A few days ago, I was invited to a wedding dinner at the Grand Majestic. While I wish the new couple all the best, marriages always remind me of one of my favorite topics in Law: annulments.
The Philippines is one of the only two countries where divorce is illegal, the other being the Vatican. Pinoy Pride! The reason for this is that the institution of marriage is given such reverence to the point of absurdity. The constitution is set up in such a manner that state interference in this aspect of civil relations, allegedly for the sake of its protection and preservation, is totally justified. Well what can you do. Our constitution was drafted in the aftermath of EDSA and the loudest voices in the room were allowed their input. This included the Church, back when it was relevant and respected. The Family Code followed shortly.
To say that Divorce is absolutely illegal is a bit inaccurate. Divorce is, in fact, allowed in the Philippines but only if you're a Muslim who married under Muslim personal laws. This raises interesting questions. Muslim marriages are considered just as valid as any other marriage. In fact, bigamous marriages, normally considered invalid, are given a pass if Muslims are involved. Isn't it a little questionable that the state seems to grant exemptions to the general law based on one's religious preference? Why can Muslims opt out but the rest of us have no choice simply because we have different beliefs? Does separation of church and state ring any (non-wedding) bells? The state is supposed to be secular in its outlook but come to think of it, the grounds for annulment are based on Catholic Canon Law. Meh, I'm not really an expert. When I asked my Civil Law professor about these things, he seemed wishy-washy on the topic and was happy to quickly drop it as soon as I got the message he wasn't interested. One of the things that sucked about Law school was that nobody seemed interested in more academic discussions about the law. It was all bar exam this and bar exam that. I digress.
So your marriage sucks. What are your options? You have legal separation, a.k.a. "separation of bed and board", a.k.a. "prolonged suffering". The spouses are separated but the marital bond is not so don't get any crazy ideas like finding another person to love and care for. This remedy is considered preferable to annulment because there might be a chance the couple will cool down and get back together again. I guess a microscopic speck of a chance is better than no chance at all. Fitting for a nation obsessed with the lottery and other number games.
There are marriages that are voidable, which means they are valid until they are declared void. It sounds a bit stupid but yes. Usually this refers to marriages executed under duress or when the consent of one or both parties is vitiated. There are specific circumstance enumerated in the law and some of them have special rules. Think of shotgun weddings as a clear example. There's a limit though: as soon as the circumstance vitiating consent is over, you have four years (if I recall correctly) to bring an action to declare the marriage void or else you're deemed to have consented to it. No worries. Four years is plenty enough time for Stockholm Syndrome to kick in.
Then there are those marriages which are considered void from the start. For example, bigamous marriages are illegal as are incestuous marriages. Another example is a marriage celebrated without a marriage license. These are void ab initio so dumping the spouse is usually quick and easy. However, not all marriages are this lucky.
Next time, the insanity of psychological incapacity...
No comments:
Post a Comment