An Indecent Proposal

  source: mgcpuzzles.com

The proposal to impose an expiration date on  marriages is creating quite a buzz these days. As expected, people taking sides and the Church is in a near panic mode, saying that if it becomes a law there will be a higher incidence of crime as children deprived of love will be out in the streets, creating a rampage. As if. (Dear Church, with that assumption, do you think that where the parents are together and yet there is no love in the family, the children will not be going on rampage?)

For those who have high hopes for the proposal, dream no more. It is unconstitutional and will not become a law unless there is a change in the Constitution. Repeated throughout the Philippine 1987 Constitution is the phrase “[T]he State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution“. Furthermore, the proposal is discriminatory. Those who have a happy family life will suffer its effects as they will have to get married again.

Article 1 of the Family Code states:

“Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.” Special means that it is unlike any other contract. Permanent means it has a lifetime effect. Not subject to stipulation means that the parties cannot by themselves, change the terms of their marriage, i.e. agree mutually to separate and to have nothing to do with each other anymore (walang pakialaman).

Even if there is a change in the Constitution, even if it is not against the law, the proposal IS a ridiculous proposal. Unlike an ordinary contract, the marriage contract produces effects  which has legal implications. It is not like a driver’s license or a visa or a contract of work or a contract of lease.  It produces long ranging effects, like children and properties. A valid marriage produces legitimate children, property relations, rights to support, parental authority, and other important issues.

1) If a marriage has an expiration date, what will happen to children who were conceived after the expiration of the contract but before the renewal of the contract? Will they still be considered as legitimate  or illegitimate? If illegitimate, they will have rights different from  their sibling who were conceived during the effectivity of the marriage contract.Will the legitimate children produced during the marriage still be considered legitimate after th expiration of the marriage, or finished contract na din sila after the expiration?

2)  Upon the expiration of the marriage, how will the conjugal properties be divided? Dividing these will entail large legal expenses, which is what the proponents are trying to avoid. If for example, Manny and Jinkee’s marriage expires, who will have the house in Cali? Will it be divided according to the legal provisions on annullment and legal separation? Supposing the former spouses have separated but their investments are still earning, what will happen to the earned improvements? Who will get that?

3)  If after the marriage has expired, are the spouses still obliged to support their minor children? Is the working former spouse still required to provide  support to the spouse who is taking care of the minor children?

4) Who will have parental authority over the children? In case of disagreements as to how the children will be raised, who will prevail? Supposing the child wants to be an artista and one parent is ok with it but the other is not,  sino masusunod?

1-ABAA, a women’s party list group who is proposing such law, says that this will further strengthen the family. How will the law achieve this when the contract which basis for the family is being reduced to an ordinary contract? Doesn’t that cheapen the concept of a family?  If they really are after the well being of the family, they should instead propose a bill requiring free or affordable marriage counselling to couples having marital trouble or as a prerequisite for annulment. Or require psychiatric examinations for couples wanting to get married so that early on, it can be determined that the couples are psychologically capacitated to marry. Or to allow divorce. 

They also say that with the proposal, families will be incurring less legal expenses and will not clog the court dockets. I do not think that they can avoid that as I have pointed out earlier, a marriage will produce legal affects which need to sorted out in the event of the end of the marriage. Couples who want to stay together will incur additional and unnecessary expenses to do so.

Personally, I think this proposal is being made to create buzz for the party list for the coming elections. Voter recall, hello. Wala na ba kayong maisip na mas matinong proposal?