The Philippines stands as a unique jurisdiction in the modern world, being the only state—aside from the Vatican—where civil divorce remains unrecognized. The debate surrounding its legalization is not merely a social or religious conflict but a profound legal and constitutional discourse. Opponents of divorce base their stance on the specific protective framework of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Civil Code, and the fundamental principle of favor matrimonii (the presumption in favor of marriage).

The following sections outline the primary legal arguments against the enactment of a divorce law in the Philippine context.

I. The Constitutional Mandate: Marriage as an Inviolable Social Institution

The most formidable legal barrier to divorce is found in Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which explicitly states:

"Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State."

The Argument of Inviolability Legal scholars argue that the term "inviolable" is not merely rhetorical. By definition, it means "prohibited from being dishonored or broken." Opponents contend that a law allowing for the absolute dissolution of marriage would directly contravene this constitutional mandate. From this perspective, the State’s duty is to protect the permanence of the bond, not to provide a mechanism for its destruction.

II. The Family as the Foundation of the Nation

Under Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, the State "recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution."

State Interest in Stability: The legal argument posits that the State has a vested interest in the stability of the family. Divorce is viewed as a "state-sanctioned" dismantling of this unit, which could lead to social fragmentation.
The "Domino Effect" Theory: Critics argue that once the threshold of indissolubility is crossed, the legal definition of family becomes fluid and unstable, undermining the very foundation upon which the Republic is built.

III. Sufficiency of Existing Legal Remedies

A central legal argument against divorce is that Philippine law already provides adequate remedies for failed marriages without necessitating the total dissolution of the bond. These include:

Declaration of Absolute Nullity (Article 36, Family Code): This addresses marriages that were void from the beginning due to "psychological incapacity." It allows parties to move on if it is proven that the marriage never truly existed in the legal or psychological sense.
Annulment (Article 45, Family Code): This applies to voidable marriages where the consent was defective (e.g., fraud, force, or lack of parental consent).
Legal Separation (Article 55, Family Code): This allows for the "separation of bed and board," addressing issues like physical violence or abandonment, while keeping the marriage bond intact to prevent the "cheapening" of the marital vow.

Opponents argue that these mechanisms provide relief for aggrieved spouses while maintaining the legal integrity of the institution of marriage.

IV. The Protection of Children (Parens Patriae)

The State acts as parens patriae (father of the country) to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Legal arguments against divorce emphasize the potential "legal displacement" of children.

Best Interests of the Child: Opponents cite studies suggesting that the legal finality of divorce often results in custody battles and psychological trauma that outweigh the benefits of the dissolution.
Constitutional Right of Children: The Constitution guarantees the right of children to assistance and special protection. Arguments are made that maintaining the legal tie between parents, even if they live apart, provides a clearer framework for parental obligation and support.

V. Public Policy and Moral Consciousness

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly Article 17, "prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country."

Cultural Identity: The legal argument is often made that the indissolubility of marriage is a reflection of Philippine "public policy" and "good customs."
Sovereignty in Family Law: Proponents of this view argue that the Philippines has the legal right to maintain a family code that reflects its unique cultural and moral fabric, resisting the global trend toward liberalization as a matter of legal sovereignty.

VI. The "No-Fault" Slippery Slope

Legal critics often point to the evolution of divorce laws in Western jurisdictions. They argue that what begins as "strict" divorce for cases of abuse eventually evolves into "no-fault" divorce. From a legal standpoint, this is seen as transforming marriage from a solemn, lifelong contract into a "private agreement" that can be terminated at will, effectively stripping marriage of its special legal status compared to ordinary commercial contracts.

Conclusion

The legal opposition to divorce in the Philippines is rooted in the belief that the Constitution views marriage not as a simple contract between two individuals, but as a social institution in which the State is a third party with a vested interest. By maintaining the indissolubility of marriage, the Philippine legal system seeks to prioritize the stability of the family unit and the protection of children over the individual autonomy of the spouses.