Title
Falcis III vs. Civil Registrar General
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 217910 Sep 3, 2019
The Supreme Court dismisses a petition challenging the constitutionality of
limiting civil marriage to opposite-sex couples, citing the need for public
discussion and legislative action on the recognition of same-sex marriage.
Case Summary (G.R. No. 217910)
Case Background and Arguments
The case involves a challenge to certain provisions of the Family Code of the
Philippines.
The petitioner argues that the limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples
violates equal protection, due process, and freedom of expression and religion.
The petitioner claims that 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.
The petitioner argues that same-sex couples deserve legal recognition, but whether
they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples should be a matter for
public discussion and legislation.
The Civil Registrar General argues that the issues raised in the case are political
questions and should be determined by Congress, not the courts.
Court's Decision and Reasoning
The court unanimously chooses not to exercise its perceived competencies in this
case, stating that the issues raised require more public discussion and legislative
action.
The court emphasizes the importance of an actual case or controversy, standing,
and the need for the constitutional question to be the very lis mota of the case.
The court cautions lawyers to be mindful of their actions and the impact they have
on the legal profession and the public.
The court declines to grant the broad relief sought by the petitioner and emphasizes
the importance of a cautious and careful approach to constitutional litigation.
Case Background and Arguments
The case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of
the Reproductive Health (RH) Law in the Philippines.
The petitioner argues that these provisions violate the constitutional rights to life,
speech, and religion, among other fundamental rights.
The petitioner asserts that the RH Law should be subject to facial challenge, which
examines the entire law and its potential impact on constitutionally protected
speech or activities.
The court rules that a facial challenge is not appropriate in this case because the
petitioner fails to demonstrate a curtailment of the right to freedom of expression.
The court emphasizes the need for an actual case or controversy and states that
petitions must be based on actual facts and specific circumstances.
The court highlights the importance of justiciability in constitutional adjudication
and the limited role of the judiciary in policy-making.
The court notes the historical acceptance of different sexual orientations and gender
expressions in pre-colonial Philippine society.
The court acknowledges the ongoing discrimination faced by the LGBTQI+
community and the efforts to pass comprehensive anti-discrimination measures.
The court concludes that the petitioner has failed to present an actual case or
controversy and lacks sufficient evidence to support his claims.
The court emphasizes the importance of careful and grounded pronouncements to
avoid further harm to marginalized communities.
The court discusses the various rights and privileges associated with marriage,
including obligations between spouses, parental authority, successional rights, and
taxation benefits.
The court highlights the influence of marriage on criminal law, such as justifying
circumstances, mitigating circumstances, and the extinguishment of criminal
actions.
The court discusses the impact of marriage on labor laws, including benefits for
dependents and primary beneficiaries.
The court emphasizes the need for actual facts and evidence in constitutional cases
and the importance of a holistic understanding of marriage and its consequences.
Case Background and Arguments
The case involves a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by a petitioner
seeking the recognition of same-sex marriage in the Philippines.
The petitioner argues that the prohibition against same-sex marriage in the Family
Code is unconstitutional and violates the equal protection clause, the right to liberty,
and the right to found a family.
The petitioner argues that the Civil Registrar-General should be impleaded in the
case because they have a ministerial duty to issue marriage licenses.
Court's Decision and Reasoning
The Supreme Court Justices question the petitioner's standing and the lack of an
actual case or controversy.
The petitioner admits that they have not suffered any direct injury and have not
applied for a marriage license.
The Justices point out that the Civil Registrar-General does not have discretion in
issuing marriage licenses and that the petitioner could have sought mandamus in
the Regional Trial Court if they were denied a license.
The Justices note that the petitioner has failed to articulate the specific benefits of
marriage that they are being denied.
The Justices emphasize the need for a holistic view of marriage and the importance
of consensus and deliberation within the LGBTQI+ community and the political
branches of government.
The Justices caution against swift and sweeping pronouncements that may do more
harm than good to a historically marginalized community.
The Justices point out that the petitioner has not shown any grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Civil Registrar-General.
The Justices criticize the petitioner for not presenting a separate petition for
declaratory relief, which would have been a more appropriate remedy given the lack
of an actual case or controversy.
The Supreme Court Justices dismiss the petitioner's case, citing procedural flaws,
lack of standing, lack of an actual case or controversy, and violation of the doctrine
of hierarchy of courts.
The Justices emphasize the importance of following procedural rules and the need
for cases to be properly presented and supported by evidence.
Case Background and Arguments
The case involves a petition filed by Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III seeking the
recognition of same-sex marriage in the Philippines.
The petitioner argues that the provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines
violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The petitioner argues that the denial of same-sex marriage infringes upon the
fundamental rights of individuals to marry and to equal protection under the law.
Court's Decision and Reasoning
The court finds that there was no justiciable controversy as the petitioner did not
allege any specific injury or threat to his own rights.
The court also dismisses the petition-in-intervention filed by LGBTS Christian
Church, Inc., as it does not dispute or oppose the allegations in the petitioner's
petition.
The court finds that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of third-party
standing.
The court criticizes the petitioner's choice of remedy, noting that a petition for
certiorari and prohibition was not the appropriate remedy for addressing
constitutional issues.
The court emphasizes the importance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and the
need for lower courts to have the opportunity to resolve factual issues before cases
are brought to the Supreme Court.
The court criticizes the petitioner and his co-counsels for their lack of preparation
and failure to comply with court orders.
The court finds the petitioner and his co-counsels guilty of indirect contempt of
court and imposes fines and reprimands.
The court dismisses the petition and emphasizes the importance of an actual case or
controversy, the requirements of third-party standing, the appropriate choice of
remedy, and the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
The court criticizes the petitioner and his co-counsels for their lack of preparation
and failure to comply with court orders.
