Definition and History

Divorce as defined crudely by Wikipedia is

“The final termination of a marital union, canceling the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage and dissolving the bonds of matrimony between the parties.

In Most countries divorce requires the sanction of a court or other authority in a legal process. The legal process for divorce may involve and accommodate a series of issues such as spousal support, child custody, child support, distribution of property and division of debt.”

In layman’s terms, divorce separates and cancels out a couple’s marital duties and restrictions in the event of their failure to coexist. Divorce is also mediated by the Civil Court to provide just resolve to a myriad of forms of oppression.

Fun Fact though, the Philippines is the one country that has not legalized Divorce. Why?

To truly understand what it means to have divorce in the Philippines, I believe that we should briefly dwell on the origin or history of Divorce and somehow create a deeper definition based on that context. What events made it necessary? When did the need for legal intervention for marital separation become apparent?

The roots of divorce are traced back as early as the ninth and tenth century. The same time the Church was at its peak. For an act of separation to coexist with the assumption that the bonds of marriage was not dissoluble by human power (Church Sacrament, go figure) people resulted to separate maintenance. Separate maintenance meant that the failure of wife and husband to coexist meant that they would literally live separately. Although physically rid of each other, the marital status would not be absolutely void. This however limited the actions of both parties. A second chance for a second shot at marriage and family was if not beyond reach, was illegal, and very difficult.

Separate maintenance needed a reform, and it was reformed, right after the “Reformation”. Right after the separation of Church and State, non-Catholic regions deemed that marriage and separation was considered a civil contract, and a breach. Since there were no other predecessors rather than mentioned earlier, the States adopted “separate maintenance” under the ecclesiastic courts as framework, and listed down the circumstances and prerequisites that was needed for a marriage to be granted such.

The State during that time understood the need for legal intervention to support and mediate legal separation. It was to prevent circumstances of oppression such as marital-violence, adultery, abandonment, and cruelty. The State also affirmed the need for a more neutral form of mediation to accommodate other religious sectors. And for other similar reasons, the Divorce that we know now came about.

Why not accommodate Divorce when its initial premise is really to be “fair”? Why not follow the lead of nations such as the US who has been a known pioneer of Divorce. What is it that differentiates Annulment from Divorce?

Quite frankly, I don’t know.

But we ought to find out. Soon. I think.