INTRODUCTION Marriage is a socially recognized and approved union between individuals, who commit to one another with the

expectation of a stable and lasting intimate relationship commonly. Normally, it is defined as a partnership between two members of opposite sex known as husband and wife wherein their usual roles and responsibilities include living together, having sexual relations only with one another, sharing economic resources, and being recognized as the parents of their children. Marriage begins with a ceremony known as a wedding, which formally unites the marriage partners. A marital relationship usually involves some kind of contract, either written or specified by tradition, which defines the partners rights and obligations to each other, to any children they may have, and to their relatives. In most contemporary industrialized societies, just like the Philippines, the government certifies marriage. Basically, the very purpose of marriage is to provide spiritual and legal foundation of the family. In our country, marriage and family has always been highly recognized and valued it being one of the societys most important and basic institutions. The importance of family is fundamental as it is also entrenched in our 1987 Constitution that the State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution (Art II, Sec.12, Ibid.). More so, the State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development (Art. XV, Sec. 1, Ibid.). However, due to the changing perspectives of many people about the sanctity of marriage, marriages today are doomed before they even start. Marriage is no longer seen as a necessary step in a relationship; as such, many couples are quick to separate, and at worst, divorce without making an honest effort to resolve their problems. Communication breakdown, financial difficulties as well as circumstances of the marriage are all problems that can cause many marriages to fail. What is more, according to the World Congress of Families, slogans such as modernity, globalization, progress, and the concept of civil

society, are the forces that have weakened the bonds between husbands and wives, parent and child, and the generation. Today it is common for couples to live together and have children without being married. This degeneration of society devalues marriage and results in a higher percentage of failed marriages. With so little value placed on marriage in todays society, couples are not committed to making their marriage work and are often quick to give up on the marriage and each other. In addition, the tension that financial concerns create is often one of the culprits in a failed marriage. Financial concerns can be a heavy burden to bear and when a couple is struggling to meet their financial obligations, there can be a tremendous amount of pressure in the relationship, which is enough to destroy an otherwise healthy marriage. Hence, certain social, political, and economic forces, both local and global, are threatening the venerable institution of the domestic church the father, the mother and their children. HISTORY Divorce existed in antiquity, dating at least back to ancient Mesopotamia. The ancient Athenians liberally allowed divorce, but the person requesting divorce had to submit the request to a magistrate, and the magistrate could determine whether the reasons given were sufficient. Although liberally granted in ancient Athens, divorce was rare in early Roman culture. As the Roman Empire grew in power and authority, however, Roman civil law embraced the maxim, matrimonia debent esse libera ("marriages ought to be free"), and either husband or wife could renounce the marriage at will. Though civil authority rarely intervened in divorces, social and familial taboos guaranteed that divorce occurred only after serious circumspection. The Christian emperors Constantine and Theodosius restricted the grounds for divorce to grave cause, but this was relaxed by Justinian in the sixth century. After the fall of the empire, familial life was regulated more by ecclesiastical authority than civil authority. By the ninth or tenth century, the divorce rate had been greatly reduced under the influence

of the Christian Church, which considered marriage a sacrament instituted by God and Christ indissoluble by mere human action. Although divorce, as known today, was generally prohibited after the tenth century, separation of husband and wife and the annulment of marriage were well-known. What is today referred to as separate maintenance (or "legal separation") was termed divorce a mensa et thoro (divorce from bed-and-board). The husband and wife physically separated and were forbidden to live or cohabit together; but their marital relationship did not fully terminate. Civil courts had no power over marriage or divorce. The grounds for annulment were determined by Church authority and applied in ecclesiastical courts. For in cases of total divorce, the marriage is declared null, as having been absolutely unlawful ab initio. The Church held that the sacrament of marriage produced one person from two, inseparable from each other: By marriage the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being of legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything. Since husband and wife became one person upon marriage, that oneness could only be annulled if the parties improperly entered into the marriage initially. Marriage later came to be considered a civil contract, and on that basis civil authorities gradually asserted their power to decree divorce. Since no precedents existed defining the circumstances under which marriage could be dissolved, civil courts heavily relied on the previous determinations of the ecclesiastic courts and freely adopted the requirements set down by those courts. As the civil courts assumed the power to dissolve marriages, courts still strictly construed the circumstances under which they would grant a divorce, and now considered divorce to be contrary to public policy. Because divorce was considered to be against the public interest, civil courts refused to grant a divorce if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between the husband and wife to divorce, or if they attempted to manufacture grounds for a divorce. Divorce was granted only because one party to the marriage had violated a sacred vow to the "innocent spouse." If both husband and wife were guilty, "neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage." Eventually, the idea that a marriage could be dissolved in cases in which one of the parties violated the sacred vow

gradually allowed expansion of the grounds upon which divorce could be granted from those grounds which existed at the time of the marriage to grounds which occurred after the marriage, but which exemplified violation of that vow, such as abandonment, adultery, or extreme cruelty. In post Victorian America divorce rates sky rocketed as was shown in Elaine Tyler May's Great Expectations: Divorce in post Victorian America which argued that the shift from the repression of desire to pursuing it due to increased leisure time and the eight hour day, Americans expected more than duty from their spouses. The American home was no longer an abode for discipline and suppression of desire but a place for the pursuit of happiness and satisfaction. Divorce before the 1920's was based on the husband not providing 'life' necessities' for his child and wife. Later it became clear that men and women wanted to be sexually satisfied in their marriages as well as have the public chaste image. This clash in expecting old values with the best of the modern values cause much grief between couples leading to monetary problems and problems sexually, leading to divorce. The shift in the 1920's, to expect more from married life other than duty and chastity from the wife and hard work and suppression of vice from the husband leads us into the present predicament of the high divorce rates in this country. BACKGROUND Divorce, or dissolution, as it is increasingly becoming known, is a legislatively created and judicially administered process that legally terminates a marriage no longer considered viable by one or both of the spouses and that permits both to remarry. Accordingly, even though the relationship between a husband and a wife has changed and become worse and they may no longer be living together under one and the same roof, until they are legally divorced, they are still considered married. From a legal standpoint, a divorce will give each person the legal right to marry someone else, divide the couples assets and debts and determine the future care and custody of their children. The legal implications of being married vary from state to state, but in

general, until a spouse is divorced, a husband and a wife have certain rights to each others money, deferred compensation, pensions, insurance benefits, real estate, and other properties. A husband and a wife who obtained divorce can remarry to someone else, but anything that the divorced spouse may be subject to a claim of ownership, in whole or in part, by the spouse, and the future ownership of assets and properties already obtained may be subjected into a contest. Even if the husband or wife has a prenuptial agreement before marriage, the spouse may succeed in having it declared null and void. Briefly, the potential to lose things that the spouse think are his or hers remains until the divorce is final and/or all appeals have been exhausted. In the U.S., while each state has individual statutes that address these issues differently, the basic principles the courts follow when considering requests for divorce are relatively uniform. Some states require that one has to give a legal reason in order to get divorce. These are called fault-based divorces. Because of the traditional fault-based view of divorcethat the innocent and injured spouse should be able to obtain relief (that is, a divorce) from the spouse who has done some wrongalmost every state divorce law has in the past required the plaintiff to prove one of a number of legislatively recognized grounds. Typical grounds have included adultery, desertion, habitual drunkenness, conviction of a felony, impotence, and the most commonly used by divorcing parties, cruel and inhuman treatment. Because the states interest in maintaining stable marriages was assumed, divorce suits could not be treated like other litigation. One spouse, the plaintiff, had to prove grounds even when both spouses wanted the divorce. Thus, divorce trials were filled with charges and countercharges and generally omitted investigation of the actual viability of the marriage. However, some states have no-fault divorces. No fault divorce is a marital termination proceeding where the divorce is granted without either party being required to show fault. Either party may obtain divorce even if the other spouse does not consent to the divorce. Thus, proofs of certain grounds are immaterial. Moreover, there is also a migratory divorce wherein spouses take up residence in another state or travel to a foreign country in order to get a divorce.

MORAL ISSUE

Divorce is fundamentally a moral issue, not a legal issue. Were it not for its moral dimension, the issue would be totally within human competence and freedom. In a Christian setting, Liturgical Christian communions consider marriage to be an expression of grace, termed as a sacrament or mystery. The sacrament of marriage is indicative of the relationship between Christ and the church. As such, the Catholic Church is absolutely against divorce because it is a universal error and serious violation of Gods law, based on the clear teachings of Jesus Christ who raised matrimony from a sacred contact to the dignity of a sacrament. Moreover, divorce destroys that something which cannot be and should not be destroyed in the first place since marriage is a covenant between spouses and God a covenant that God created wherein a man and a woman come together for the purpose of lifelong companionship for each other. In a sociological context, on the other hand, marriage is seen as an institution, which can join together peoples lives in emotional and economic ways. However, due to some diametrically opposed factors, couples tend to separate from each other. In our contemporary era, one cannot deny the fact that the practice of divorce is becoming increasingly mundane. Today, unhappy marriages are commonplace and divorce is accepted as an easy solution to marital problems. Couples that were once united as one by the sacrament of marriage falls apart because of some reasons such as financial troubles, poor communication, dramatic changes in priorities, infidelity and the like. What has become more prevalent seems to be the unwillingness of people today to work through the stress inevitable in every marriage. More so, society's greater acceptance of divorce may itself be contributing to the decline in marital happiness. By adopting attitudes that provide greater freedom to leave unsatisfying marriages, people may be increasing the likelihood that their marriages will become unsatisfying in the long run. It seems that the divorce culture feeds on itself, creating a oneway downward spiral of unhappiness and failure.

PROS Divorce does not solitarily yields to negative subtexts, as divorce is not basically immoral. Divorce promotes, as a result or an end, freedom for married couples that are no longer happy and are no longer satisfied with their relationship. Couples who are already unhappy with their relationship are freed from the bondage of unhappiness. Why stick and suffer to an unhappy marriage if one could make a choice for himself or herself, not just for plain, selfish reason, but also for the betterment of everybody and for self-preservation? Love may conquer all, but sometimes, even love is not enough to save a marriage. Besides, all human beings believe in specific ways to attain happiness, and carrying out divorce is one way of attaining it. After all, divorce is all about a husband and a wife who are completely terminating their relationship with some reasons, or even sometimes if not for all times, with some purpose. Many social issues prevailing in our society, especially on family matters, could be addressed by divorce. For instance, the issue concerning a husband having a paramour will no longer be a taboo since most countries around the world are now accepting divorce as a legal act. Because of divorce, the social connotation of having a mistress will already be diminished. More so, divorce is also imperative to free couples from impossible marriages such as in the case of battered wives. By allowing re-marriage for separated spouses, they could possibly succeed in attaining a stable and fulfilling family life. Pertaining to the aftereffects of divorce to children, divorce can actually help children living in high-conflict homes such as those with domestic violence. After divorce, the child is emancipated from a violent environment when the parents were still together. Accordingly, there will be an increase development of maturity and independence in the childs growth level, as well as the increased commitment to maintaining relationships and being the role models and ego supporters of their future children. Even the Bible speaks to the issue of divorce. The most important passage on divorce is Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Although it does not primarily intend to endorse divorce, it somehow addresses the existing custom of divorce during the ancient times as it

regulates the existing custom of divorce, not to put forth Gods ideal for marriage. Divorce, then, was allowed in certain instances because of human sinfulness. CONS Divorce does not tend to make happiness. The belief that divorce equals happiness is utterly false. Divorce tends to make for divorce; and divorce always marks the final collapse of a hope of happiness. Although it is a fact that couples disagree from time to time and as such, be apt to be unsatisfied with their relationship, divorce is not the be-all and the end-all solution to be happy and to be free from such discontent. Couples must not emphasized personal happiness in marriage as a priority over responsibilities to spouse and children. Furthermore, it is not an assurance that persons who fail to find happiness in their first marriage will find it in their second marriage. Divorced people are no happier after divorce. Unhappily married people who had divorced were no happier than those who had stayed married. Divorce leads to the creation of two households rather than one, with consequent increased cost. It is significant to note that divorce has detrimental implications in our society, as it contributes to a significant percentage of societal ills like juvenile delinquency and the adult prison population, as well as measures of school dropouts and unemployment, and unmarried teen pregnancy. Hence, the social cost of divorce is indeed frightening as it considerably contributes detrimental social maladjustments. Consequently, divorce may increase childrens risk for a number of problems. Although there is a great deal of variability among children of divorced parents, with some experiencing problems and others adjusting well or even showing improvements in behavior, major cost to children comes long after: when they attempt to form stable marriages themselves. Long-term physical and emotional burdens are often placed on children, who endure long after divorce, and these frequently take the form of post-adolescent fears of commitment or betrayal, lack of goals and feelings of not being in control of their life. Moreover, children of divorced parents have a higher chance of behavioral problems as they have a propensity to

suffer abuse and to have a greater chance of living in poverty. So, it is pragmatic to speak that divorce has indeed negative impact amongst children in the long run. Marriage is likewise not a human institution, but rather a divine institution. It is so because it is God who joins a man and a woman together into one permanent union. In the passage of Malachi 2:10-16, it specifically teaches that husbands and wives are to be faithful to one another because they have God as their Father, and that the marriage relationship is built upon a solemn covenant. Jesus further enunciates this in His divine teachings that marriage is for life and should not be dissolved by divorce as He tells us in Mark 10:6-9 from the very first He made man and woman to be joined together permanently in marriage; therefore a man is to leave his father and mother, and he and his wife are united so that they are no longer two, but one. And no man may separate what God has joined together. Further, Jesus told his disciples in Mark 10:11-12, when a man divorces his wife to marry someone else, he commits adultery against her. And if a wife divorces her husband and remarries, she, too, commits adultery. Thus, there is no way that divorce is moral as Jesus Himself, being the Son of God, opposes it. LEGAL ISSUE Today, divorce is much easier than it was in the past because society has decided that divorce is a civil matter, subject to civil laws. Majority of states recognize the family as the natural grouping upon which society and culture are based, and guarantee to protect the institution in their constitutions both as the source of social order and as indispensable to the future welfare of their nations. Hence, marriage tends to be treated as a moral institution (with or without religious significance) and those who achieve the status of spouse are vested with a number of rights which can only be varied or terminated by court order. A few states, usually because of their prevailing religion, either prohibit or discourage termination by divorce. But the majority of more secular states make no fault divorce a relatively automatic process to reflect the reality that the marriage has broken down, sometimes without the need for both parties to attend at a hearing. This has

caused a major shift in social policy in many countries because, if divorce is no longer of major juridical significance in the majority of states around the world, the rules for the international recognition and enforcement of foreign divorces also no longer require cautiously framed rules. Moving on, there are two types of divorce: absolute and limited. Absolute, or divorce a vinculo matu monii, is the judicial termination of a marriage based on marital misconduct or other statutory causes after the wedding ceremonysuch as adultery. After the divorce, both parties are deemed single again. Limited, or divorce a mensa et thoro is a separation decree, where the marriage is not fully terminated, and the couple still retain their civil status as married. In having a divorce, there are certain steps to follow. While the process varies from couple to couple, depending on the situation of both parties, there are some essential procedures in filing for a divorce. One thing is certain, however: divorcing couples who are mature enough to agree on certain issues makes for a smoother divorce. PROS It is true that the policy of the Constitution regarding marriage is for the protection and strengthening of the family as the basic autonomous social institution, and recognizes marriage as the foundation of the family; however, there is nothing in the Constitution that absolutely prohibits divorce. Although unsound marriages in our country could be dissolved via annulment and declaring it null and void, still those are not enough ways to cure the increasing number of couples desiring to end their marital relationship. Besides, annulment is just the same as divorce, although couched in a different term, with a longer process. By legalizing divorce, the sanctity and quality of marriages can be improved. The debate boils down to staying in an unhappy and irreparable marriage or giving up on it despite the promise to love each other for life. It has been established that the States policy pertaining to marriage is to protect and strengthen Filipino families, but, the actual question of interest here is that how could the State promote such

policy if there are increasing number of families that are already wrecked and are impossible to rebuild? More so, the impact of such will rage down to the society; hence, resulting and/or contributing to other societal problems. Considering that majority of the people in the Philippines are tethering below the poverty line, the time, money and resources needed to file and get an annulment is beyond the regular Filipinos means. Thus, a lot of them resort to informal or illegal separations and/or cohabitation which yield more illegitimate children. Moreover, they are deprived of leaving their failed marriage behind. Therefore, if divorce is enforced in our country, then people will no longer be resorting to informal or illegal separations and/or cohabitation. The separation of spouses will then be in a legal parlance, and that the properties of the spouses and the custody of their children will be accorded properly and legally. CONS A divorce would be unconstitutional because the Constitution says something about the protection of the family as the basic social unit. Legalizing divorce will definitely be running smack against the 1987 Constitution, which provides that marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state (Art. XV, Sec. 2, Ibid.). Child support collection can be quite difficult as well: some fathers feel that they only have an obligation towards their children and not their mother (who may have an unwanted divorce); some may not want to meet their obligation towards their children, and others, while intending to meet their obligation may not be able to fulfill it. Women often financially suffer as a result of divorce due to lower earning potential, especially in our country, and to their greater historical role in rearing children. They more obtain exclusive custody of children after the divorce, reducing their ability to pursue high-paying employment. Statistics show that women generally fare worse in divorce because of maintenance default and raising children on reduced incomes. Men are also often victims of divorce, both financially and in other ways. Courtordered alimony and child support can be beggaring, often attached to large

percentages of the higher-earning spouses income. Such obligations can make it impossible for paying spouses to remarry, and if they do remarry, the law often puts the payers prior obligations before his and his new familys needs. Also, noncustodial spouses (more often men) are often blocked from access to their children. More so, for Filipinos who want to get out of their marriage, and are looking for legal ways to remarry, divorce is not the answer for failed marriages. The Family Code provides two options for that: petition for annulment and petition for nullity of marriage. As Archbishop Oscar Cruz, D.D. said, for those desirous only of doing away with an impossible relationship with no intention to remarry, the recourse is legal separation, not divorce. Regarding anomalous relationships such as in the can of psychiatric persons or behavioral deviants, once proven by experts that any of these have been existent at the time of the wedding, then civil marriage annulment is the recourse, not divorce. GROUP STANDING If there is such thing as divorce, then there is really no such thing as marriage. Our group adheres to the sanctity of marriage; thus we are against divorce. We strongly believe that marriage must be preserved as it is a sacred covenant of two people united as one. As Catholics, we further believe that God designed the institution of marriage to be a solemn covenant; hence, no human court must put it in asunder. After all, marriage is for life. It is not just a temporary relationship wherein if couples get tired of each other, they would just merely stash away their promise to love each other til death do us part. Furthermore, if there is divorce, then there is also the possibility that the term family will be of no relevance at all. The family basically develops and sustains not only individuals, but also larger communities. The very purpose of marriage is to provide spiritual and legal foundation of the family. If divorce will be enforced in our country, then couples who tend to have disagreements, even the smallest things, will resort to divorce. As such,

divorce invites reluctance among couples to work through the stresses and difficulties that are unavoidable in every marriage. The very essence of family itself is destroyed. Lastly, divorce is not all about a husband and a wife who are completely terminating their relationship due to some factors and/or reasons that are attending it. It is not only the couples themselves who are directly affected, but utmost, the unwilling victims here are the children because they are the ones who will suffer the consequences of having a broken family, and this will have a long-term unconstructive impact in their lives. For these aforementioned reasons, we surmise that a stable family is built upon the combined parental love and unified parental force of the spouses. In order to make children grow into mature, responsible and upright persons of society, strengthening of the family is needed. But this rests on no one else but the family itself. If God is at the center of the family unit, trust that the fortification will withstand all the storms in life. Thus, we are not in favor of divorce.