Lawyers Jaypee Calleja, Patty Santa Maria argue for and against divorce law

Summary

The debate on divorce law in the Philippines centers on constitutional and social concerns. One perspective argues that the Constitution's protection of marriage as an inviolable social institution prohibits divorce, emphasizing the need to uphold the sanctity of marriage. The opposing view suggests that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit divorce and highlights its role as a remedy for individuals in abusive or irreparably broken marriages. Advocates argue that divorce, when framed properly, can provide personal autonomy and safety, particularly for vulnerable individuals, without undermining the institution of marriage. The discussion reflects a balance between legal interpretation and the evolving needs of society.

Takeaways

• 😀 The debate on divorce centers around its constitutionality, with opponents arguing that the current Constitution protects marriage as an inviolable institution that cannot be dissolved by divorce.
• 😀 The concept of 'inviolable' marriage in the Constitution suggests that the state is obligated to preserve marriage, making the introduction of a divorce law unconstitutional.
• 😀 Divorce proponents argue that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit divorce, and that it allows for legislative processes to address evolving societal needs.
• 😀 The verbalist rule of constitutional interpretation emphasizes the plain meaning of the text, with a preference for ordinary definitions of terms unless technical language is involved.
• 😀 The intention rule suggests that the framers’ intent should guide interpretation, but the plain reading of the Constitution on marriage is seen as the dominant principle in constitutional law.
• 😀 Constitutional safeguards in Article 2, Section 15, mandate that marriage must be protected by the state, which divorce laws could undermine by allowing dissolution.
• 😀 The debate over the 'inviolable' nature of marriage includes an argument that protecting marriage should not equate to preventing divorce in cases of abuse or irreconcilable differences.
• 😀 Historical exchanges during the 1986 Constitutional Commission discussions show that the addition of 'inviolable' to the marriage clause reflected the intention to retain marriage as a stable, unbreakable institution.
• 😀 Divorce as a policy is seen by some as a necessary remedy for individuals, particularly women, in abusive or dysfunctional marriages, providing them with the legal means to escape harm.
• 😀 The second speaker contends that divorce is not an enemy of marriage or family, but rather a means to protect the well-being of individuals in abusive or incompatible relationships, particularly women.
• 😀 The potential benefits of divorce laws include protecting individual rights, personal autonomy, and decisional privacy, allowing people to make choices about their own lives without being trapped in harmful marriages.

Q & A

What is the primary constitutional issue discussed in the transcript regarding the proposed divorce law?

The primary constitutional issue discussed is whether the proposed divorce law violates the Philippine Constitution, particularly Article 2 Section 15, which states that marriage is an inviolable social institution and shall be protected by the state.

How does the speaker interpret the word 'inviolable' in relation to marriage?

The speaker argues that 'inviolable' means that marriage must be upheld, preserved, and defended, suggesting that it cannot be broken or violated. This interpretation is based on dictionary definitions, which do not allow for multiple conflicting meanings.

What does the Constitution's requirement to 'protect' marriage imply about the state's role?

The Constitution mandates that the state protect marriage in all forms, without distinguishing between successful or failed marriages. This broad duty implies that a divorce law, which allows the dissolution of marriages, could potentially violate the state's obligation to protect marriage.

Why does the speaker dismiss the argument about Father Bernas' and Commissioner Gascon's exchange regarding divorce?

The speaker dismisses the exchange as irrelevant because, at the time of the discussion, the word 'inviolable' had not yet been added to the draft of the Constitution. The addition of this word, which was voted on unanimously by the constitutional commissioners, clarified the intention to prohibit divorce.

What argument is made regarding the Constitution's ability to 'dictate' every legal and social issue?

The speaker contends that while the Constitution is the fundamental law, it does not dictate every aspect of life or law. Instead, it leaves room for democratic processes to shape the country's laws and values, implying that the Constitution does not prohibit the enactment of a divorce law.

What is the speaker's position on whether divorce is inherently contradictory to the Constitution?

The speaker believes that the concept of divorce itself is not inherently contradictory to the Constitution. While the Constitution emphasizes the value of marriage, it does not explicitly prohibit divorce, and the debate should focus on whether specific divorce laws comply with constitutional principles.

How does the speaker view the relationship between the Constitution's protection of marriage and the idea of divorce?

The speaker argues that while the Constitution values marriage and the family, it does not require the preservation of every marriage at all costs. The protection of marriage should be about supporting healthy relationships, and when a marriage is harmful, divorce can be a means to protect individuals and families.

What is the significance of the speaker's reference to 'inviolability' in other parts of the Constitution?

The speaker draws parallels between the inviolability of marriage and other 'inviolable' things in the Constitution, suggesting that respecting inviolability does not mean denying individuals remedies for real-life issues. Inviolability is seen as an ideal, but it does not preclude providing legal mechanisms like divorce for those in need.

How does the speaker justify the need for a divorce law in the context of domestic abuse?

The speaker emphasizes that a significant number of individuals affected by domestic abuse are women. A divorce law would provide a way for them to escape harmful situations, offering a remedy for those trapped in abusive relationships, even if the abuse does not meet criminal thresholds.

What is the broader argument made by the speaker regarding the role of divorce in society?

The broader argument is that divorce, when properly regulated, is not an enemy of marriage or the family. Instead, it can be a necessary remedy that allows individuals to escape harmful relationships and create healthier futures. The speaker argues that divorce law should not be seen as encouraging the dissolution of marriages but as offering a lifeline for those in irreparable situations.