The Philippines has held out on legalizing divorce. Is it set to call it quits?

In the predominantly Catholic Philippines, where Christian values are deeply intertwined with national identity, an ongoing debate over legalizing divorce pits traditional views of marriage against emerging calls for individual freedoms and women’s safety.

Generally speaking, Filipino couples wishing to separate have two options: File for legal separation, which permits spouses to live apart without legally terminating their marriage, or pursue an annulment. The latter process is often costly and demands proof that the marriage was invalid. Other than Vatican City, the Philippines is the only country in the world where the majority of citizens cannot legally divorce.

That could soon change. A divorce bill, narrowly approved by Congress in May, is currently awaiting consideration in the Senate plenary.

The Senate shot down a similar bill in 2018, and although polls show Filipinos’ growing support for divorce under certain circumstances, opposition from conservative religious groups remains a major obstacle. Many in this camp are proud that the Philippines is one of the last countries without civil divorce, and want to preserve traditional Christian views of marriage as a sacred and indissoluble institution. The bill’s advocates, meanwhile, have largely focused on how divorce offers women a means to sever ties with abusive partners, and rebuild their lives with safety and dignity.

Framing divorce as a human rights issue highlights the shortcomings of the Philippines’ current family law, says Jayeel Cornelio, sociologist of religion and the associate dean for research and creative work at the Jesuit-run Ateneo de Manila University.

“If there’s a concept of marriage equality, ... there’s also a concept called, for lack of a better term, ‘separation inequality,’” he says. “You can be annulled; you can have a legal separation. But we know there are legal restrictions,” and in cases of domestic abuse, these restrictions primarily protect the perpetrator of violence.

“It leaves victims without the ability to remarry,” he says.

Easy way out?

The bill – called the Absolute Divorce Act – outlines limited grounds for divorce, including irreconcilable differences. It also incorporates existing justifications for annulment and legal separation, such as abandonment and infidelity. The act would not legalize no-fault divorce, and except in cases in which the safety of a spouse or child is under threat, it requires a 60-day cool-off period postpetition, giving couples a final chance to reconcile.

If this law had existed in 1995, when Ruby Ramores confronted her husband about an affair he was having, she believes it may have spelled the end of their 13-year marriage.

“It could have been an easy way out,” she says. “I reached the peak, and I really wanted to separate from him.”

Instead, when the couple saw the toll their possible separation was taking on their six children, they chose to salvage their marriage.

With the help of a priest, the couple worked to rebuild trust. Today, they are active lay leaders, and in June, they spearheaded the creation of the Super Coalition Against Divorce, a nationwide network of organizations lobbying lawmakers to oppose the proposed divorce law.

“What we are protecting here is the institution of marriage,” says Mrs. Ramores, “the value of family in the society as the basic unit, [and] the welfare of the children and future generations.”

It’s a message echoed by religious leaders and politicians alike. Earlier this year, Sen. Joel Villanueva, son of an influential evangelist, raised concerns about Filipinos rushing to get “drive-thru” divorces over trivial arguments. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines issued a statement urging cautious reflection before “we jump into the divorce bandwagon.”

“Think about the many times your parents had gotten into each other’s nerves and were almost tempted to call it quits,” wrote Bishop Pablo Virgilio David of Kalookan, president of the conference. “Think of the sufferings that you would have had to endure if civil divorce had already been available as a remedy for what your own parents may have thought back then were ‘irreconcilable differences’ between them,” he added.

The prelate suggested that any rush toward legalizing civil divorce could undermine Filipino families – the foundational aspect of society, according to the country’s constitution. Mr. David also acknowledged that not all married couples have been “joined together by God,” and thus could have their unions annulled. However, he stressed that such measures should be approached with deliberation and compassion, especially considering the potential impact on children.

Mark Saludes

Cici Leuenberger Jueco pauses while recounting her experience in an abusive relationship. Ms. Jueco advocates for a divorce law in the Philippines.

What makes families strong

Compassion was elusive in Cici Leuenberger Jueco’s 30 years of married life.

“I experienced all types of abuses – physical, emotional, economic, sexual – I encountered all of them from him,” she says about her late husband, who died by suicide in 2017. “I could have had a nervous breakdown, but the Lord didn’t permit it because my children would suffer.”

Ms. Jueco eventually became numb to the daily battering. Then, in 2002, her husband beat and raped her so violently she ended up in the hospital, where doctors told her she came perilously close to dying.

“I had tried my best to work things out,” she says. “I endured hardships and suffering, but everything has its limits. I couldn’t just wait for him to kill me.”

It took another three years for Ms. Jueco to build up the courage to file criminal charges against her husband, who was later deported to his home country of Pakistan. In 2012, she organized Divorce for the Philippines Now International, an organization that advocates for legalizing divorce and provides a platform for separated couples to voice their concerns about the Philippines’ current marriage laws.

“We cannot strengthen the family or the country’s institution of marriage if we fail to protect those who suffer from abusive relationships,” she says.

Mr. Cornelio, the sociologist, agrees.

“Divorce itself is not inherently damaging,” he says. “There are ways to implement divorce without compromising ... marriage as a social institution, by ensuring it is only available for specific issues” such as infidelity and domestic violence. In these cases, divorce would actually protect the family, he argues.

The freedom to believe – or not

But there’s another, more fundamental issue bothering him.

Although nearly 88% of the Philippines’ population is Christian, “It’s not a Christian country,” he says. “Freedom of religion and belief is allowed ... and that includes the freedom not to believe.”

In some ways, this question about the separation of church and state is more important than the debate over divorce’s impact on society, Mr. Cornelio argues. “If a Filipino chooses not to believe in the doctrine of the Catholic Church when it comes to the sanctity of the family, and they have a valid reason for arguing that, then shouldn’t the state protect that conviction as well?”

Filipinos’ attitudes toward divorce are complex. According to a Social Weather Stations survey released in July, 50% of adults support the legalization of divorce for “irreconcilably separated couples,” while 31% oppose it. A more recent survey conducted in collaboration with church-based media organizations suggests the public is still broadly resistant to divorce, with only 34% supporting divorce due to “irreconcilable differences.” But when divorce was framed in the context of abuse, that figure rose to 51%.

Some clergy, including Bishop Gerardo Alminaza of San Carlos in the central Philippines, want to turn the focus inward. If the church’s teachings about family and marriage are solid, he says, “We have nothing to worry about, even if there is an existing divorce law in the country.”

“With or without divorce, dysfunctional families and conflicts will continue to challenge the institution of marriage,” says the prelate. “However, because the formation within our community is weak, we tend to view someone’s remedy as someone else’s poison.”