Scribd
Upload
126 views1 page

Falcis v. Civil Registrar General G.R. No. 217910 September 3 2019

In the case of Falcis v. Civil Registrar General, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code, arguing that same-sex couples should have the same rights to marry as opposite-sex couples. The court ruled that the Constitution does not restrict marriage based on sex, gender, or sexual orientation, and that marriage is fundamentally a legal relationship governed by legal frameworks. The ruling emphasized that any changes to marriage laws would have significant implications beyond the specific articles challenged.

Uploaded by

Enrico Peralta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
126 views1 page

Falcis v. Civil Registrar General G.R. No. 217910 September 3 2019

In the case of Falcis v. Civil Registrar General, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code, arguing that same-sex couples should have the same rights to marry as opposite-sex couples. The court ruled that the Constitution does not restrict marriage based on sex, gender, or sexual orientation, and that marriage is fundamentally a legal relationship governed by legal frameworks. The ruling emphasized that any changes to marriage laws would have significant implications beyond the specific articles challenged.

Uploaded by

Enrico Peralta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Falcis v. Civil Registrar General [G.R. No.

217910, September 3, 2019]

Doctrine:
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen
the family as a basic autonomous social institution.
Facts:
Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III (Falcis) filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under
declare Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code as unconstitutional and, as a consequence,
nullify Articles 46(4)2 and 55(6)3 of the Family Code.
He argues that like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are equally capable of
founding their own families and fulfilling essential marital obligations, there is allegedly no
necessity to limit marriage as only between a man and a woman, Articles 1 and 2 of the
Family Code are supposedly unconstitutional for depriving Falcis of his right to liberty
without substantive due process of law.
Issue:
Whether or not limiting civil marriages to opposite-sex couples violates the equal
protection clause and 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?

Ruling:

No, from its plain text, the Constitution does not define or restrict marriage on the basis
of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.

As a social institution, the family is shaped by economic forces and other social structural
forces, such as ideologies and politics.

Should this Court rule as the Petition asks, there will be far-reaching consequences that
extend beyond the plain text of the specified provisions. Petitioner would have this Court
impliedly amend all such laws, through a mere declaration of unconstitutionality of only
two (2) articles in a single statute.

Marriage is a legal relationship, entered into through a legal framework, and enforceable
according to legal rules.

Law stands at its very core. Due to this inherent "legalness" of marriage, the
constitutional right to marry cannot be secured simply by removing legal barriers to
something that exists outside of the law.

You might also like