Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. (File photo from Philippine Daily Inquirer)
The 1987 Constitution does not explicitly state that marriage should be between opposite-sex couples only, according to Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
But Solicitor General Jose Calida argued on Tuesday, during the continuation of the oral argument on a petition to allow same-sex marriage, that marriage between opposite-sex couples was the intent of the framers of the Constitution, using the principle of “constitutional construction.”
“The text of the Constitution, what does it say?” Leonen reiterated his question.
Calida said: “It doesn’t have to define [that issue], your honor, because everybody knows the big elephant in this room.”
“What is so wrong with people whose happiness is to have same-sex partnerships? What is so wrong with that?” Leonen said. “Are we not dictating what we want on other human beings? Are we not going to interpret the Constitution and the law in such a way that we wish and what we desire is imposed upon another couple? And I do not see – unless you can explain to me – what is the harm of allowing a lesbian or gay couple do what ever they wish.”
Associate Justice Samuel Martires raised the same question: “Why discriminate [against] same sex [couples]? Aren’t they capable of loving?”
“If there is such love and devotion between heterosexual couples, there is also love and devotion between LGBTs,” he said. “So, why is the state still sleeping and not facing this reality – that nowadays, there are individuals – LGBTs – who would also like to be happy.”
But Calida maintained that the Constitution should be changed before same sex-marriage could be allowed. Otherwise, there would be a big problem. /atm