SC junks plea for same-sex marriage but says Charter doesn’t limit marriage based on sex

The Supreme Court has dismissed a lawyer's petition for the removal of a legal barrier to same-sex marriages in the Philippines, even as it said the Constitution does not restrict marriage on the basis of sex.

Jesus Falcis III, in 2015, had sought the declaration as unconstitutional of the provisions on the Family Code limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

Though the Court said the 1987 Constitution, from its "plain text," "does not define, or restrict, marriage on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression," the justices dismissed the petition based on Falcis' lack of standing, violation of the principle of hierarchy of courts, and failure to raise an actual, justiciable controversy.

The tribunal, through Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the ponente, "recognized the 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," according to a press statement from the Court's Public Information Office (PIO).

They also "acknowledged that same-sex couples may morally claim that they have a right against discrimination for their choice of relationships" and said "official recognition of their partnerships may, for now, be a matter that should be addressed to Congress."

The Court ruled that judicial adjudication entails ruling on issues "propelled by actual controversies," adding that it can fully weigh the consequences of its decisions "only through the existence of actual facts and real adversarial presentations."

Legislation, on the other hand, "ideally allows public democratic liberation on the various ways to assure these fundamental rights," the Court said, as quoted by the PIO.

"Often public reason needs to be first shaped through the crucible of campaigns and advocacies within our political forums before it is sharpened for judicial fiat," it added.

The Court also held Falcis and his fellow lawyers, Darwin Angeles, Keisha Trina Guangko, and Christopher Ryan Maranan, liable for indirect contempt.

The tribunal explained that "to forget [the bare rudiments of court procedure and decorum] — or worse, to purport to know them, but really, only to exploit them by way of propaganda — and then, to jump headlong into the taxing endeavor of constitutional litigation is a contemptuous betrayal of the high standards of the legal profession."

The ruling came with a reminder against "premature" petitions, stating that actions done in the name of public interest "should be the result of collective decision coming from well-thought-out strategies of the movement in whose name we bring a case before this Court."

"Otherwise, premature petitions filed by those who seek to see their names in our jurisprudential records may only do more harm than good," the Court said.

"Good intentions are no substitute for deliberate, conscious and responsible action. Litigation for the public interest for those who have been marginalized and oppressed deserve much more than the way it has been handled in this case," it added.

The high tribunal held oral arguments on the petition in June 2018. 

A month later, the Court admonished Falcis for improper decorum and inappropriate attire during a proceeding related to the case. — MDM, GMA News