Same-sex marriage

MANILA -- The Supreme Court has issued guidelines on the oral arguments regarding the petition challenging the validity of provisions of the Family Code limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

The oral arguments will take up a petition originally filed by lawyer Jesus Nicardo Falcis III on May 18, 2015, seeking the lifting of the prohibitions on samesex marriage for being unconstitutional.

Named as respondents in the case were the Civil Registrar General while the petitioners-inintervention were LGBTS Christian Church Inc., Rev. Crescencio “Ceejay” Agbayani Jr., Marlon Felipe, and Maria Arlyn “Sugar” Ibanez. Lawyer Fernando Perito is the intervenor.

Falcis filed the case shortly after some states in the US allowed the union of same-sex couples.

In the Philippines, a pending bill at the House of Representatives is considering the possibility of recognizing “civil unions,” regardless of sexual orientation.

In May 2016, the government, through then solicitor general Florin Hilbay, formally opposed Falcis’ petition, claiming that it is an “intrinsically flawed” and “ill-timed suit.”

In a three-page SC en banc advisory, the high court gave each of the parties 20 minutes to argue their case before the SC en banc.

After each presentation, the justices will be given the “privilege to ask any question on any relevant matter or require submission of any document necessary for an enlightened resolution of this case.”

The parties are directed to argue on the following issues:

A. Whether or not the petition and/or the petition in intervention is properly the subject of the exercise of the Court’s power of judicial review;

B. Whether or not the right to marry and the right to choose whom to marry are cognates of the right to life and liberty;

C. Whether or not the limitation of civil marriage to opposite sex couples is a valid exercise of police power;

D. Whether or not limiting civil marriages to opposite sex couples violates the equal protection clause;

E. Whether or not denying same sex couples the right to marry amounts to a denial of their right to life and/ or liberty without due process of law;

F. Whether or not sex-based conceptions of marriage violate religious freedom;

G. Whether or not a determination that Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code are unconstitutional must necessarily carry with it the conclusion that Articles 46(4) and 55(6) of the Family Code