【外交政策 20150119】世界上最后一个离婚不合法的国家

满仓

【中文标题】世界上最后一个离婚不合法的国家
【原文标题】The Last Country in the World Where Divorce Is Illegal
【登载媒体】外交政策
【原文作者】ANALEXIS DUDDEN
【原文链接】http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/opinion/the-shape-of-japan-to-come.


欢迎来到菲律宾，这里有玩弄女性的政客、数百万的私生子和让意大利看起来像是自由国度的婚姻法。



2011年，在他84岁生日之际，前菲律宾参议员拉蒙•雷维拉——一位忧郁、英俊的影星后来从政——的朋友们为他的一个10米高的庄严铜像揭幕。

雷维拉的电影大部分都被人忘记了，他的立法贡献也可以忽略不计，但是他为人铭记不忘的事迹是，他和16个女人生下了至少72个孩子，其中只有一个女人是他的妻子。有38个孩子继承了他的姓氏。

我们并不了解铜像是为了推崇什么，但是菲律宾的确需要一个纪念碑来强调这个国家极为缺少的事物——一部离婚法律。

菲律宾现在是世界上唯一一个禁止大部分公民离婚的国家，有些忠诚的基督教国家的教堂在不屈不挠地捍卫圣洁婚姻的观点，而菲律宾是他们坚守的最后一个阵地。教皇方济各在去年访问菲律宾时，敦促他的主教对离婚的基督教徒采取更加宽容的态度。但是在菲律宾，这还是一个悬而未决的问题，因为根本就没有离婚的基督教徒。

一份将离婚合法化的法案已经被提交给菲律宾立法机关，但是它不大可能被最终立法，除非得到总统贝尼尼奥•阿基诺三世的支持。他曾经说，在这个群岛组成的国家里，离婚是“绝不允许的”。阿基诺目前未婚，信奉基督教，他说他不想让菲律宾变成拉斯维加斯“上午结婚下午就可以离婚”的地方。

艾基诺在三年前，不理会大主教把他开出教籍的威胁，签署了生育健康法，为贫穷女性提供免费的避孕工具。但是大部分分析人士都认为，他没兴趣与基督教会就热点问题展开一场掺杂了政治和宗教的斗争。

多年来，全球基督教堂在反对离婚的战斗中节节败退。最早一次失败发生在1970年，意大利不顾梵蒂冈的坚决反对，宣布离婚合法。1974年的全民投票结果让推翻这部法律的企图彻底破产。接下来是巴西，在1977年宣布离婚合法，然后是西班牙（1981年）、阿根廷（1987年）、爱尔兰（1997年）和智利（2004年）。剩下的只有菲律宾和地中海岛屿上的小国马耳他（当然，这个拥有独立主权的国家基本上是唯梵蒂冈马首是瞻的禁欲城邦）。2011年，马耳他就离婚问题举行全民公投。教堂想尽一切办法，动用各种力量反对离婚合法化，但最终无计可施。全民公投之后，马耳他大主教罕见地对教堂疯狂攻击支持离婚人士的行为表示道歉。

在菲律宾，基督教会对这个国家坚守最后阵地的姿态感到骄傲。一位名誉大主教说这是“每一个菲律宾人都应当感到骄傲的事情”，另一位主教说，菲律宾人不应该步“去基督教化国家”的后尘。

菲律宾在历史上并非如此。据人类学家所说，在探险家费迪南德•麦哲伦于1521年宣布菲律宾为西班牙领地，并且开始把当地人转化为基督教徒之前，离婚在这片群岛的原住民中非常普遍。但是西班牙在将近4个世纪的时间里，对菲律宾进行基督教的精神统治，已经彻底抹去了这样的习俗。

1898年美西战争之后，美国成为殖民主子，情况得到了一些缓解。1917年的一部法律允许离婚，但前提是妻子通奸或者丈夫“纳妾”。日本在恐怖的二战期间占领菲律宾时，实施了现代离婚法律条款。但是当1944年美国将军道格拉斯•麦克阿瑟王者回归之后，这些法律被废除。6年后，菲律宾宣布独立，教堂恢复了统治地位，1917年的法律被推翻，离婚被彻底禁止。

分居，但平等

菲律宾的法律允许穆斯林少数民族离婚——大约占总人口11％，但是到目前为之，非穆斯林人摆脱糟糕的婚姻的唯一途径是寻求教堂“废婚”，或者私自分居。（教堂允许合法分居，但是任何一方不得再婚。）

废婚与离婚不是同一个概念，前者的前提是双方必须提出婚姻在一开始就是有缺陷的证据。比如一方或双方没有达到法定结婚年龄（菲律宾人的法定结婚年龄是18岁，男性穆斯林是15岁，女性穆斯林是“青春期”）；结婚时没有取得双方父母的同意；一方已婚或者有不可治愈的性遗传疾病；或者——大部分情况下——在结婚时“心智不健全”。教会法庭或者民间法官可以因此宣布婚姻关系从一开始就不存在。

造成婚姻破裂最常见的原因——不忠、精神或肉体暴力、“感情不合”——不在废婚过程的考虑之列。

被普遍认为有潜质成为阿基诺继任者的参议员皮娅•卡耶塔诺，是颇富争议的生育健康法的主要支持者。她认为菲律宾没有一部现实、合理的离婚法的说法是一种“曲解”。“我们当然需要一些改变，这个改变会很快发生吗？不。菲律宾需要一些时间把人权和民权从宗教信仰中分离出来。”

专业服务

用废婚程序来取代离婚所带来的最大问题是，它会迫使两个已经没有任何感情的人形成对立的关系，并且敌视公诉人，或者说在教堂废婚的情况下，敌视“关系卫士”——这个人的角色是通过说服不愉快的夫妻双方继续待在一起，来捍卫婚姻的神圣。

卡耶塔诺说：“这是不人道的，我自己的经验就是这样。”她在2013年被废婚。

这个过程不但极为漫长、令人身心俱疲，而且相当昂贵。民间废婚的过程通常需要几年，除非你有足够的钱来贿赂法官加快进度。

40岁的马尼拉医生米歇尔来自一个富有的家庭，她仅用6个月就完成了民间废婚的流程。她的做法很简单，聘请一个律师，付给对方35万比索（大约8000美元）。这个数字是菲律宾人均GDP的三倍还要多，因此大部分菲律宾人无力支付。

这笔钱的三分之一作为“专业服务费”落入法官的腰包。米歇尔要求不透露她的姓氏，她说她的律师与法官是法律学院里的好朋友，这让整个过程变得非常简单。她只需要出庭一次，并且只回答了一个问题——她的姓名。

米歇尔和她的丈夫——也是一名医生——结婚时，两人都是30岁。米歇尔告诉我，她在怀孕期间感到巨大的压力，尽管婚姻关系已经维持了7年，但是她说她从一开始就后悔结婚的决定。尽管废婚带有社会耻辱的标记，但她感觉可以接受。“感觉就像是我被宽恕了。好像是我在忏悔之后，一切罪行都被免除了。”

律师还是杀手

但是大部分人的经历没那么顺利。35岁的保罗•雅普是马尼拉的一位动画设计师，他在2004年与妻子分居，之后整整两年没有任何联系。4年后，他决定和一位新伙伴结婚，保罗因此需要一个废婚裁定。

他花费30万比索聘请了一位律师，但后来不得不解聘了她，因为他意识到最终的花费至少是这个数字的一倍。于是他与一位律师朋友达成协议，对方接手他的案子，而他用设计师的服务来支付费用。

他们找来一位心理学家来寻找“心智不健全的证据”，雅普被发现“抑郁、反社会”，他的前妻被发现“有自恋和过分做作”的倾向。

当废婚的程序在体制中缓慢前进时，雅普有了一个惊人的发现，他的前妻已经取得了废婚的判定。她的律师采取的策略是，在菲律宾一个偏远的地方法院提起诉讼，那里是著名的废婚加工厂。从来没有人告诉雅普，尽管法院的文件说他当时在场——这是法律规定。而且，尽管他的前妻知道雅普自己启动了废婚程序，但她并没有把这件事告诉他，就是为了让他浪费数十万比索。

雅普带着嘲讽的口气说：“你知道，找个职业杀手干掉配偶也只需要1到1.5万比索，比废婚的费用低多了。”

政客与玩弄女性

在捍卫神圣婚姻的斗争中，菲律宾的基督教大主教们可以从一个似乎不大可能的人群中获得坚定的支持——这个国家的男性政客。对他们来说，多个情妇或者第二个，甚至第三个妻子，似乎是他们所在阶层的特权，也是标志男性尊严的徽章。

前议员雷维拉自然是金牌榜样，在1998年到2001年期间任总统的约瑟夫•埃斯特拉达（与雷维拉一样，他以前也是电影明星）与他的妻子有3个孩子，还与另外6个女人剩下了9个孩子。

长期统治菲律宾的费迪南德•马科斯私生活一塌糊涂，埃斯特拉达在马拉卡南宫的前任总统菲德尔•拉莫斯承认过至少一起被公开的婚外情。

艾福林•乌苏亚是一位专业废婚律师，并长期致力于离婚合法化的进程。她说，不能离婚给“玩弄女性的人提供了一个安全的避风港。由于法律禁止离婚，他们直到自己可以继续这种生活方式——既有一个漂亮、忠诚的妻子，也可以继续保持和情妇之间的关系。而一部离婚法可以结束这一切。”

玩弄女性的行为尽管披着宗教的外衣，但依然深植于菲律宾的社会中，无论贫富。支持制定离婚法的议员艾米伦西亚那•德热苏斯说：“这是有关男人脸面的问题……丈夫有外遇，妻子不应该大惊小怪。”但是，尽管有钱的男人通常都会养活他们的妻子和孩子，目的是维护自己的面子，但贫穷的女人往往都会抛弃，自己想办法把孩子拉扯大。菲律宾有相关的法律规定有固定收入的父亲必须供养亲生子女，但是没有人执行，大部分人甚至都不知道这项义务。

穷人没有选择

菲律宾的民事法院每年通常会批准1万例废婚申请，对于一个人口超过1亿的国家来说，这是个非常小的数字。这并不代表菲律宾人普遍对婚姻关系比较满意，而是证明废婚仅仅是少数有钱人才能享受到的福利。

专家认为，大部分经历不幸福的婚姻的人因此直接寻找下一位伴侣，而女人自然要想办法抚养孩子。马尼拉雅典耀大学的社会学家玛丽•拉塞利斯说：“对这些女人来说，唯一的生活来源是找到另一个愿意供养她们和孩子的男人。”

在极度贫困的人群中，出现了政府所谓的“婚姻无益联盟”，或者教会所谓的“罪恶中生存”倾向。具体统计数字不得而知，但是拉塞利斯估计有30％到40％的城市贫困人都不愿意结婚。“结婚的花费太高了，你必须要准备一个盛大的仪式，很多人负担不起。”而且你还要记得，一旦结婚，这个关系永远无法解除。

给生活成本雪上加霜的是菲律宾对廉价劳动力出口依赖严重的经济模式。大约有1000万菲律宾人在海外工作，以前男人的天下现在被女人占领了。她们做保姆、护士、护工、女佣和收银员，据菲律宾中央银行提供的数据，2013年她们给带来250亿美元的收入，用来供养家人。毫无疑问，长期分居是婚姻关系的大敌，在海外工作的女人经常会发现，她们辛辛苦苦寄给家里的钱，被丈夫和新女友所挥霍。

德热苏斯和加布里埃拉妇女党所倡导的离婚法案，远非阿基诺总统所说的那样，会让菲律宾变成另一个拉斯维加斯，而是相当的保守，充分尊重“菲律宾的文化传统”。这条法案中离婚的条件包针对配偶和子女的括肢体暴力、超过6年的监禁、超过一年的抛弃、通奸、行为变态、重婚、同性恋或者毒品依赖。除了针对妇女和儿童的暴力事件，法院在接到申请的6个月之内不可以采取任何行动——所谓的冷却期。法案同时要求法院在最终发布离婚裁决之前，要“采取必要的调解行动”。

更重要的是，法案规定了有关财产分割、子女抚养和对“无过错方”的赔偿细节。

德热苏斯说，基督教会依然是离婚法的最主要反对者，因为它“害怕失去对这个国家大部分人的文化掌控”。但她还指出，根据1987年的宪法，菲律宾的政教分离是神圣不可侵犯的条款。

德热苏斯说，教会和它的信众完全可以秉持神圣婚姻的信仰，但是不可以把这些信条强加给其他人。国家不应当把离婚视为一种罪行，而应当是一项权利。“国家应当认可，如果你有权达成一项协议，你就同样有权解除它。”

教会对此难以苟同。专业从事废婚案件的教会律师埃德加多•庞安说：“[支持者把]把婚姻视为一纸协议，而我们认为这是一个神圣的誓言。我们不能与上帝的旨意妥协。”

你的爸爸在哪里？

教会对离婚和几乎所有避孕措施的反对姿态，造成了数百万“非法”儿童。具体数字无从统计，但有调查显示，这个国家30％的儿童没有登记在案，原因往往是私生行为带来的耻辱感。

给这个问题带来最大麻烦的前议员雷维拉，至少还能承认问题的所在，并试图扭转这个局面。他是所谓“雷维拉法案”的创始人，这条法律允许非婚生育的儿童使用父亲的姓氏，只要亲生父母双方都表示同意。他在2004年说：“这些孩子必须摆脱强加给他们的‘私生子’耻辱标记，父母的错误不能由他们来承担。国家的责任是保护他们免受不合理的羞辱和歧视。”

雷维拉慷慨、积极地抚养他所有的孩子，他还留下了一笔钱和自己的DNA样本，以便在他死后发现的后嗣可以得到证实和供养。



原文：

MANILA, Philippines — On the occasion of his 84th birthday in 2011, friends of former Filipino Senator Ramon Revilla, a darkly handsome film star turned politician, unveiled an imposing 10-meter-high bronze statue in his honor.

Revilla’s films are mostly forgettable and his accomplishments as a lawmaker were marginal, but he will be long remembered in the Philippines for having sired at least 72 children by 16 different women, only one of whom was his wife. Thirty-eight of the children bear his surname.

It’s unclear what the statue is supposed to honor, but it is a fitting monument to something that is sorely lacking in the Philippines: a divorce law.

The Philippines is now the only country in the world that denies divorce to the majority of its citizens; it is the last holdout among a group of staunchly Catholic countries where the church has fought hard to enforce its views on the sanctity of marriage. Pope Francis, who visited the Philippines last week, has urged his bishops to take a more forgiving stance toward divorced Catholics, but this is a moot point in the Philippines: There is no such thing as a divorced Catholic.

A bill that would legalize divorce in the Philippines is now before the legislature, but it has little chance of becoming law without the support of President Benigno Aquino III, who is on record saying divorce is a “no-no” for this archipelago nation. Aquino, a bachelor and a practicing Catholic, said he does not want the Philippines to become like Las Vegas, where “you get married in the morning [and] you get divorced in the afternoon.”

Aquino ignored the bishops and their threats of excommunication three years ago when he signed a reproductive health law that provides subsidized contraceptives to poor women, but most analysts here believe that he has no appetite for another politically bruising battle with the Catholic hierarchy on another of its hot-button issues.

For its part, the global church has been steadily losing ground in the fight against divorce. The first big blow came in 1970 when Italy legalized divorce, despite the ferocious opposition of the Vatican. An attempt to repeal the Italian divorce law was soundly rejected in a 1974 referendum. Next came Brazil, which legalized divorce in 1977, followed by Spain (1981), Argentina (1987), Ireland (1997), and Chile (2004).

That left only the Philippines and the tiny Mediterranean island nation of Malta (and, of course, the independent but mostly celibate Vatican city-state). In 2011, Malta held a referendum on divorce. The church pulled out all stops in a particularly nasty campaign against legalization, but came up short. Soon after the referendum, the archbishop of Malta issued a rare apology for the church’s harsh attacks on pro-divorce activists.

Here in the Philippines, the Catholic hierarchy takes particular pride in the country’s status as the last holdout. One archbishop emeritus called it “an honor that every Filipino should be proud of.” Another said Filipinos should not follow the example of “de-Christianized countries.”

It wasn’t always thus. Before explorer Ferdinand Magellan claimed the Philippines for the Spanish crown and began converting the natives to Catholicism in 1521, divorce was commonly practiced by the archipelago’s traditional tribes, according to anthropologists. But four centuries of Spanish rule, carried out for the most part by Catholic religious orders, effectively stamped out the custom.

Things eased up a bit when the Americans became the new colonial masters after the 1898 Spanish-American War. A 1917 law allowed divorce, but only for adultery if committed by the wife or for “concubinage” on the part of the husband. The Japanese, during their otherwise horrific World War II occupation of the Philippines, introduced modern divorce laws, but those were canceled and the old 1917 law restored when, in 1944, U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur famously returned. Six years later, after the Philippines had been granted independence and the church had reasserted its authority, the 1917 law was revoked and divorce was banned outright.

Separation, but equal

Philippine law does allow divorce for the country’s Muslim minority — about 11 percent of the population — but for now, the only legal option available to non-Muslim couples who want out of a bad marriage is to seek either a church annulment or a civil annulment. (The church accepts legal separations, but separated persons are not allowed to remarry.)

Annulment is different from divorce in that the parties must establish that the marriage was defective from the beginning: that one or both were too young to get married (the minimum age in the Philippines is 18; for male Muslims it’s 15, for girls “puberty”); that proper parental consent was not obtained; that one of the parties was already married or had an incurable sexually transmissible disease; or — most commonly — was “psychologically incapacitated” at the time of the marriage. A church tribunal or civil judge can then declare that the marriage never happened.

The usual problems that cause the breakdown of a marriage — infidelity, physical or mental abuse, or plain old “irreconcilable differences” — don’t count in an annulment proceeding.

Sen. Pia Cayetano, who was the main sponsor of the controversial reproductive health law and who is frequently mentioned as a potential successor to Aquino, called the absence of a realistic and reasonable divorce law in the Philippines “a travesty.”

“It needs to change, definitely. Do I see it happening soon? No, it will take a while for the Philippines to separate human rights and civil rights from religious belief,” she said.

Professional services

What is most troublesome about using the annulment process as a substitute for divorce is that it forces two people who might otherwise have a reasonably civil split into manufacturing or faking an adversarial relationship with each other and with a state prosecutor — or in the case of church annulment, a “defender of the bond” — whose role in the proceeding is to defend the sanctity of the marriage by arguing that the unhappy couple stay together.

“It’s inhumane — and I speak from experience,” said Cayetano, whose own annulment was granted in 2013.

The process is not only slow and psychologically painful, but it’s also expensive. It can take years to finalize a civil annulment unless you are wealthy enough to pay the judge a substantial bribe to speed things long.

Michelle, a 40-year-old Manila physician from a well-to-do family, got her civil annulment in a mere six months. All she had to do was hire the right lawyer and pay 350,000 pesos (about $8,000), more than triple the per capita GDP in the Philippines and thus well beyond the reach of most Filipinos.

About a third of the money went to the judge as a “professional service fee.” Michelle, who asked that we not publish her last name, said her lawyer and the judge were pals from law school days, which helped smooth things considerably. She only had to appear in court once, and she was asked only one question: her name.

Michelle and her husband, also a physician, were both 30 when they married. Michelle told us she felt pressured because she was pregnant at the time. Although the marriage lasted seven years, she said that she regretted her decision almost from the beginning and that an annulment, despite the social stigma attached to it, somehow felt right.

“It’s like I am forgiven,” she said. “It’s like going to confession. It erased whatever sin I committed.”

A lawyer … or a hit man

Most people, however, find the process to be less than uplifting. Paolo Yap, 35, a graphic designer in Manila, separated from his then wife in 2004 and stopped communicating with her entirely two years later. Four years ago, when he and his new partner decided they wanted to marry, Paolo needed an annulment.

He hired a lawyer for 300,000 pesos, but let her go when he realized it was going to cost at least twice that. So he made a deal with a lawyer friend who agreed to take the case in exchange for Yap’s services as a designer.

A psychologist was hired to certify “mental incapacity.” Yap was found to be “depressive and anti-social”; his former wife “narcissistic and histrionic.”

As the case was wending its way through the system, Yap made the startling discovery that his former wife had already obtained an annulment. Her lawyer’s strategy had been to file the case with a local court in a remote corner of the Philippines that had a reputation as an annulment mill. Yap was never notified, even though the court papers seemed to suggest he was actually present, as the law requires. And even when the former wife learned that Yap had started annulment proceedings, she didn’t tell him, allowing him to spend hundreds of thousands of pesos unnecessarily.

“You know, it’s only about 10 or 15 thousand pesos to hire a hit man to kill your spouse,” he noted sardonically. “Much less than an annulment.”

Philanderers and statesmen

In the fight to uphold the sanctity of marriage, the Catholic bishops of the Philippines can bank on solid support from an unlikely quarter: the country’s male politicians, for whom multiple mistresses and maintaining second — and even third — households is a seemingly sacred privilege and a badge of manly pride.

Former Senator Revilla, of course, is the gold standard in this department, but Joseph Estrada, who served as president from 1998 until 2001 (and, like Revilla, is a former film star), proudly sired three children by his wife and at least nine additional offspring by six other women.

Longtime ruler Ferdinand Marcos also had numerous extramarital affairs, while Fidel Ramos, Estrada’s predecessor in the Malacañang Palace, acknowledged at least one well-publicized dalliance.

The lack of a divorce option provides “a sense of comfort to male philanderers,” according to Evalyn Ursua, an attorney who specializes in annulment cases and who has advocated for the legalization of divorce. “With a [law prohibiting divorce], they know they can continue this lifestyle where they have their beautiful and loyal wife — and also the comfort and status of their mistress,” she said. “A divorce law would allow women to put an end to it.”

Despite a veneer of religious piety, philandering is deeply embedded in Philippine society, from the privileged to the poorest. “It’s the machismo thing … and wives are expected not to make a fuss about having mistresses,” said Rep. Emerenciana De Jesus, who is co-sponsoring the divorce bill. But while rich men often continue to support their wives and children for appearances’ sake, poor women generally find themselves abandoned and left to care for their children on their own. There are laws that require gainfully employed fathers to support their biological children, but they are so rarely enforced that most people don’t know they exist.

A poverty of options for the poor

In a typical year, civil courts in the Philippines will grant about 10,000 annulments — a very small number for a country with a population of more than 100 million. This is not an indication of widespread marital contentment in the Philippines, but rather that annulments are only available to the well-off.

As a result, experts say, most Filipinos who find themselves in an unhappy relationship simply move on to the next one. The women, of course, are expected to deal with the children. “For these women, the survival mechanism is to find another guy to support her and her kids,” said Mary Racelis, a sociologist at the Ateneo de Manila University.

Among the very poor, there is a growing tendency toward what the government calls “unions without benefit of valid marriage,” or what the church calls “living in sin.” Precise statistics are not available, but Racelis estimates that only 30 to 40 percent of the urban poor now bother to get married in the first place.

“It’s too expensive,” she said. “You’re expected to have a big celebration, and they simply can’t afford it.” That and the realization that once you enter into a marriage there’s no getting out.

The social cost is compounded by the Philippine economy’s heavy reliance on its most important export: cheap labor. An estimated 10 million Filipinos work abroad. Although men used to dominate the field, the majority are now women. They work as nannies, nurses, caregivers, maids, and shop clerks, sending home some $25 billion in 2013, according to the Philippines’ central bank, to support families back home. Unsurprisingly, the long separations are a strain on married life, and women who work overseas frequently discover that the money they faithfully send home each month is supporting hubby and his new girlfriend.

Far from turning the Philippines into another Las Vegas, as suggested by President Aquino, the divorce bill that has been put forward by De Jesus and the Gabriela Women’s Party is very conservative and, according to its authors, respectful of the “cultural sensibilities in the Philippines.” Grounds for divorce in this bill include physical violence against a spouse or child, imprisonment of a spouse for more than six years, abandonment for more than a year, sexual infidelity or perversion, bigamy, homosexuality, or drug addiction. Except in cases that involve violence against women or children, the court would not be allowed to take any action for six months after the initial filing — a kind of cooling-off period. The bill also obliges the court to “take steps toward the reconciliation of the spouses” before granting the final decree.

Most importantly, the bill provides guidelines for the division of assets, child support, and payment of damages to “the innocent spouse.”

De Jesus, the bill’s co-sponsor, says the Catholic Church remains the loudest opponent of divorce because it “is afraid of losing its cultural dominance over the majority of the country.” But she noted that under the 1987 constitution, the separation between church and state in the Philippines is supposed to be inviolable.

The church and its faithful, De Jesus argues, are entitled to their beliefs on the sanctity of marriage, but are not entitled to impose those beliefs on others who may disagree. The state, she added, shouldn’t view divorce as a damnable sin, but rather as a civil right. “The state should recognize that if you have a right to enter into a contract, you have the right to get out of it,” said De Jesus.

The church begs to differ. “[Proponents of divorce] see marriage as a contract. For us, it is a sacrament,” said the Rev. Edgardo Pangan, a canon lawyer who specializes in annulments. “We cannot compromise with the laws of God.”

Who’s your daddy?

One result of the church’s opposition to divorce and its opposition to virtually every form of contraceptive has been millions of “illegitimate” children. No one knows the number, but one study suggests that about 30 percent of births in the Philippines go unregistered, often because of the stigma of illegitimacy.

Former Senator Revilla, who has probably contributed more to this problem than anyone, has at least acknowledged and tried to do something about it. He is the father of the so-called Revilla Bill, which allows children born out of wedlock to legally use their father’s surname so long as both biological parents give their consent.

“These children must be spared from the stigma attached to being ‘illegitimate,’ and their parents’ faults must not be passed on to them,” he said in 2004. “It is the state’s responsibility to shield them from unwarranted shame and discrimination.”

Revilla, who is said to be a generous provider to all his children, has also made provisions to leave behind samples of his DNA so that any claims of paternity that arise after his death can be verified.

爱中华里的财哥

假民主，真封建