Using Bible Verses in Debates on Divorce Legalization in the Philippines: A Legal Perspective

In the Philippine legal landscape, where family law is deeply intertwined with cultural, religious, and historical influences, the debate over the legalization of divorce has long been a contentious issue. The Philippines remains one of only two countries worldwide—alongside the Vatican City—without a general divorce law, a status quo rooted in its predominantly Roman Catholic heritage. This absence of divorce is enshrined in the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, as amended), which instead provides for legal separation (Article 55-67) and annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage (Article 36-54), both of which are procedurally complex, expensive, and limited in scope. Proposals to introduce absolute divorce, such as recurring bills in Congress (e.g., House Bill No. 1006 in previous sessions), invariably ignite debates that blend legal, social, and moral arguments. Central to these discussions is the invocation of Bible verses, particularly by opponents who frame marriage as a sacred, indissoluble union ordained by God. This article explores the multifaceted role of biblical references in these debates, analyzing their legal implications, rhetorical use, interpretive variations, and tensions with constitutional principles in the Philippine context.

Historical and Cultural Backdrop

The Philippines' resistance to divorce traces back to Spanish colonial rule (1565-1898), which imposed Catholic canon law on marital matters, and was reinforced during American colonial administration (1898-1946) through the adoption of civil codes influenced by religious norms. Post-independence, the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article II, Section 12) recognizes the family as the "foundation of the nation" and mandates the state to "strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development," often interpreted through a religious lens. With over 80% of Filipinos identifying as Catholic, biblical teachings permeate public discourse, including legislative hearings and judicial opinions. In debates on divorce legalization, Bible verses are not merely rhetorical flourishes but are wielded as persuasive tools to influence policy, reflecting the blurred lines between church and state in a secular republic.

Key Bible Verses Invoked in Anti-Divorce Arguments

Opponents of divorce legalization, including religious leaders, conservative lawmakers, and civil society groups like the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), frequently cite specific Bible passages to underscore the sanctity and permanence of marriage. These verses are presented as divine imperatives that should inform—or even override—secular law, arguing that legalizing divorce would erode moral foundations and lead to societal decay.

Matthew 19:3-9 (New International Version): This passage, where Jesus responds to Pharisees questioning divorce, is a cornerstone of anti-divorce rhetoric. Key excerpts include: "Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?' 'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.'" Opponents interpret this as an absolute prohibition on dissolution, emphasizing "let no one separate" to argue that state-sanctioned divorce defies God's will. In Philippine congressional debates, such as those surrounding the Divorce Bill in the 18th Congress (2019-2022), legislators like Senator Vicente Sotto III have referenced this verse to assert that marriage is a covenant, not a contract terminable by human law.
Mark 10:2-12: Similar to Matthew, this reiterates Jesus' teaching: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." This is used to highlight the moral consequences of divorce, framing it as sinful and adulterous. Religious groups invoke it to warn against "easy" divorce leading to serial marriages, which they claim undermines family stability—a concern echoed in Supreme Court rulings like Republic v. Molina (G.R. No. 108763, 1997), where psychological incapacity for annulment is strictly construed to preserve marital bonds.
Malachi 2:16: "The man who hates and divorces his wife," says the Lord, the God of Israel, "does violence to the one he should protect," says the Lord Almighty. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful." This Old Testament verse is cited to portray divorce as an act of violence and unfaithfulness hated by God. In public forums, such as CBCP pastoral letters opposing divorce bills, it is linked to broader social issues like domestic abuse, ironically flipping the narrative to suggest that maintaining marriage protects vulnerable spouses, even as proponents argue the opposite.
Ephesians 5:22-33: This epistle describes marriage as a reflection of Christ's relationship with the Church: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord... Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." While not directly about divorce, it is used to promote traditional gender roles and marital permanence, arguing that legalization would disrupt this divine hierarchy.

These verses are often quoted in amicus curiae briefs, legislative position papers, and media campaigns by anti-divorce advocates, positioning the Bible as a moral compass for lawmaking.

Pro-Divorce Counterarguments and Biblical Reinterpretations

Proponents of divorce, including women's rights organizations (e.g., Gabriela), progressive lawmakers, and secular groups, counter by emphasizing the separation of church and state under the 1987 Constitution (Article II, Section 6: "The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable"). They argue that while Bible verses hold personal or ecclesiastical value, they should not dictate civil law in a pluralistic society with non-Catholic minorities (e.g., Muslims under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, which allows divorce).

Interpretive Flexibility: Advocates highlight exceptions within the Bible itself. For instance, Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:9 permit divorce "on the grounds of sexual immorality" (fornication or adultery), which parallels existing Philippine grounds for legal separation. They argue that if the Bible allows exceptions, so should the law, especially in cases of abuse or irreconcilable differences. Progressive theologians and lay supporters reinterpret "what God has joined together" as applying only to valid, consensual unions, not forced or dysfunctional ones.
Human Rights and Secularism: Drawing from international obligations like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), proponents assert that denying divorce violates rights to equality and freedom from cruel treatment. Bible verses are dismissed as non-binding in legal contexts, with references to Supreme Court decisions like Estrada v. Escritor (A.M. No. P-02-1651, 2003), which upheld religious freedom but affirmed state neutrality. In debates, figures like Senator Risa Hontiveros have argued that imposing biblical prohibitions on all Filipinos infringes on non-believers' rights.
Contextual Critiques: Some point out the Bible's historical context, noting that ancient Jewish divorce practices (e.g., Deuteronomy 24:1-4) were more permissive, and Jesus' teachings were responses to specific abuses. This relativizes absolute interpretations, suggesting modern law should evolve with societal needs, such as addressing rising rates of domestic violence (per Philippine National Police data) where trapped spouses suffer.

Legal Implications and Judicial Precedents

In Philippine jurisprudence, Bible verses occasionally appear in obiter dicta but are not determinative. For example:

In Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 119190, 1997), the Court annulled a marriage for psychological incapacity, implicitly prioritizing human welfare over rigid religious views, though without direct biblical reference.
Annulment cases under Article 36 often involve expert testimony on irreparable breakdowns, sidestepping religious arguments.
However, in legislative vetoes, biblical rhetoric has stalled bills; President Rodrigo Duterte (2016-2022) expressed support for divorce but faced religious backlash, leading to inaction.

Constitutionally, invoking Bible verses in lawmaking raises questions under the non-establishment clause (Article III, Section 5: "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion"). If a divorce ban is deemed religiously motivated without secular justification, it could face challenges, though none have succeeded to date.

Societal and Policy Ramifications

The use of Bible verses polarizes debates, alienating secular voices and perpetuating gender inequalities, as women disproportionately seek marital dissolution. Surveys (e.g., Social Weather Stations) show growing public support for divorce (around 50-60% in recent polls), indicating a shift from religious dominance. Policy-wise, alternatives like expanded annulment grounds or recognition of foreign divorces (for Filipinos abroad) have been proposed as compromises.

In conclusion, Bible verses serve as powerful tools in Philippine divorce debates, embodying the tension between faith and law. While they bolster anti-divorce positions by appealing to moral authority, they are increasingly contested on grounds of pluralism and rights. For legalization to advance, advocates must navigate this religious terrain, perhaps by framing divorce as compassionate rather than antithetical to biblical values of justice and mercy. As the nation evolves, the role of scripture in secular governance remains a pivotal legal and ethical question.