of the current
laws, as we shall prove, is the better course of action. For instance, the salutary provisions of
Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children could be improved
upon, with spousal abuse being one of the more compelling reasons for divorce (as claimed by
the proponents thereof). This should instead be so, because divorce will not necessarily put an
end to domestic violence as many believe. Rather, it will only act as a band-aid solution to a
deeper societal issue of abuse. What the country needs is a long-term solution to the existing
The proponents of the divorce bill likewise claim that it will “give [people] another chance
at marital bliss.” This supposed benefit, we believe, is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that
people who have been in irreparable marriages will necessarily benefit from more subsequent
marriages. Not only that, this claim is bereft of concrete evidence to support itself. In fact, we
categorically state that the effect of allowing divorce will have the opposite effect. It has been
proved by studies in countries where divorce is available that the subsequent marriages of
divorcees have higher failure rates. Therefore, not only is there no actual guarantee of marital
bliss after divorce, actual data further show that the opposite is likely to ensue.
As long as the root causes of failed marriages are left unattended, the most benevolent,
most lenient divorce law will not cure what ultimately ails the institution of marriage. From our
perspective, the passage of such law would only open the possibility of people entering into a
marriage as a matter of trial and error. Whereas under the status quo, spouses-to-be would first
deliberate upon the possible serious consequences of their action, the Divorce Law would render
such careful deliberation futile. After all, they can always avail of the quick-fix that is divorce.
Sooner or later, a new malady would pervade our society—the vicious cycle of failed marriages.
The proponents of the divorce bill, no less, essentially concede that their proposed policy
would provide an easy way out. They argue, however, that this is a design deliberate. In effect,
they actually countenance and encourage failed marriages. Because instead of requiring spouses
to make every possible measure to make the relationship work, they would rather allow the
spouses to have the easiest solution there is—quitting. Proponents in essence would leave to the
citizenry at large the option to debase the sanctity of marriage. Clearly, the net effect here is not
only the contravention of constitutional mandates, but also a dereliction of State duties.
the Constitution.