It’s final: SC nixes plea for same-sex marriage
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has dismissed with finality the petition to allow same-sex marriage in the Philippines.
In a two-page notice, the high court on Monday said it opts to deny the appeals because “no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision.”
“No further pleadings or motions will be entertained” on the matter, said SC Clerk of Court Edgar Aricheta.
SC dismissed the same petition in September 2019 as it pointed out that the issue should be addressed to Congress.
The high court added that the petitioner, Atty. Jesus Nicardo Falcis III, also violated the principle of hierarchy of courts and failed to raise an actual justiciable controversy. The SC likewise said Falcis has no legal standing.
Falcis’ petition was filed in 2015. He wants the high court to nullify Articles 1 and 2 as well as Articles 46 (4) and 55 (6) of the Family Code.
Articles 1 and 2 limited marriages between man and woman while Articles 46 (4) and 55 (6) mentions lesbianism or homosexuality as grounds for annulment and legal separation.
According to Falcis, the Family Code – in limiting marriage between man and woman – is unconstitutional because it deprives him of his right to liberty without substantive due process of law and his right to equal protection of the laws, as it violated Section 3(1) Article 15 of the 1987 Constitution.
The SC noted in its decision last year that it “recognized protracted history of discrimination and marginalization faced by the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, queer, intersex and other gender and sexual minorities (LGBTQI+) community, along with their still ongoing struggle for equality.”
But it also said LGBTQI+’s fight for their right against discrimination for their choice of relationships and official recognition of their partnerships “may for now, be a matter that should be addressed to Congress.”
“Legislation ideally allows public democratic deliberation on the various ways to assure these fundamental rights. The process of legislation exposes the experiences of those who have been oppressed, ensuring that this be understood by those who stand with the majority,” the high court said in the decision written by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
“Often public reason needs to be first shaped through the crucible of campaigns and advocacies within our political forums before it sharpened for judicial fiat,” he added.
Edited by KGA
Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.