MANILA, Philippines — The historic petition filed by openly gay lawyer Jesus Falcis III seeking same-sex marriage should be dismissed due to lack of merit, Solicitor General Jose Calida said.
On June 26, Calida faced the Supreme Court magistrates to defend the government's position in Falcis' appeal that assails the provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines.
Falcis said that Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code deprive LGBTs of their right to due process and to equal protection, the right to decisional and marital privacy, and the right to find a family "in accordance with their religious or irreligious convictions."
Calida, however, argued that homosexual couples are free to "live happily, but they cannot demand that the State recognize same-sex marriages because the Constitution simply does not allow such unions. Our tradition and history attest to this."
Procedural flaws
Calida argued that Falcis’ petition must be dismissed as the petitioner lacks legal standing, having not sought for a marriage license himself.
“Falcis failed to allege an actual case or controversy. He merely argued in his petition that his ability to settle down and have a companion for life, is impaired because of the absence of a legal incentive for homosexuals to seek such relationship,” the solicitor general said in his opening statement.
Falcis, who filed the petition in May 2015, filed his case before the SC, arguing that while he has not applied for a marriage license, as a citizen of the Philippines, he should be given the option to marry in the country he lives in.
In the comment on the petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, then headed by Florin Hilbay, pointed out that Falcis failed to “demonstrate any ‘injury in fact’ from the operation of the Family Code.”
This matter was also raised by justices in the oral arguments last week. Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin said: “What we need is an actual case and controversy and that requires an adverse party, and yet you say nothing has been denied to you by the respondent, so where would this adverseness come from?”
‘Marriage is traditionally between man, woman’
Calida also stressed that looking at the history of the laws on marriage states that “marriage has constantly remained a union between a man and a woman.”
The chief government counsel then proceeded to cite the Law of Civil Marriage, General Orders and Civil Code.
He also cited the case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals that reinforces that “one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children.”
“Based on the foregoing discussion, it is clear that marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman primarily to constitute a complete and perfect community between two heterosexual individuals and, consequently, to preserve the human race,” Calida added.
Falcis, in his petition, argued that there are married couples who do not bear children. He argued that homosexuals “can fulfill the essential marital obligations laid down by the Family Code,” as it does not require married individuals to procreate or have the ability to procreate.
Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Alfred Benjamin Caguioa and Andres Reyes Jr. were not present in Tuesday’s session.
The interpellation of the SC justices continues as of this story’s posting.
FOLLOW: Live updates: SC tackles same-sex marriage — Day 2