The Divorce Debate in the Philippines: Why Not a People’s Referendum?

The Philippines remains the only country outside Vatican City that has not institutionalised divorce within its legal system. In a nation where religion heavily influences public policy, 86 million Filipinos, or 79 per cent of the population, identify as Roman Catholic, making it Asia’s largest Catholic nation and the third-largest in the world (after Brazil and Mexico).

The church in the Philippines plays a crucial role in shaping public policy on issues such as divorce. Specifically, the influence of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines has been a major obstacle to legalising divorce, making it hard for individuals to leave abusive or unhappy marriages. Moreover, even megachurches engage elites through electoral endorsements and the fielding of church leaders for political office. This allows church agendas to be pushed as national policy.

However, the opening of the 20th Philippine Congress on 30 June presented a window of opportunity to reopen a public debate on divorce. House Bill 9349, known as the “Absolute Divorce Bill”, filed by the late opposition congressman Edcel Lagman Jr in the House of Representatives to legalise divorce in the country, is expected to be immediately refiled.

During the 2022 election campaign, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr said he was open to legalising divorce. The House of Representatives passed Bill 9349, but the Senate chose not to pass Senate Bill 147. Under Article 6, Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution, a bill becomes law after the concurrence of a simple majority vote of both houses. However, if the president vetoes the bill, a two-thirds vote in each house is needed to override the presidential veto. Missing from the list of Marcos Jr’s pet bills for the past two years are the Divorce and the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Expression bills, which are unlikely to be included in his current legislative agenda.

Despite the recalcitrance of many Filipino politicians, a pro-divorce coalition consisting of women’s rights advocates, party list organisations such as Gabriela, and civil society organisations such as Divorce Pilipinas Coalition seeks to reinvigorate the debate. Its stance on this issue stems from the following key arguments: legalisation of divorce is a constitutional right that must be guaranteed by the state; divorce was previously allowed in the country; divorce law is consistent with the promotion of general welfare, particularly those of women trapped in unhappy marriages; and the secular nature of the Philippine state entails separating the issue from religious and moral discourses.

On the other side of the debate is the anti-divorce coalition, composed predominantly of religious groups such as the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, Super Coalition Against Divorce, and other religious and advocacy groups such as Couples for Christ and Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines Incorporated. These groups oppose divorce because the institutionalisation of divorce law violates the Constitution on the state’s duty to protect and strengthen the sanctity of the family; the re-imposition of divorce could worsen conditions for women and children; and the promulgation of divorce could present emotional, psychological, and social issues and challenges to society.

The divergent views of these civic groups are also reflected in the divided public opinion on this issue. A 2024 poll revealed that 57 per cent of respondents oppose the legalisation of divorce, a 6 per cent increase from a 2023 poll by the same survey firm. Around 55 per cent of those surveyed also reported that they will not vote for a politician who agrees to legalise divorce. This implies that the divorce agenda is highly politicised, and politicians’ careers could be decided based on their stance on this issue.

One possible solution is to remove the divorce issue from legislators’ hands. To have a definitive and legitimate gauge of where the Filipino citizenry stands on divorce, it is more appropriate to subject this important social policy issue to a public referendum.

This approach also removes the policy process from the country’s political elites and grants decision-making power to the people who will inevitably be affected by this policy’s consequences.

Only a few countries have used a referendum to enact divorce legislation, such as Ireland, which legalised divorce in 1995, and Malta, which legalised it in 2011. Italy submitted divorce to a referendum in 1974, and 59.3 per cent voted against the referendum, effectively repealing the law.

This shows that, regardless of the referendum outcomes, the multitude of people’s voices is heard beyond the loud voices of various interest groups. This approach also removes the policy process from the country’s political elites and grants decision-making power to the people who will inevitably be affected by this policy’s consequences. Allowing the Filipino people to directly decide on the issue of divorce, rather than leaving it to their elected representatives, is a more democratic and popular approach.

Political scientist E.E. Schattschneider once said, “If a fight starts, watch the crowd because the crowd plays a decisive role.” This means that it is not solely the policy coalition groups and protagonists of the deliberative struggles that determine the outcome of social policies — a policy process that includes constituents who are usually public spectators might lead to a more satisfying outcome that is acceptable to most.

A public referendum seems to be a promising solution for the divorce issue in the Philippines, which remains a tug-of-war involving actors within the state, churches, and civil society. It is high time the sovereign people decided the future of divorce in the country.

2025/223