As of date, the Philippines is but only one of the two countries left in the world that does not allow/legalize divorce. Much of it is due to the fact that it is a pre-dominantly Roman Catholic state and divorce is looked upon with disfavor by the Church. While there may be a constitutional prescription of separation of Church and State, members of the Church laity and hierarchy does not hesitate to use their moral influence to shoot down any legislative moves that they feel is contrary to Church teachings and beliefs and one such measure that has been time and time again filed only to get "killed" by strong Church opposition is the proposed bill legalizing divorce. Politicians, wary of their Catholic constituents, dare not support it for fear of earning the ire of Church leaders. "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" has remained in Philippine laws and "only till death do us part" is a vow that husband and wife are legally bound to follow.
However, just like some legal impediment, a loophole can be found. The Family Code of the Philippines has provided the answer to many wanting to get out of a marriage yet cannot easily do by way of the still unallowed divorce route. Its called "annulment of marriage" and "declaration of annulment of marriage". Unlike divorce which recognizes that there was a valid marriage that took place, annulment goes by the premise that there never was a marriage in the first place for reasons stated so in the relevant provisions of the Family Code. It does not only sever the marital bonds, but dissolves it leaving each partner to marry someone else. It is a much ardous process and not all those who file for annulment have the luck of having their petitions granted. It can be given only for stated grounds in the law which the party seeking for annulment must duly prove and while most such petitions come uncontested by the other spouse, the State, represented by the Solicitor-General, is a party to the proceedings to ensure that there is no collusion between the married couple.
The most common ground used is that stated in Article 36 of the Family Code which cites that psychological incapacity of either spouse makes the marriage void "even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after the celebration of marriage." So what is psyhcological incapacity? A concrete despription thereof and the evidentiary requirement needed is stated in the case of Republic vs. Court of Appeals, where the Supreme Court stated as one of the gudelines in determining whether the ground of psyschological incapacity can be used to declar a marriage void as provided for in Art. 36 of the Family Code. Let me quote a part of such guidelines: "The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically (sic) ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof". In other words, at the time of the marriage, one of both of the spouses, was psychologically sick to the extent that he could not have known what he was getting into. The Supreme Court-decided case further states that one may be psychologically unable to enter into marriage and fulfill marital obligations yet still be capacitated to do other things, hence the title of this blog.
A comparison between the two modes of getting out of a marriage that either parties does not want to continue to be in would show that divorce is still the much easier route. For as long as both parties agree, it is a done deal. Not so with having a marriage annulled. The State still has a say and the guidelines set by the Supreme Court have to be met.
